Hacker News Reader

> The worst part is the inequality that will come when the older generation finally pass on their inheritances.

This worries me as well. Many people who are already doing well because of their financial-care-free childhood and early adulthood will be launched even further into the economic stratosphere. Many others will be buried by the burden of supporting their parents for longer (and at higher cost) than they were supported themselves. Whatever inequality already exists is only going to be magnified by these inter-generational effects. The results won't be pretty.

The US has a huge trick they can pull with debt.

The US borrows in its own currency. Ultimately, if the US government debt burden becomes to large it can choose to print money to print itself out of debt.

There are huge costs involved in pulling these sorts of tricks, but it's far cheaper than a nuclear confrontation with China.

The Chinese are also well aware of this and don't just buy US treasuries for their own reserves.

Most advanced economies are in a similar position - having their bonds denominated in their own currency and having a central bank that can never run out of that currency. The Eurozone are an exception, which is probably going to cause the currency to eventually collapse, but that's another story.

There aren't really 'huge costs' to paying down debt with new money. People assume that it would cause problems, but when you look into the mechanics of how both central banks and commercial banks work, some things become clearer.

The first thing to note is that the money supply is actually constantly expanding, even without the central bank creating money, because new money is also created when central banks issue loans (see [1] for an explanation from the Bank of England, central bank of the UK). So money creation by itself is not inherently inflationary. Inflation actually happens when aggregate demand over some period is greater than the amount of goods and services produced in that period. Money creation generally does add to aggregate demand, but so does all spending in general (i.e. increasing the velocity of money). So, if money creation is properly managed (to keep it from adding too much to aggregate demand), then it can be done without any inflationary consequences.

But that only applies for a Government creating money to spend. Changing bonds ("debt") into central bank reserves is actually asset-neutral. The bond is an asset worth a certain amount that can already be bought and sold. Replacing it with central bank reserves makes it more liquid, but doesn't actually add new assets into the system.

Of course, there's not much point to paying down bonds like that. Since the Government can't run out of its own currency, their bonds are basically meaningless. Since the gold standard was dropped, they exist mainly because the private sector likes having a zero-risk asset to invest in. What really needs to happen is to stop pretending that bonds and taxes actually finance Government spending, which hasn't been the case since 1971...

1. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...

> The US borrows in its own currency. Ultimately, if the US government debt burden becomes to large it can choose to print money to print itself out of debt.

A major reason independent central banks exist and have monetary policy entrusted to them is to assure lenders that this—a common problem when fiscal and monetary policy are controlled in the same place, which is a short-term fix foenthe government thst crushes it's long-term credibility—won't happen.

> There are huge costs involved in pulling these sorts of tricks, but it's far cheaper than a nuclear confrontation with China.

Debatable. It's probably cheaper for the US in the short rub than a total nuclear exchange with China, but “nuclear confrontation” is a broader concept encompassing many less-costly potential outcomes.

And it has pretty enormous consequences that include, even in the intermediate term, a great escalation of security risks.

Not that war with China over debt, directly, is the alternative (war with China over resources as both countries try to secure growth is more likely, though.)

> A major reason independent central banks exist and have monetary policy entrusted to them

You mean to say, "delegated"? Because that's the nature of the relationship between the state and its central bank in practice, and just like any other delegated authority, it can be revoked.

> The result is that we settle for low-paying entry level jobs.

uh... isn't the point of entry-level jobs to be the kind of jobs where people entering the market start out?

> Young people are better-educated

Actually, while education years have increased, education standards have slipped. The people reaching tertiary education these days are a year or two behind where they were in the Xers days.

The point is this: stop painting yourselves as undeserving victims. Every generation faces challenges. The fact that your generations challenges don't come pre-solved for you isn't going to be solved by constantly bitching about the boomers and doing nothing.

> isn't the point of entry-level jobs to be the kind of jobs where people entering the market start out?

