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

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

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 974 posts

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

#901

Post by klmadfejno »

xenonite wrote: post #874
klmadfejno wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy a house worth 4x your salary (in the ballpark of average), a 25% decline in home value means you need to spend an entire year of labor just to break even, ignoring the obvious associated living costs. The decline doesn't matter if it's temporary, but they're not always temporary. That sounds incredibly demoralizing.

On the other hand, renting an apartment translates to a 100% decline in value (and 0% ownership).

Renting is not a leveraged loan worth multiple times your annual income.

Home ownership may generally be better than renting. But home ownership and value decline is much much worse.

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

#902

Post by klmadfejno »

cwhiz wrote: post #900
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…

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 fixtu…

Eh, not really

> It is hard, if not impossible, to find a modest, small house.

True, but small condos have seen similar appreciation

> houses are full of glitzy appliances, fixtures, moldings, and counters. It really does just heavily inflate the price.

This do increase the price of real estate, but not that much relative to the bigger picture. The price of a "glitzy" fridge vs. a non glitzy fridge is going to be what, $500? $1,000? Likewise, appreciation has occurred on older properties without these features unless you're below the inflection point where the risk of the property declining in value faster than the market appreciates is so high that the price remains poor.

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

#903

Post by 6510 »

throwawayinfo wrote: post #597
6510 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 rooms is luxury now?

Yes. You can always get a roommate and split the cost.

I mean, should this be a design goal?

I'm mostly voicing a much more general confusion here. I think you have to bolt down our [lets be honest] mostly imaginary system to reality in some spots. Rents can simply be adjusted to whatever people can pay. That way there is no technological or economic progress to be had for those at the bottom. The fix is in?

Or let me put it like this: If I want a banana I want to pay for what it costs to grow the banana, the packaging, the logistics of it and for those who perform the miracle of trade. If all the steps involved also involve maximizing wealth extraction from those employed in those steps by [any and all means!] my banana will naturally grow in price to the point where my minimum wage has doubts if it can afford it. Not just now but forever! Regardless of anything.

Regulation cant be like: We will cap the price of bananas at this point since everyone involved in making them happen for me has to pay rent that grows along with the kiwi's. I very much doubt we cant fix rent. There might be a layer or 2 of maximized wealth extraction above it. Those are not impossible to fix. If we had real collective goals we could just be like: It wont happen - forever! and get a really cheap but highly profitable banana in return.

Note: I can stack bricks and run tubes though them. Its not hard and not a lot of work. IOW: I'm not impressed by a concrete box. End of the day my government owns all the land.

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

#904

Post by ausbah »

colinmhayes wrote: post #776
tchaffee wrote: post #736

I remember our family of five children, two cars, pool (but above ground), most vacations were camping but we did make it to Disney World. We had lots of nice stuff as kids, but it was solidly middle class. My mother stayed home while my father worked an eight hour day as an engineer at the local factory. He never worked overtime or weekends. All this with a bachelor's degree. My mother eventually went back to work s…

I wouldn't say it's a con. In the end capital has bargaining power over labor because labor works for capital. Labor needs to organize very hard to take back control and that's difficult when everyone is scared they'll lose their job. Capital is able to make unilateral decisions because it's usually controlled by single/very focused and competent entity.

it isn't just bargaining power or losing your job, it goes to the extent of lobbying gov'ts to be prolificly pro-business and anti-union, indoctrinating workers to view organizing as against their interests, and in some cases literally waging war against their employees

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

#905

Post by zpeti »

tdesilva wrote: post #784
zpeti wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet in the UK the amount of tax paid by the 1% is the highest ever (34%), 42% of adults pay NO income tax. And the tax take as a proportion of GDP is 34.4%, the highest EVER. We are living in the most taxed time in history with the rich contributing the most ever. Not the impression you get from people complaining about it. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-bri...

Your article doesn't directly talk about the tax rate for the top 1%. The fact that the percentage of total tax collected attributed to the top 1% has risen from 24% to 30% seems to be more indicative of higher wealth inequality, especially if the figures the other posters have mentioned about lower total tax rates on the rich are true. To me that's a good reason to raise taxes on top earners and lower taxes on the m…

How do you include record adults not paying taxes in that then, along with record employment?

Do you want everyone paying more, and the poor paying tax as well, or more income inequality but less people paying tax? You can’t have both.

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

#906

Post by mantas »

wonderwonder wrote: post #108
mantas wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of post-WW2 wealth transfer was from old failing empires to US of A. While climate change wealth transfer would accelerate transfer from US of A to ex-2nd and, especially, 3rd world. Either way, US and rich West people are looking to grim future compared to their parents. The rest of the world... We'll be fine one way or another.

? Climate change will disproportionately affect Africa and Asia.

A lot of international agreements seem to be geared towards rich countries paying off poor countries.

