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: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:35AM
Cue the blablabla about how they're just too lazy, don't have enough sex, shouldn't be going to college, shouldn't be living in cities, and don't wear onions on their belts, which was the style in those days.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:48AM
I know, right? And I didn't even have to submit it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:52AM
I have to admit, it gets the comment counts going. Maybe a few too many over 50 comments for today, but this one still ought to be fresh in the morning. I wonder if the Ancap guy will show up.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:00AM
Thankfully, as soon as paulej72 gets the free time to do the live deploy, we've got some code going in that drastically speeds up heavily commented story comment pages. Well, for new stories anyway. Old stories will only see about half the speed-up.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:32AM
Is that because non-archived stories are held in memory vs. the archived no-more-comment two week old ones or whatever it is?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:35PM
Nah, I changed up the db entries for the new ones so we could store more data in the tables and not have to calculate it on the fly. Unfortunately we'd have to be down for quite a while to build that information up for all the old stories. The new ones just add it every time a comment is created.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:05PM
Sweet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:53AM
They should be living in Texas, driving trucks, going to school only for STEM or skilled trades, watching who they sleep with, considering a prenuptial agreement before marriage, and wearing a gun on their belt.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:18AM
I completely can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. Every bit of it is sound advice but we do get some serious nutters around these parts who'd disagree about what color the sky is just because you said it was blue.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday February 07 2017, @09:25PM
Of course. Up here where it is snowing and we'll have freezing rain tonight they sky is grey.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:52AM
Oooh! Oooh! Can I try? Let me try!
Oh dear. Not living in Texas.
I have a van for transporting people, but a truck for everything else. That's OK, right? I get at least half credit?
I went to school for STEM. Yay! Point!
I got smart and didn't stick it in the crazy. Just YOUR MOM! Booyah!
Didn't get a prenup, but did consider it. I'll take that point. We were equally broke, and your mom was totally jealous so she didn't get us a gift. Bitch.
Gun on my belt? Yup, still there.
Four and a half out of six? 75% ain't bad! What do I win? A night with your mom? Sorry, already had that. Both ways, amirite?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:00AM
Hi, Dad!
truck = 18 wheeler or another vehicle requiring a commercial driver's license
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:11AM
Real men just tow a trailer behind the John Deere, or Massey Ferguson.
Advanced real men hitch up a couple of percherons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:55AM
I always transport several tons of machinery wherever I go. The truck, tools, guns, trailer, boat, RV, 4x4, quad bikes, 200 gallons of gasoline, generator, concrete mixer.
Without all that you're just not manly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:11PM
Only manly if you are carrying all that around in a duffel bag!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @11:18PM
from the fortune file: "Some men are so macho they'll get you pregnant just to kill a rabbit." (Maureen Murphy)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @09:57AM
Yup, I do a prenup every time, never regretted it!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:52AM
The actual value of a home is maybe a little higher than it was when I was growing up. The cost has skyrocketed. Where DOES all that money go? Supid question, of course. It finds it's way into the pockets of the upper 1% of the upper 1%. Those big banks that we bailed out a few years ago - the ones that claim to be working for "investors". A few smaller sharks and parasites manage to get moderately rich while funneling money into the really rich bastard's pockets, but they exist to feed the bigger sharks. Or, they are allowed to exist, so long as they feed the bigger sharks.
That's bad enough, but apparently the Court-Fool-Acting-President is on board with deregulating everything from building codes to finance laws. The average homeowner-wannabe is going to be truly fucked in years to come. Financing a home was tough in the best of times, and it's only getting worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:38AM
That's bad enough, but apparently the Court-Fool-Acting-President is on board with deregulating everything from building codes to finance laws.
Those laws are part of what got us into this mess. I support Trump's efforts to get us out.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Weasley on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:41AM
The president lacks the authority to turn the country into a libertarian utopia. He will accomplish little more than deregulating enough to ensure monopolies are maintained, and the rich get richer...just like every other high level politician.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:58AM
There's room for doubt, depending on how it turns out.
For example, a lot of the regulations that are currently in place actively support big incumbents, either by assuming their legitimacy or by acting as a barrier to new market entrants.
Case in point, the H1B thing. Mom and Pop aren't complaining, but AlphaGoogle and Microsoft are crying great, salty tears.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:02PM
There was a law that required financial advisers to act in their clients best interest (and e.g. not knowingly sell them bad mortgage debt as an investment).
Somehow I don't think repealing that benefited the little guy... [forbes.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:24AM
That is the libertarian goal. It's just the feeble-minded libertarians who haven't realized it yet.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:28PM
I'd say that's more the goal of right wing authoritarians that have poisoned the concept of libertarianism. I personally think the goals of a sort of individualism like civil libertarianism [wikipedia.org] are fairer and a more honest attempt at creating a utopia for the majority. I don't see how people who fight the tide in support of this can be described as feeble-minded. The feeble-minded are those that fall for the spin of the authoritarian status quo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:40PM
No, it's not the libertarian goal, but it may well be the Libertarian goal. I haven't followed that party's platform in decades, so I not real sure.
That said, even the libertarian goal isn't workable in a society where you don't know most people you deal with. You need at least a minarchy with well enforced rules. And I happen to favor liberal social policies combined with conservative economic policies. Meaning those with power should be held more tightly to the rules than those lacking power. (Actually, I suspect I'm deluded in thinking of that as an actual conservative position, it probably more reflects my ignorance back when I was a child. I doubt it was ever really in practice.)
For conservative I mean someone who attempts to retain what the see as the good features of the current system. For libertarian I mean someone who proposes lightening some of the constraints imposed by the current systems. These two concepts are inherently at odds with each other, but they aren't directly opposed, and it's possible to support both. I just suspect that my conservatism is based on a deluded ideal of what the system was as I was growing up.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by migz on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:58AM
Monopolies love regulation. That way they can keep competition out. If the government did not create regulations to keep competition out, how would the monopolies maintain their power?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:54AM
Patents.
