Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

consumeraffairs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 314 posts

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#231

Post by telchior »

notch656a wrote: post #167
missedthecue wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans also consume a lot more healthcare. And doctors and nurses earn 2x more than in other countries. An NHS nurse makes something like $33k a year. In the US it's going to be $60-70k before overtime.

I'd be curious to see what portion of US health care goes to salaries of licensed health care workers, and how the relates to labor costs of various middle men and administrators, as well as regulatory compliance people.

Administration costs have gone something like 4x since 1980. The specific share they take is probably dependent on the niche, but like universities, a huge portion of cost is siphoned away to paper pushing.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#232

Post by modeless »

topynate wrote: post #108

This article is complete bullshit because it effectively corrects for inflation twice. The CPI is a measure of the nominal change in cost of a basket of goods. This should be compared, like for like, to nominal income, not inflation-adjusted income. The CPI was already used to adjust the income to which it's compared in this article!

The fact that this got upvoted to the top despite being complete bullshit just shows how desperately people want this to be true. 170+ people clearly upvoted the headline and didn't understand the article. And everyone in the comments is knee-jerk posting their own personal rants about finance with only a tangential connection to the article. What a dumpster fire of a post.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#233

Post by s1artibartfast »

xadhominemx wrote: post #171
WalterBright wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare costs increased in step with inflation until 1968, when the rate increased dramatically and never slowed down. What happened in 1968? LBJ's Great Society massive efforts at free medical care started. The same thing happened with college tuition. Government attempts to reduce its costs resulted in greatly expanded costliness. The most expensive things in the world are government provided "free" stuff.

The US has less government provided care than any other industrial country and by far the highest costs in the world

You are mixing up care and spending

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#234

Post by Kaze404 »

mf_tomb wrote: post #228
Kaze404 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not conspirational to assume that advertising and marketing is part of forming the status quo, by virtue of those fields literally exploiting human weaknesses to do so. If they simply reflected what consumer want, not only would they not have a reason to exist, but if they did they wouldn’t need to resort to endless amounts of FOMO to get you to buy Season 329 of their Battle Pass.

In 2022, it would be stupid to make a game that doesn't have some sort of battle pass and dopamine-drip progression system. Way fewer people would play your game and gamers would complain without them. People genuinely enjoy these systems, just like they genuinely enjoy reality TV over a documentary or TikTok over long-form Youtube videos. It's an obvious trend that won't be fixed if we misunderstand the issue and as…

How do you know people want these things? Do you actually think “yay! I love that this new game has a battle pass system and lootboxes” is a common sentiment? The point is that there is no choice. Sure, companies are very likely making more money off these systems than otherwise, but to say this is because people want it doesn’t ring true to me, simply because they can’t just pivot to a similar game without them, or avoid it entirely. Games like Fortnite are so predatory on monetization that they strip you out of even choosing the base nothingburger characters available for free, instead randomizing which one you get per match to force you to buy something to even have a consistent player model you somewhat like. That kids, a demographic that’s by nature desperate to express themselves, spend piles of money on these systems is no surprise. Not to mention the fact that they’re too young to know there’s even an alternative at all.

There’s also mountains of evidence that contradict the statement that a game without a battle pass won’t succeed. One of the most profitable and respected MMOs currently is Final Fantasy XIV, a game that has nothing like it, in the genre that had micro-transactions and lootboxes before most people even heard the terms. Middle Earth Shadows of War is also a great game that was ruined by loot boxes and progression systems, where the outcry was so big that the developers completely removed them after the fact.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#235

Post by arcticbull »

jfim wrote: post #150
arcticbull wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have long advocated for Japanese-style federal zoning rules which would stop local municipalities from playing these games. I agree that housing is more expensive, but of course, housing is priced into inflation numbers - and wages have kept pace. Housing is a major driver of inflation. Part of the discrepancy here - and housing needs its own entire article - is how low interest rates factor into affordability. In…

Isn't the down payment delta pretty significant? Having to save 160k instead of 40k for a 20% down payment significantly delays the point at which a millennial household could start accruing home equity, feel confident about starting a family, etc.