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

#907

Post by tchaffee »

petr_tik wrote: post #813
tchaffee wrote: post #736

I remember our family of five children, two cars, pool (but above ground), most vacations were camping but we did make it to Disney World. We had lots of nice stuff as kids, but it was solidly middle class. My mother stayed home while my father worked an eight hour day as an engineer at the local factory. He never worked overtime or weekends. All this with a bachelor's degree. My mother eventually went back to work s…

I wholeheartedly sympathise. My interpretation is slightly different. The working class aren’t giving up earning power as much as the western central banks are inflating it away with endless money printing and support of Wall Street that is supposed to trickle down to Main Street. It seldom does. Instead it’s used for stock buybacks and further entrenchment of inefficient firms that would have long collapsed in genui…

> support of Wall Street that is supposed to trickle down to Main Street

> I interpret the “capitalists are screwing the working class” as a) erroneous

Isn't support of Wall Street fairly interpreted as support of the uber wealthy capitalists who benefit the most from this monetary policy and artificially boosted stock prices?

And what's stopping the capitalists from using some of that vast wealth to actually pay workers more?

> Instead it’s used for stock buybacks

Who benefits from this? Shareholders, right? Aren't the uber wealthy in the US and Europe getting the vast majority of their wealth thanks to capital gains via shares?

> genuinely free market conditions.

There good reason genuinely free markets exist nowhere in the world and nowhere in history. Negative externalities don't magically disappear all on their own. Privatizing profits and socializing costs is the natural strategy every company must adopt to remain competitive lacking regulations to prevent socializing those costs. It's simply far cheaper to pollute when you are allowed to.

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

#908

Post by cwhiz »

klmadfejno wrote: post #902
cwhiz wrote: post #900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fixtu…

Eh, not really > It is hard, if not impossible, to find a modest, small house. True, but small condos have seen similar appreciation > houses are full of glitzy appliances, fixtures, moldings, and counters. It really does just heavily inflate the price. This do increase the price of real estate, but not that much relative to the bigger picture. The price of a "glitzy" fridge vs. a non glitzy fridge is going to be wha…

A sizable percentage of people don't want to live in condos. And they aren't necessarily small, either.

>This do increase the price of real estate, but not that much relative to the bigger picture. The price of a "glitzy" fridge vs. a non glitzy fridge is going to be what, $500? $1,000?

That's an extreme understatement. A glitzy refrigerator might only had $500 but marble counters might add $20,000 or more. Same with flooring. The price difference on a house full of stick on vinyl and real hard wood might be an additional $20,000. Then you get to other cosmetics such as crown moldings, jacuzzi tubs, walk in showers, vaulted ceilings, heated towel racks, and more. You could take the exact same house structure, and through flooring, counters, and cosmetics alone you could easily jack the cost up by $60,000.

>Likewise, appreciation has occurred on older properties without these features

Not really. Houses get upgraded with better floorings, better counters, additions, and other renovations. Go find a house in your neighborhood built in the 1950s with no major additions, laminate counters, and cheap flooring. Good luck.

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

#909

Post by tchaffee »

colinmhayes wrote: post #776
tchaffee wrote: post #736

I remember our family of five children, two cars, pool (but above ground), most vacations were camping but we did make it to Disney World. We had lots of nice stuff as kids, but it was solidly middle class. My mother stayed home while my father worked an eight hour day as an engineer at the local factory. He never worked overtime or weekends. All this with a bachelor's degree. My mother eventually went back to work s…

I wouldn't say it's a con. In the end capital has bargaining power over labor because labor works for capital. Labor needs to organize very hard to take back control and that's difficult when everyone is scared they'll lose their job. Capital is able to make unilateral decisions because it's usually controlled by single/very focused and competent entity.

> Labor needs to organize very hard to take back control and that's difficult when everyone is scared they'll lose their job

It's fair to note that one party in the USA has worked very hard to break up unions. And it has worked. So it's not just labor vs. capital. It's labor vs. capital allied with the government.

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

#910

Post by unishark »

hosh wrote: post #800
tuna-piano wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's true this seems like a strong US thing, I haven't heard many happy long-term stories of folks living intergenerationally. In my experience (talking to people from a variety of countries), most couples in their 20s/30s want their own place (even in the countries where it's not common). It seems it can even lead to happier intergenerational relationships when the roomate-type fights don't need to happen. It…

Some thoughts about that: 1. In the US, zoning laws discourage building things like the "mother in-law suite". These zoning laws were originally created as a way to get around federal laws prohibiting discrimination of race and sex by making it more difficult for people who can't afford housing to live within a certain neighborhood. Even if US residents wanted to add housing for some semblance of independence, zoning…

A granny flat or mother-in-law suite would be cheating. It's a separate apartment. Your parents are your neighbors not your room-mates anymore.

Education in other countries is far more strict and regimented than the US. Especially Asia.

I've always thought the main driver for leaving home is instinctive, basically teenage rebelliousness. If there's cultural "programming" going on, it is just as likely to be in the societies that overcome these drives and keep children subservient to their parents.

Post reply on HN