Hacker News Reader

Comment by sweezyjeezy | Hacker News Reader

$30 a day is almost $1000 per month, that's completely unrealistic for 90+% of under 25s, most people don't hit that kind of saving power til they are 30. And I don't see any evidence in your post that previous generations did that? My parents certainly didn't, they started saving at 30 on teacher's salaries and bought a house three years later. That house (in Cambridge, UK) is now worth £800k, I can't afford that, despite earning far more than their salaries at retirement put together.

View on HN

We are not talking about "90%+" here. This thread is in response to someone who "can't afford a house on a tech salary." Tech comp has been over 100K/year out of college for a while now, and even on somewhat less you should either be saving a ton or have much fat to trim in your expenditure.

OK well tech comp is very much not that high in the UK, so I guess we're not all in the same boat here. But the fact remains that things are objectively, numerically harder for us, and getting a lesson in life from those who had it easier is not very convincing.

// But the fact remains that things are objectively, numerically harder for us

So I never dug into this before but I found this interesting chart from the US government [1]

It does seem like a relatively smaller percentage of young people own homes today vs 40 years ago - but not as shocking as you'd imply:

Percentage of people <35 who own a home: 1982: 41% 2021: 38.5%

Percentage of 35-40 who own a home: 1982: 70% 2021: 62%

So while the trend is down - it still seems like over a third of people under 35 own a home, and over 60% of those 35-40 do.

That sounds very far from impossible.

[1] https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig07.pdf

Small sample size, but many of the people that I know that are that age and own a home inherited it, they didn’t buy it.

This happens in each generation

I suspect the numbers would be worse if you looked at households instead of individuals due to declining marriage rates (but I'm not willing to put in the effort to find numbers).

I don't understand what you're saying. To me, if the rate stays flat but represents fewer married couple, then this same rate actually means more homes are owned by people of that age.

Meaning - if guy and girl are married and own a house together, that counts as 2 people towards home owner bucket.

If they are not married, they'd need to each own a house for the same rate to hold.

It is true that good money can be made in tech, and that some companies pay > 100K/year out of college, but it's worth pointing out that even in the US this isn't true in general or in the majority of cases. There are a lot of people in tech making less than that even years out of college - it's largely a function of where you live and whether you land your first job at a handful of particular companies.

You can refer to https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/..., or https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/... - those people are all in tech, and most aren't new grads. Median salaries for "computer programmers" and "software developers" are 91K and 107K respectively.

> Tech comp has been over 100K/year out of college for a while now

The vast majority of IT work in the US pays around half that.

Even taking that figure at face value...

> or have much fat to trim in your expenditure.

Yeah, fat like exorbitant rents that landlords keep jacking up year after year solely because they have the power to do so. Fat like corporations charging more for less because they can get away with it. Fat like our federal government and the banking system it artificially props up debasing our currency and whittling away at the buying power of those dollars.

The fat to trim ain't in individual working Americans' budgets. The fat to trim is systemic - and by God are we overdue for some trimming, no matter how badly it might hurt the feelings of the ownership class.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com