The point of entry level jobs is to do low skilled labor. There is no grand design, especially a philanthropic one, in how corporations structure their ranks.

Job mobility is drastically down. You are much better suited to quitting your current employer for greener pastures every ~3 years than trying to move up an established ladder. There is no upward mobility from Starbucks Barista, and it isn't a pivotable skillset.

> The fact that your generations challenges don't come pre-solved

I think the hostility is more about how the problems millennials face now are man made problems previous generations didn't have to face because of greater social cohesion they have no practical control over until after they inherit it ~20 years from now.

By then I fully suspect the current upstarts with ambition to be bitter and hostile and look back on "when <nation> was great" just like the boomers do now.

> I think the hostility is more about how the problems millennials face now are man made problems previous generations didn't have to face

The GP is bitching about a potential war between the US and China, and conveniently ignores the actual wars that the Boomers were conscripted to fight (Vietnam) and the generation before them (WWII, Korea) and the generation before them (WWI). If those wars aren't classed as 'man-made problems' and the young being sent to die for the old, then what's the point of discussing further?

As for job mobility being drastically down, that's looking at the past with rose-coloured glasses. We may have passed the peak of job mobility, but it's far more labile now than it was in the 60/70s and earlier, especially if you're female. The fact that you can job-hop these days is proof of this.

The only way millenials have it worse than 'previous generations' is if they're completely ignoring how previous generations actually had it. Hey, you know what I hate? I hate how every week I have to get down on my hands and knees and manually polish the floorboards with wax, so they last longer. Oh, hang on, I didn't do that, that was my grandmother. She was a bit of a clean-freak, but the point is that 'maintaining the floor' used to be a thing, now no-one thinks of it beyond a bit of a vacuum. It's stuff like this that the millenial "we have it sooooooooooo hard!" complaints completely ignore.

I think by "entry-level jobs" the OP meant "dead-end jobs". A coffee shop barista doesn't exactly have a career progression.

In the context of this article, it's about boomers expecting millennials to solve their own problems and their parents' problems (all that accumulated debt to pay pensions etc).

I think, beyond your personal story, an issue is that the youth today does not have the economic independence to give their parents the finger when they want to, something that in the past has created socially progressive movements. 3 decades after the internet, the dominant culture is still controlled by hollywood and TV stars.

>Some parents are generously allowing their children to live at home rent-free. Mine are not. They provided me with an education, but in fact that was a scholarship from the institution my dad works at, not their own generosity.

You seem to feel that you are owed more. Are you joking or are you really this bold-faced entitled?

>Young people are better-educated, well-travelled, and more aware of the world than ever before. But old people control the Human Resources department. To protect themselves, they keep changing the rules to keep us out. HR demands years of continuous work experience, not only a degree.

Since when does being well traveled or aware of the world mean you are better qualified for most jobs? It very rarely matters (would you put this on a job resume?). Young adults do have degrees at a higher rate than ever before, but most of those degrees are worthless degrees.

>But old people control the Human Resources department. To protect themselves, they keep changing the rules to keep us out. HR demands years of continuous work experience, not only a degree.

This is quite the conspiracy theory. So there are jobs to be had but the old people are keeping you out of them?

I define a worthless degree as a degree where you could have learned the same skill on the job or at a trade school. This is the way your parent's generation did it. The degrees in this case are a waste of time and money. They provide false hope as well.

>Pension funds take money from young people and pay it out to old people. I have no hope that the fund will still be around by the time I'm able to retire (and the retirement age is probably going to increase anyway). A similar thing can be said about insurance. Therefore I think that young people should boycott pension funds. The system is not working for us, so we should not pay into it. We must continue to pay taxes because of legal requirements, but all other financial services are biased towards an older generation. The worst part is the inequality that will come when the older generation finally pass on their inheritances. Some people will be very rich. My parents promised me that I will not receive any inheritance. So I will be poor. The instability and debt is likely to lead to a war. It wouldn't surprise me if the USA decides to fight China about the huge debt they owe the Chinese. And who will die in the war? Young people.