I did something. This is my business model. Now, kind sirs, please pass law for me to tell that man down the street that he can't do it too.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:43PM
The clear answer here is that a patent *is* a monopoly and a regulation. The problem being pointed out is actually the selective removal of regulations.
Unfortunately, things are more complex than that. The unselective removal of regulations would also favor the powerful...though not as much as being able to select which regulations got removed.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:05PM
You can maintain monopoly using established market power - no regulation needed. How did you think 20s robber barons come about?
Regulation is not necessarily pro- nor anti-monopolies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:16PM
Monopolies love regulation.
Monopolies only love regulation they control. They don't like regulations that stop/break up monopolies. With no regulations, the biggest guy on the block wins the argument and the biggest guy is the monopoly.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:24PM
Uhhhh - wait a second. Which laws, exactly, got us into that mess? Glass-Steagall? Either you are joking, and doing a poor job of it, or you're 'bout dumb as a box of rocks. Glass-Steagall was passed IN RESPONSE TO the housing bubble crash. We crashed and burned because there was little regulation. Selling derivatives of bad mortgages never made sense to anyone, except idiots. The bankers couldn't wait to get rid of those most toxic "investments", so they committed fraud on various groups and people around the world, to get THEM to invest THEIR money, instead of the bank's own money.
Jesus - I certainly hope you're just a poor joke-maker.
(Score: 2) by goody on Tuesday February 07 2017, @09:20PM
Dodd-Frank was passed in response to the housing bubble crash. Glass-Steagall was what was repealed in 1999 prior to the housing bubble crash and contributed to it. But you're essentially right about the laws. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, which is repeating history all over again, and very stupid.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:08AM
Thank you for the correction - I get my own derp for that post, LOL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:30AM
Dodd-Frank has introduced so much make-work it might as well be called the Corporate Lawyer Full Employment Bill.
There are better ways of solving the problems at hand.
And besides, Trump doesn't get to repeal anything. It's not a power the president has.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:00AM
That's not very catchy, I've settled on "The Great Embarrassment" myself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:00PM
Amusing that you're blaming Trump for building codes - which are a local and county level issue - while also blaming him for banking bailouts that happened under Bush and Obama.
I voted third party, but I must admit the Trump win is giving me oodles of entertainment value. It's the like the over-reaction just can't stop.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:44PM
Maybe read my post again. I'm not blaming Trump for the banking bailout. I'm blaming him for not learning anything. Bush deregulated the banking industry, bankers went apeshit over stupid stuff, they went broke. Obama wants to do all the same kind of deregulation as Bush did? Mmmmm - the next crash will be Trump's baby, not Bush's or Obama's.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:11PM
While I'm more than happy to blame a lot of stuff on the "upper 1% of the upper 1%," I'm not really sure I understand your argument here. Housing prices have gone up because... RICH PEOPLE?
Yes, there are undoubtedly some housing markets where clearly the prices are actively manipulated or oversold (particularly new developments). And all sorts of nonsense was going on in the 2006ish years at peak bubble.
But, realize we're a decade past that now. That doesn't mean bad stuff isn't still going on, but the market is completely different. Back in the early 2000s, you had people being sold on ridiculous mortgages with crazy terms that were designed to suck the greatest amount of money out -- and people were buying second and third homes left and right with no credit, driving up prices for even vacant properties in "ghost town" developments.
Compare that to today, when the past 4-5 years have had RECORD LOW mortgage financing rates, and that led to a house-buying boom which made houses hard to find in many markets around the U.S. Hence, sellers could jack up prices for the first time since the housing crisis, leading to increased profits for those who already owned. Supply and demand and all that. Very different scenario from 2006.
Again, I'm not arguing that ultimately a lot of money still finds its way into the super-rich in various ways... but I'm not quite sure how you're blaming "skyrocketing" housing costs only on them? People increasingly like to live closer in to big cities. Housing is expensive there. Rural American communities are dying as the exodus to the cities has become pervasive (yes, this has been a trope for decades, but it's only getting worse). If you want a house a couple hours out from the big cities, you can probably find someone almost willing to give you one. The money here is mostly flowing to previous owners, who can jack up prices because the market has been helpful to sellers in desirable areas.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:29PM
I drive an hour each way to work, and listen to the radio. (Old fashioned FM radio.) I'm hit at least a couple times each day with adverts for a seminar on flipping houses, specifically in Shreveport. "Invest with other people's money!"
Sorry, I don't believe the housing market is anywhere near healthy. There's still to much of the same old same old going on. Greedy bastards who don't want to invest time, money, or anything else into a home, they just want to make a buck.
I can't possibly say how many people call in to take the seminar, but the fact that they keep advertising month after month suggests that there is a market.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:56PM
Is there a market for flipping houses? Obviously! That's one of the results of the supply-and-demand issue I brought up.
But the people who are listening to those advertisements and taking a seminar on flipping houses are NOT the "upper 1% of the upper 1%" which is who you were targeting. Heck, I have someone in my family who has bought houses, fixed them up, and sold them for profit. In general, he does this with houses that would be very undesirable to current buyers -- so he's generally taking something that hadn't been improved by the owners for 30 or 40 years -- NOT just "slap on a couple upgrades" and resell. But my family members aren't even part of the "1%," let alone the "upper 1% of the upper 1%." This guy is just a regular middle-class dude.
Anyhow, I know this isn't the type of person you're probably talking about (i.e., a sort of "responsible upgrader"). But still -- the folks listening to those seminars aren't part of the 1%. At best, if they start successfully flipping houses (and for everyone who tries this, there are probably five stories of people who fail), they might be on their way to becoming part of the 1% and maybe achieve it.
If you really want to talk about this problem of middle-class and upper-middle class folks buying houses they won't live in -- well, I'd say in that case the larger number isn't people "flipping houses" for profit, but people buying rentals to create supplementary income. That is an issue in some markets, and it does drive up both rents and housing costs. But again, these people are frequently not even in the 1% when they start, and it would take a lot of rental income to put them in the 1% income bracket alone.
