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

#311

Post by Chinjut » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 8:22 AM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #284

Chinjut wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, screw that. We all deserve comfortable retirements, and we should fund it as a society. Wealth inequality being what it is, yes, the wealthy can afford to chip in for the well-being of the rest of us. Or rather, we can afford to redistribute our wealth claims as a society in this way. Why not? Wealth is a logical fiction we've invented, as to who has what monetary claims we enforce, and we can bend this fiction…

> Wealth is a logical fiction we've invented, as to who has what monetary claims we enforce, and we can bend this fiction to our goals What would the transition from our current state to one with significantly altered monetary claims look like? Would it be a voluntary transition, or a forceful one?

I may be reading too much into what you are getting at with your second question, but: What does it even mean to draw that distinction in this context? Our current state is already a forceful one (as would be any other distribution of claims with any real power of enforcement). Wealth, like anything else, is ultimately enforced by, er, force.

(E.g.: What is it for you to own land? It's the ability to have me forcefully expelled should I walk on it against your wishes. What is it for you to own a car? It's the ability to have me forcefully prevented from or punished for driving it myself. Etc., etc.)

To bend the wealth distribution is just to say: Ok, we as a society no longer recognize you as having $X amount of wealth, as we were doing before. We now recognize you as having $Y amount of wealth, and will carry on our claim enforcement mechanisms accordingly. We can bend the wealth distribution anyway we like… so long as we collectively decide to. (Sometimes we call this "taxation", sometimes we call it other names, but let's never lose sight of the fact that wealth, in the relevant sense, is a social construct in the first place, not a brute fact. It's numbers written down somewhere that we continually agree to.)

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

#312

Post by Chinjut » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 8:38 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #254

Chinjut wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, screw that. We all deserve comfortable retirements, and we should fund it as a society. Wealth inequality being what it is, yes, the wealthy can afford to chip in for the well-being of the rest of us. Or rather, we can afford to redistribute our wealth claims as a society in this way. Why not? Wealth is a logical fiction we've invented, as to who has what monetary claims we enforce, and we can bend this fiction…

Social security in its current form doesn't even provide a comfortable retirement; it single handedly is keeping millions of seniors just a bit out of poverty. For that alone, it should be protected. https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11/24/the-stunning-effe... "Researchers at the CBPP used the Census Bureau's definition of poverty, which in 2015 meant $11,367 or less for an elderly individual, $14,342 or lower for…

Right. Ideally, Social Security would be even stronger, but at any rate, it acts right now as a "safety net" which would be horrific to abandon. (Let's not forget the reasons we were led to institute it in the first place! Ah, but all of recent American economic policy is a matter of just such cultural amnesia…)

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

#313

Post by skybrian » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 8:40 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #252

skybrian wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I hope you don't judge people for an accounting fiction. Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. The only part that matters is treasuries held by private investors. Less government spending in the past would mean lower government debt (owned by private investors) today. That's only real effect. Y…

I'm not sure you understand the implications of the argument you're making. > Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. That is 100% correct. Which is the point. Those bonds are not a meaningful asset for Social Security; they have "no real-world effect" because they're an IOU payable by the same entity…

As I understand it, the implication is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to think of the government as saving money specifically for the future expenses of retirees. At the level of the federal government, it's a pay-as-you-go system. Current taxes and treasury sales (deficit spending) pay current expenses.

(And it's a bit weirder than that because the Fed can retire government debt if it wants to, just by creating new money out of thin air and buying treasuries.)

Looked at from a certain perspective, federal taxes exist mainly to keep the treasury bond market from getting too big due to deficit spending.

So the financial question is really whether the treasury bond market is bigger than it should be, given anticipated expenses. I don't have any opinion on this. I'm not sure the average voter would have any idea either? Low interest rates seem to indicate that the market isn't too worried?