Is this whole thing one big joke? You got me, you are trolling with sarcasm right?

Millennials are scary...

> You seem to feel that you are owed more. Are you joking or are you really this bold-faced entitled?

Everyone stands on the shoulder of giants. The current old generation just does not want anyone stand on their shoulders. Society was always asset driven. Assets like land and houses have become speculation objects instead of the means to living.

>I define a worthless degree as a degree where you could have learned the same skill on the job or at a trade school. This is the way your parent's generation did it. The degrees in this case are a waste of time and money. They provide false hope as well.

The parents' generation's employers were willing to train on the job or hire people who had learned in trade schools. (US, white collar, non-programming) employers today tend to make some kind of college degree a minimum requirement, even if what was "learned" at college bears no relationship to the job. This isn't the fault of the degree-earning youngsters.

>>I define a worthless degree as a degree where you could have learned the same skill on the job or at a trade school. This is the way your parent's generation did it. The degrees in this case are a waste of time and money. They provide false hope as well.

The primary reason 18-year-olds go to college is because they are told by their parents that it is necessary to get a good job afterwards. Indeed, the vast majority of white collar jobs in the USA require a bachelor's degree. Those with degrees implicitly or explicitly have a leg up on those who don't. Just ask your company's HR department.

Maybe it is entitlement. You get out of school, struggle for 15 years, and have absolutely nothing to show for it but a heap of debt. Then you look around the world and see that success isn't a reward for hard work, it's a reward for being born wealthy and connected. If you don't own land, you're screwed. It's expensive, and old people love hoarding it.

Millennials are scary? Do you know who the President of the United States is?

The government is who has screwed you over. By offering student loans, the govt (perhaps accidentally) inflated the cost of college to insane levels.

Continuing the flawed system is not accidental, because having a generation in lifelong debt is convenient to those who control wealth.

But I doubt it's your parents who are to blame. It's yet another failure of our government to look out for the best interests of its citizens because it gets swayed by greed.

Fuck that. The government paid for most of my college and living expenses during, without incurring any debt (MGIB.) I'm getting screwed over by the combination of medical expenses and rent.

>You seem to feel that you are owed more. Are you joking or are you really this bold-faced entitled?

It's not really feeling that we're owed anything. It's more of a wish that older generations would take a look at the world as it is today, realize that what worked in decades past is no longer viable, and adjust their expectations accordingly.

Regardless of education, you can't just walk into a job today. Worse, employers expect you to be ready to hit the ground running fresh out of the gates – few provide workplace training, even for entry level positions. If one isn't fortunate enough to land an internship, this creates a nasty catch-22 situation where you can't get into X industry due to lack of experience, but you can't get industry experience because nobody will employ you. Even if you do have a degree and experience, it's likely that you're not any company's first choice.

As a result, you end up with a ton of young people who if were entering the workforce 40-60 years ago would be on a path to a solid career instead grinding away years of their lives (sometimes upwards of a decade) working at places like Starbucks and Walmart in hopes of a glimmer of opportunity presenting itself. Some lose hope entirely and resign themselves to that kind of life.

I was lucky. My parents wanted to help but couldn't and I don't have a college degree. Thankfully I had cultivated some level of programming ability in my teens which with a couple years of living on nothing I was able to develop into a well-paid software development career, but this was only possible due to my being in the right part of the country, the current crazy demand for SEs, and because this field doesn't obsess over degrees too much.

Software dev is an odd bird in that respect. You can't do that in most other fields, and thus the idea of young people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps is largely unrealistic. Most are going to need at least a little bit of assistance to become a productive member of society, but the older generation is denying them of that.

Young people are better-educated

Is there any good data showing that young people actually have more useful skills or knowledge than their predecessors did, not just certifications and years of schooling?

