The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents • Hacker News Board

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#891

Post by imtringued » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:49 AM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #801

vertbhrtn wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What opportunities? Tell me how an average cashier can land an average 150k/year job in a metro area? Don't forget that the said cashier has mediocre intelligence, so-so appearance, zero charisma and little talking skills. He might swap grocery store for an oil change shop, but that's about it. Our society is mostly stratified now, with a little upward mobility left for high-tech workers.

> mediocre intelligence, so-so appearance, zero charisma and little talking skills That person is never going to move up the economic ladder no matter what rung they start on or what decade they are born in.

Yes, and you're part of the reason. Pessimism fuels itself.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#892

Post by imtringued » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:04 AM UTC

JanisL wrote: post #532

vkou wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the money printer only gives money to asset holders, the inflation will only happen in the asset economy, as opposed to the Main street economy. This is what we saw with QE in 2008, and what we're seeing now. Asset prices are skyrocketing, while the price of bread is staying more or less stable.

You might find the Cantillon Effect to be of interest: https://www.austriancenter.com/cantillon-effect-populism/ The effects of inflation are somewhat localized at first and the movement of money in the economy matters significantly in terms of the purchasing power of that money for various groups over time.

It's interesting because this looks at inflation from another angle. Some of the central bank money does eventually circulate in the economy but since the money goes to assets first, consumer inflation will always lag behind asset inflation and therefore we have a redistribution effect from the poor to the rich. Unless central banks adopt policies that distribute money evenly among the population they are going to keep distorting the economy.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#893

Post by selfhoster11 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:44 AM UTC

Jugglerofworlds wrote: post #863

klmadfejno wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it sounds to me like you're just wealthier than your parents were, but housing has risen in price disproportionately and so the things you buy are different. Would you really be purchasing a house if you didn't buy a phone every 2 years? The things you list sound like, idk, $10k/year with some heavy assumptions mostly weighted on the vacations than the tech. It's likely true there's more premium goods at (high…

I think that people ignore the fact that the population of the United States has dramatically increased over time. We now have 331 million people whereas there were only 210 million in 1970. So of course housing is going to be more expensive. The issue gets even more dramatic prior to 1900.

The USA has half of a continent to house all these hundreds of millions. The problem is with overcrowding in larger cities, not the lack of space (even if the location is suboptimal).

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#894

Post by ChrisLomont » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:00 AM UTC

x87678r wrote: post #847

ChrisLomont wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in the 70s/80s mortgage rates were ~15%, compared to ~ 3% today. So you still spent a significant amount of money on a mortgage.

Yes but as above even with high rates the payment was lower.

Inflation adjusted housing cost per square foot has remained remarkably constant for decades. Thus, given higher interest rates over the same fixed timeframe, relative payments were higher.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#895

Post by selfhoster11 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:02 AM UTC

abnry wrote: post #587

Sodman wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside of the obvious "don't buy a gas guzzler" tropes, most of the best ways to save money will end up costing you time. Whether it's living with a longer commute or working more hours, there is a point at which people are just happier living their lives than wasting years in their prime scrounging and being miserable to afford a downpayment on a house in worse condition than what they could afford to rent. Big bud…

I think part of the disconnect is that many people today assume that life will be, or should be, pain free. Life is hard. It's always been hard. It's hard today. I think the reason we want to believe otherwise is because of the tremendous wealth we have experienced recently, so we expect that trend to continue indefinitely. To me, it is the lack of gratitude for what we do have and can afford that galls me.

Life should not be as hard as it is. It is hard, and it is not painless, but it's harder and more painful than it must be. We have billionaires siphoning money from the masses (either directly, or indirectly via government action) that are already struggling. Redistributing even half of their net worth would be a life-changing amount for the average person, and could put wind in the sails of many charitable/educational/scientific/medical causes.

There is no reason why the current situation should be allowed to continue, and many reasons why it should not. Obviously it's a hard practical problem to crack (given that a naive approach to redistribution of this kind would be met with a great pushback and implode various systems that we depend on), but unless we do something effective, we'll keep ruining the planet while trampling the poor at the same time.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#896

Post by selfhoster11 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:10 AM UTC

ookdatnog wrote: post #755

laurent92 wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how many parents fail to understand the emotional and mental situation of what their children are currently experiencing. This is crucial to understanding: - The immediate distress of young males. They have no chance of seducing externally if they don’t have moral support at home. Explains the billion of 9Gag posts about young people who fall addicted to gaming and joke about virginity and lack of self confidence,…

> Living with the parents isn’t the best way to get social interactions, unless it is a venue where they can be for _caring for others_. Because young men are especially deprived of places where they can care for someone, women being very independent nowadays, especially in their 20ies. And caring for someone is the blood of the soul. I think you put that very nicely. I think I understand this problem, and I have emp…

The use of quotes might be because the labels of "right" and "left" are very geographically dependent. The political Overton window in the USA is very different to other English-speaking countries, not to mention the rest of the world. For the record, I don't disagree with the labelling, just explaining the possible reasons.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#897

Post by GiorgioG » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:22 AM UTC

irrational wrote: post #860

GiorgioG wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they aren’t pulling their weight in your home why? There’s plenty of work to be done around the house. Turn off the internet at 11pm. They’ll either get with the program or move out ASAP.