But the "upper 1% of the upper 1%" you were complaining about? Those are people with net worths of $100 million+. Those people aren't taking house-flipping seminars they heard about on the radio. If they are investing in real estate, they're likely either in rentals (residential or commercial) or if they are actually interested in selling homes, they're maybe speculating in new developments... which I *specifically* mentioned in my original post as an exception to where housing prices can get out of whack.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:55PM
Didn't the Court Fool, Trump, get involved in that nonsense? Some kind of idiot's academy for Make Big Money In Real Estate™. And, that turned into some kind of scandal, blah blah etc.
I'm not absolutely certain that Trump is the upper 1% of the upper 1%, but he's gotta be damned close to it. I suppose that if it were actually graphed out, Trump is near the bottom of the upper .01% - he's not a Soros, or a Murdoch, after all. Still, he's rich and powerful. It might even be argued that he's more powerful than Soros or Murdoch - all depending on how you measure power, of course.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:07PM
> Where DOES all that money go?
Developers mostly, actually.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 08 2017, @05:43AM
I don't know about the wider world, but my family in the 1970s spent about 2.5x one annual income on a new home - it was 1400 square feet 3/2.
In the early 1990s, I spent about 2.5x of my annual income on an old home in a big city - it was about 1200sf 2/1.
4 years ago, I spent about 2x of my annual income (with 20+ years experience in a career) on an old-ish home in a smaller city - it is about 2000sf 3/2.
I think if you look at trends, homes are getting bigger, but for the most part their prices are pegged to what people can afford, not what they're "getting" in the homes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:00AM
I won't use myself as an example here, but I know plenty of people who meet that stereotype. Broke, in hock up to their ears, and no prospect of getting out.
Then again, I know quite a few who managed to break the pattern. Constructive jobs, paying well, controlled or nearly nonexistent debt (yes, without being a trustafarian) and in many cases staying far the hell away from the property market unless they find something that justifies the expense, maintenance and lack of flexibility.
The difference I see is that the ones on the successful end tend to have solid long term planning capabilities, solid work ethics, and an ability to say: "No." No, they won't buy the newest shiny-shiny from BananaCorp. No, they won't buy a house just to say that they have one. No, they don't need additional debt just because the saleshole dangles a pretty car in front of their noses.
Those that are married also tend to have better marriages, because they don't have constant moneypanics eating away at them.
I know this will sound to some like a sort of neo-retro appeal for old-fashioned values, but it's really not. If anything, we need to spend more time teaching ourselves (because lord knows the older generations aren't) life skills. And navigating the world of constant marketing is a life skill.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:01AM
It's true that the American lifestyle is very wasteful, and a whole lot of could be done to make life more efficient, without sacrifice. The typical dwelling is extremely poor at maintaining a comfortable indoor climate without expensive, energy intensive, and wasteful methods. A ballpark analyses of my family's energy usage showed about 50% of the spending on electricity and gas went to heating and cooling. That's after I had done much to cut electricity usage. The 2200 sq ft house used to consume about 10,000 kWh per year, now it's down to 5000. I changed all the lights to CFL and then LED. I got low power computers that take only 30W max, and made sure they would hibernate. The CRTs are all gone, replaced with flatscreens. Finally ditched the pre-1996 inefficient fridge. Discovered that the gas dryer uses 5W electricity 24/7 just to power the control panel, and immediately put it on a switch. Don't have any cable TV boxes. Those things take 12W all the time, to sit there on standby. Most of all, I set the A/C to 83F in the summer. Tried to set the heat to 68F in the winter, but that provoked a lot of whining.
It is also true that the rich have hogged up most of the wealth, and greed is a big problem.
The pressure to buy your way out of whatever real or imagined problems you have is intense and all pervasive. Can't find a job? Go to college! Can't afford college? Take out a student loan! You can't get away from the incessant advertising.
But other problems somehow just can't be resolved, don't get any attention, and are even deliberately neglected. For example, traffic lights are still brainless. All the time I see cars waiting for nothing, no traffic passing through the intersection, because the traffic light is red on the road that actually has the traffic at the moment, while the road with the green light is empty. It wouldn't take much in the way of AI to just change the light in obvious cases like that. Instead of working on this problem, at the behest of scummy private businesses cities have tried to monetize it with red light cameras. They've created a perverse incentive to make traffic lights even worse, in the hope it will provoke more violations which they can then blame on the car owners.
Another example is copyright. Among the many problems with copyright, there is just no good reason for copyright to last as long as it does. Hella long copyright is a total screw job of the young, who cannot reasonably be expected to benefit from copyright until they are older, if ever. Most will never write a bestseller or hit song. The few who do probably won't until they are older. Meantime, they find that nearly everything they need for their education is all locked up, and they are expected to pay, pay, pay for access and permission and so on at the time in their lives when they can least afford it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:44PM
Did you calculate the payoff time for those capital expenditures based on a dollar a watt per year?
I'm imagining one of those $20 air conditioner disconnect switches for that 5 watt clothes dryer and at $5/year of electricity it'll take more than 4 years to break even because where I live every watt of electricity replaces like .7 watts of heat in the winter (although gas heating is cheaper than electric) plus you got the labor cost of installing it. Due to AC disconnects not being built to flip on and off like light switches and Chinese mfgr quality, that disconnect is not going to survive four years anyway.
Some stuff like insulation is hard to mess up economically. If it physically fits and you can correctly install it, it'll pay off rapidly.
The real killer for cable isn't the $10/yr of electricity but the $1200/yr and higher of service.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:30PM
The dryer is gas, not electric. It plugs into a regular 120V outlet only to run the controls, and I have plenty of cheap power strips with switches. Was shoddy design on Maytag's part, having the control panel take 5W even when supposedly "off". Thought Maytag was better than that. What tipped me off was that the panel was warm to the touch.
Forgot to mention one more huge power saver: don't even use a dryer. Use a rack. Easier on the clothes too. Problem is, the women don't like it. Complained that the clothes dry all stiff and wrinkled, that it increases the amount of mold indoors, and takes more space. I use a rack for all my clothes, and whatever of theirs I can slip on to it. Seems even the most liberal are all for the environment, until they're asked to dump the clothes dryer. At least we all agree on not using those terrible fabric softener sheets, many of which use phthalates.