Are you trying to suggest that my art history degree is somehow worth less than an engineering degree?

fascist

/s

> Young people are better-educated

that's a pretty bubble-thing to say ... leave your bubble for a while and you'll see that only some young people are better educated - most are terribly educated or not at all.

In the US that's just statistically accurate: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

See pg 2

This assumes that "bachelor's degree" is itself a constant measurement, which out of the context of this particular conversation virtually nobody would agree with. The number of people with "bachelor's degrees" can be going up even as the objective level of education is going down, and even if "the objective level of education" is very difficult to measure.

(There are some people with a "bachelor's degree" that I would consider anti-educated by their college, having gone to school for four years to learn to close their minds with the right invocations of words, despise knowledge, and condemn free inquiry that threatens to upend their ideas. Counting them as "educated" in the statistics doesn't much impress me.)

If only there was some sort of evidence that wasn't anecdotal...

It's really not. The vast majority of people under the age of 30 have fully completed high school and have at least some college education under their belt.

> The vast majority of people under the age of 30 have fully completed high school and have at least some college education under their belt.

Well, no, the vast majority of people under the age of 30 have not. A majority (not vast, only about 65%) of those 25-29 meet that description, and it's lower as you get younger.

Younger people are substantially more educated than earlier generations were at the same age, but for a number of reasons (older people have had more time for additional education, life expectancy and educational attainment are mutually correlated within an age cohort, etc.) That affect is attenuated when looking at young people vs. older people rather than young people vs. previous generations at the same age.

"The result is that we settle for low-paying entry level jobs. "

Should you be given a high paying mid-level job when all you have is a college degree and no experience? Shouldn't people start from the bottom and work their way up? I got an entry level job after college and am not entry level now. It took a few years. Don't be afraid to take an entry level job just to get your foot in the door.

The question I guess is what is our entry level job salary compared to yours, inflation adjusted and tied to the CPI?

I'm willing to bet ours is far less favorable.

In my purely anecdotal observations, there hasn't been a great demand for entry-level work, especially so following the last recession. A college degree and no experience won't even earn you the benefit of a rejection letter. People instead find themselves "sustained" on low-paying jobs that don't count as entry level for anything but fast-food and retail management. If you're lucky to come from a family with some money, maybe you get an unpaid internship or two before landing that first entry level position.

You don't absolutely have to get an 'entry level' job--you could be an entrepreneur, for example. Everything is risky. The problem I see with the entry level roles right now is that they all require ~5 years of experience! How are recent grads getting experience when the definition of 'entry level' has changed from meaning 'no experience' to meaning 'this is how much experience you need to work here?'

> I consider it a weapon in this war of generations. I'm denying my parents the joy of grandchildren.

Wow. Do you really think this matters at all?

To some parents, this matters a lot and it matters even more to the individual making this choice because they free themselves of a huge burden put on them by expectations of society/family.

I always considered it weird how "getting children" is the default choice for so many people, even when they are clearly in no good position for anything like that, a certain scene from the movie Idiocracy always comes to my mind when I think about that.

Yeah but using it as a way to "get back" at your parent's generation? After a decade of "no mom, I won't have children!!!! That's what you get!!!" they'll get over it and keep enjoying their retirement.

>After a decade of "no mom, I won't have children!!!! That's what you get!!!" they'll get over it and keep enjoying their retirement.

OP did not specify if he actually informed his parents about that decision, he might just as well get his satisfaction from the knowledge it won't happen, without even telling the parents.

There's also parents who simply can't/won't accept such a choice and not even recognize when you inform them of your choice not to have offspring, they will just go about their ways pretending nothing changed, still expecting cute little babies a couple of years down the line.

"I don't want to have children." - "Yeah, everyone gets over that phase eventually." - ":|"

It's not weird, it's a drive created by a billion years of evolution.

