4 ms·

Here’s a controversial perspective. Maybe most people’s expectations are too lofty, and their abilities much lower than the think they are. In 2000, less than

by afpx 8y ago

Here’s a controversial perspective. Maybe most people’s expectations are too lofty, and their abilities much lower than the think they are. In 2000, less than 25% of the working popultion had a bachelors degree. Today, every young person I talk to expects to finish a Phd, JD, and MBA. And, now everyone wants to live in the trendiest (highest-cost areas). There are plenty of places in the US where a house can be purcahsed for under $100k. Unless you came from wealth, or you’re definitely in the top 1% of your peers, maybe set your expectations a bit lower. Or, at least be patient as you work your way up. Build wealth the old fashion way (like we did 25 years ago) - get a menial job (i.e. “in the mail room”), genuinely try to help your bosses (not compete with them), slowly build your reputation and circle of influence, take night classes at the community college, live below your means, save, etc.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
Due to gains in efficiency and scale, it’s more winner take all than ever before. Look at the public markets, it’s halved in the number of companies even listed on it, and of those listed there’s basically a handful capturing all the gains. The bigger companies will continue to gain pricing power so unless you’re in some regulated niche like doctors, expect to not be in control of your destiny if all you plan to do is work a job.
watwut 8y ago
Isnt that just reflectin of who you talk with? I am pretty sure that 100% of young americans do not plan PhD nor MBA.
- wil421 8y ago
  The parent poster has a very skewed opinion. My observations are similar to yours, in fact I’m not sure of anyone outside medical professions who did graduate schools right after a bachelors.
annabellish 8y ago
What the linked article is trying to explain is that the opposite is true. It isn't that everyone wants to live in the trendiest areas, it's that they _have_ to in order to find a job that has any hope of paying off their debts fast enough for them to save up enough so that when the next huge expense comes through they can afford it... likely taking on more debt even so. It isn't that everyone wants a degree - certainly not, given the price - but if you don't have one then you don't even have a chance of making enough savings to afford housing, healthcare, education for your children, et cetera. People _can't_ "set their expectations a bit lower". Your options are to have no expectations, and accept that you're not going to be able to provide for your children, or to join the same rat race as everybody else and get locked into this cycle of wildly increasing prices. There isn't a middle ground for people to aim at any more.
- afpx 8y ago
  Those seem to be two very extreme options. I’m certain that there are hundreds of other options available. I mean I can think of more than a dozen just off the top of my head. In this case, the author appears to have a degree from MIT and a background in finance and engineering. Out of curiousity, I did a job search (outside the trendy areas), and there are plenty of high-paying jobs available to them. A person would just have to live in a boring area or take on a boring job, or live a boring lifestyle. I guess I’m not understanding why seemingly few people seem to accept trade offs these days.
- Raidion 8y ago
  I disagree. I think it would be interesting to do that same article, but replace the MIT tuition with that of a decent in state school, and replace the housing prices with those of a medium/large midwest city like Omaha, Cleveland, or Pittsburg. Salaries don't scale like rent does. In Cleveland, you can get a 1 bedroom for around 900 dollars, in SF, that's 3.5k+. That means to maintain the same purchasing power and keeping monthly rent at 1/40th of salary, you'd need to earn 36k in CLE, but 140k in SF. 140k isn't out of reach in the Bay Area at all, but usually requires a college degree, while 36k in CLE is in reach of those without a college degree, and numbers twice that high are in reach of those with a STEM degree. This means you're going to have more disposable income, not having to deal with 5%+ rent increases every year, pay less in the higher tax brackets, and be able to buy a house without paying nearly as much interest. All just because you stop trying to be the top 1% and live in some place that isn't NYC or SF, but is still in the top 50 largest cities in the US.
neuronic 8y ago
> Unless you came from wealth, or you’re definitely in the top 1% of your peers, maybe set your expectations a bit lower. Why should any of us set our expectations lower? Because you say so? Why is the best piece of the cake reserved to some 1% folks largely with inherited wealth? Why should 1 billion Chinese set their expectations lower? Because they happen to not be born in Silicon Valley and their father doesn't run a law firm in Manhattan? This is called wealth inequality to the max and it will crash our societies sooner or later. Pseudo-meritocracies will eventually break their necks over this and the developing crisis of democracy is one step into that direction. 2008 proved that the system is utterly broken and since then we put on a few bandaids at best. > There are plenty of places in the US where a house can be purchased for under $100k. Sure, those places just don't have the jobs people strive after, for example to escape automation in the 21st century.
- afpx 8y ago
  I’m just providing an alternative perspective. It’s certainly not a mandate. If you know that you’re exceptional, then by all means go be exceptional. But, the vast majority of people aren’t exceptional. And, the truly exceptional are probably out there working their ass off right now, not reading HN. High expectations = high chances for disappointment. I was exceptional in high school. One day a teacher bluntly told my “gifted” class, “You guys aren’t special. You may feel special right now. But, there are millions of people better than you. Be ready for disappointment.” That advice hurt, and I hated that teacher. But, the truth is that even after being lucky and working hard for 20+ years, the best I got was to be an exceptional person’s captain. And, only through helping that person was I able to retire early. YMMV.
  - neuronic 8y ago
    > And, the truly exceptional are probably out there working their ass off right now, not reading HN. I think this is where our differences in viewpoints really emerge. I certainly do not want to contest that there are exceptional individuals who fundamentally have a vastly more profound impact on the development of the human civilisation. However, it seems like you want to assign special conditions and resources to those who, in your view, deserve them - and to them only. Everyone else should take a step back and not demand stuff they haven't earned. This view is fine, but I disagree that it is realistic or even possible to establish true meritocracies as long as you stand by values of liberalism. You have to take away the individuality of people itself in order to achieve a system in which its inhabitants are content with getting what they deserve. And that is because the meaning of "deserve" is then required to be centrally controlled rather than a subjective viewpoint that is different for 7.5 billion people. So a Chinese farmer might find they "deserve" the same quality of healthcare as Jeff Bezos simply on account of being human. Others might argue that you should have to work and contribute to "earn" your cancer treatment. Both have merit.