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

#314

Post by coldtea » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 8:45 AM UTC

travi5 wrote: post #268

ryhamz wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medicare is fine, some social security facets are fine, such as disability. Social security as a general retirement plan? Shitty program. What it should be AT MOST: mandated investment in a retirement account that you can't touch. Although I would prefer to not even have policy here at all. This is only necessary because people are by and large shit with money and will not save without being forced to. What is is: ta…

The disability program is hurting society. You can get disability for having autism. Once they are on it, they have incentives to stay on it forever. If they make even one dollar working they lose it all, so they make extra cash under the table through committing fraud, selling drugs, etc. No one can sue them and take it away, so they do things like go without insurance, buy things on credit with no intent to pay, ti…

>The disability program is hurting society. You can get disability for having autism.

Autism can be a severe disability, not just the mild "geeky asperger" type. One could literaly not be able to communicate at all...

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

#315

Post by Inconel » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 8:46 AM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #292

Inconel wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you’re saying but I wouldn’t completely dismiss the psychological effect that a sense of feeling needed or the pride you can gain from work has on many people. The sense of being needed may not be important to you, and to be clear I make no negative judgement about that, in fact I’m glad to hear from anyone whose own self worth or happiness isn’t tied to their job as this probably leads to much rich…

I think it's great when there's perspectives from the non-typical-HN reader, it's easy to forget how exceptional most people's lives are here. So, with that upbringing, how did you end up doing machining and precision manufacturing? And how'd you wind up on Hacker News? What brand of CNC machines do you work with?

Thank you for the encouraging words. I try and check HN every day before my shift but I usually never have time to comment until much later, at which point there isn't much activity in the threads, so I sometimes wonder whether or not my posts add any value or if I'm just writing for myself.

With regards to how I ended up in my current job I'll do my best to offer a succinct timeline. My prior work experience consisted mostly of manual labor or retail/customer service type jobs. I never enjoyed customer service, I'm too shy, but through circumstance and my own apathy and lack of ambition that's were I ended up. After some time my dissatisfaction with my work and my own wasted potential led me to reevaluate the seriousness with which I needed to focus on my career. Machining/welding and general manufacturing was something that always interested me even though I had limited experience with any of those fields. I've always been good with my hands and I'm obsessively detail oriented and like fixing things. I love following well delineated procedures and checklists actually make me smile so I felt something in aerospace might be a good fit.

I was fortunate to be living in an area with a ton of aerospace/manufacturing companies and I ended up applying to a number of them. I got hired for a very entry level low skill position having nothing to do with the manufacturing side of things. But, it got my foot in the door and I eventually moved into a role closer to the factory floor and from there worked my way into an apprenticeship that led to my current position.

As to how I found HN, I'm not entirely sure. While I've been reading HN for a number of years I've only relatively recently started posting, largely in an attempt to improve my writing, which is something I'm very self conscious about. I find this one of the few places online were I'm confident that if I say something stupid or make an argument lacking clarity, that I'll be called out on it in a civil and constructive manner. It's possible that I came about HN through one of those "We act like HackerNews" threads on /g/ but that would be slightly embarrassing so I hope it was through some other avenue.

I've worked with a number of brands like Haas, Fanuc, Mazak and recently some 3d printers from EOS. Haas stuff breaks all the time which can be infuriating.

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

#316

Post by coldtea » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 8:46 AM UTC

travi5 wrote: post #304

efnx wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys have the advantage of being able to work. Your minds and bodies are healthy. Man up and take care of those less fortunate, even if it means a minority game the system.

Your mind will change once a "disabled" driver with no insurance runs their car into you at 50 mph and gets off scott free while you are stuck with the bill and repercussions. I know someone who is literally blind and he works just fine. Even know a guy with ALS who can barely move who still works. I could probably qualify for legit disability as well but I choose not to be a degenerate leech and actually work.

