6 ms·

They need stable, actionable futures. Homes they can afford to own, communities they can raise kids in, an environment that won't go up in flames; they need sys

They need stable, actionable futures. Homes they can afford to own, communities they can raise kids in, an environment that won't go up in flames; they need systems that have their back.

jollybean 5y ago
I'm sympathetic to the later part, but first part not what they want. They want the dynamism of being able to change jobs and careers, they all want the opportunity for career progression which for the most part isn't there (it's always been competitive). That means more risk and all the things that come along with it. I think even 'remote work' will have a serious of consequences we're not ready to accept, which is that it will make workers even more fungible. If someone literally can't show up for work ... then they're generally going to be seen as more easily replaced or changed around. We need to fixing housing costs badly though.
- Kototama 5y ago
  > If someone literally can't show up for work ... then they're generally going to be seen as more fungible. It depends of the company culture.
- zaptheimpaler 5y ago
  > If someone literally can't show up for work ... then they're generally going to be seen as more easily replaced or changed around. Remote is the _only_ option for 90% of great jobs if you live anywhere outside a few big tech hubs.
- SQueeeeeL 5y ago
  https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_you_feel_safe?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_... This talk really changed my thought process on careers. Basically every corporation in America is fundamentally unstable to work for, where you COULD be laid off for essentially arbitrary fiscal goals. That instability makes it impossible to trust your leaders (i.e. the company) to actually support you. As long as the people who pay your salary don't think long term about organizational health, people will be forced to play games and constantly job hop.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    This coupled with the fact in tech at least that the easiest way to get a raise -- and usually a substantial one -- is to switch to a new company. If a person can either: spend a year genuflecting and begging their manager for a single-digit raise*, or spend three weeks interviewing and get 15%-plus more to do substantially the same work...all else being equal, which should we pick? *Not to complain about 5%. For the vast majority of workers that's an unattainable dream -- but that just furthers the point that the worker is not treated as an asset.
- donkeyd 5y ago
  > They want the dynamism of being able to change jobs and careers, they all want the opportunity for career progression which for the most part isn't there (it's always been competitive). Why do people want this though? 50 years ago, you could be a mechanic, work 50 hours a week and own a house. The wife could be at home to take care of the kids. These days, both have to work 60 hours a week to afford a rental apartment. in the 70's, a home cost about 4.5 times the median yearly household income. Right now it's about 7 times the yearly income. That doesn't seem like a massive increase (even though it's more than a 50% increase), but employment of married women also increased from 40% to 60%. So while we have, on average, more earners in a household, we pay more of our income on housing. It's a double whammy. So people want careers in order to start earning a living wage in order to be able to actually raise kids and live a meaningful life in a nice home. People don't just want a career because they want a career, they want that because they don't want to be wage slaves who don't get to live a life. Also, they don't get to raise their kids, because they don't have time for that.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    Absolutely. Another HN commenter put it very nicely in a recent similar thread: people are working so they can make enough money to afford to be able to work. If two adults have to work full time to have a house with kids, then they also have to be making enough for child care and various other things that they might be able to do more cheaply if only one of them was working.
gruez 5y ago
The parent comment: >Many of my staff and friends don't want to have kids, make no effort to find a partner and find all sorts of excuses Is the lack of affordable housing and/or environmental disasters really responsible for people who lack the precondition (eg. having a partner) for buying a home?
- gonehome 5y ago
  I think it can be. What people “want” is sometimes constrained by what they think is possible.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  When was having a partner a precondition for buying a home? Furthermore, what’s the point of finding a partner when the cost of a permanent place together might exceed both your incomes put together, much less a place big and safe enough to raise a family.
  - dionidium 5y ago
    > When was having a partner a precondition for buying a home? When you make an offer on a house you're bidding against two-earner households. For a lot of us in tech the salience of this fact is diminished by the industry's high salaries, but for most folks this is a really big deal.
    - dominotw 5y ago
      > When you make an offer on a house you're bidding against two-earner households. what does that matter aslong as your bank has approved the mortgage. I don't see why seller would care. are you saying that ppl are bidding for mortgages that high that bank needs both of their incomes? wow.
      - gruez 5y ago
        It might not be a strict precondition, but it's still a pretty strong precondition. Maybe "precondition" isn't the best word here, but I think my original point still stands. Suppose someone claims that people are deciding not to have kids for whatever reason (eg. global warming, unaffordable healthcare, expensive houses)[1], and I retort by saying that people aren't bothering finding a partner[2], so they're not meeting their "precondition". Sure, you can theoretically raise a kid without a partner, but if you're not even bothering to find a partner, then maybe it's fair to say that's the main reason, rather than blaming global warming or whatever? [1] analogous to your comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29473019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29473019 [2] analogous to my reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29473223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29473223
panaffa 5y ago
Good point on agency. Throughout their lives GenZ has either had less agency or felt like we have less agency to do what we want. Certainly true for some financial goals like buying a house
- basisword 5y ago
  The oldest gen z are just out of college though. I think it’s the younger millennials you might be describing (people a decade into their career with little prospect of home ownership).
  - panaffa 5y ago
    Back in the 60s, people were buying homes in their early 20s or even late teens because it was that affordable. Obviously that is a bit of a historical anomaly, but it's almost a necessary complement to the idea you're supposed to become an adult and mature and grow up after age 18.
    - basisword 5y ago
      They also had things a lot harder in many ways than we do. The 60’s is over 50 years ago now. The world changes a lot in that time. Basing your expectations on the 60’s is unrealistic.
      - panaffa 5y ago
        Yes you're right. We do have many modern conveniences and information they didn't have. So why would we go backwards on this key metric of home prices and rent? Or housing as a percentage of household income? It is an economic, social, and moral failure (see the situation in Los Angeles)
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        > Basing your expectations on the 60’s is unrealistic. We use historical standards to measure progress all the time. The thing we should be exploring is "why has home ownership become so expensive?" and "what can be done to alleviate that impact?" Anything else is a distraction.
G3rn0ti 5y ago
> Homes they can afford to own In Germany where I live home owners are in the minority (40%). In Europe on average homeownership is about 70%. Yet, we are one of the richest countries in Europe. Furthermore, buying a house on credit does not mean you own it — since as long as you pay your debt it’s the bank that owns it really. Finding a partner and maintaining a relationship got nothing to do with owning a home. I am saying that as a dad without owning a house. Looking at this list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ow... I am also not really sure I really would want to live in the top countries with the highest percentage of home owners.
- kidsil 5y ago
  Being a tenant in Germany cannot be compared to being a tenant in the US. Being a tenant in Germany is essentially as stable (if not more stable) as taking a mortgage on a home in the US. This is still the type of stability the state provides, which is quickly disappearing worldwide as all funds go into real estate due to a decade of zero (or negative) interest rates.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    If you cannot pay, you will be evicted within 1-3 months.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > Yet, we are one of the richest countries in Europe. We have strong social security, but Germans have few assets and those aren't really equally distributed. I don't think financial problems are standing in the way of kids though.

