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

The Cheapest Generation

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 213 posts

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#71

Post by goatforce5 »

hnal943 wrote: post #58
brudgers wrote: post #14

In the age of smart phones, the car has ceased being a vital communication tool for young people. There's no need to drive to the mall to see if Paul is there hanging out. A text will let me know that he's at Joel's party instead. Another text and Steve will swing by in his car. The housing situation is another matter. There's a glut. Credit is tight. Jobs are scarce. And housing prices are going down. Millenials are…

You're right about smart phones, but I'm not so sure about housing. Credit is ridiculously cheap, and housing everywhere is on sale. If you have a job, why wouldn't you buy as much house as you can afford?

> If you have a job, why wouldn't you buy as much house as you can afford?

Because interest rates are likely to go and then I wouldn't be able to afford that mortgage any more?

I'm kinda thinking about buying a house, so I filled in an online mortgage calculator to work out what sort of money i'd have to work with. It said i'd qualify for a mortgage that was twice as high as what I think I need to get somewhere really nice, or three times as high as what i'd need for somewhere quite good.

I don't need that much extra debt to worry about.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#72

Post by api »

Myself and many other "millennials" are very reluctant to "buy" such things because they can't.

What we can do is go into massive, enslaving, soul-crushing debt for them, something the smart ones are justifiably reluctant to do.

Real estate hyperinflation is particularly bad. A house is unthinkable to anyone under 40 unless:

a) they've had a liquidity event, inherited money, or have a big trust fund.

b) they are willing to live in bumscrew nowhere or the ghetto.

c) they are willing to go into soul-crushing debt with the very real threat of being rendered underwater and thus permanently shackled to that house without bankruptcy or a short sale.

Screw that. Screw it all. Turn on, tune in, drop out.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#73

Post by mfringel »

MengYuanLong wrote: post #57
Swizec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> younger generations don't see a house or a car as a symbol of status or wealth, merely as something to be used, as a necessity And then there are fixies - impractical bikes that cost 700 euro simply because they are cool. Whereas you can get a practical bike for less than 200 euro. Maybe it is that we are cheap, so those things that cost beyond a certain threshold (like cars and housing) just need to work, whereas…

You may feel fixies are impractical but they carry benefits. The primary one being better power transfer. Second, you can often make a cheap fixie by finding an old frame, refurbishing it, and replacing the rear hub. Yes, you can buy them for $700+ but unlike iPhones, there are a number of ways to obtain one for cheap. Further, a bike that costs less than $200 is certainly not a bike I would buy for commuting. Having…

So, for those of us who know nothing about bikes, why are steel frames suboptimal for commuting?

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#74

Post by yummyfajitas »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #48

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that 78 hours of minimum wage work could pay the rent in 1980, compared to 109 hours in 2010 [1], along with the other associated cost-of-living increases over the last three decades that have come without comparable increases in wages. I doubt that most people who felt financially secure and could afford a new car wouldn't want to own a new car. Nobody really enjoys drivin…

Minimum wage is a silly thing to look at. In 1980, 10% of men and 22% of women earned min wage. In 2010, this fell to 5% and 7%.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/185536/share-of-workers-p...

Further, a look at hard data (for both the bottom 20% and the middle 20%) shows that people today are more likely to own a car than in 1981, and have more house per person than in 1989 (no data on square footage exists in 1981).

http://www.aei.org/files/2011/10/25/Material-Well-Being-Poor...

So no, it's not the economy.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#75

Post by api »

andyking wrote: post #6

I own a car now, simply because I tried relying on public transport for a year and found the experience pretty depressing - it makes your day so very long (I was basically doing 6am-7pm including commuting) and loses you flexibility. I fell into a routine of coming to work, going home, and doing nothing else, because it was so much effort to plan a trip anywhere other than the office. It started to make me sink into…

I finally got a car since I was able to land an abusrdly cheap loan (2%!), but still won't touch a house. Real estate where I live is absurd, and I do not live in one of the big prestigious cities. (I used to, and real estate there was incomprehensible.)

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#76

Post by Swizec »

MengYuanLong wrote: post #57
Swizec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> younger generations don't see a house or a car as a symbol of status or wealth, merely as something to be used, as a necessity And then there are fixies - impractical bikes that cost 700 euro simply because they are cool. Whereas you can get a practical bike for less than 200 euro. Maybe it is that we are cheap, so those things that cost beyond a certain threshold (like cars and housing) just need to work, whereas…

You may feel fixies are impractical but they carry benefits. The primary one being better power transfer. Second, you can often make a cheap fixie by finding an old frame, refurbishing it, and replacing the rear hub. Yes, you can buy them for $700+ but unlike iPhones, there are a number of ways to obtain one for cheap. Further, a bike that costs less than $200 is certainly not a bike I would buy for commuting. Having…

Well, my dream bike wouldn't really work as a fixie. But then again, it probably wouldn't work very well for commuting either - I use a longboard for that.

