831–840 of 974 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment thanks pnutjam
> Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to abridge freedom of the press. Cool, so instead of PACs we'd just candidate-backing "news" coalitions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But given the choice between smaller and cheaper houses and larger and more expensive ones, they almost always choose the larger, more expensive ones. The university in town is over a hundred years old, and many of the dorms are that old too. Most have no air conditioning, and have insufficient power for a resident to add a window air conditioner without special approval. And the parents and students describe them as…
I worked in office without AC under roof in summer and it was not just less comfortable, but productivity really went down measurably. I dont know how hot it gets there, but it can be so hot they are at disadvantage against students who dont live there. I also stayed in house with bad insulation and it affected my health. 100 years ago, my health would be affected the same way whether better house would be available…
The point is that it is a somewhat new amenity that people value and are willing to pay for. and that makes housing more expensive.
I'm my early 20s and in the UK. I earn more than my Dad who is in his 50s. He managed to get a house, have money left over for an expensive hobby, decent car, the odd holiday etc. I'm a 90th percentile earner. Will 95+ percentile earner in a few years time. Yet it feels like I am not as well off as I should be. I don't live in an expensive area either. Yet I need to save so much money to even have the opportunity to…
I’ve thought about this a lot. My parents had 2 TVs in a house of five(and one was junk). We had stick on vinyl floors, and a cheap white appliances. Counter tops were linoleum, and we had 1.5 baths. I cut the lawn, and we went shopping in stores. We took two vacations requiring planes for the first 13 years of my life. Most vacations were camping. We rarely went out to eat. We didn’t have computers. We had 1 corded…
I say this as someone in the same boat, who could/would/will casually afford to buy an expensive home under 30.
The median net worth of millenial families (35 and under) is $10k. Probably trends negative if you filter down to people below age 30 only.
I think people need to start realising just how incredibly much the government is now stepping in at each of these crises to make them as smooth as possible. But there is a downside to this. You are not allowing the normal economic effects to happen because you are wanting to keep everything as it is, but then guess what, the status quo stays, and anyone joining the ladder is finding it increasingly difficult. What's…
"millennials shouldn't be arguing for more government intervention, but less" Your argument that government intervention is bad for millennials is flawed. Without government intervention such as eviction moratoriums, unemployment benefits and federal government stimulus checks there would have been massive homelessness. Prior to the pandemic 40% of americans could not cover a $400 emergency, all of these people would…
It wouldn't have been "good for them" but it will hurt a hell of a lot less than when (at some undetermined point in the future) things come crashing down so hard that the government can't prop them up.
We're preventing fire crackers from going off and eventually we're gonna get hit with a bomb.
Right now the Fed's back is pretty close to the wall in terms of policy levers it can pull. Imagine a financial crisis comes along in 2021 or something, we could really be screwed.
For what it's worth, I'm 45 and I feel like the last 25+ years were filled with a lot more wealth and choices than when I grew up. I feel like expectations are higher than ever, and the number of things one needs to buy in order to have a complete life is higher than ever. There are many expectations, like owning a detached, single-family home, which do not seem practical in many highly populated regions. I feel bad for the younger folk, because they have inherited dreams which may never become true. That said, as the child of two parents who both worked hard at full-time, well-paying jobs just to provide a modest lifestyle for my family(home, but no cars, no college, etc), I feel like some in the younger generation are judging by an inaccurate yardstick.
The HN community, which is far, far removed from average America, is likely to feel even more bitter. They've often been sold on the idea that they are highly paid professionals, and they are, but their location(Bay Area, NYC, DC, Seattle, etc) prevents them from having the life they think that should buy them. Unfortunately with the way wealth is distributed geographically in the US, it is unlikely they will ever really feel that wealth until they relocate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. It's the sort of take by people who have made zero effort to study history or economics. "Keep the budgets tight" was the mantra in the early 30s in response to the depression. It took a World War that killed millions of people (and was -- surprise! -- a major artificial government stimulus) to get out of it. Yes, providing monetary liquidity and fiscal stimulus during times of extreme stress is not purely good.…
> It took a World War that killed millions of people (and was -- surprise! -- a major artificial government stimulus) to get out of it. You are describing the broken window fallacy here. War and destruction doesn't help the economy. What happens in war is that useful resources in the economy are diverted from productive use and mutual beneficial trade to death and destruction.
When aggregate demand is "stuck" at a depressed level (high unemployment causes low demand, resulting in more low unemployment), the stimulus of war can actually help pull the economy out of its stuck position, even if the war is destructive. Of course, once it's no longer stuck, the continued destructive stimulus is just destructive.
There are better fiscal ways to pull the economy out of a depression than war, because most wars don't pay much in the way of dividends, unlike large scale public works. But even if the stimulus isn't a great ROI in "normal" times, it can have a high ROI in "depressed" times due to its ability to get demand unstuck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me be clearer then about my previous post, republicans are just as bad in practice. But the most vocal people who want government intervention are left leaning.
So why call out the side that's at least honest about its intentions? If you think government intervention is a bad thing, isn't the side that's upfront and honest about its desired amount of intervention still better?
He just didn't pick the same one as you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m in my mid fifties and I have never had a company pension, defined benefit or contribution. I saw my first house decline in value by 25%. We had interest rates peaking at 15%. I didn’t have student loans but only because I didn’t go to university, just like 90% of my peer group. Unemployment was much higher than it is now and schools were teaching subjects for obsolete careers. It wasn’t as rosey as it is often po…
> I saw my first house decline in value by 25%. This rarely matters unless you are looking to sell or borrow against. > We had interest rates peaking at 15%. But inflation was higher at the time. Also rates are 0% now at the Fed level, but if you are a consumer you are going to pay a bit depending on your credit score. > I didn’t have student loans but only because I didn’t go to university, just like 90% of my peer…
That sounds incredibly demoralizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Housing seems to be the primary issue, but you’ll find very little support for actually fixing the issue - more and taller buildings in densely populated areas. I don’t think people have a problem with spending more on education, they just want a reasonable return on investment for it. Turns out pumping money into monopolistic schools doesn’t get you a better result
The olds don't want it because it decreases the value of their boomer bank account (houses) and being old, don't like change in general.
"Not liking change" is disingenuous, even if, broadly speaking, older people don't actually like change
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing a salary with a pension to a salary without a pension is insanity. Wages are not stagnant. They've declined precipitously. take-home pay is stagnant and pensions are dead.
> Wages are not stagnant. They've declined precipitously. Do you have any data that support this?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45090.pdf
Real wages have improved for the top 10% and remained stagnant or declined for the lower bits.