They need stable, actionable futures. Homes they can afford to own, communities they can raise kids in, an environment that won't go up in flames; they need systems that have their back.

jollybean 5y ago

I'm sympathetic to the later part, but first part not what they want. They want the dynamism of being able to change jobs and careers, they all want the opportunity for career progression which for the most part isn't there (it's always been competitive). That means more risk and all the things that come along with it. I think even 'remote work' will have a serious of consequences we're not ready to accept, which is that it will make workers even more fungible. If someone literally can't show up for work ... then they're generally going to be seen as more easily replaced or changed around. We need to fixing housing costs badly though.

Kototama 5y ago
> If someone literally can't show up for work ... then they're generally going to be seen as more fungible. It depends of the company culture.
zaptheimpaler 5y ago
> If someone literally can't show up for work ... then they're generally going to be seen as more easily replaced or changed around. Remote is the _only_ option for 90% of great jobs if you live anywhere outside a few big tech hubs.
SQueeeeeL 5y ago
https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_you_feel_safe?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_... This talk really changed my thought process on careers. Basically every corporation in America is fundamentally unstable to work for, where you COULD be laid off for essentially arbitrary fiscal goals. That instability makes it impossible to trust your leaders (i.e. the company) to actually support you. As long as the people who pay your salary don't think long term about organizational health, people will be forced to play games and constantly job hop.
- b3morales 5y ago
  This coupled with the fact in tech at least that the easiest way to get a raise -- and usually a substantial one -- is to switch to a new company. If a person can either: spend a year genuflecting and begging their manager for a single-digit raise*, or spend three weeks interviewing and get 15%-plus more to do substantially the same work...all else being equal, which should we pick? *Not to complain about 5%. For the vast majority of workers that's an unattainable dream -- but that just furthers the point that the worker is not treated as an asset.
donkeyd 5y ago
> They want the dynamism of being able to change jobs and careers, they all want the opportunity for career progression which for the most part isn't there (it's always been competitive). Why do people want this though? 50 years ago, you could be a mechanic, work 50 hours a week and own a house. The wife could be at home to take care of the kids. These days, both have to work 60 hours a week to afford a rental apartment. in the 70's, a home cost about 4.5 times the median yearly household income. Right now it's about 7 times the yearly income. That doesn't seem like a massive increase (even though it's more than a 50% increase), but employment of married women also increased from 40% to 60%. So while we have, on average, more earners in a household, we pay more of our income on housing. It's a double whammy. So people want careers in order to start earning a living wage in order to be able to actually raise kids and live a meaningful life in a nice home. People don't just want a career because they want a career, they want that because they don't want to be wage slaves who don't get to live a life. Also, they don't get to raise their kids, because they don't have time for that.
- b3morales 5y ago
  Absolutely. Another HN commenter put it very nicely in a recent similar thread: people are working so they can make enough money to afford to be able to work. If two adults have to work full time to have a house with kids, then they also have to be making enough for child care and various other things that they might be able to do more cheaply if only one of them was working.

