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

If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#781

Post by _carbyau_ »

xethos wrote: post #759
Aurornis wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then why did houses used to be affordable even in those dense regions with high paying jobs? Because those city centers have remained the same size while demand for living there continues to increase More demand for a fixed set of land drives prices up. Those city centers today are not equivalent to the same city centers 35 year ago.

> More demand for a fixed set of land drives prices up. This works because both you and GP specified "[free-standing] house". This is not true of homes , where multiple homes can occupy the same land - just 15 feet higher or lower Perhaps someday more American cities will discover the third dimension, allowing for cheaper housing

Don't get me wrong, there is a place for units/apartments, especially in the face of homelessness. But no one dreams of owning an apartment as opposed to a free-standing house.

The dream/desire is the thing.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#782

Post by tzs »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #609
tzs wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In constant dollars cars are actually pretty much the same as they were 40+ years ago when you compare similar types and trim levels. A new Honda Civic for example costs about the same when you take into account inflation as the Civic I bought in 1989. The average price people are paying for a new car now is (in constant dollars) about twice what it was back when I got that '89 Civic, but that is because a larger per…

You've got the cause and effect backwards here. The average purchase price of a car in constant dollars is about double now because those are the only cars to purchase and the only group that can afford those cars are those who are affluent. In general the people who purchase new vehicles ironically are not the ones who own them. They consistently purchase new vehicles at a regular cadence. The existence of some base…

I wasn't talking about just base trims of the cheapest models.

For example in 1989 the Honda Accord ranged from $11.5-18.2k depending on trim. Converted to today's dollars using CPI that is $31-50k. Converted using the Social Security indexing factors [1] it is $38-60. The SSA indexing factors are probably better for comparing car affordability of infrequently purchased big tickets items.

The range of new Accord prices right now is $28-39k. They are all readily available. Honda lists 11, 20, 24, 12, 11, and 21 available nearby for the LX, SE, Sport Hybrid, EX-L Hybrid, Sport-L Hybrid, and Touring Hybrid trims.

The 1998 CR-V was $18.4-$21.1k. Converted using CPI that is $31-43k, and converted using SSA indexing it is $44-50k.

New CR-Vs today are $27-42k. (I'm omitting the $50k plug-in hydrogen fuel-cell model which is not readily available). They are all readily available, with Honda listing 15, 50, 48, 118, 49, 96, and 84 of the LX, EX, Sport Hybrid, EX-L, TrailSport Hybrid, Sport-L Hybrid, and Sport Touring Hybrid nearby.

[1] These are what the Social Security Administration uses for normalizing across years when computing total contribution amounts. This is based on the mean annual salary.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#783

Post by greenavocado »

HDBaseT wrote: post #765
Aurornis wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also funny to see the "the economy is roaring!" "incomes are up!". Great, have they increased by as much as inflation? Can I afford a home? Gen Z home ownership is outpacing millenial home ownership at the same age. There's a lot of denial around this topic because everywhere you turn there's a Reddit post or news headline about how housing is impossible to afford. > Pay's less. Less than the narrow window of…

Home "ownership" is misleading. You don't own a home until you've paid it off. Younger people are getting into more debt, for much longer in order to be able to survive. When we start comparing the numbers (i.e, house paid off, even reflected as a percentage paid off, relative to age) the numbers reveal the real crisis. Anecdotally, I know tons of 20-30 year olds getting into the property market (with insane levels o…

To be pedantic what most people consider ownership is a revocable land lease from the state government which you forfeit if you fail to pay protection money to the gov.

True ownership is non-existent.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#784

Post by autoexec »

HDBaseT wrote: post #772
tzs wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In constant dollars cars are actually pretty much the same as they were 40+ years ago when you compare similar types and trim levels. A new Honda Civic for example costs about the same when you take into account inflation as the Civic I bought in 1989. The average price people are paying for a new car now is (in constant dollars) about twice what it was back when I got that '89 Civic, but that is because a larger per…

A 1999 Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla, assuming serviced regularly (and competently) could easily be on the road today. I genuinely do not believe a 2025 car will usable on the road in 2035 (a mere 9 years), yet known 15 or 20 years from now. They are all too hamstrung by technology and whilst some of the technology is an improvement, a vast majority if malicious.

