
Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says - playpause
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2019/jun/20/young-adults-have-less-to-spend-on-non-essentials-study-says
======
dev_north_east
My advice to "millenials" (well I think technically I'm one, so let's say
younger ones) is to stay the hell away from London. I read these articles on
the housing crisis and staggering rent amounts and wonder am I even living in
the same country as these people.

~~~
foldr
This basically amounts to advising them not to live in a city (which is fine).
But some people do like living in cities, and London is really the only option
in the UK if you want to do that. No other city in the UK is anywhere close to
London in terms of culture and economic opportunity.

Yes, rents in Manchester and Birmingham are lower. But you're going to get
paid less, you have to live in a second tier city, and in the long run you
have fewer career opportunities.

~~~
dev_north_east
> This basically amounts to advising them not to live in a city (which is
> fine). But some people do like living in cities, and London is really the
> only option in the UK if you want to do that.

I'm gonna call bollocks on that :)

I agree with the rest to an extent. You're going to be paid higher (well not
everybody, but most HN readers would be) and have all the other advantages of
London. Fine. But you need to take the downsides with that and stop moaning.

When I was emigrating to the UK I considered everywhere. London was one of the
first places I crossed off my list.

~~~
foldr
>But you need to take the downsides with that and stop moaning.

This is the whole problem with the UK. Many of the current problems with
London are fixable. People need to keep moaning about them in order to get
them fixed.

~~~
dev_north_east
Tbh I think the "easiest" single thing which would improve the UK immensely
would be to ditch FPTP and bring in some type of PR voting.

~~~
reallydontask
If we had a PR voting system and the PM resigned. What would happen?

Would a general election be called?

It's a bit farcical that the country will have a PM that was not the leader of
the governing party at the last election.

Granted with the Brexit mess they could arguably have some legitimate reasons
for not calling it straight away but it seems that they've all ruled out
calling it at all, AFAIK.

~~~
dev_north_east
> If we had a PR voting system and the PM resigned. What would happen?

Ireland has a form of PR (single transferable vote), they've had plenty of
instances of the Taoiseach (PM) being replaced and not going to a general
election straight away.

------
ptah
older generation is not wise at all. they should be saving for when the
current pension and old age benefit system collapses. i guess they are the
same people that gave us climate change so i am not surprised at their
shortsightedness

~~~
hrktb
A sizeable portion of the older generation having fun right now also owns
property, and will massively oppose any political move that could depreciate
their property values.

Sadly I don't think they are out of their mind spending so much, a lot of them
have passed the FU point (enough assets to live decently whatever time is left
for them)

~~~
ptah
the point is that it won't be a voluntary thing like a political move that
will wipe them out economically

------
GaurVimen
I wonder at what point the Tories will deem food and accommodation as non-
essential?

~~~
minikites
The American right wing already believes food is a luxury:
[https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/10681363932375572...](https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1068136393237557254)

~~~
golergka
But that tweet is nothing of the sort. Food is not a luxury, but you can never
have a right for someone else's labour.

~~~
nosianu
> you can never have a right for someone else's labour.

The reason a human's productivity is orders of magnitude higher than that of a
stone age person is the work of uncountable legions of dead people. Almost
everything we have and know is due to network effects of humans working
together in time and space. The current generation's productivity is almost
all due to inherited tools and knowledge. You _do_ live off of "other people's
work", we all do. The amount that you yourself contribute, and that you are
concerned about, is negligible in comparison to the inheritance. We _can_
afford to be much, much more relaxed. You are not living a stone age life
where your concern would have had merit, because most of what you achieve was
indeed attributable mostly to yourself (although even then tools and
techniques inherited from previous generations probably was a major factor).

If somebody is able to "make millions", or even billions, how much is only
their own effort? Put a baby in a swamp and see what they can achieve. That
billionaire is sitting in the center of a vast network of humans in time and
space - most of it consisting of the dead who cannot be paid even if you
wanted to. It's certainly good and necessary to have such people in central
network locations, I just dislike when people think those guys are "self-
made". I let you live alone in a remote forest, and even with all modern
knowledge, where is your "self-made" empire? Same for a 50k/year job, who
still is vastly more productive than a $100/year stone age guy not at all
because of superior skills or effort. Your position in the space-time human
network determines most of your impact.

So to what I quoted of your comment, that is exactly what we do, every one of
us. Some just like to pretend that their own contribution is much more
significant than it really is, because almost all of the productivity and
possibilities are from the network and not from a particular person. So -
relax! It isn't you who pays, it's the dead >99.9%.