gruez 5y ago

The parent comment: >Many of my staff and friends don't want to have kids, make no effort to find a partner and find all sorts of excuses Is the lack of affordable housing and/or environmental disasters really responsible for people who lack the precondition (eg. having a partner) for buying a home?

gonehome 5y ago
I think it can be. What people “want” is sometimes constrained by what they think is possible.
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
When was having a partner a precondition for buying a home? Furthermore, what’s the point of finding a partner when the cost of a permanent place together might exceed both your incomes put together, much less a place big and safe enough to raise a family.
- dionidium 5y ago
  > When was having a partner a precondition for buying a home? When you make an offer on a house you're bidding against two-earner households. For a lot of us in tech the salience of this fact is diminished by the industry's high salaries, but for most folks this is a really big deal.
  - dominotw 5y ago
    > When you make an offer on a house you're bidding against two-earner households. what does that matter aslong as your bank has approved the mortgage. I don't see why seller would care. are you saying that ppl are bidding for mortgages that high that bank needs both of their incomes? wow.
    - gruez 5y ago
      It might not be a strict precondition, but it's still a pretty strong precondition. Maybe "precondition" isn't the best word here, but I think my original point still stands. Suppose someone claims that people are deciding not to have kids for whatever reason (eg. global warming, unaffordable healthcare, expensive houses)[1], and I retort by saying that people aren't bothering finding a partner[2], so they're not meeting their "precondition". Sure, you can theoretically raise a kid without a partner, but if you're not even bothering to find a partner, then maybe it's fair to say that's the main reason, rather than blaming global warming or whatever? [1] analogous to your comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29473019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29473019 [2] analogous to my reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29473223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29473223

panaffa 5y ago

Good point on agency. Throughout their lives GenZ has either had less agency or felt like we have less agency to do what we want. Certainly true for some financial goals like buying a house

basisword 5y ago
The oldest gen z are just out of college though. I think it’s the younger millennials you might be describing (people a decade into their career with little prospect of home ownership).
- panaffa 5y ago
  Back in the 60s, people were buying homes in their early 20s or even late teens because it was that affordable. Obviously that is a bit of a historical anomaly, but it's almost a necessary complement to the idea you're supposed to become an adult and mature and grow up after age 18.
  - basisword 5y ago
    They also had things a lot harder in many ways than we do. The 60’s is over 50 years ago now. The world changes a lot in that time. Basing your expectations on the 60’s is unrealistic.
    - panaffa 5y ago
      Yes you're right. We do have many modern conveniences and information they didn't have. So why would we go backwards on this key metric of home prices and rent? Or housing as a percentage of household income? It is an economic, social, and moral failure (see the situation in Los Angeles)
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      > Basing your expectations on the 60’s is unrealistic. We use historical standards to measure progress all the time. The thing we should be exploring is "why has home ownership become so expensive?" and "what can be done to alleviate that impact?" Anything else is a distraction.

G3rn0ti 5y ago

> Homes they can afford to own In Germany where I live home owners are in the minority (40%). In Europe on average homeownership is about 70%. Yet, we are one of the richest countries in Europe. Furthermore, buying a house on credit does not mean you own it — since as long as you pay your debt it’s the bank that owns it really. Finding a partner and maintaining a relationship got nothing to do with owning a home. I am saying that as a dad without owning a house. Looking at this list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ow... I am also not really sure I really would want to live in the top countries with the highest percentage of home owners.

kidsil 5y ago
Being a tenant in Germany cannot be compared to being a tenant in the US. Being a tenant in Germany is essentially as stable (if not more stable) as taking a mortgage on a home in the US. This is still the type of stability the state provides, which is quickly disappearing worldwide as all funds go into real estate due to a decade of zero (or negative) interest rates.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  If you cannot pay, you will be evicted within 1-3 months.
raxxorrax 5y ago
> Yet, we are one of the richest countries in Europe. We have strong social security, but Germans have few assets and those aren't really equally distributed. I don't think financial problems are standing in the way of kids though.