I do. They are using hotspots through their phone data plans.

My kids are 14 and 8. The rule is simple no phone/devices in your room after 10pm - yes the 14 year old whined and protested when we implemented this rule last year. Now it's just the norm (kids adapt) and she puts her phone on the charger in our bedroom every night.

I don't expect this rule to change regardless of their age. In our house being 18 doesn't mean anything - our house, our rules.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#898

Post by selfhoster11 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:26 AM UTC

iso1631 wrote: post #50

collyw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will probably be going against the grain here, but I managed to rent a flat by myself while in university years ago with a part time job in a supermarket at weekends and applying for some hardship funds and other money available at the time. Rents have risen a lot since then, but is it really impossible for someone in work to be able to afford rent? Or are they insisting on living in a fashionable part of town? (Fo…

I started as a trainee broadcast engineer in London on £17,800 a year in 2003. This left me with £1,082 a month (back then student loan payments were far higher than now). Rent for a tiny bedsit with a shared bathroom was £520 a month, 2 mile walk from work. I could live further out, but commuting costs outweighed any savings. That's the equivalent of £828 a month now. Bills were included. You can actually pick up a…

TL;DR: London will chew you up and spit you out unless you live so far out that your commute is measured in 1.5-hour increments, or unless you're already rich. A young person is sentenced to renting.

My personal story:

I lived there up until about a year ago, not far from the center. Being a young person, I earned the usual entry-level software developer salary. I tried to live a relatively frugal lifestyle, which included not going out and spending not a whole lot on personal entertainment costs.

The rent was £1500, so I had to rent a flat with my friend. Travel was expensive, and a fixed cost in my circumstances. Bills were not included, so we had to pay those as well. I tried to cut costs as much as I could, and in retrospect maybe I could have cut £80-100 a month from my grocery spending by shopping in cheaper stores, or perhaps even another £50 on top of that if I was willing to trade off some of my sanity/time for the savings. I had some savings, but not a whole lot.

The whole time, I was cutting into my savings each month and literally losing my money by staying in London. Even if I tried to save harder, that would get me nowhere nearer to saving up for a deposit for the next few years.

I eventually decided to leave the city behind and move to Scotland. Instant quality of life improvement, and I actually got the chance to start building up my savings rather than chipping away at them.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#899

Post by mrep » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:29 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #892

JanisL wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might find the Cantillon Effect to be of interest: https://www.austriancenter.com/cantillon-effect-populism/ The effects of inflation are somewhat localized at first and the movement of money in the economy matters significantly in terms of the purchasing power of that money for various groups over time.

It's interesting because this looks at inflation from another angle. Some of the central bank money does eventually circulate in the economy but since the money goes to assets first, consumer inflation will always lag behind asset inflation and therefore we have a redistribution effect from the poor to the rich. Unless central banks adopt policies that distribute money evenly among the population they are going to ke…

The central bank cannot distribute money evenly among the population. Congress however can and they basically did albeit selectively based on need with the CARES act which gave citizens direct cash handouts, massive increases to unemployment, and indirectly by funding payroll for small businesses and airlines.

However, they are supposed to maintain a budget and the CARES act alone cost over 2 trillion dollars so they finance deficits by selling US treasury securities. If you look at the outstanding debt, it has grown by about 3.6 trillion dollars worth of outstanding treasury securities from january to august [0]. If you look at the federal reserves asset sheet trends [1], you'll see it grown by up about 3 trillion since january [1] with over 2/3 of that buying those same US treasury securities our government sells to finance the deficit [2].

My point is that if congress had simply decided to pay for all deficits including those direct and indirect payments to citizens this year with printed money and the federal reserve did nothing, we would be basically in the exact same position. Congress is spending to put cash in citizens pockets and the federal reserve is buying up most of the treasury securities that congress is selling to fund that.

[0]: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm

[1]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...

[2]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#900

Post by cwhiz » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 12:04 PM UTC

klmadfejno wrote: post #833

gpapilion wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mean it sounds to me like you're just wealthier than your parents were, but housing has risen in price disproportionately and so the things you buy are different. Would you really be purchasing a house if you didn't buy a phone every 2 years? The things you list sound like, idk, $10k/year with some heavy assumptions mostly weighted on the vacations than the tech. It's likely true there's more premium goods at (high…

My takeaway from his or her comment was that housing is expensive because it’s nicer.

And it’s true. It is hard, if not impossible, to find a modest, small house. The median size of new construction is more than double what it used to be. And houses are full of glitzy appliances, fixtures, moldings, and counters. It really does just heavily inflate the price.

How much would a 1,000 square foot house with modest fixtures cost in your neighborhood, if it existed? That’s what the typical house used to be.