However, I'd love to try riding a fixie some time. It sounds interesting.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#77

Post by api »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #74
thaumaturgy wrote: post #48

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that 78 hours of minimum wage work could pay the rent in 1980, compared to 109 hours in 2010 [1], along with the other associated cost-of-living increases over the last three decades that have come without comparable increases in wages. I doubt that most people who felt financially secure and could afford a new car wouldn't want to own a new car. Nobody really enjoys drivin…

Minimum wage is a silly thing to look at. In 1980, 10% of men and 22% of women earned min wage. In 2010, this fell to 5% and 7%. http://www.statista.com/statistics/185536/share-of-workers-p... Further, a look at hard data (for both the bottom 20% and the middle 20%) shows that people today are more likely to own a car than in 1981, and have more house per person than in 1989 (no data on square footage exists in 1981)…

Earth to Planet Trust Fund: it is the economy.

http://livingwage.mit.edu

Also look at the ratio of median income to real estate value. We are still in a housing bubble.

My household earns about 40% more than the national average, we do not live extravagantly, we budget well, and we feel barely middle class. This is ridiculous. I'm surprised there aren't riots.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#78

Post by JumpCrisscross »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #48

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that 78 hours of minimum wage work could pay the rent in 1980, compared to 109 hours in 2010 [1], along with the other associated cost-of-living increases over the last three decades that have come without comparable increases in wages. I doubt that most people who felt financially secure and could afford a new car wouldn't want to own a new car. Nobody really enjoys drivin…

I'm 21, live in New York City, and let my driver's licence lapse over a year ago. I don't plan on owning a house, preferring to drive my surplus wealth into assets I understand better and which don't restrict my mobility, and don't care to own a car.

This is not economically motivated - I have comfortable free cash flow and a healthy balance sheet free of personal debt. I pay for a car service and take taxis more than public transportation and pay more than the average U.S. homeowner's mortgage payment in rent. I also spend a great deal more than my parents, who find my behaviour and preferences baffling, on travel and technology.

I won't disagree that a significant fraction of decreasing home and car ownership may be explained by economic factors, but would caution that (a) there is a significant minority that is making these choices as a matter of preference, and, (b) for the rest, these behavioural changes, initially motivated by economic conditions, could become ingrained to where they persist beyond economic weakness. With the second point I'm not saying we will be a "cheap" generation, just cheap traditionally, as we spend in categories we value more than piles of sticks and little steel boxes propelled along asphalt by exploding chemicals.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#79

Post by api »

shanelja wrote: post #62
thaumaturgy wrote: post #48

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that 78 hours of minimum wage work could pay the rent in 1980, compared to 109 hours in 2010 [1], along with the other associated cost-of-living increases over the last three decades that have come without comparable increases in wages. I doubt that most people who felt financially secure and could afford a new car wouldn't want to own a new car. Nobody really enjoys drivin…

I can attest to that, I live in the UK, public transport in the north is okay but far from optimal. I wish I could afford my own transport, but my low paying tech job (I'm a 4 year self taught junior developer at a small web development company) can barely pay my rent, let alone afford the ridiculous amounts of money I would have to pay for car insurance (I think I was quoted around £2,100), my driving lessons and a…

In most of the U.S. public transportation is virtually unusable. I've heard European exchange students compare the U.S. transit system to the worst of the former Soviet bloc.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#80

Post by JonnieCache »

goatforce5 wrote: post #55
ZoFreX wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that assumption throughout the article strange, too. A factor no one else seems to have mentioned (which admittedly only applies to transport, not housing) is that public transport is, overall, getting better. In London I have an Oyster card which actually gets me all the way to my dad's house too, even though he lives well outside London. Something like this just would not have been possible in the 90s, an…

Although Londoners complain about their public transport, it really is exceptionally good. For many routes within London it's quicker and far cheaper to take public transport (or a bike!) than to use a private vehicle. Most places aren't like that, unfortunately.

It is awful by comparison to many continental cities though. Have you used the U-bahn in berlin? It's so clean, so efficient, so cheap!

That's what we get for inventing this stuff I suppose...

Post reply on HN