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

New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

randalolson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 320 posts

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#281

Post by j7ake »

weakened_malloc wrote: post #157
ashdksnndck wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget white collar. Figure out a career that makes use of your hands. Or make enough money to retire in the next couple years.

Unironically the most simple (note; not easy) way to become a multi-millionaire. Do a trade in your 20s, leverage that into running your own trades business in your 30s, and have a >10m valuation business by your 40s. Really regret not doing that myself.

How is this different than telling people to do a PhD, then run your own research group as a professor, get tenure and get lifetime job security?

Or work in start up, get acquired, and chill after ?

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#282

Post by mplanchard »

jjav wrote: post #222
paulddraper wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing housing supply will absolutely decrease housing prices. That’s so obvious it’s nearly a truism. Rate of new houses is below the rate of new households, and it’s been that way for years.

> Increasing housing supply will absolutely decrease housing prices. > That’s so obvious it’s nearly a truism. And that is why Manhattan, due to having the most housing units per square mile, is one of the cheapest places to live in the US. Since it's not, it is not a truism that merely increasing the housing supply will decrease prices. It takes more than that. As long as you have excess people willing and able to b…

Does that hold up per capita? Units per area isn’t super meaningful when comparing housing costs without a sense for the size of the population competing for them.

Where I live has ~21k units for ~45k residents (47%), and a median home price of $440k or so. NYC has about 3.6 M housing units for ~8.5 M people (42%), and a median home price of $870k. For NYC to make up that 5% they would need around 425k housing units.

Obviously these numbers can’t tell the whole story, but it does seem like the supply is fundamentally more constrained in NYC than here, and here is already pretty tight, with very low vacancy rates, high rental prices, and expensive homes.

Anyway NYC plans to build 200k units over the coming decade, increasing the supply in order to reduce the cost. Of course that’s not the only item in the plan to reduce costs, but it’s a major component.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#283

Post by mplanchard »

epistasis wrote: post #270
827a wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We stopped building new housing The current rate of new build construction is the highest it has been since 2007, ignoring the spike during late COVID-era zero interest rates. Also: US population is growing slower than anytime in modern history, again excluding COVID (though, a few more years and we'll be down at that level again all naturally). [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST?utm_source=chatgpt.... [2…

20 years of under building from the last housing crisis. But more importantly, the most economically vibrant areas, with the most ability to provide economic opportunity, have been stunted by lack of housing: NYC, SF Bay Area, Boston, San Diego, etc. This transfers wealth to current landowners in those regions, but let's only the highest income job professions move in, and overall slows the ability of those with less…

Yeah I ran some numbers in another comment on this post, and I was a bit surprised to see that NYC’s units per capita number is about 42%, 5% fewer than my much smaller (but also plagued by lack of housing and lack of affordability) city at 47%. They’re planning to add 200k units over the next ten years, which is a start, but even if we assume no population growth, that still only gets them an additional 2.3% more units per capita. They’re also trying to spur more private development.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#284

Post by mplanchard »

WalterBright wrote: post #191
roenxi wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ??? Worth expanding on these ??? I think - old people have less security if young people have less opportunities. The opportunities of the young is the surplus generation that creates the resources to support free riders (like old people). In the extreme case, if the young literally don't have any opportunities at all, eventually they're going to have to just let the old people die off horribly because there aren't…

It's nuts that people can retire with full pensions after working for 30 years. A more appropriate number would be 45.

Why? The average life expectancy is ~76 for men, ~81 for women. You’re saying you shouldn’t be able to pull a full pension unless you have devoted ~half of your entire life to a company?

45 years doesn’t even seem feasible if you want to retire at 65, since most people graduate college at around 22. Add in a masters or a doctorate and 45 years of work would bring you into your 70s.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#285

Post by WalterBright »

bumby wrote: post #261
WalterBright wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly legal for you and like-minded people to set up a commune, and create the society you want. Or join an existing one.

