
A secret of many urban 20-somethings: Their parents help with the rent - golfstrom
https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2017/02/09/a-secret-of-many-urban-20-somethings-their-parents-help-with-the-rent
======
johnchristopher
Been there. As one of the 20-something whose parents didn't help with the
rent.

Two consequences:

\- really tough discussions with some friends and acquaintances once I
realised their parents heavily subsidized their way of life while they were
putting the social persona of young working adult being independent and
nagging me about when I was going to buy my first car or why I was always the
one who made it through the whole night with one glass of beer

\- really hard to move up in the adequate social circles and no care-free
attitude which led to a much harder job hunt, grimmer prospects in
relationships (partly cost me the love of my life) and way too much stress to
be healthy

I don't blame people for being helped though, that's not my point.

~~~
grx
Why didn't they help?

~~~
dehugger
Many parents (mine included) say "if you aren't in school pay your own way".
Once you are out of school, regardless if your wage is still barely above
minimum, you are on your own.

~~~
myowncrapulence
Same. I come from middle class parents who could certainly afford to pay my
way but chose to make me learn how to stand on my own feet. Certainly strips
the world of its sheen when you see how people treat you if you are perceived
as poor.

Certainly makes you realize who your true friends are.

------
Godel_unicode
This is an interesting counterpoint to all of the "government subsidies
distort housing prices" arguments. Obviously family subsidies are very
different than government subsidies, but I think they might have a similar
effect on pricing. Especially for economicallt disadvantaged people trying to
go it alone; you're now in a market (similar to college tuition or healthcare)
where nobody pays full price except for you*

*For large values of "nobody" and "you"

------
lacampbell
I'm always a bit shocked at how many adults I've come across whose parents aid
them financially - even when they're working. Aren't they ashamed?

I'm late 20s, and don't have as many friends as I used to in my early 20s. But
the ones I do pay their own way. I just can't relate to a grown adult living
it up on their parents money.

I do sometimes feel uncomfortable working in software though - I'm from a
solidly lower class background, and the vast majority of the people I meet
grew up middle/upper middle class. I'm on a middle class salary now, but I
don't have the accumulated wealth of the previous generation behind me. My
mindset is so different. I'm more ambitious, more protective of my free time,
and much more frugal.

~~~
mikeyouse
Why would they be ashamed? If you have a family with sufficient means and
close enough ties that they're willing to help you and make your life a bit
easier and less risky, why wouldn't you embrace that?

~~~
lacampbell
Because I think it's shameful not to be financially self-sufficient. it's an
important part of adulthood. To me regular financial help from your parents is
something a child or teenager receives - it's an allowance.

I'd like to think that if the generation before me had some money knocking
about, that I'd have the same attitude. Let them spend their hard earned money
on a cruise or a holiday, rather than supporting their grown children who are
already well into adulthood themselves.

~~~
mikeyouse
I get that from a "protestant work ethic" sense, but just because people get
help from their families doesn't mean they're incapable of being self-
sufficient.

This is a part of the reason that many wealthy families stay wealthy. Whether
it's a down payment, help with rent, or the understanding that they'll be a
backstop if everything falls apart, it lets the next generation take risks
that would be completely imprudent otherwise.

I think a lot of parents of millennials understand how much harder life is for
young people today too. With school debt, salaries that have stagnated since
the 1990s, and housing prices that won't stop increasing, it's a completely
different world than the one they grew up in.

> _Let them spend their hard earned money on a cruise or a holiday, rather
> than supporting their grown children who are already well into adulthood
> themselves._