by afpx 8y ago

lotsofpulp 8y ago

Due to gains in efficiency and scale, it’s more winner take all than ever before. Look at the public markets, it’s halved in the number of companies even listed on it, and of those listed there’s basically a handful capturing all the gains. The bigger companies will continue to gain pricing power so unless you’re in some regulated niche like doctors, expect to not be in control of your destiny if all you plan to do is work a job.

watwut 8y ago

Isnt that just reflectin of who you talk with? I am pretty sure that 100% of young americans do not plan PhD nor MBA.

wil421 8y ago
The parent poster has a very skewed opinion. My observations are similar to yours, in fact I’m not sure of anyone outside medical professions who did graduate schools right after a bachelors.

annabellish 8y ago

What the linked article is trying to explain is that the opposite is true. It isn't that everyone wants to live in the trendiest areas, it's that they _have_ to in order to find a job that has any hope of paying off their debts fast enough for them to save up enough so that when the next huge expense comes through they can afford it... likely taking on more debt even so. It isn't that everyone wants a degree - certainly not, given the price - but if you don't have one then you don't even have a chance of making enough savings to afford housing, healthcare, education for your children, et cetera. People _can't_ "set their expectations a bit lower". Your options are to have no expectations, and accept that you're not going to be able to provide for your children, or to join the same rat race as everybody else and get locked into this cycle of wildly increasing prices. There isn't a middle ground for people to aim at any more.

afpx 8y ago
Those seem to be two very extreme options. I’m certain that there are hundreds of other options available. I mean I can think of more than a dozen just off the top of my head. In this case, the author appears to have a degree from MIT and a background in finance and engineering. Out of curiousity, I did a job search (outside the trendy areas), and there are plenty of high-paying jobs available to them. A person would just have to live in a boring area or take on a boring job, or live a boring lifestyle. I guess I’m not understanding why seemingly few people seem to accept trade offs these days.
Raidion 8y ago
I disagree. I think it would be interesting to do that same article, but replace the MIT tuition with that of a decent in state school, and replace the housing prices with those of a medium/large midwest city like Omaha, Cleveland, or Pittsburg. Salaries don't scale like rent does. In Cleveland, you can get a 1 bedroom for around 900 dollars, in SF, that's 3.5k+. That means to maintain the same purchasing power and keeping monthly rent at 1/40th of salary, you'd need to earn 36k in CLE, but 140k in SF. 140k isn't out of reach in the Bay Area at all, but usually requires a college degree, while 36k in CLE is in reach of those without a college degree, and numbers twice that high are in reach of those with a STEM degree. This means you're going to have more disposable income, not having to deal with 5%+ rent increases every year, pay less in the higher tax brackets, and be able to buy a house without paying nearly as much interest. All just because you stop trying to be the top 1% and live in some place that isn't NYC or SF, but is still in the top 50 largest cities in the US.

neuronic 8y ago

> Unless you came from wealth, or you’re definitely in the top 1% of your peers, maybe set your expectations a bit lower. Why should any of us set our expectations lower? Because you say so? Why is the best piece of the cake reserved to some 1% folks largely with inherited wealth? Why should 1 billion Chinese set their expectations lower? Because they happen to not be born in Silicon Valley and their father doesn't run a law firm in Manhattan? This is called wealth inequality to the max and it will crash our societies sooner or later. Pseudo-meritocracies will eventually break their necks over this and the developing crisis of democracy is one step into that direction. 2008 proved that the system is utterly broken and since then we put on a few bandaids at best. > There are plenty of places in the US where a house can be purchased for under $100k. Sure, those places just don't have the jobs people strive after, for example to escape automation in the 21st century.

afpx 8y ago
I’m just providing an alternative perspective. It’s certainly not a mandate. If you know that you’re exceptional, then by all means go be exceptional. But, the vast majority of people aren’t exceptional. And, the truly exceptional are probably out there working their ass off right now, not reading HN. High expectations = high chances for disappointment. I was exceptional in high school. One day a teacher bluntly told my “gifted” class, “You guys aren’t special. You may feel special right now. But, there are millions of people better than you. Be ready for disappointment.” That advice hurt, and I hated that teacher. But, the truth is that even after being lucky and working hard for 20+ years, the best I got was to be an exceptional person’s captain. And, only through helping that person was I able to retire early. YMMV.
- neuronic 8y ago
  > And, the truly exceptional are probably out there working their ass off right now, not reading HN. I think this is where our differences in viewpoints really emerge. I certainly do not want to contest that there are exceptional individuals who fundamentally have a vastly more profound impact on the development of the human civilisation. However, it seems like you want to assign special conditions and resources to those who, in your view, deserve them - and to them only. Everyone else should take a step back and not demand stuff they haven't earned. This view is fine, but I disagree that it is realistic or even possible to establish true meritocracies as long as you stand by values of liberalism. You have to take away the individuality of people itself in order to achieve a system in which its inhabitants are content with getting what they deserve. And that is because the meaning of "deserve" is then required to be centrally controlled rather than a subjective viewpoint that is different for 7.5 billion people. So a Chinese farmer might find they "deserve" the same quality of healthcare as Jeff Bezos simply on account of being human. Others might argue that you should have to work and contribute to "earn" your cancer treatment. Both have merit.