Yeah, the Nazi's had a good idea, put those leeching cripples and ALS to forced labour camps /sarcasm

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

#317

Post by fapjacks » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 9:02 AM UTC

dikdik wrote: post #294

outericky wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sense of entitlement is a lot higher these days. I grew up in a 900 sqft house with 1 bathroom. Yet all my peers (myself included) seek out homes 2x, 3x or bigger. Same with cars.... my parents bought used, reliable cars. Today we want fancy things. Growing up we had cable tv and a phone line. Probably spent $50/month total. The family cellphone bill, home broadband, various tv services easily top out over $300/m…

I hear this sentiment expressed a lot, as well as the sentiment that millennials only loaded up on education debt to fuel a 4-year party. In my experience they are both wrong in 90%+ cases and are typically used to invalidate any calls to pay more attention to growing inequality in this country. You are probably noticing the people who go out to eat and have nice cars/nice things much more than the people that sit in…

Right. It can't reasonably be said that people aren't interested in small houses.

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

#318

Post by dlss » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 9:04 AM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #243

dlss wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has. If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the spread of wealth would also be unchanged. But it has changed, see http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ or the source of your choice. If the distribution of income had gone unch…

> If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the spread of wealth would also be unchanged. How so? Let's say I build a popular, free, social media network. My income from the free service is zero, but the popularity has investors (which could even be average Joes pooling their money together) quite willing to buy it for millions of dollars. My wealth has now increased by millions without a respective change in…

If you click on the only link in the article, you will see they are measuring children’s and parents’ pre-tax incomes at the household level. This absolutely does include retirement account investment income.

While I have you here: why didn't you check that before replying? (I'm actually really confused why this seems to happen constantly on HN. These are really easy things to check before posting.)

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

#319

Post by Inconel » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 9:11 AM UTC

dikdik wrote: post #294

outericky wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sense of entitlement is a lot higher these days. I grew up in a 900 sqft house with 1 bathroom. Yet all my peers (myself included) seek out homes 2x, 3x or bigger. Same with cars.... my parents bought used, reliable cars. Today we want fancy things. Growing up we had cable tv and a phone line. Probably spent $50/month total. The family cellphone bill, home broadband, various tv services easily top out over $300/m…

I hear this sentiment expressed a lot, as well as the sentiment that millennials only loaded up on education debt to fuel a 4-year party. In my experience they are both wrong in 90%+ cases and are typically used to invalidate any calls to pay more attention to growing inequality in this country. You are probably noticing the people who go out to eat and have nice cars/nice things much more than the people that sit in…

I certainly don't mean to disparage college education, particularly as someone who has never gone to college but firmly believes that it can be a very rewarding experience, but from my own anecdotal experience it seems that for a not insignificant number of people it does seem to be more or less four years of partying.

I'm fortunate to have a diverse social group with many friends who did go to college, and even count a CompSci PhD among my close friends, but from my interaction with them I get the impression that not all programs are of even remotely equivalent rigor. In particular, I get the impression that for the non science/engineering related disciplines it can be somewhat easy to coast through the curriculum depending on the school.

Again, this is just based on my own observations as someone who has never gone to college so it should be taken with a large grain of salt. Normally I would completely discount my own opinion here as observation bias, the only thing keeping me from doing so is my feeling that if college was as universally rigorous as many say it is, and placed as great an importance on critical thinking and independent thought as I've been led to believe, we should be seeing a much more conscientious and knowledgeable citizenry considering we are living in a time were more people are going to college than ever before. I'm not sure that's the case however.

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

#320

Post by collyw » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 9:19 AM UTC

ryhamz wrote: post #260

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.

It's hard for me to understand how my ancestors, alive since the beginning of time, reproduced so much that not every person in the family line has a house. Could you imagine working your whole life and end up with not even a shelter to pass on to the person "replacing" you? I never plan to have a kid, but if I did I would feel obligated to give them a head start in this shit life. They wouldn't be fucking renting or…

Isn't a lot of that problem due people moving to cities in the last few decades?