To many parents, there is literally no more meaningful way to spend their
money than to confer comfort to their children, no matter how old they are.

~~~
lacampbell
This fully from my own cultural perspective. It's not a moral judgment or a
universal judgment. But if I am honest with myself, I feel it's shameful.

------
WalterBright
When I was young (1980s) it was normal for parents to provide the downpayment
for the kids' first home.

BTW, cars are an enormous cash sink. I saved a ton by buying beaters and doing
most repairs myself. I still drive a beater :-) and fix it myself and it's
amazing how little it costs.

I've had my current beater for 25 years now, and it still starts as soon as I
turn the key. It's a fairly simple car, and easy to fix.

Being a beater also means I don't carry comprehensive insurance. Adding up
those premiums saved over the years would probably buy a purty nice new car.

------
manacit
This is interesting, but not altogether surprising.

As an urban 20-something, my parents helped me my covering the lion's share of
my college costs. Once that was over, it was an unspoken agreement that I was
completely on my own. Fortunately, I graduated with a job offer in hand as a
SWE in the city of my choice, but that is far from the norm for the graduating
classes in many majors.

If anything, I find the provided numbers feel too low - $250 a month in many
metro areas is unlikely to be 'make it or break it' numbers (by my
estimation). It's more that their parents are subsidizing a lifestyle in those
urban areas.

At any rate, it's hard to blame people for getting help from their parents,
though I can't say I would be excited to do so for my kids after a certain age
(though, of course, I don't have any).

~~~
twinkletwinkle
It's an interesting balance. I'm the same as you, I received an incredible
amount of help to pay for private college. I paid my way through grad school
and now make a professional salary in an expensive city, entirely self
supporting. I'm moderately proud of living below my means and also living
"well".

I'd also be proud to be able to help my theoretical children, so it's easy to
see the "other side" of the argument as such.

------
joshstrange
It was my goal before I even finished college to be as independant from my
parents as I could be. Most of that came from a need/desire to not give them
anything they could hold over me (preemptively). The rest from hating the idea
of living subsidised and being dependant and a drain on them. That said I know
I am extremely fortunate to be able to lean on them if it came down to that
and I hate that many people don't have that safety net there. I understand
some may abuse it but I've not been great managing my money in the past and
it's caused extreme stress for me but I can't imagine how much worse it would
have been if I didn't have my parents to turn to if things got really bad
(thankfully they didn't).

------
grx
Is this an American thing? It's pretty common in Germany, but I remember that
foreigners often see us as the 'renters'-country (meaning the majority rents
instead of owning a property), so there might be a difference. Just wondering
why this seems an increasing thing in your cities.

It's also no big secret that parents often support their children far beyond
the school time if they are not able to apply for student loans (Bafög).

~~~
istorical
It's a thing because it signifies the decline of American purchasing power. If
we used to all be able to afford to pay our own rent, but now we can't and are
relying on our parents, it's a sign that young people's purchasing power is
going down. In the same vein of young Americans feeling distraught that their
parents could pay off college loans working a summer job mowing lawns, or that
they could afford to put down a down payment on a house by age 30. Young
Americans feel like they can't measure up to their older generations
financially. Salaries may be trending up numerically, but adjusted to
inflation and cost of living increases it feels like we're stagnating or
moving backwards.

------
trjordan
$3,000 a year is a weird number. Of course anything helps, but when rent is
$1,000, $2,000, or even $3,000 / month, is that really make or break?

I wonder if it's paying security deposits or first / last deposits. When I was
23, paying rent seemed doable, but digging up 3 months of rent all at one go
was terrifying.

~~~
ars
> rent is $1,000, $2,000, or even $3,000 / month

That's rent without roommates. I suspect people are sharing the rent with 3
other people, so $3,000 a month is about 1/3 of their rent.

~~~
trjordan
Ahhhh that's probably it. $300 / month is easily half the rent if you have a
couple of roommates.

... which is exactly how I did it from 22-24, not sure how I forgot that.

------
figers
As a landlord of multiple properties in Boston I can confirm the parents pay
the rent.

~~~
jff
One of my college roommates would get a small stack of signed blank checks
from his mother every time he went home, in order to pay the rent and whatever
else came up. He kept them underneath his mattress, which we discovered when
we had to move from one apartment to another and his ass never showed up to
help.

~~~
Godel_unicode
And here I am, paranoid about having unsigned checks laying around because
they have my account and ACH # on them. Other people's tolerance for risk
always amazes me!

~~~
johnchristopher
Eh. Usage of checks in the US always puzzled me but now that we have
smartphones with direct access to our bank and it seems even weirder to still
do things with checks (vs cash).

~~~
khedoros1
When I've used checks, it's been almost exclusively to pay bills for things
that don't have an electronic payment system set up, and where I also don't
want to drop $1500 cash into the landlord's mail slot for rent.

I know that we're missing easy money transfer options that other countries
have had for decades, though.

------
lordCarbonFiber
Subject to change while I parse the source data set, but I'm not sure their
conclusions are sound. Specifically the reliance on averages and amortizing
the existence of yearly lump sums to monthly assistance. And the wording of
"has ever" so a single gift/loan now gets extended to reported as years of
monthly assistance.

For example, parents providing their child with first month's rent/security
deposit for the first place after college I wouldn't say is indicative of
"financial dependence". Especially considering the data was for 2013 when
getting credit for short term loans as a young person was even harder than it
is today. Feels more like another dressed up "entitled millennials living off
those hard working boomers again".