I'm a cord never, despite family pressure to sign up. We compromised on Netflix. I'd rather not have that either, but at least it's a lot cheaper than cable. Just incredible how people are such suckers for such terrible deals for entertainment. I really don't understand why anyone who isn't rich pays $50/month or more for cable TV. Sure, they complain about the expense, but they still won't quit the cable company.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:43PM
It plugs into a regular 120V outlet only to run the controls,
Ah understood. Spin the drum too of course.
Complained that the clothes dry all stiff and wrinkled,
Hard water? I hang stuff outside sometimes. Might fade from sunlight or get dusty before its even dry but I never ran into wrinkly-stiff
An interesting concept to think about when the weather allows it is tumble dry is about the same as hanging the laundry outside and uses no energy to heat (well, if its cold or hot out the HVAC will work harder...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:50PM
Gas should be all you need. Use an alternator to power the spark plugs or glow plugs.
As a nice option, you could have a starter motor instead of a crank or pull cord. This will require adding a battery.
The same goes for ceiling fans, blenders, etc.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:37PM
As much as it pains me to say this, I have to agree with VLM here. The cost of many "energy saving" upgrades frequently demands an excessively long payoff time. Not saying you didn't do those calculations, but the inefficiency in American homes isn't generally fixed because it just costs so darn much to do so.
You mention that heating/cooling is the biggest cost, and you're absolutely right. But even seeming "no brainers" to improve that often have really long payoffs. Several years back, I bought a home and my agent made a big deal about how the home we were looking at already had all the windows "upgraded." (I was looking in a neighborhood that had mostly older homes.) To me, that was a nice feature, and I could understand the efficiency, but only later did I realize what it actually meant -- some previous owner had basically sunk a bunch of money into an improvement that he'd likely never earn back. Windows are huge leaky stuff in old houses, and they're a major contributor to increased energy costs. But if you live in a reasonably temperate climate, it may take 30 or 40 years in energy savings to recoup the costs of replacing all those windows in an older house.
And most home buyers just don't care about that stuff. They care about minor aesthetic stuff -- a fresh coat of paint, new bathroom and sink fixtures, granite countertops, etc. Those sorts of things will generally give you a return many times over when you go to sell a house. But ask an agent about other stuff like installing a new heating/AC system, or a new roof, or upgrading electrical stuff or "energy efficient improvements" like you discuss or whatever -- but the vast majority of buyers don't care about the structural stuff. You'd be likely to get a fraction of your money back when you sell for investing in stuff like that.
I'm not arguing one shouldn't invest in energy-efficient upgrades. I'm just pointing out WHY U.S. houses are so inefficient -- it often simply doesn't pay to make them more efficient. There are some upgrades you can do which will pay off in the shorter term, but many people don't distinguish between them by doing a long-term payoff calculation.
As for your rants about "dumb" red lights and copyright... yeah, lots of stuff sucks. But I'm not sure how these connect to the larger thread. I'll join with you about complaining about long copyright terms, but that's often not the biggest cost for educational materials today. If your professor is assigning you to read some 40-year-old novel or something, you're probably not going to be paying a bundle for it. Even for more rare stuff, you can probably find a "used" copy somewhere for cheap if it's commonly assigned for college classes.
In this case, the problem isn't the length of copyright, but rather the textbook market, which is driven by continuous "new editions" which tend to be made just different enough to be incompatible with older versions. As someone who has actually taught in colleges, I share this frustration -- because I don't want my students to have to pay a lot for books. So I try to find older materials that are still in print when possible or use free stuff online or distribute my own materials. But in some cases if a university wants to use a standard textbook for an intro class or whatever, they're caught in a bind -- sure, you could theoretically tell students to buy an older and cheaper used edition, but eventually stocks of those run out within a couple years after the new edition has come out.
Admittedly, some of this could be fixed with MUCH shorter copyright terms. If we went back to the original terms of the Copyright Act of 1790 with a 14-year default term, then older editions of textbooks would eventually lapse if the original author died. (Even the 1790 term allowed a 14-year renewal if the author was still living, and 28 years is a long time in the textbook market.) That would allow free copies of the older versions -- and for the many fields where a textbook that's 15 years old wouldn't be too horrible, there would at least be options.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:11PM
America is seriously warped towards favoring the more expensive (and therefore more profitable to the seller) solutions. Double pane windows? Far less costly to install those when the house is built, not refit the house years later. Failing that, it's a lot cheaper to use drapes than upgrade all the windows. I've had these door to door sales idiots pitch me prices of $10,000 to replace the 10 single pane windows and 2 glass sliding patio doors the house has. One offered to knock it down to $6000 if the doors were omitted. I ran the numbers, and came up with $700/year on heating and cooling expenses. If the windows cut heating and cooling by 50% like they claim is possible, that'd save me $350 a year. More like, the savings will be no better than 25%, for $175/year. So yeah, paying back $10 grand would take almost 60 years, far too long. I agree that's the kind of profiteering envirocrap that gives environmentalism a bad name. I concluded the price would have to be $2000 or less before it was worth doing. Even a 12 year payback time is still a bit too much for me. Will the A/C last 12 years? Maybe not. Odds are the replacement will be more efficient. A/Cs were 6 to 8 SEER up through the 1990s, before people got serious about efficiency. The new minimum was set to 13, then I understand raised to 14 recently. And 16 SEER is fairly common now. My current unit is an old 10 SEER beast that is probably going to die soon. A change like that changes the calculations on paying back the window job.
The red lights and long copyrights are just some more examples of low hanging fruit that isn't being picked. Housing design is total crap, full of idiotic design elements that waste energy and money. No less a person than Benjamin Franklin complained over 200 years ago about the inefficiency of the fireplace, and here we are today still building them into houses with hardly any change in design from then. As built, they aren't serious methods of heating, they're entertainment devices that satisfy our love of watching the pretty flames. Something like 90% of the heat they generate is sent straight up the chimney. We could adopt an idea from Korea, and run the chimney under the floor to the other side of the house before sending it up to the sky. Get a lot more heat out of the fuel that way.
