4 ms·
All these examples are on timescales of 70+ years. That's kind of meaningless to me, a millenial, looking at all wealth having already been bundled up. Living i
by _cenw 4y ago
All these examples are on timescales of 70+ years. That's kind of meaningless to me, a millenial, looking at all wealth having already been bundled up. Living in cities or owning a house? Barely affordable, even with an average tech salary. I don't even want to assume how shitty things would be if I made below 50k like most of my peers.
You could make a very similar list focusing on income, cost of living and relative buying power on a timescale of 50 years or another on the environment on a scale of 20 years and both would be quite depressing.
It feels very "well actually" wishful thinking by someone well off enough to ignore all the cracks.
At least it doesn't feel quite as deliberately misleading as the Steven Pinker "we redefined the poverty line, look at all the poverty that's going away" slight of hand.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> meaningless to me, a millenial, looking at all wealth having already been bundled up. Living in cities or owning a house? Barely affordable, even with an average tech salary Well, you’re living. Without disease, war or famine. The world’s knowledge at your fingertips. I’m about your age, and while there is a lot of work to be done, one of the most difficult hurdles to solving them is the nihilism and civic disengagement in our generation and industry. We’re sitting in a golden age of human achievement at the centre of the first world. > could make a very similar list focusing on income, cost of living and relative buying power on a timescale of 50 years or another on the environment on a scale of 20 years and both would be quite depressing Real wages have gone up over the last fifty and twenty years. Living in cities has become less affordable. But that you’re citing that as a standard of wellbeing, it’s a massive improvement from the post-War era.
- uxcolumbo 4y agoWhat good is it when you have to perform one or multiple menial jobs every day just to exist. That lifestyle doesn't leave you with much mental energy at the end of a long work day to absorb and learn from the world's knowledge at your fingertips. Yes, some folks are probably able to pull themselves out of that situation - but those are edge cases. On top of that the added anxiety people experience because of living paycheck to paycheck. It's becoming more and more like in the movie Elysium - all the technological wonders are there - just not accessible to the poor.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> when you have to perform one or multiple menial jobs every day just to exist Again, you’re comparing this to a past where continuing to exist wasn’t a given.
- __pache__ 4y ago[flagged]
- sriram_malhar 4y agoI had to laugh at this. Spend a weekend at a homeless shelter to encounter a reality VERY different from yours.
- vinyl7 4y agoSometimes I think it might be better to be dead than to live a miserable life
- brailsafe 4y agoUh, no disease, war, or famine?
- rufus_foreman 4y agoHomeownership rate in the US: 1900: 47% 1950: 55% 2000: 66% 2022: 66%
- slaw 4y ago66% in 2022 are paid? No mortgage? How does that compare to 1900?
- InspiredIdiot 4y agoNo progress since 1980, unfortunately. Just oscillated a few points up and down from 65% https://www.census.gov/econ/currentdata/dbsearch?programCode=HV&startYear=1956&endYear=2023&categories[]=RATE&dataType=HOR&geoLevel=US&adjusted=0¬Adjusted=1&errorData=0#table-results https://www.census.gov/econ/currentdata/dbsearch?programCode...
- latency-guy2 4y agoIt's not an "unfortunately", the U.S. population has increased 50% since 1980, using US census markers ~226m in 1980 to ~331m in 2020. It's an amazing benchmark to be at the same ownership rate despite growing this much in such a short time frame. Further, ownership going beyond certain numbers does not necessarily mean good either.
- rufus_foreman 4y agoIs asking questions to nobody in particular that you can easily answer yourself your idea of an argument?
- _cenw 4y agoNot in the US. I live here: https://www.bundesbank.de/en/publications/research/research-brief/2020-30-homeownership-82217677 https://www.bundesbank.de/en/publications/research/research-... Keep in mind that the mentioned "social housing factor" does exist, but it is also almost entirely in the hands of Gen X and older because building social housing had already stalled by that time.