~~~
thatfunkymunki
Or worse- yet another article that attempts to make people feel bad for using
the wealth they've obtained over the course of their life for making their
children "privileged"

------
awinter-py
Not sure how the article concludes that young adults don't tell their friends
about family financial help. It's not a question on the PSID survey and it
doesn't seem to be in the michigan PSC report.

The secrecy of financial help is a really important claim because it affects
how under-resourced college grads plan their 20s; irresponsible of the authors
not to footnote this.

------
gamesbrainiac
One point made consistently in this article is that life is getting harder for
a graduate of the liberal arts. There are a plethora of articles that espouse
the notion that art doesn't pay.

Yet, how is that surprising? You're taking four years to complete a degree
program that provides you with no (measurable) practical skill.

------
pboutros
>The choice of career path matters. Those in the art and design fields get the
most help, an average of $3,600 a year. People who work in farming,
construction, retail and personal services get the least.

Am I wrong to assume that it isn't the career choice so much as how wealthy
the parents are?

~~~
twinkletwinkle
It probably correlates. People with wealthy supportive parents are more able
to take a "less valuable" degree. Where value = market rate for your skills.

------
macawfish
This makes me think hard about universal basic income. If average incomes went
up, how long would it take for those with monopolies on basic needs to raise
the prices? Not long, I'm sure. Unless rentier capitalism is somehow cut out
of the picture, if the government provided $10,000/yr, then $10,000/yr could
very quickly become the new "poverty". If banks (via landlords' debts) are
squeezing people now, whats stopping them from taking peoples' basic income
too?

Don't get me wrong, I recognize the need for something like basic income, but
rentier capitalism is suffocating peoples lives right now, and I have a hard
time seeing how universal basic income is going to stop that.

~~~
mindslight
In fact, basic income is actually just a continuation of the same inflationary
alchemy that's been eroding the middle class for decades. This is why a
seemingly revolutionary idea is getting so much press - because it actually
isn't revolutionary at all, but a doubling down on the status quo!

~~~
gnaritas
> basic income is actually just a continuation of the same inflationary
> alchemy

It's no such thing; not remotely. BI isn't new money, it's simply a
redistribution of money from those with more to those with less. It won't
increase the money supply and thus doesn't cause inflation.

~~~
mindslight
Even if not implemented through monetary inflation, BI will cause price
inflation. Housing asset prices are primarily constrained by the affordability
of rent - either to a landlord or directly to the bank. If everybody can spend
twice as much on rent then rent just doubles, and if interest rates remain the
same then paper appraisals double.

BI seems desirable because it addresses a glaring _symptom_ of the
inflationary treadmill. But if the treadmill remains the explicit national
policy ("full employment"), BI will really just give us even more rope to hang
ourselves. The sustainable answer is higher interest rates, so that frugal
people can be rewarded for channeling discretionary spending towards paying
off principle. But this would diminish our "service economy", which is all we
have left after gutting domestic manufacturing.

I think what we're really witnessing is an erosion of money as a decentralized
store of value, part of the general centralization of power enabled by digital
communication networks.

~~~
gnaritas
> If everybody can spend twice as much on rent t

False presumption, BI will not enable everyone to spend twice as much on rent.

> BI will cause price inflation.

Unfounded.

> The sustainable answer is higher interest rates, so that frugal people can
> be rewarded for channeling discretionary spending towards paying off
> principle.

That doesn't remotely address the issue that BI attempts to solve, lack of
available jobs for people due to the effects of automation.

~~~
mindslight
> _> If everybody can spend twice as much on rent_

> _False presumption_

It wasn't a presumption about BI, but a hypothetical framing of an example
situation. Please give opposing viewpoints their due interpretation rather
than looking for phrases to pick on out of context.

