SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
American greatness was long premised on the common assumption was that each generation would do better than previous one. That is being undermined for the emerging millennial generation.
The problems facing millennials include an economy where job growth has been largely in service and part-time employment, producing lower incomes; the Census bureau estimates they earn, even with a full-time job, $2,000 less in real dollars than the same age group made in 1980. More millennials, notes a recent White House report, face far longer period of unemployment and suffer low rates of labor participation. More than 20 percent of people 18 to 34 live in poverty, up from 14 percent in 1980.
They are also saddled with ever more college debt, with around half of students borrowing for their education during the 2013-14 school year, up from around 30 percent in the mid-1990s. All this at a time when the returns on education seem to be dropping: A millennial with both a college degree and college debt, according to a recent analysis of Federal Reserve data, earns about the same as a boomer without a degree did at the same age.
[...] Like medieval serfs in pre-industrial Europe, America's new generation, particularly in its alpha cities, seems increasingly destined to spend their lives paying off their overlords, and having little to show for it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:17PM
It's true the ROI is not there for double- and triple-paned windows. They don't give you a great R value and they cost an arm and a leg. There are other simpler things you can do like storm windows, insulated roller shutters, awnings (to cut down on solar gain in the summer), or plain old heavy drapes (to cut heat loss in the winter. Other things have a much better break-even time. Insulation in the walls & attic and general weather-stripping will not cost much and will immediately save you a ton of money, no matter what your HVAC is. After that changing your HVAC from, say, fuel oil or natgas to a heat pump will save you tens of thousands of dollars (it heats you in the winter and cools you in the summer) and will last forever; the upfront cost is higher, though, because of the excavation that can be required. If you can manage that, though, the ROI is something like 4-5 years if you switch from oil heat. Solar/wind/micro-hydro is the last, though, ironically what people think about first when wanting a green home. But if you pay high rates for electricity the ROI is good there, too. Again, it can be a high upfront cost even if the break-even time is not long.
So, if you make some or all of those modifications, you'll break even in ~5 years and have gravy for 25 years after that, which can be a nice retirement nest egg if you invest the savings in a solid index fund.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 10 2017, @01:45AM
Just to be clear -- I wasn't arguing that there aren't energy efficient choices that are cheaper and have a reasonable ROI. I was just saying that the reason American homes often lack a lot of efficiency is because people make poor choices in new construction and then fixing them is much more expensive. Or people live in older homes and upgrades are often a lot harder (read "expensive") to do.
I'm completely familiar with the trade-offs you're talking about. I have someone in my family who works in heating and HVAC and does lots of installations, even in new homes... and you'd be amazed at people who refuse to pay a few thousand extra to get something that would be paid off in energy savings in 3-5 years and after that it would just be free money. Instead, they'll spend a few thousand extra on some fancy fixtures or whatever.
So yeah, I'm all for finding upgrades that work. But there are lots of reasons for inefficiency, and a major one is that people tend to be stuck with the choices in the homes they buy, because it's often a lot more expensive to retrofit stuff.
And I also know first-hand the issues when it comes to buying and selling. A few years ago I was faced with a choice about whether to replace a failing HVAC system in a house I knew I was likely to need to move out of and sell within a year. In that position, you're screwed no matter what you do. There's no debate about "if I fix this, I'll save money in the long run," because you're not in the house for the long run. But if you don't fix it, an inspector might flag it, and you'll need to do a concession in price to get rid of the house... but if you do fix it, there's no way you'll get the money back that you've invested in sales price. "Recently renovated kitchen"? Big bucks in sale price. "New HVAC last year; much more efficient"? Not so much.
So, my perspective is not so much coming from someone who is likely to spend 20 or 30 more years in a home and can be rational in trade-offs, but rather the fact that the average person in the U.S. tends to own a home for something like 7 years before selling. And buyers often will not be willing to pay a premium for all those "energy efficient" things that you built in that might save them thousands in the long run.