Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30 • Hacker News Board

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#201

Post by chimeracoder » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:30 AM UTC

gremlinsinc wrote: post #186

nercht12 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People feel a natural obligation to be rewarded for their work. "Don't work, don't eat". The fact is, giving people a small income makes them inherently lazy. Lazy people don't like to work, but they will do just enough to get by, so if you give them a min amount of $, they'll do nothing. Others will look at that and say, "How come they get money for being lazy?" It actually acts as demotivation for people who would…

What would you suggest to Walmart, Krogers, McDonald's workers and all Truck Drivers who will be displaced by automation in the next decade? Learn to code? Not everyone is cut out to be a coder, or has the money for education in the first place or the mentality to learn it online on their own. Truck driver is probably the first job to disappear, this is also the #1 job in about 30 states. Truck drivers also touch man…

> Truck driver is probably the first job to disappear, this is also the #1 job in about 30 states.

That's not really true. This misconception came about from an NPR journalist who drew an infographic that appeared to show that truck drivers were the most common job in each state[0]. In reality, that infographic used BLS data - the BLS subdivides other professions to provide more granularity. In other words, all that infographic showed was that the BLS considers "truck driver" to be a less specialized profession than "teacher" (which is separated into different roles of teachers).

If you actually look at the number of truck drivers in each state and compare that to the size of the labor force in each state, it's a lot smaller.[1]

[0] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-...

[1] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-mo...

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#202

Post by 234dd57d2c8db » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:36 AM UTC

vibrato wrote: post #109

djedipus wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is based on a history of recessions. Unfortunately this one is different (really)... We've never had interest rates so low for so long. It's possible, and I consider it likely, that those younger will be even more affected. Consider the possibility that parents run out of money and living in the basement isn't even an option. Also consider there is a decent chance for another recession before this one is even ov…

The last recession ended in 2009.

Yes, for large corporations and banks of which directly benefited from the FLOOD of free credit (aka money) and ballooning asset prices provided by the FED, the recession ended. For the rest of us, all we got were higher asset prices and more taxes.

More than 50% of people in this country do not have 1000 bucks to cover an emergency, whether medical (LOL like 1k would do anything here) or a broken water heater, etc. More and more people are living on the edge, while large companies announce stock buybacks and mergers funded with cheap credit printed by the FED paid for with our money and our futures.

Yeah, glad the recession is over.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#203

Post by m_fayer » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:36 AM UTC

gremlinsinc wrote: post #185

fzzzy wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids need parents.

Amen to this. We need basic income if for no other reason than to bring one parent home, I don't care if it's the father or mother, there should always be a parent available and at home.

I very strongly agree. In the very much socially just rush to get women in the workforce we've lost sight of the damage done to children by separation from their parents, and the damage done to relationships by the staggering workload of managing children and a household with both partners working full-time. I would very much love being able to fluidly transition between periods of being a house-husband and employment, and my girlfriend feels likewise.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#204

Post by dsfyu404ed » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:37 AM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #192

notadoc wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This applies to any west coast market. You'll encounter it yourself if you ever shop for a home out here.

Yep, anywhere within a 2-hour drive of San Jose or San Francisco is crazy. You're lucky to get a single-family home for under a million, or a condo for under about 600. It's a big question of "do you have the right to live in a city you grew up in if you can no longer afford to live there", property tax laws, etc. It creates a situation where people are buying run-down houses I'd consider unlivable for close to a mil…

So let me get this straight...

You're saying that because they don't have the financial wiggle room to make their property something you want to look at they should GTFO?

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#205

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:38 AM UTC

maverick_iceman wrote: post #159

rhino369 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cherry on top is that our parents generation, who made more and had access to cheaper house, education, healthcare, etc., still barely saved for retirement. Unless, god forbid, your parents drop dead early, we are going to be stuck supporting them for a long time.

You'll be supporting all the old people through Social Security/Medicare anyway.

I'd rather not live in a dystopic high-tech, low-life society where the elderly and destitute are tossed aside. But, as I walk down the street, I see homeless people sleeping just outside the entrance of Snapchat HQ (latest valuation @ ~$25 billion).

Frak it, bring on the Guilted Age!

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#206

Post by m_fayer » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:43 AM UTC

nercht12 wrote: post #175

vijayr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't going to happen easily. My experience: I've talked about this to many people (highly educated, smart people) - most of them are adamant on the idea that human beings absolutely have to work to deserve anything, even food and water. This might very well be anecdotal, but very few people get ideas like Basic Income intuitively. It would likely take tremendous amount to first make people understand, then acce…

People feel a natural obligation to be rewarded for their work. "Don't work, don't eat". The fact is, giving people a small income makes them inherently lazy. Lazy people don't like to work, but they will do just enough to get by, so if you give them a min amount of $, they'll do nothing. Others will look at that and say, "How come they get money for being lazy?" It actually acts as demotivation for people who would…

I've met very very few genuinely lazy people. I've come to realise that people who may appear lazy are usually somehow impaired or beaten down. In one way or another, they have lost or never gained faith in their ability to push through, and have fallen into "don't expect much, try to survive" mode.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#207

Post by dsfyu404ed » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:43 AM UTC

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #195

aetherson wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top 1% of income for a 30 year old (in the USA, in 2016) is, per this calculator, $188,000. https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/ In overwhelmingly most parts of the country, that's plenty of money to own a house and support a family.

The people earning that much are (very) disproportionately distributed in those areas which are also the least affordable.

That's what the market in those locations will bear. Rich people, high prices. It's no different than a tourism economy.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#208

Post by chimeracoder » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:45 AM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #171

toomuchtodo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't judge people who didn't or couldn't save enough for retirement and are living on SS and Medicare exclusively. I like Socialist safety nets of those sorts, and am happy to pay into them. One day I will be old and sick too. We all will be, except those who die early. I judge you if you didn't hold your government representatives accountable for excessive discretionary spending, which was borrowed out of Social…

Well said. Critics rarely consider the potential personal benefit of SS in the future. Now, it's not a perfect system, but it has its upsides.

> Well said. Critics rarely consider the potential personal benefit of SS in the future. Now, it's not a perfect system, but it has its upsides.

Critics definitely consider the personal benefit. The problem is that they don't trust that it'll actually be there, or that it's a system that actually can work as it has been designed.

For example, in the 80 years that it's been in effect, the OASDI tax rate has increased sixfold and then some. That increase was fairly steady for a period of time - and the reason it's stagnated recently is not because the tax revenue is sufficient (it isn't) but because political ramifications have prevented the tax rates from increasing. Obviously this isn't sustainable. You can say, "well, the solution is just to raise taxes" - but relying on periodic changes to tax rates is not a recipe for creating a system that can achieve a stable steady state without being subject to political meddling in the long-run.

A further problem is that Social Security hinges upon the idea that the current working population will be responsible for paying for the current retiring population. Unfortunately, the respective sizes of these populations can vary dramatically, which means that some generations will end up paying far more than others. People talk about Social Security like it's true time-shifted income (ie, savings), but it's not.

One way we've dealt with this so far is to increase the number of people who are paying into the system while remaining ineligible for collecting benefits from it, but that's also not sustainable (and it's also a really horrible way to treat people).