- __pache__ 4y ago[flagged]
- ttymck 4y agoThanks. I'll never own a home but at least if I get cancer I won't die. I'll just go bankrupt. At least there's no house for them to seize.
- __pache__ 4y agoWhat are you talking about, of course you can own a home. Sorry government's manage markets terribly??? How much you make a year?
- flangola7 4y agoTry owning a home on an average K12 teacher's salary.
- __pache__ 4y agoThis is all a function of supply in a market. Harvard and more have done studies. The govt making loans basically free crushed the market, the solution is more housing. K12 teacher should easily afford housing. Especially with a spouse and summer job, for crying out loud!
- exolymph 4y agoBankruptcy is substantially better than death so yeah this seems like a win?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ttymck 4y agoI don't think that's a universal truth. I also don't think it's a tradeoff we necessarily need to make. Regardless, I'd rather live happier for less time than longer in poverty.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoThere was a brief time post WW2 in the US where housing was affordable. Prior to WW2 housing was extraordinarily expensive and people saved most their lives to buy a house, then lost it during the Great Depression. Most people lived in generational homes or were largely housing insecure. Most of the world never experienced the home glut we experienced in the US post WW2, that has tapered off in the last 20 years. However to be completely fair, we are only talking about a small number of cities on the coast that are unaffordable. I also see this complaint from 2nd+ generation Americans. The 1st generation immigrant families I know save their money meticulously and end up buying one, two, three houses and renting them out. They do this amazing feat by saving almost all of their income and forgoing all luxuries for 10 years, then renting the rooms of the house they buy out, using the income to buy the second house that’s rented out, etc. They live a life of wise frugality, never drinking an espresso drink or watching Netflix, and scrupulously managing their income and savings - on accountant and K12 teacher incomes. The truth is you can buy a place for $700k in say Seattle for $140k down payment, which if you save 50% of your net income making a dual income of $120k/year takes less than 10 years. Read the Jungle for a sense of what housing felt like pre-WW2. Compare it to what I described above happens today. Ask yourself what specifically is challenging you compared to other succeeding at it today and those succeeding at it 100 years ago. Maybe hold the post war era as a blip and outlier, and draw a line between you and the past without letting the outlier dominate your perception of your lot in life. Or move somewhere other than San Francisco.
- _cenw 4y agoI don't know, could be all the people seeing housing as an investment rather than a basic nescessity. Prices literally went up by a cool 100% or so over the past 5 years or so (if you account for the now ludicrous financing rates; 62% in raw prices) in Germany. Housing in Cologne cost 3451 EUR/m² in 2017. We're currently up to 5508 EUR/m². Morgage rates went from ~1.2% pa to almost 4% pa over the past 3 years. That's not normal.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoHousing has always been seen as an investment. Hence the idea of “land lords” and property owners being the wealthy, able to turn dividends from their property ownership. Mark Twain advised “buy real estate, they’re not making any more of it.” (N.b., never take investing advice from mark twain) what has changed is that real estate investing has become an anymans game rather than the elite. But the fact you can take your own capital and buy an asset (investment by definition) and that investment can be turned around and rented out to form a cash flow makes it a legitimate investment. If you think home prices are outrageous, then compare the rent rates vs the monthly mortgage rates for the same property. You should see mortgage rates are slightly higher because housing has an embedded utility as a basic necessity as well as a cash flow, but they shouldn’t be too far off. If mortgage rate >> rent, you’re in a bubble of asset valuation driven by speculation on home price appreciation - what you’re discussing - and you should stay away from buying as either rents will rise or prices will drop. If rent >> mortgage rates, you’re in a home price depression and smart money would be to buy or build houses and rent them out. Regardless, the ability to rent property you own is the fundamental driver of home price appreciation, not speculation that prices will continue to go up. In fact, given it’s a durable basic necessity that can be transferred without impairment after use (unlike food, which turns into poop) and at least retains value if not increase in value, I don’t see how it could help but be an investment. Ultimately supply is the only way to decrease price.
- brailsafe 4y agoCompletely agree, being in the same or similar position.