> _Unfounded_

Once again, this is what we're arguing about. You can't simply quote my
conclusion without my supporting arguments and say it's unfounded.

> _That doesn 't remotely address the issue that BI attempts to solve, lack of
> available jobs for people due to the effects of automation._

I didn't expand on it, but my view actually does address this. If working
people had been able to _save_ money, then they would have had more economic
bargaining power to demand higher wages and fewer working hours, gradually
over the past few decades. As it stands, we could fix much of the employment
issue by redefining "full time" to be 15 hours per week, getting rid of the
exempt loophole, and changing overtime to double or triple pay. But this is
such a drastic change (because the issue has been building so long), it seems
quite ridiculous. But it's important to understand how we got to this point in
order to know how to proceed, lest we choose another "quick fix" that actually
just makes the situation even worse.

~~~
gnaritas
I don't think redefining full time to be so few hours would work in this
country, nor actually solve the problem, it'd just make most people broke and
forced to seek out multiple jobs to survive. Yes, money distribution can
affect particular markets where the redistribution increases spending but
that's not inflation, inflation is a general rise is all prices, not a rise in
a particular sector and BI is a far better longer term solution to the real
issue, that life doesn't need to be and long term cannot be dependent on the
selling of labor in an age of automation. We need to move beyond the puritan
work ethic to something more appropriate for the world that's coming.

~~~
mindslight
> _it 'd just make most people broke and forced to seek out multiple jobs to
> survive_

So then change the full time number to be summed over _all_ jobs. It's a
cooperation problem where it is in nobody's individual interest to work less
(since the marginal utility of surplus over your peer group is extreme), but
yet everybody competing for this results in all the surplus thrown onto the
bonfire of financialization.

And yes as I said, 15 hours is a drastic change from 40. Because the point is
that this should have been happening gradually _the whole time_. I personally
would have preferred it to happen through sane monetary policy rather than
government diktat, but either way we should all be working much less.

> _We need to move beyond the puritan work ethic to something more appropriate
> for the world that 's coming._

I wholeheartedly agree on this point. But the implementation we're looking for
is not BI.

The idea of BI deprecates the idea of having an _economy_ (ie p2p
transactions), and replaces it with widespread monthly funding from the
government. This will necessarily come with strings attached, inevitably
becoming a highly politicized way of dictating individuals' life choices. We
already have something quite similar to BI, called welfare/medicaid, which
brings no end to hassling its recipients. I believe that BI proponents would
say that the aim of BI is to simplify these systems, but this is not a stable
state. It is trying to reverse up the gradient of why politicians generate
complexity (finding divisive bikeshed issues so people can be led).

~~~
gnaritas
You're missing something, it doesn't matter how you split the remaining work,
the gains from the productivity increases of automation aren't going to the
workers regardless of how you muck with their hours; those gains go to the
business owners. Splitting up the remaining work to make sure everyone has
work only makes sure everyone is poor, they still don't get to keep wealth
created by the automation so it's a pointless thing to try and spread the work
around.

The goal is not to keep everyone working, the goal is to share the benefits of
automation with everyone, not just the capitalist class. BI does this, your
solution does not.

Unless you tax automation heavily and redistribute it, workers lose no matter
how you slice and dice the hours. It's not enough to work less, you have to
work less while not making less and that's simply not in the cards.

> The idea of BI deprecates the idea of having an economy (ie p2p
> transactions), and replaces it with widespread monthly funding from the
> government.

Simply not remotely true. Spending money you get from the government is still
spending money. Redistributing money from the top to the bottom via BI in no
way deprecates the idea of having an economy, it simply depreciates the idea
the the economy is based entirely on wage slavery.

> This will necessarily come with strings attached, inevitably becoming a
> highly politicized way of dictating individuals' life choices.

Also not true, anything with strings isn't BI; the whole point of BI is that
everyone gets it without restriction in order to eliminate bureaucracy and
thus strings. If it has strings, it isn't BI.

> We already have something quite similar to BI, called welfare/medicaid

Neither of those are remotely similar to BI.

> which brings no end to hassling its recipients

Precisely because they aren't remotely similar to BI and force people to
qualify for them; they're exactly what BI is intended to fix, all the hassles
and stigma that come with those programs and the shit you have to go through
to get them.

Frankly, you leave me thinking you really don't know what BI is, or don't
understand it.