> I genuinely do not believe a 2025 car will usable on the road in 2035

If it is you'll probably be forced to pay a monthly subscription

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#785

Post by hirvi74 »

decimalenough wrote: post #545
redleggedfrog wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also add that healthcare is serious shit-show as it currently stands and the best strategy is to just stay as healthy as you possibly can to avoid having to go to the doctor, if you can even find one who will see you. Remote work is an interesting one. Before you had 8-9 hours a day of serious social activity, and if you were lucky, people you enjoyed. Even if you didn't enjoy the people, you were at least social…

YMMV, but the fully remote workers I know (I manage a few and am married to one) seem very happy about it, largely because they get to spend a lot more time with their families than they otherwise would. They're anxious mostly because they're afraid they'll have to forcibly RTO.

Small sample size, but of the people in my office that really prefer in-office to WFH, the two archetypes I have noticed are those people are either single and have no family, or they wish they were single and had no family.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#786

Post by hunterpayne »

Arodex wrote: post #347
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #16

I like how the graphs suggest that prior to 2020 a certain "holy trinity" for happiness existed of being married, graduating college, and voting Republican. This passes the sniff test even though I am only 2 for 3, I was not having a great time at 1 and was downright glum at 0.

"Voting Republican" being of course highly correlated, and thus a good proxy, to "being White".

Minorities elected Trump in the last election. The counties that most swung from historical expected averages towards Trump were all majority minority and were all heavy Dem strongholds. So keep up with this type of rhetoric, it just makes more Republicans.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#787

Post by hirvi74 »

coldtea wrote: post #593
redleggedfrog wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also add that healthcare is serious shit-show as it currently stands and the best strategy is to just stay as healthy as you possibly can to avoid having to go to the doctor, if you can even find one who will see you. Remote work is an interesting one. Before you had 8-9 hours a day of serious social activity, and if you were lucky, people you enjoyed. Even if you didn't enjoy the people, you were at least social…

> social contact is a definite plus for well-being If you have asd or adhd (not uncommon in programmers) it can be a definitive minus for well-being. But even if you don't, between office politics and idiotic corporate mandates, it can be draining. Especially as for the average office worker, originally you had an office of your own or at worse with one or two other people, then starting from the 80s you had a cubicl…

Yep, ADHD and God know's what else here. Oddly enough, I am too gregarious, and it often gets me in a lot of trouble. So, by being WFH, I am not surrounded by distractions, and I am much more productive.

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#788

Post by bdangubic »

hirvi74 wrote: post #785
decimalenough wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YMMV, but the fully remote workers I know (I manage a few and am married to one) seem very happy about it, largely because they get to spend a lot more time with their families than they otherwise would. They're anxious mostly because they're afraid they'll have to forcibly RTO.

Small sample size, but of the people in my office that really prefer in-office to WFH, the two archetypes I have noticed are those people are either single and have no family, or they wish they were single and had no family.

my sample size is similar but "gender"-based - single women and married men prefer in-office

Re: If America's so rich, how'd it get so sad?

#790

Post by hunterpayne »

some_random wrote: post #169
partiallypro wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is very very rich, the average person is much wealthier than the average European. 76% of Americans do not live paycheck to paycheck. That is a self reported stat and not reliable. It's a media sensationalist headline grabber which virtually every economist ignores. People don't like saying America is rich because it defies their beliefs, but the actual stats don't lie. Every American I know that has moved to…

One quick correction, it's not a self reported stat, it's a stat from a viral tiktok that comes from maybe a 2013 survey on a personal finance site.

So it has selection bias in addition to the bias from self reporting. Got it. Your stats professor is crying somewhere.
Post reply on HN