~~~
golergka
This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based
on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as
all the interactions that make up modern world that you so thoroughly
describe.

The "human right" concept, however, is entirely different: it is referring to
use of the mechanism that has monopoly on violence, the state, to redistribute
these resources, by the use of or threat of use of said violence, without any
free will involved. This mechanism completely removes individual capability of
making a moral decision, and uses morality as a pretext to obtain
monopolistic, bureaucratic power.

In my view, this monstrous mechanism, which is capable of despotism thousands
as bad as any other, should be only used for things that cannot be achieved
without it, such as rule of law. Charity and helping others is a noble thing,
but since it can be achieved without it, just through free individuals
decisions, it should.

~~~
qntty
Using violence to collect taxes is monstrous but using violence to protect the
property of rich people is right and just? In nature, a person cannot have
infinite wealth. The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want is
a creation of the state and is enforced by violence.

~~~
golergka
> In nature, a person cannot have infinite wealth.

In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates
are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat.

So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it.

> The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want

Nobody can have as much as they "want" \- but everybody should be able as much
wealth as they have acquired through any kind of lawful exchange.

~~~
qntty
> In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates
> are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat.

> So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it.

Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an
artificial construction.

> everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquired through any
> kind of lawful exchange.

Any state that protects the property of wealthy people through violence can
surely also put obligations on those people. In exchange for the state's
violence, they must support a social safety net which gives the people who
wealthy people are being protected from basic human necessities and dignity.

The state who gives an artificially constructed right to wealthy people (the
institution of private property) can also give an artificially constructed
right to poor people (basic needs and dignity).

~~~
golergka
> Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an
> artificial construction.

But you're trying to reach some kind of value judgement from this point - as
if "artifical construction" means it's bad in some way. It is not. On the
opposite, these completely virtual notions of money and finance helped achieve
modern-day prosperity that humanity enjoys.

So, yes, it is artificial, which makes it good.

> which gives the people who wealthy people are being protected from basic
> human necessities and dignity

So, pay off the potential looters and thieves to sooth them? You do understand
that this is basically "might makes right" moral imperative and nothing more?

> The state who gives an artificially constructed right to wealthy people (the
> institution of private property) can also give an artificially constructed
> right to poor people (basic needs and dignity).

First of all, the artificially constructed right of private property is given
to all, equally. And second of all, while both of these rights are
artificially constructed, one is moral, while the other is not.

~~~
qntty
> But you're trying to reach some kind of value judgement from this point - as
> if "artifical construction" means it's bad in some way.

I'm not saying property is bad nor am I making a value judgement about it. I'm
saying is that it's a concept created by the state.

> So, pay off the potential looters and thieves to sooth them? You do
> understand that this is basically "might makes right" moral imperative and
> nothing more?

You're begging the question. There's no such thing as "looters" prior to the
concept of property.

> First of all, the artificially constructed right of private property is
> given to all, equally.

Sure, just as basic necessities like education, food and housing should be.

> And second of all, while both of these rights are artificially constructed,
> one is moral, while the other is not.

Again, not at all clear how you're making a moral judgement about this issue
prior to the creation of the concept of property. Yes, stealing is wrong, but
in order to steal something it has to belong to someone first. If we're trying
to figure out what should belong to who, it's silly to come into the
discussion by simply insisting that stealing is wrong.

I could just as easily say that the wealth of a society _belongs_ to everyone
prior to it's distribution. Why then should rich people be entitled to steal
it from poor people? Stealing is wrong, remember.

------
RickJWagner
Totally intuitive. Kids have _always_ been broke.

It's a trope seen in movies and tv shows that go back several decades, because
it mirrors real life. In the early working years, people have never had much
money. (Fortunately, this later corrects.)

~~~
ck425
The article was comparing the same age ranges through time though. Young
people are less well off compared to previous young people and old folk are
more well off compared to previous old folk.