~~~
mindslight
I'm not missing this, and in fact it ties right in to my core point. Wages are
due to an equilibrium. The supply side of that equilibrium is dependent on how
much the workers _need_ the money. Any individual has a rough idea of how long
they can comfortably go without income ("runway"). While this is modulated
with how in-demand their industry is (especially apparent today in our
hollowed-out hand-to-mouth society), the core of their power is how much of a
buffer they have saved.

If a person has _no_ runway, they are forced to be constantly worried about
losing their current job, whereas if they have a large enough runway they have
the ability to quit on the spot and worry about their next job later. This
power relation effects every single negotiation, from salary to benefits to
day-to-day working conditions.

Thus my assertion is that the real problem is that people have no savings.
This gives them no economic power, and thus terrible negotiating power. This
is due to an economic policy that prevents savings by the lower classes,
especially liquid savings, and turns their life's accounting into one of debt
and monthly rents. This further destroys their negotiating power (they don't
have $0 to their name, but actually -$10k), and channels any of their surplus
upwards to the parasitic banking industry through monetary rent.

> _it simply depreciates the idea the the economy is based entirely on wage
> slavery._

Sure it gets rid of that specific slavery, but it does not get rid of the wage
nor the reliance on it. The real mass frustration is due to a lack of
opportunity and self-determination, for which signing up for low-paperwork
welfare will increase. Reliance on the continued existence of a government
program is going to make many people (rightfully) uneasy, because...

> _If it has strings, it isn 't BI._

This is like saying that we've never achieved _true_ capitalism or _true_
communism. In the real world, individuals have their own incentives. The
incentives of politicians and "news" media is to play on people's prejudices
to divide them into groups so they can be led, creating power for the leaders.

 _Even if_ we were to start off with a perfect BI program on day 0, it is only
a matter of time until _some_ group demands preferential treatment for
themselves, or protests what they see as preferential treatment for others.
The subject of _having kids_ is fertile ground for this - if BI is truly
uniform, this means that having a kid gets you immediately double the BI, and
if it only starts at 18 that means you now have more to support. Either way
(or even with a "ramp" compromise), this is but one of the clear contention
points that will be endlessly politicized.

~~~
gnaritas
People aren't lacking savings because economic policies prevent it, they lack
savings because they're poor and don't have excess income to save. They use
all of their income simply to survive. So no, lack of savings is not the
problem, it's merely a side effect of the problem which is the dwindling value
of labor in an ever more automated world. So yes, imho you are missing the
point, terribly.

And no this isn't a no true Scottsman thing, the entire point of BI is that
everyone gets it to avoid the need to administer the program with
qualification red tape. Yes there would be some initial fighting about how to
implement BI with regards to kids and what incentives that creates, that
doesn't mean it'll be endlessly politicized nor does it make the whole policy
fertile ground for politics. Fertile ground for that is what we have now, with
endless programs and rules about who qualifies and who doesn't and BI would
vastly simplify that system while also addressing the long term social problem
of the coming end of wage labor. Nothing you've said addresses the problem at
all.

~~~
mindslight
Your argument technique seems to be to state disagreement with my point, and
then just assert that _I_ don't understand _your_ point.

> _they lack savings because they 're poor and don't have excess income to
> save_

And yet we're witnessing the creation of _even more poor people_ (ie hand-to-
mouth), in educated industries which have _not_ been automated away yet.
Salaries in those industries are keeping rough pace with the official CPI, so
what gives?

> _the problem which is the dwindling value of labor in an ever more automated
> world_

Yes, we agree this is one of the fundamental problems here - I'm not "missing
the point" as you keep insisting. I'm also saying that another fundamental
problem is that fiscal discipline went out the window when USD disconnected
from the gold standard, a slow acting moral hazard which is only being felt
decades later. With technological and market progress, we would expect prices
to be _continually dropping_ (which would mean people would have to work less
to survive), so any diagnosis must address this as well.

What you seem to be doing is taking the logical induction that led to the idea
of BI for granted. And then refusing to follow the logical induction around
other ideas. Of course BI is going to look like _the_ solution if you refuse
to consider that there could be other approaches.