Would you extend that same sentiment to the extremes of the libertarian crowd too?

I can answer that if you can explain what you mean by extreme libertarianism.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#286

Post by WalterBright »

api wrote: post #262
WalterBright wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW, the best I can figure is the average commune member quits after about 2 years, cured of the notion that communism is for them.

Same is true for most eco villages, back to the land farms, etc. It’s a mix of the lifestyle not being exactly what people thought plus them getting culty. In many cases it’s more the latter than the former.

What happens is people get tired of other people not working very diligently, but still getting an equal share.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#287

Post by seanmcdirmid »

handle584 wrote: post #275
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really isn’t true though, nail house term was invented in China after all. The only real magic is simply their ability to get sh*t done on time and on budget, which doesn’t exist in the USA anymore.

> nail house term was invented in China after all I do not see how this is related to property rights? In urban China you do not own your home, it is a 70yr right to use the land. Some of their construction is good, but not private homes. Because you do not own the land, the quality of your home is up to the developer, who basically follows no code and cheapens out on everything. Also the Chinese code is very loosely…

First, property rights are a thing in China, early on local governments ignored them and the central government came down hard on that (hence nails houses that wouldn’t exist in the USA because we have eminent domain here). Second, the leases are assumed to be renewed, and there are many different lengths from 30-40 years to older ones to 99 years for the ones today (not sure wheee you get 70 years, I’m sure thats a duration that was used in some city as well). When the shorter Wenzhou leases came due, the local government planned to just seize the property but the central government again came down hard on that, forcing them to do small renewal fees instead.

I’m sure China will eventually replaces leases with a property tax that would do the deprecation gradually and continuously like in the west rather than all at once.

I’ve lived in Chinese flats for 9 years and had no problem with them. Sure the nail houses are older less dense constructions that were decrease before local governments built roads around them, but absolutely nothing changed for the residents except for the road.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#288

Post by WalterBright »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #254
WalterBright wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You may be the worst real estate investor I've ever heard of. You may very well be right. However, everyone I hear saying how much money they made off of their house neglects to mention any of the expenses I listed.

Sure, I've seen all manner of goofy talking points (both pro and con) around the financials of home ownership. Conversely everyone I've heard say lost their ass on residential real estate either bought too much house in a market overrun with speculation (Hi Florida) or move frequently.

I sold my previous house in 2000. It was sold last year for 4x what I sold it for. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 has gone up 6.3x.

And I didn't add in any of the expenses I listed earlier if I'd kept it.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#289

Post by WalterBright »

mplanchard wrote: post #284
WalterBright wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nuts that people can retire with full pensions after working for 30 years. A more appropriate number would be 45.

Why? The average life expectancy is ~76 for men, ~81 for women. You’re saying you shouldn’t be able to pull a full pension unless you have devoted ~half of your entire life to a company? 45 years doesn’t even seem feasible if you want to retire at 65, since most people graduate college at around 22. Add in a masters or a doctorate and 45 years of work would bring you into your 70s.

A pension is for when you're too old to work. Of course, you can always save/invest your earnings and then retire when you have enough.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#290

Post by OutOfHere »

eudamoniac wrote: post #278
OutOfHere wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government protects their cartel system at every level. I can't even legally get a blood test without authorization from the cartel.

If you're in the US, you can. LabCorp and others sell blood tests. Your insurance won't cover it is all.

It ruins into two issues:

(1) The test has to be signed by an online doctor. The firm arranges this implicitly, but it's not free. I can't go directly to Quest for any random test I want. The tests offered directly by Quest without an intermediary are too expensive and too few.

(2) States like New York throw a wrench in it by disallowing anyone with an in-state billing address from ordering such tests.

Ideally I should be able to pay the same low rate that the insurance firm would minimally pay, but in practice I can't. I have to pay a lot more if I can get it at all. The cartel is strong.

Post reply on HN