When all is said and done, what matters is passing on your genes. It's nice if you can bring up your kids in luxury, but the idea that it's necessary is rather nihilistic. You don't need to be able to afford an Ivy League education for your kids for them to be realized human beings.

If you live in a first-world country, and can feed and clothe your kids, and have space for no more than 2 kids/bedroom, what more exactly do you think you need?

>You don't need to be able to afford an Ivy League education for your kids for them to be realized human beings.

No, but I do need to be able to afford whatever it takes to give my children a fighting chance at getting a good job and having a good life. I personally do not plan to have children until I have some level of confidence that I can help them get on their feet when becoming productive adults. If the best I can do is kick them out of the house when they turn 18 and tell them, "good luck" I really shouldn't be having kids.

That's well and good that you feel that way personally, but the grandparent was suggesting that anyone who doesn't share that opinion could play a role in the movie Idiocracy.

But to address your point specifically, respectfully, 'giving your kids a fighting chance at getting a good job and having a good life' doesn't require very much money - pretty much nothing beyond healthy food, clothing, a roof over their head located someplace with decent public schools, and doing your best to instill them with the right character and values.

You don't need to live in the Valley and make six figures to have a good life. There are millions of happy people working in productive mid-five-figure jobs across the country right now. Do you really believe that, right now, you couldn't raise a kid who could accomplish that? There are people in awful areas with awful schools, who can't, sure, and real poverty engenders social conditions that make that difficult, but is that true for you, right now?

I don't mean to try to convince you to have kids, but I feel like a lot of people believe that if they have kids, they have to provide them with every material advantage possible to compete in a rat race/keep up with the Joneses, and I think that's unhealthy for society and even for individuals - after all, having kids later in life dramatically increases the rates of virtually every adverse medical condition kids can have.

>It's not weird, it's a drive created by a billion years of evolution.

Sure it is, but I always thought we humans differentiate ourselves from other animals by not being motivated merely on instinct/drive, aren't we rational beings after all?

>When all is said and done, what matters is passing on your genes.

I don't consider my gene stock to be especially outstanding, it's actually quite flawed, so I see no point in "passing it along".

There's also no shortage of able-bodied and smart humans on this planet, we already don't know what to do with all those we already got, so why would I want to add even more?

>what more exactly do you think you need?

What exactly do I gain? Except for a whole lot of long-term responsibilities, at least if I want to be a decent parent. I realize this might sound egoistic to some degree, but the same could be said about "passing on genes for the sake of passing on genes".

> Sure it is, but I always thought we humans differentiate ourselves from other animals by not being motivated merely on instinct/drive, aren't we rational beings after all?

Absolutely not. Humans are plain, regular, irrational animals with extra capacity for language and abstract reason. Humans are never motivated by reason. Reason in humans is typically used for rationalization - man is the rationalizing animal. We do things for irrational reasons and come up with persuasive arguments to ourselves and others as to why they were rational.

Similarly, I think it's worth reflecting on the drives and forces that led you to feel this way about children. In some sense, it's a kind of 'sickness' to not want to - maybe that's reflected in your comment about your genetics. In general though, I think there's a tremendous societal malaise, a social disease, that lays pretty heavy on a lot of people.

> I realize this might sound egoistic to some degree, but the same could be said about "passing on genes for the sake of passing on genes".

I personally look at it a different way. My ancestors, going back to the first single-cell life billions of years ago, lived, fought, mated, and died so that I could live, knowingly or unknowingly - there's a chain of life from me going back all the way to the very beginning. Parts of them live on in me.

Who am I to say - it all stops here, thanks, all of it ends with me?

>We do things for irrational reasons and come up with persuasive arguments to ourselves and others as to why they were rational.

We do that sometimes yes, but it's not the only thing we do, sometimes we actually end up doing pretty reasonable things like valuing our environment more.