Another huge problem is the way houses are constructed, and the prejudices against more efficient manufacturing methods. In those areas where bricks are fashionable, it's nuts to have bricklayers spend days laying itty bitty bricks one by one. Could at least use cinder blocks. Or make the walls off site, as big concrete slabs with a brick pattern or whatever else is wanted, and truck them in, the way strip malls are often done. Even crazier is the fashionably steep and complicated roof line. That's pure display, trying to show off how rich you are. Then these home remodelers want to pervert environmentalism into more display. Brag to the neighbors about your new double, no, triple pane windows!
I hope the pressure on millennials pushes them into getting smarter and pushing home builders into dropping some of the bull.
When I was a grad student, I did a little teaching. The pay was insultingly low, of course, only $10,000/year for 20 hours a week. When my alma mater comes calling for donations, I tell them I already donated in accepting such low pay. Anyway, I had my nose rubbed in the textbook racket, so yeah, I know very well what you mean. Academic publishers don't stop there, they also screw researchers and the public hard. We pay for research through grants and financial support of universities, then these parasites get to paywall the results? If their work is accepted, researchers have to turn over all copyright to the publisher in exchange for the privilege of getting published? Yeah, will take more than shorter copyright terms to fix these issues. As if jacking textbooks prices up and letting publishers gouge everyone isn't enough, schools have hiked tuition and cut pay. And some still indulge in other money grabs such as overly strict parking enforcement. If you have a car and it is not parked entirely within the painted lines, if a bumper is so much as a millimeter over, bam, parking ticket! Perhaps there's some sense in going after the students rich enough to have a car, but it's still unfair. Where it got ridiculous was the enforcement of a technicality. It wasn't officially a parking spot if it didn't have painted lines on both sides, and on an end spot, the painters had skipped the curb. Need a copy of your transcript? Ka-ching, that'll be tens of dollars please! How about requiring all freshmen to live in the dorms, then gouging them on room and board? How about the scholarship that has so many conditions that it is merely bait to reel the student in, and once in, the student finds it impossible to maintain the conditions and loses the scholarship? Think you're going to shop around for a better deal, transfer to another university? Say goodbye to half your credit hours!
Heck of an unofficial education in greed. It is little wonder there's been a backlash against universities. Perhaps the ugliest part is the media perverting it into a backlash against education. The narrative of the next generation going to Hell thanks to a disdain for science and education makes great copy. It's the same with housing. People dig in their heels over stupid proposals that sound green but aren't green at all, and the media paints that as shockingly unenvironmental folly. Because you didn't bite on the triple pane windows, you want the ice sheets to melt and the coasts to drown, oh and the economy to crash, you heartless selfish bastard. Meanwhile, the much worse crap that builders and cities do gets overlooked, not least because the media knows who owns them.
(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.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday February 08 2017, @03:58AM
All the time I see cars waiting for nothing, no traffic passing through the intersection, because the traffic light is red on the road that actually has the traffic at the moment, while the road with the green light is empty.
That might be because the signal set is on a "nudge" phase. This allows bicycles, motorcycles, and other hard-to-detect vehicles to proceed through the intersection.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday February 09 2017, @03:32PM
there is just no good reason for copyright to last as long as it does.
The rationale for three-generation copyright [copyrightalliance.org] is supposed to be that those heirs who knew the author personally are in the best position to carry out the author's will with respect to the publication and/or exhibition of a work.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday February 09 2017, @07:28PM
Woof, what a seriously hackneyed, biased, and glib read of loaded propaganda that link was. "baseless accusations", "irresponsibly spreading a false narrative", "paramount importance"... Yeesh. That's great material for training people to be skeptical. Though I suspect it won't hold up over the decades. Hundred years from now, the overwrought appeal and logic will look laughably weak, worse than a snake oil sales pitch sounds today.
However, terrible though their arguments are, I don't see how they could have argued their position any better, as copyright is indefensible.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:42PM
On the topic of copyright also being a form of serfdom affecting authors' early careers and impairing their ability to afford housing:
copyright is indefensible
What's a better way to fund the production of original works of entertainment? The free software community has shown itself adept at producing works of practical use, such as computer programs and encyclopedias. I haven't seen a lot of success at producing entertainment, such as music, feature-length or serial motion pictures, and video games that aren't clones of a tabletop game or other video game. Is crowdfunding the only viable option?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday February 16 2017, @05:53PM
Various forms of patronage seem most likely. Crowdfunding is one form. A show like Star Trek Continues demonstrates that can work and platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo are viable. Humble Bundle shows it can work for computer games, music, and books. There's also government patronage. That's how we have PBS and Sesame Street and agencies such as the National Endowment for Arts. Art schools are another way. For instance, the music schools of universities often hold free concerts. Most orchestras are based in large cities, from whom they receive a great deal of support. Also patronage by the rich still works. Cable TV and streaming services such as Netflix could be considered a subscription based form of patronage. I've noticed that Netflix is branching out and has started producing "Netflix Originals." Still another source can be contests and prizes, things like America's Got Talent as well as more of a straight game show such as Jeopardy and The Price is Right, and reality shows such as Survivor.
Another model is ad supported art. Broadcast radio and TV demonstrate that revenue from advertising works, that it can be enough to support a station and a network which produces TV shows. Newspapers and magazines have been finding it harder to get subscription money from readers and have had to rely more on advertising. They've been learning that though print is inexpensive, websites blow print away when it comes to cost. Been trying to impose the subscription model on their websites and running into resistance. Advertising has also run into problems, with web advertising being so intrusive and resource intensive that viewers have been driven to installing ad blockers.
Closely related to advertising is endorsement.
Yet another form of patronage is straight up charity and begging. PBS often begs for money, twisting arms a bit by interrupting the current show for a fund drive and refusing to continue the show until some funding goal has been met.
