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

#931

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #926

refurb wrote: post #923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it sounds like tradeoffs. Go to a big city, get a high salary, can't afford a house. Go to a medium size city, get a lower salary, can afford a house. I'm not surprised there is a utopian city where salaries are high and housing is cheap.

Yup, and there's a good breakdown here of the salary one must earn to be able to afford the median home: https://www.hsh.com/finance/mortgage/salary-home-buying-25-c... There are a lot of options for everyone, regardless of which trade-off one chooses to make.

> Pittsburgh 3.70% -0.15% $149,830 +1.39% $835.21 $35,794.87

Yea if you want to live in a crap, run down neighborhood with a crappy school district and a house built a century ago that isn't code and will cost 50k to fix. I lived there - these statistics are nonsense. They don't tell the whole story.

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

#932

Post by tengbretson » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

pnutjam wrote: post #922

tengbretson wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying this couldn't work without explicitly including restrictions on the freedom of the press, since "the press" is the very vehicle by which money gets turned into political influence. Unless this amendment includes something akin to the fairness doctrine I can't see how it could possibly have the effect you are looking for.

corporations != people The press does it's fair share, but you're wrong. Don't be afraid of change. If something isn't working; we should fix it.

Perhaps corporations are not people, however "the press" is made of corporations. If there is to be no restriction on the press then what is to stop any corporate entity from advancing the cause of their politics as a member of the so-called press?

> Don't be afraid of change. If something isn't working; we should fix it.

Furthermore, this is a binary line of thinking that isn't even fit for a children's book. The world is not split between those that want change, and those that are afraid of change. It is very much possible for intelligent adults to consider the details of what is being prescribed and conclude that "that sounds at least as bad or possibly worse than the status quo."

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

#933

Post by cpwright » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:26 PM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #61

_mkef wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been the case in California for a long time. Unless we just forgive rent until a vaccine is out, many people will never catch up.

> Unless we just forgive rent until a vaccine is out, many people will never catch up. If 'we' forgive rent owed landlords, will 'we' also forgive the mortgages those landlords owe the banks? Will 'we' also forgive the obligations the banks which owe to other banks and their investors? Will 'we' also forgive the obligations those investors owe, for example to pensioners? Will 'we' then step up and pay for those pensi…

If 'we' forgive the rent owed to landlords, what about the property taxes that can be just as large as the mortgage. NYS has an eviction moratorium, but they still want their taxes.

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

#934

Post by mrep » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #928

mrep wrote: post #899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is that the fed did not buy those US treasuries. The fed bought a bunch of crap bonds from the market at above market value (As prior to their involvement, those bonds were tanking), and the people who sold them those bonds then went on to buy treasures and securities. It socialized the risk, and privatized the profits.

From the current asset sheet in millions of dollars:

  Reserve Bank credit: 6,968,229
  U.S. Treasury securities: 4,391,505
  Mortgage-backed securities: 1,949,547

That puts treasuries and mortgage backed securities as basically their entire balance. Corporate bonds are listed in section 1A as Other securities which Includes non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities, supranationals, corporate bonds, asset-backed securities, and commercial paper at face value and that comes out to a grand total of 86.729 billion or about 1.24% of their asset sheet.

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

#935

Post by bradlys » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #588

spencerflem wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a 23 y/o, the future seems bleak to me. Our government and leadership has failed us, nobody is doing anything about climate change, and there is record unemployment. On a personal level, especially with covid but also just life in general around now, all of my friends moved elsewhere and while we can keep in touch with social media it's still not as good as it was. There just doesn't seem to be anything worth buil…

Life has it's ups and downs. Things seemed bleak at times during past recessions, the 70s energy crisis, the cold war, etc. But life also has it's ups and they will come sooner or later.

> Life has it's ups and downs. Things seemed bleak at times during past recessions, the 70s energy crisis, the cold war, etc. But life also has it's ups and they will come sooner or later.

You sound deeply out of touch with the younger generation. The younger generation understands the fundamental flaws in our society more than probably any in the past. And, to them, it sounds pretty hopeless. Many educated people I've met speak more and more about not wanting children because they don't want to bring them into a cruel world that was ruined by their ancestors.

Just sayin' - there are many reasons to be displeased. Things back then were temporary - things now are permanent.

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

#936

Post by jlokier » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 8:20 PM UTC

iso1631 wrote: post #884

jlokier wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things seem to have become more difficult to obtain in some cases. Back in 2003, nobody asked me for proof of income for renting. Just basic credit checks (which don't directly know about income or bank balances). Proof of income is more recent. (And difficult if you're self-employed with highly irregular income, I found.) If using a guarantor, a guarantor has to pass similar checks. Guarantor works a lot better for…

> Guarantor works a lot better for a young person starting out in a cheap-ass room in a shared place, whose parents expect this. For a flat and an older adult with retired parents on a low pension, or their own housing costs, not so much. Absolutely. When my mother-in-law divorced and moved into a rented house, I was her guarantor. I did have parents in 2003, but they lived 3000 miles away in a greek village where th…

> 18-29 year olds moving in with their parents, not 50 year olds.

It applies in that age range as well.

A 29 year old moving in with their 64 year old parent(s) who are themselves poor and renting while on the edge of official retirement age, is going to find their parents probably rejected as guarantors.

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

#937

Post by jlokier » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #442

jlokier wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live, most property agents will do a credit and income check, and would turn you away for not meeting the "minimum income level" for renting those places. Even if you feel you can afford spending 50% of your income, it doesn't follow that you can easily find a landlord who allows it. If you have a bad credit rating, as many people do these days, it will be even more difficult as more landlords check that than…

> Where I live, most property agents will do a credit and income check, and would turn you away for not meeting the "minimum income level" for renting those places. This is where room in a shared house comes into play. They're available for $4-500 a month in my city.

Where I live, there's a minimum income level for shared house rooms as well, and the cost of a room can be 50% of someone's income if they are working but poorly paid, so they won't be allowed it.

Luckily rooms are more likely to be rented somewhat informally, or by less stringent agents & landlords, compared with flats, so there's a decent market of these without a hard income requirement, alongside those with the requirement.

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

#938

Post by Falling3 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #837

Falling3 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can either take the view that the honesty is better or you can take the view that at least one party is sufficiently embarrassed by it that they don't proclaim it's a good thing and when they do it they hide it. He just didn't pick the same one as you.

Forget political allegiance and let's be honest. By what metric is the blatantly hypocritical choice better?

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

#939

Post by lilsoso » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

novok wrote: post #812

Havoc wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SF or NYC That solves my property too expensive problem how? More seriously...not super keen on living in the US to be honest. Could probably do it practically, but given my life circumstances it would be a net loss.

Well you would probably make $300k, so your income:price ratio would be more favorable.

Wait, how common are $300k salaries in SF/NYC outside of FAANG-level companies?

This forum isn't Teamblind.

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

#940

Post by AngryData » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:03 PM UTC

zpeti wrote: post #191

messe wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is blatantly false. Income tax on higher earners in the UK has decreased since the 1970s/1980s when IIRC the highest tax bands were over 70%, if not higher.

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...

When you make most of the money, you pay most of the taxes. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. 10% of a billion dollars is a lot more money than 50% of $100,000.