>Similarly, I think it's worth reflecting on the drives and forces that led you to feel this way about children. In some sense, it's a kind of 'sickness' to not want to - maybe that's reflected in your comment about your genetics.

It's the logical consequence of me growing up in a country with something that resembles a social security net. Historically one of the main reason for humans getting children was old-age/disabled security and the additional income for the family generated trough the free labor.

This function of offspring does not exist anymore, at least in such a direct relation, in most countries with a social safety net.

In that regard, drive is a rather meaningless emotion we manage to keep in check the majority of the time. Why is that considered sick? Usually, it's the other way around: People who can't keep their emotions in check are usually considered unstable.

>In general though, I think there's a tremendous societal malaise, a social disease, that lays pretty heavy on a lot of people.

Sorry, but what are you referring to there as societal malaise? That so many people don't want to have children anymore? I think it's the sensible reaction to the global state of affairs.

We don't actually owe China that much. It's only like 5% of our total debt....That's a meme that's been so overblown.

> Some parents are generously allowing their children to live at home rent-free. Mine are not.

As someone who has struggled with my parents for years to let me go and live on my own place (on my own expense), I can't understand why parents won't let their children live with them.

Is it because of space? Is it because of the extra cost? (I'd suppose it is negligible and you could contribute to it)

The thought is that subsidizing lifestyle choices is unhealthy compared to letting people get accustomed to the lifestyle their income affords.

This might be understandable if the guy is blowing his money on drugs and parties. But if he is using the rent + food money to save it later (for a purchase or by investing in stocks), then how is that unhealthy?

People have a funny way of confusing nice-to-haves and essentials. Getting used to a certain lifestyle in certain kinds of neighborhoods can be unhealthy, at least in abstract.

Of course different people are different. This isn't a universal law or something.

> As someone who has struggled with my parents for years to let me go

Why is that? Helicopter parents?

It's a very common thing in the country I live in.

> We can't afford to have children. Instead of seeing this as a problem, I consider it a weapon in this war of generations. I'm denying my parents the joy of grandchildren.

A few things:

1. You're also denying yourself the joy of grandchildren. And children, who can be really wonderful in their own right...

2. Instead of thinking of your decision to not have children as something that affects your parents, maybe think of it as something that affects your children. The only way they get to enjoy life is if you make them exist...

3. In light of #2, maybe consider lowering your bar for what you think is "necessary" in order to have children. If you decide not to have kids, the alternative for those kids you would have had is not that they get to have some posh upbringing with all the fixins. No, the alternative is that they never get a chance at life.

Just some food for thought...

There's no "they" there - a person that doesn't yet exist does not feel or suffer, and therefore they cannot be meaningfully empathized with, nor can there be any moral obligations towards them.

> nor can there be any moral obligations towards them

I think most people have a sense of moral obligation to unborn humans. If you have ever felt that the current batch of humans has an obligation to not screw up the earth for the humans who will come later, then you feel a moral obligation to unborn humans. And even if you don't, I assure you that many people do.

There's a difference between an obligation to humanity as an aggregate entity, which is sort of always there with an uninterrupted continuity (even as individual members are born and die), and obligation to a specific hypothetical human being that may or may not exist. This is especially weird in the context this question, where your very decision is about whether they'll exist. I just don't see how an obligation to create can be owed prior to creation.

1. You can have children further down the line...

2. Exactly, think of the kids. Conditions are not favorable for having children at the moment. Odds are it will be better for the child if I wait a few years. Whose fault is that? Not mine.

3. "necessary" at what level? To have children you don't need healthcare, decent education, and a safe clean home.

Just some food for thought... Many people, including my dad, are literally voting for the 2nd coming of Jesus at the cost of the next generation. Maybe we don't want our kids to have anything to do with that fuckery but lack the financial means to do so.

who will receive their inheritance? please don't say some charity or gov instead of own child which could use it

And you'll have to wait practically half your life to get it as medicine improves. So it's kind of useless when it matters.