All these models can be improved and expanded. Certainly it seems a bit unfair that pirates can start profiting from brand new content within hours of its release, thus "stealing" anticipated profit from the originators. Cue Jack Valenti complaining that the VCR is to the movie industry like the Boston Strangler is to a woman home alone. They conveniently overlook the artificial scarcities they deliberately created in the first place, crap like not releasing a movie on DVD until months after its debut in theaters, releasing new books only in expensive hardback editions first then in cheaper paperback editions a year later, and market regionalism as if the Internet isn't global. Technology has now made it impossible to impose much of that. That's what gives big league pirates the opportunity to profit. They try an artificial restriction anyway, one that used to work before the Internet and gigabyte sized hard drives and CD-Rs and mp3, and pirates dive right in and plug the gaping hole in availability they tried to manufacture. Serves them right. Their proposal to deal with it is to view these advances as problems rather than blessings, accuse the entire world of perpetrating piracy, run propaganda campaigns to fool and brainwash people into accepting their proposition that copying is stealing, and demand that no one use the technology and that governments outlaw it and spend millions on enforcement, all so that they won't be put to the trouble of adopting other business models. That's right, don't use that engine that came with your car, instead, you should hitch your car to a team of horses because not doing so is so unfair to horse breeders and feed growers! And then they shamelessly use the technology themselves! The ungrateful, greedy entertainment industry leaders conveniently forget that the technology to record, broadcast, and play back information enabled the creation of their industry in the first place.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday February 19 2017, @04:35PM
A show like Star Trek Continues demonstrates that can work
Until CBS shuts it down. A practical replacement for copyright needs to coexist with incumbents' copyrights, or it won't be adopted short of violent revolution.
Cable TV and streaming services such as Netflix could be considered a subscription based form of patronage.
No, those are forms of paywalls, using copyright and anticircumvention statutes against those who share works with nonsubscribers.
market regionalism as if the Internet isn't global.
The English language isn't global. Nor is the particular censorship and age rating regime of the United States.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:46PM
I know quite a few who managed to break the pattern. ... The difference I see is that the ones on the successful end tend to have solid long term planning capabilities, solid work ethics, and an ability to say: "No." No, they won't buy the newest shiny-shiny from BananaCorp. No, they won't buy a house just to say that they have one. ... I know this will sound to some like a sort of neo-retro appeal for old-fashioned values, but it's really not. If anything, we need to spend more time teaching ourselves...life skills.
Absolutely right. Lots of people malign the millennial generation for being entitled, for being snowflakes. It's not maligning them, though, when it's the truth. People are living at home a lot longer, refusing to take responsibility for their own lives. Work ethic? They've never held a job. Ability to say "no"? Why, when mom'n'pop pay for everything you want.
Of course, this behavior is enabled by those helicopter parents who never let their kid experience a disappointment, who cannot bear to let them grow up, so they deliberately fail to help their kids transition to adulthood.
To take an example: I have an acquaintence whose older son dropped out of college twice, changed majors repeatedly, and finally - in his late 20s - finished his undergraduate degree. He lived on his parents' pocketbook the whole time. A bit of time flipping hamburgers or stocking shelves would have shown him just why he might want to finish that degree. Or not, which would also have been fine; his choice. His parents enabling a decade of immature behavior? That was no service to anyone. Also: where was his self-respect? His parents are nearing retirement age, and someone spent a large part of what they should have saved towards retirement.
Anyway, there you are, in your late 20s: You've never held a job, never earned your own living, never filed taxes, never had to deal with insurance, organized a plumber for a leaky faucet, or any of the myriad other details of adult life. Really, it's bizarre. It's no wonder there is now such a thing as an "adulting school".
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:20PM
> People are living at home a lot longer, refusing to take responsibility for their own lives.
Actually laughing out loud here.
I know lots of people who are mortified about having moved back in with their family after college. But they don't have a choice, literally, since bankruptcy is out, their jobs barely cover student loan payments, food and transportation (yes they almost all work - I can think of one who's been unemployed for a year but that sucker got way too narrow of a degree), and poorhouses have been outlawed.
Where I live, mean housing costs exceed 40% of the mean take-home wage of all workers. That's almost half of all income in my city going into housing. For millennials not living at home I think I remember a newspaper claiming > 50% of take-home wages went to housing costs! In generations past this was dramatically lower. It's literally unbearable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:48PM
Right. Literally unbearable. Every single one of them tries to bear it, but literally can't. They hang themselves. Shoot themselves. Drown themselves. Every single one of them. Because literally, it is impossible to bear the strain. And that's the ones that just don't go completely, apeshit, bugfuck insane from it all.
It's a generational bloodletting on an epic scale!
Literally!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @03:37AM
While some of the more idiotic ones may have suicided (you didn't apparently, so not literally all the idiots did). A lot of them literally moved back home with mum and dad, like literally for real, moved back home with mum and dad when they literally couldn't bear the cost any more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @03:59AM
So, this is kind of off-topic, but you're off on the idea of what "unbearable" means. It's not a synonym for "unaffordable".
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:19PM
Dropping the fucking cable tv can save thousands a year. Some cell plans are wasteful as hell too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Wednesday February 08 2017, @04:14AM
Dropping the fucking cable tv can save thousands a year.
I don't see how, particularly when cable companies toss in basic TV at little or no additional charge to Internet subscribers. Without home Internet, it's much harder to find and keep a job. Or should people rely on library and restaurant Internet?
Some cell plans are wasteful as hell too.
Does "wasteful as hell" to you include anything with a data plan? Because people who drop cable are going to need one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:13PM
>...and an ability to say: "No." No, they won't buy the newest shiny-shiny...
THIS one thousand times this. Not to blame advertising in particular, but we in the West are bombarded with examples of how we will 'Be Better People' after buying X.
We will be healthier, more alert, more beautiful, safer, admired & envied, etc. All based on a projection of lack and being left behind. This is where a lot of our money goes.
The discipline to ignore that and be OK with oneself is paramount to real wealth. Not saying one must live in a hut- DO STRIVE for a better life, but do so at the most advantageous times of life. Dropping thousands into shiny-shiny, spinners, or whatever will deny you that excellent place you want to be later. Plan for later- you will be the envy of others, guaranteed ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:12PM
You don't get it!
The spread is a bell curve.