Yes, it does mean folks can generally only buy a home later than they would have before - but that's not what we're measuring. We're measuring how well off they are. Over this period, the 1970s to present, equities have way outperformed real estate. So folks rented, and saved in the equity markets instead until they could make their down payments - without diminishing their quality of life.

In a very real way, the 'starter home' became a 60/40 equity/bond portfolio plus a rental unit.

Between that and FHA as a peer comment pointed out, folks could actually be quite a bit better off today in spite of the bigger sticker - and yes, in spite of PMI (generally only 0.5% to 1%) which can be waived once you reach 20% LTV. (2.5% + 1%) is still way - way - lower than the 18% rates we saw in the 80s.

That's why I said housing deserves its own post, rather than letting it get lumped into with the chart crimes.

Owning is not always better than renting (although it can be). The biggest driver of the delta between owning and renting is actually the opportunity cost associated with not investing the down payment into the equity markets. The point at which folks buy has shifted older, yes. That isn't always a bad thing. A higher down payment is still your own capital. You get it back when you sell.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#236

Post by nerdponx »

mf_tomb wrote: post #228
Kaze404 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not conspirational to assume that advertising and marketing is part of forming the status quo, by virtue of those fields literally exploiting human weaknesses to do so. If they simply reflected what consumer want, not only would they not have a reason to exist, but if they did they wouldn’t need to resort to endless amounts of FOMO to get you to buy Season 329 of their Battle Pass.

In 2022, it would be stupid to make a game that doesn't have some sort of battle pass and dopamine-drip progression system. Way fewer people would play your game and gamers would complain without them. People genuinely enjoy these systems, just like they genuinely enjoy reality TV over a documentary or TikTok over long-form Youtube videos. It's an obvious trend that won't be fixed if we misunderstand the issue and as…

Two economists walk by an exotic car dealership. One economist points at a Ferrari and says to the other, "I want one of those." The other economist says, "Obviously you don't, otherwise you'd have one already!"

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#237

Post by thegrimmest »

bawolff wrote: post #160
curo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this so often yet we left the UK for no other reason than the healthcare. My wife was pregnant and the experience from 0-7 months was so terrible, we flew to the US to have the child. Post-operative outcomes and survival rates in the US are far better than in the UK and many European countries. Statistics about better birth outcomes or higher longevity is best attributed to healthier lifestyles in Europe/U…

I don't think anyone disputes that us healthcare is better if you have the money.

So then healthcare in the US isn't "worse", it's only worse on average. Why would the people with money ever want to change the status quo?

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#238

Post by bawolff »

thegrimmest wrote: post #237
bawolff wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone disputes that us healthcare is better if you have the money.

So then healthcare in the US isn't "worse", it's only worse on average. Why would the people with money ever want to change the status quo?

Because in most democracies the median is what you optimize for, not the extremes, since poor and rich alike only get 1 vote each.

Additionally there are knock-on effects where lack ofgood average healthcare tends to reduce ecconomic efficiency as sick people are bad at working.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#239

Post by ceejayoz »

WalterBright wrote: post #218
ceejayoz wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06147-9 > The overall mean for charity care as percent of total expenses was 2.62% for for-profit hospitals compared with 2.95% for nonprofit hospitals...

That's total expenses, not emergency room expenses.

Yes, and much of that small, single-digit percentage of charity hospital expenses will be that sort of care. It's a rounding error on their books. Stitches are costly whether you're in the ER or in the ICU after surgery. Forcing poor folks to rely on the ER for treatment is silly, and needlessly expensive, but it's hardly the primary driver of healthcare cost rises.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#240

Post by kurupt213 »

hot_gril wrote: post #229
kurupt213 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SAT scores have a trend of being inflated over time because they are dropping. There is no way the average college bound student from the 70’s doesn’t score higher on every standard subject than a contemporary one.

I don't think so, but ok, look at college acceptance rates then. Pick some semi-top one like UCLA https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/trends/university-of-c...

UCLA being flooded with applications doesn’t mean anything in this context
Post reply on HN