> _the entire point of BI is that everyone gets it to avoid the need to
> administer the program_

As I said, this is an anti-feature to those who derive power from controlling
such programs. This includes voters.

~~~
gnaritas
Now your critiquing me personally while spewing the same old conservative
nonsense, we're done.

~~~
mindslight
It's a bit frustrating to have entire points responded to with only an
assertion to the contrary. You questioned the honesty of my argument ("you
really don't know what BI is"), so it seemed reasonable to point out what I
perceived as a fundamental problem with our conversation. I can't particularly
see what I would have said differently to keep our thread from slowly going
off the rails, but I apologize for my part.

I'm done beating this dead horse if you are. But perhaps you'd view my
argument in a different way if I said that I don't have a philosophical
problem with BI, and that I'd support the idea iff interest rates were back up
to say 10% ? The main point I've been trying to get across is that in the
current monetary environment, BI seems akin to adding a second garden hose to
fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

~~~
gnaritas
It's equally frustrating to watch you continually setup straw-men version of
BI to then knock down while accusing me of arguing poorly all the while
ignoring what BI is actually attempting to solve, while continually
introducing non-sequiturs like the gold standard which further derail any
attempt to stay on point. As you said, dead horse, I have no interest in
talking with you any further, it's pointless. Someone who thinks poor people
are poor because interest rates are too low has no connection to what it means
to be poor and no place discussing solutions to problems he clearly has no
understanding of.

~~~
mindslight
IMHO BI has gained such interest, not because it would help the poor, but
primarily because everybody that would describe themselves as "middle class"
is frustrated at seeing the largest part of their paycheck simply go towards
_rent_.

Perhaps my characterization is the root of why you're seeing me arguing a
_strawman_? But if my assessment isn't correct, then why do mainstream
articles present it as such a society-changing idea? Or is this judgment
incorrect as well?

The reason I keep beating this dead horse is because your nick is one I see
associated with more insightful comments. That we're in such obtuse
disagreement here seems odd.

Yes, my critique here "comes from the right" [0]. But please just try to give
me a benefit of the doubt that my aim is _actually_ to reduce the wealth
extraction by "the capitalist class", and analyze my point on its own merit.
My goal is _certainly_ not to perpetuate the status quo.

[0] The way I see it, "left" and "right" are really just two different
approaches to characterizing a problem and they generally both give some
insight.

~~~
gnaritas
It depends on what you mean by "rent". BI is about eliminating the need to
work just to survive. In a more automated world, human labor has little value
and in a labor based economy there's no way to prevent the capital class from
extracting the wealth, it's the nature of the beast. I'm glad to hear you're
at least in agreement about the aim of reducing that extraction however, BI
aims to do more than that. It aims to eliminate wage slavery which is what
allows the capital class to oppress the working class to begin with.

The gold standard has no bearing on this problem. Interest rates have no
bearing on this problem. People aren't poor because we don't use gold, they
aren't poor because interest rates are low; they're poor because they were
born into it and few can clime out because living on the edge is
psychologically harmful and interferes with long term planning and thinking.
Being poor is a catch 22 in many ways, like a bucket of crabs, getting out is
impossible for most. This is a systemic problem, not an issue of people not
working hard enough: the need for work is dwindling reducing the supply of low
skill jobs which are all many are capable of in the first place.

Your attempts to drag the conversation to these other things are red-herrings,
your attempts to conflate BI with the problems of existing welfare, and then
say it'll suffer the downsides are straw-men.

We're in disagreement because as far as I'm concerned, you don't want to talk
about the real problem, you're just finding ways to inject the standard
conservative fiscal talking points into a conversation about an issue those
things don't address.

So if you actually want to talk about it, I'll frame it this way; unemployment
is suddenly 50% due to the sudden rise of automation. Now what do we do when
half the population can't find work? People who don't have an income don't
want to hear about gold standards and interest rates. They don't want to hear
about welfare programs that make them jump through hoops to find jobs that
don't exist. What they want, is food, water, shelter, and medical care and if
you tell them to pull themselves up by their boot straps they're going to kill
you and take your shit. That's the problem BI is attempting to solve. And yes,
the death of wage slavery would be a huge change in the structure of society.