The mean has shifted left.
The right-most, those with self-control, prudence, thrift(!), foresight, planning, intelligence, schooling, contacts, social skills, etc. are fine.
But where the line on the bell curve for 'poverty', on the left, used to have 20% of the 18-34s.
Overall, humans haven't gotten stupider or smarter, not much. But the social situation has changed dramatically and that dollar axis just seems to keep sliding...
This is the point of statistics. Maybe eating oranges gives +5% cancer rate; if so, you'd know many orange-eaters who were cancer-free. Effects must be measured in aggregate, as local jitter overcomes all the small impulses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:43PM
Your point being what? That prudence, self-control and all the rest of it are desirable? They improve life outcomes? We knew that.
How does your observation (inasmuch as it's not speculation) translate into a proposal different from the GPP's? "Hey kids, think about your expenditures and try to match them to your financial capacity!" Or are you arguing for some kind of law banning under-30s from getting credit? Because that would surely prevent a lot of misery (and cause plenty more).
So it's tough to be young and in debt. It's easier to be in debt than it was in previous years owing to lots of people doing PR work for the Bad Decision Fairy. This whole thing seems to motivate more people learning life skills - as the GPP was saying.
So what's not to get?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @06:02AM
You are mistaking effect for cause.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:29AM
Part of the problem is zoning. In the US we don't allow businesses owners to veto a competing business next door. We need to stop giving homeowners the ability to veto a new home next door. And I say this as a homeowner who has fully paid off his mortgage and thus has the most to lose when my local property bubble pops.
Japan has very lax zoning control - if you own the land you can build practically anything you want. That's resulted in people building some crazy ass houses [japlusu.com] because their neighbors can't stop them. But it also means they can build high-density housing. Which is the primary reason the Tokyo real-estate market has not bubbled [ft.com] the way it has in major metros in America and Europe.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:32AM
It varies by state, but mostly, it's not the homeowners. It's the zoning committees who define what density of housing is acceptable in particular zones.
Also, I doubt the claim (I can't read the paywalled article). In the Bay Area, I think that the biggest gains and losses (in percentage terms) during boom and bust cycles of property are further out -- at the edge of the commute, where density is generally lower anyway.
You can't compare Japan, because I don't think that it is fully out of its lost score. Its population is declining.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:13PM
It varies by state, but mostly, it's not the homeowners. It's the zoning committees who define what density of housing is acceptable in particular zones.
That's what is known as a distinction without a difference. The zoning committees are elected positions. They are very sensitive to the opinions of homeowners.
In the Bay Area, I think that the biggest gains and losses (in percentage terms) during boom and bust cycles of property are further out -- at the edge of the commute, where density is generally lower anyway.
Who said anything about losses? This is about keeping prices artificially high. The bay area is notorious for inflexible zoning. [slate.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:06AM
*nod* Yes, Tokyo is renowned for its affordable housing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:06AM
It's all about the college. There are too many degrees chasing too few jobs. Not to say that there are no jobs at all, just that there aren't as many jobs that actually require degrees as there are students getting those degrees. But businesses still prefer degrees even for jobs where they aren't really needed. You have to get a degree to have a better chance of getting a job that doesn't really need a degree... because your competition has a degree. This isn't education, it's an arms race, and as in every arms race, everybody loses.
There are only two real solutions here. First is to make college free for everybody. This is better than nothing, but it is basically saying that, as a society, we're going to treat four extra years of adolescence as a luxury we want everyone to have. With the decline in working population relative to non-working, largely due to people living longer after retirement but also waiting longer before they start working, this isn't necessarily wise. But it is a wonderful luxury to have. It is also going to end up disadvantaging the poor in unexpected ways. With even more people going to college (and all of them going to state schools, since that's where the free tuition would be) the value of a private (and expensive) education would be even more dramatic than it is now. Effectively, a state school degree becomes what a high school diploma was in 1950. If you want a better job, you're going to need grad school. Hey, that arms race is back, and it's even more expensive this time.
The second option is to find ways to discourage college for people who aren't going into professional careers that actually require a degree. That means funneling them into vocational programs and apprenticeships.,and starting in high school, not after. A lot of the angst associated with teenagers is because they realize that their whole world is basically a nicely furnished prison. School is there as a daycare, not to learn. Give these kids something useful to do when they're 15 instead of making them wait until they're 18 (or more likely 22 or 23) and we'll have not only a better prepared workforce but happier kids and maybe even a little less school violence. And, it's open to everyone, regardless of their background.
This also neatly explains why today's young people earn less than they did 50 years ago. They have four years less work experience, but no better job prospects.
But housing prices have nothing to do with it. In fact, homeownership is actually a negative factor for wages (because of lack of mobility and high-wage, low-ownership places like New York). It isn't particularly grand as a way of saving money either. It is another luxury, one which gives you both stability and space, which are generally not things valued by millenials as much as by earlier generations. Essentially, the millenials traded the white picket fence for the college experience. And I don't really think most of them regret that. So why "fix" it at all? Mortgage debt is no more fun than student loans, but college is a lot more fun than an entry level job.
It's not great that individually millenials can't choose as freely because of the college arms race, but collectively, I'm not sure it's all that bad.
(Score: 4, Informative) by looorg on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:44PM
It's not a problem unique to America. The same thing is happening in Europe. People enter into employment later and later as they stay longer and longer in education, a few extended periods of unemployment. The booming job-markets are more or less limited to the larger cities. Cities where renting is usually now out of the question or the rent is so high it will eat up most of the paycheck. People get "forced" to buy a flat or a house taking them even deeper into depth, it could still work out tho as long as the prices keep climbing. But if the market for loan fueled housing ever drops out for some reason these people will be double screwed. Since it takes them longer to enter the job-market it will leave them with a shorter period to pay off any debts and actually own their house or they'll still be paying on the loans when they retire. Their pension is going to be shit to since they at points in their youth might have spent a few years unemployed combined with 3-5-10 years in education. The pension system is really not going to work out well for a lot of young people. In some very bizarre way a lot of people might have actually been better off never working, never getting an education and just bumming around - pension scheme wise it will only be a minor difference between never having done anything or a life of some low wage job.
