4 ms·

> "When you're losing money, your mentality is largely about survival. But when you're profitable, you're confident about your future and you look for opportuni

by bko 9y ago

> "When you're losing money, your mentality is largely about survival. But when you're profitable, you're confident about your future and you look for opportunities to invest and grow further. Alaska's economy has historically created this winning mentality, which has led to this basic income. That may be a lesson for the rest of the country as well." Is this true? My impression is that many of the problems in regards to young people having trouble in the labor market have to do with the fact that for the most part they are more free than their parents to pursue their interests rather than "survival". This is due in part to their parents being more wealthy and they have the luxury to pursue majors that don't pay well. Also, the safety net extends after they graduate. For instance, 40% of Americans under 35 live with their parents or relatives [0]. And the problem runs deeper than that. Low labor participation rates are not something that should be a policy objective. From my anecdotal experience, those people not participating in the workforce are rarely living meaningful happy lives. [0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/percentage-of-young-americans-living-with-their-parents-is-40-percent-a-75-year-high/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/percentage-of-young-americans-li...

mattmanser 9y ago
Seems like you're cherry picking your arguments, as the article you linked to directly contradicts your impression.
- bko 9y ago
  > But the bigger issue may be the triple whammy of low wages, student debt and rapidly escalating rents. Student debt is a luxury. There are plenty of affordable colleges and universities. Many just choose to go to expensive options and they are able to do so due to subsidized student loan rates (also a luxury) and support from relatively wealthy parents. In regards to mortgages being unattainable due to housing appreciation, I think that is only half the story. The other half is that mortgage rates are at near historic lows. Yes, homes were cheaper in the 50s-90s but mortgage rates were ~6-18% at that time. This makes a huge difference in home affordability. For instance, a 30 year 100k mortgage at 8% and 4% interest have mortgage payments of $733 vs $477, respectively. [0] http://blog.lucidrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mortgage-vs-10-year-rates1.jpg http://blog.lucidrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mortg...
b3lvedere 9y ago
It's totally true. Your brain goes into survival mode almost 24/7 if you can't make ends meet. It is immensly time consuming and gives a lot of stress. Though it can be fun to get as much as possible optimized results with as less as possible investment (time and/or money).
mercer 9y ago
> Is this true? My impression is that many of the problems in regards to young people having trouble in the labor market have to do with the fact that for the most part they are more free than their parents to pursue their interests rather than "survival". I live in one of the world's richer countries (The Netherlands) and anecdotally I'd say it's both true and not true. It's true in the sense that most people I know in the 20-35 range, usually non-STEM university bachelor's and sometimes master's, struggle to get by. They live in shared flats (kamers, WG's), often spend a sizable chunk of their time doing menial jobs to survive, and I'd say many of them manage on a student-level income (which I'd say is quite a bit below median income, possibly poverty-level). There's often quite a bit of depression or general malaise about this situation, as they'd prefer to work full-time, make a little more money, have a little more stability and have some sense of progress (whether in the sense of meaning or promotion), and in some cases would like to have children but feel they are not stable enough to start a family. I'd say this is significantly worse than at least the past generation (or two?). On the other hand, some of this seems to be by choice: they'd rather 'organically' operate in survival mode over just taking a job that, after a year or so of menial and pointless busywork, possibly but not certainly provides a promotion to something more meaningful. They go for a 10 euro Spotify and a 10 euro Netflix account, and a shared flat in the city, over a more financially prudent non-city, non-mass-and-convenient-entertainment situation in part by choice: how would they really know if this makes them happier than, say, a more rural alternative? Some of the latter could just be a case of 'making the best of a shitty deal', but I get the impression that, at least for this generation, it's to a significant degree ideological. Ultimately all that only makes the whole situation seem worse to me, on balance. Things are generally shitty for young people, even if you account for 'shifts in thinking' (that confuse the older generations), but somehow there's little collective action to make things better. If you want to change things, the 'accepted' avenues are self-employment or starting/joining a startup, completely disregarding civil society or political activism, and, to a degree, the idea of doing something collectively rather than following only the exact and singular configuration of your particular self.

by bko 9y ago

mattmanser 9y ago

Seems like you're cherry picking your arguments, as the article you linked to directly contradicts your impression.

bko 9y ago
> But the bigger issue may be the triple whammy of low wages, student debt and rapidly escalating rents. Student debt is a luxury. There are plenty of affordable colleges and universities. Many just choose to go to expensive options and they are able to do so due to subsidized student loan rates (also a luxury) and support from relatively wealthy parents. In regards to mortgages being unattainable due to housing appreciation, I think that is only half the story. The other half is that mortgage rates are at near historic lows. Yes, homes were cheaper in the 50s-90s but mortgage rates were ~6-18% at that time. This makes a huge difference in home affordability. For instance, a 30 year 100k mortgage at 8% and 4% interest have mortgage payments of $733 vs $477, respectively. [0] http://blog.lucidrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mortgage-vs-10-year-rates1.jpg http://blog.lucidrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mortg...

b3lvedere 9y ago

It's totally true. Your brain goes into survival mode almost 24/7 if you can't make ends meet. It is immensly time consuming and gives a lot of stress. Though it can be fun to get as much as possible optimized results with as less as possible investment (time and/or money).

mercer 9y ago

> Is this true? My impression is that many of the problems in regards to young people having trouble in the labor market have to do with the fact that for the most part they are more free than their parents to pursue their interests rather than "survival". I live in one of the world's richer countries (The Netherlands) and anecdotally I'd say it's both true and not true. It's true in the sense that most people I know in the 20-35 range, usually non-STEM university bachelor's and sometimes master's, struggle to get by. They live in shared flats (kamers, WG's), often spend a sizable chunk of their time doing menial jobs to survive, and I'd say many of them manage on a student-level income (which I'd say is quite a bit below median income, possibly poverty-level). There's often quite a bit of depression or general malaise about this situation, as they'd prefer to work full-time, make a little more money, have a little more stability and have some sense of progress (whether in the sense of meaning or promotion), and in some cases would like to have children but feel they are not stable enough to start a family. I'd say this is significantly worse than at least the past generation (or two?). On the other hand, some of this seems to be by choice: they'd rather 'organically' operate in survival mode over just taking a job that, after a year or so of menial and pointless busywork, possibly but not certainly provides a promotion to something more meaningful. They go for a 10 euro Spotify and a 10 euro Netflix account, and a shared flat in the city, over a more financially prudent non-city, non-mass-and-convenient-entertainment situation in part by choice: how would they really know if this makes them happier than, say, a more rural alternative? Some of the latter could just be a case of 'making the best of a shitty deal', but I get the impression that, at least for this generation, it's to a significant degree ideological. Ultimately all that only makes the whole situation seem worse to me, on balance. Things are generally shitty for young people, even if you account for 'shifts in thinking' (that confuse the older generations), but somehow there's little collective action to make things better. If you want to change things, the 'accepted' avenues are self-employment or starting/joining a startup, completely disregarding civil society or political activism, and, to a degree, the idea of doing something collectively rather than following only the exact and singular configuration of your particular self.