Free education is not really the solution. That education is free in many of the countries in Europe doesn't really matter all that much since people still go into debt to live since living isn't included in your free education. There are no or few "easy" jobs any more that you can combine with also getting an education. It's either rich parents or taking a loan to live. That said prices might not be the same as in parts of the USA. After having finished my masters I owed roughly $45k, for which I'll pay for the rest of my life - there is no incentive to pay it back sooner due to the interest-rate on my student loan being lower then the interest-rate on any decent savings account -- I guess there is some upside here to state backed student-loans.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:19PM
> People get "forced" to buy a flat or a house taking them even deeper into depth
In the UK the rental market pretty much follows the mortgage market. If you take out a mortgage, you get a house at the end of it (after 30 years). But you get locked-in. The parity is driven by buy-to-let folks (buy a mortgage, let the tenants pay off the mortgage, end up with a "free house" after thirty years).
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:06PM
Yes. I know a few people that does that over in Sweden to. They buy flats and houses and then "rent" them out to cover the mortgage and loans, ie letting other people pay for it and after a couple of decades they'll have a free house (or flat).
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:25PM
Nothing gets the blood boiling for the day like waking up and reading about how my standard of living is less than that of the boomers. It is not going to change either. I get to go to work so I can pay my student loans with the remainder going toward social security that wont be there for me.
I finally see the light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to debt and they raise interest rates on me putting home ownership out of my grasp again.
Fuckin boomers etc.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:19PM
If a half a percent raise in loan rates stops you from getting a house, you were nowhere near close to one anyway
(Score: 1) by anotherblackhat on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:07PM
Everybody complains about how high house prices are, until they start falling.
Back in 1997 the U.S. housing market starting going up like crazy.
10 years later prices started to go down.
In 2017 the house prices are still higher than their 1997 prices, even adjusting for inflation.
As housing prices went up, people rejoiced, when they went down, people called it a disaster.
If car prices had done the same thing, people would complain bitterly about the prices going up, and rejoice as the prices fell.
You want a sane housing market? Fix the insane attitude toward housing prices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:21PM
Won't work because all the politicians and corporate lobbyists are big multiple home owners and landowners.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:22PM
However will we Make America Great Again?
Oh, wait. Home ownership is tied to greatness? Hmmm.... Well, maybe then the Greatest Generation and Boomers shoudn'ta oughta planned the following into our economy:
* A highly fluid and mobile job market - why would I buy a home if I don't know that I'll be working in the area next year?
* A somewhat fluid housing market - why would I buy a home if I may lose my equity and then some because the plant closes leaving a WHOLE bunch of unemployed folks trying to move elsewhere and dump their houses on the local market?
* Regulations that allow for eviction and state foreclosure based on inability to pay property taxes. Sure, file a lien on it, and thus the home won't pass in inheritance. But kicking someone out of their home because they can't pay taxes? How is that any different from not making the rent? So much for it being your castle.
* Your neighbors won't be your neighbors when you retire. Which is fine... until your neighborhood turns into a DMZ. Ask any number of Detroit property owners.
* Build-build-build mania. Why buy a used home when you can get a new one on nearly equal terms?
I've been a home owner. Once. I liked it. But when my job dropped out from under me.... I was lucky to get out of it what I put into it. Now you have to give me better reasons to be a home owner, or I'll just stay a renter. I got no kids to pass the equity to, and I sure can't live in the place after I'm dead, can I? And - see above - there's no guarantee you'll be able to die in that home you bought either. Renting is easier and actually more secure, thanks.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:28PM
Millennials can live with parents until the current or some future administration forces the parents out of their own homes.
Another banking or real estate crisis perhaps. A financial meltdown created by some current or future madman at the controls.
Deregulate the banksters because they won't do anything wrong! I promise! They aren't a bunch of greedy bloodsuckers who sleep just fine at night after destroying the lives of large numbers of people for their own enrichment. Hey, I was unaffected by the last round, but I can't help but be moved by the many stories of what happened to people.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:03PM
The term "serf" is quite accurate. I was having an argument with a purist-idealist type of economist a few months ago. The topic was a video discussing the advantages of renting versus buying a home. My point was that it was a bad thing, for society in general, for so many people to be renting instead of buying. More corporations are owning homes and renting them, which means that property ownership is passing from the common people to only a few people. He poo-pooed the whole idea, saying that it did not make sense for corporations to own homes. I just could not get him to understand.
It begins small. Homes go up for sale, and since millennials aren't buying them, they get snatched up by people who own multiple homes and lease them. These lessors form corporations in order to manage their business. As they retire or die, their businesses get sold to even larger corporations which snatch up that property. The property is highly unlikely to go back on the market to be sold to individuals, as it becomes more profitable to own more and more property. It will take time, but in 20 or 30 years, a huge number of the homes in the United States will be owned by a relatively few number of people. Things will be more like the feudalism of Europe where a few lords owned all the property, and the serfs paid "rents" to live on that property.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:28PM
A common trick (my family got fucked by this) is to find weak individuals (old with thin pensions, back taxes unfiled, mentally a little slow, recent job loss, etc - in our case it was proud and poor elderly) and to buy from them at their weakest, then immediately flip (or develop and flip, or reno and flip). It's not so different from the old scams of "sign here for your free fridge!" with a contract which also deeds property, except that it can't be disputed in court. It's not illegal to pressure a vulnerable person to make a bad decision in your favour. You just need to be slimy enough, and to have enough capital to make an offer that on the surface seems good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @03:13PM
Pretend to be with the IRS, and scam people out of their homes, and everything else they own.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday February 08 2017, @04:04PM
Millennial and recent home owner here. I don't think serfdom is anything new. Haven't looked at the math in a few months (it's depressing) but paying off this house on schedule will cost over 100k$ extra in interest. I imagine everyone has been in the same boat for decades. Money flows upwards. If kids ever becomes a thing then i think it would be wise to plan for a multi-generational home. Might as well accept that people make less money now and have more bills.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.