~~~
mindslight
> _they 're poor because they were born into it and few can [climb] out
> because living on the edge is psychologically harmful and interferes with
> long term planning and thinking. Being poor is a catch 22 in many ways, like
> a bucket of crabs, getting out is impossible for most. This is a systemic
> problem, not an issue of people not working hard enough_

See, the thing is, _I understand this_. I'm certainly not sitting here saying
"let them eat cake", or "they need to work harder". As I said, I'm not
categorically against the idea of BI. Which is why I tried to steer the
subject back to middle class people - if, as you say, the effects of
automation are so severe (and I agree they are), then the middle class is of
concern as well. While they are better off _materially_ , their situation
exists closer to the margin (rather than already having fallen victim to the
poverty trap "event horizon"). As such, it is _middle class_ economics we
should be looking at to understand the changes brought by automation.

> _People who don 't have an income don't want to hear about gold standards
> and interest rates._

Sure, but this a reflection of _their_ stressed state and immediate needs, not
proper analysis. Interest rates act on the timescale of multiple years, which
is obviously too long to wait for food or shelter. We've persisted with the
fundamental problem so long that direct triage _is_ sorely needed. I'm not
arguing against helping out poor people - I'm arguing against using help for
poor people as the solution to the problem that we're all becoming poor!

> _you don 't want to talk about the real problem_ ... _unemployment is
> suddenly 50% due to the sudden rise of automation_

Actually, I really do.

From [https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-economic-goals-
does...](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-economic-goals-does-federal-
reserve-seek-to-achieve-through-monetary-policy.htm)

> _monetary policy to support three specific goals: maximum sustainable
> employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates._

"Maximum stable employment" directly contradicts automation putting half of
everybody out of work! And "stable prices" also does, as automation makes
things less expensive. So either the Federal Reserve is utterly wrong about
the actual capabilities of monetary policy, or their mandate _clashes with
technology_. What is the result of this clash?

This is the core of what I'm getting at.

~~~
gnaritas
> See, the thing is, I understand this.

I believe that. And of course the middle class is of concern as well, however
the middle class is dying, we're becoming only the rich and the poor and the
poor make up the largest part of society in that sense, so that's where the
focus belongs, in helping to recreate a middle class we haven't had in a long
time.

> Sure, but this a reflection of their stressed state and immediate needs, not
> proper analysis.

No, it's a reflection of their lack of capital; interest rates matter in terms
of savings to those who have enough money that the interest rate actually
matters. It takes quite a lot of money before you need to care about savings
interest rates. To most people, it only matters in terms of what they're
paying for debt and those people want low interest rates, not high ones. To
most of the population, low interest rates are far better because it decreases
their debts and most of the population is in debt.

> or their mandate clashes with technology. What is the result of this clash?

Agreed, and that's where i'm going as well, we need to get past this notion of
trying to attain full employment, employment can no longer be the goal in an
automated world. As we move forward, what the Fed does will have to adapt to
the new world where it's no longer about employment, but about how to
effectively share the benefits of productivity created by technology with
everyone, not just the capital class.

As to stable prices, that doesn't mean preventing things from getting cheaper,
it means fighting inflation. Nothing wrong with things getting cheaper,
everything wrong with them getting more expensive across the board. So they
aren't in conflict with tech there, tech does make things cheaper,
unfortunately, it also tends to make workers poorer as it makes them
unnecessary which will eventually destroy the market for said products when no
one has money to buy them.

Automation at the end of the day, is a poison pill to an economy based on low
skilled physical wage labor. And an economy based on high skilled mental wage
labor simply doesn't align with the realities of the human condition. Half the
population has an IQ below 100, they will never be capable of high skilled
thinking jobs. So the very foundation of our economy must change in order to
continue down this path of automation. For the basics of living, we need more
socialism and less capitalism. We need a more social democracy that takes back
enough from the capital class to ensure the lower classes don't revolt take
what they require through violence because they won't be able to take it
through working before long.

------
nonsince
It's disgusting that this is necessary. I'm outside the US and I've been
financially independent since I was 20. My parents couldn't afford to pay for
me much longer, and we're a not-bad-off white suburban family, about what
americans would call "middle-class" I guess. I can't imagine how a poor family
in the USA could hope to have social mobility with it being so necessary to
have parents support you who might not even be able to support themselves.

------
nonSVmillennial
I got my bachelors in CS at a state university on a full-ride scholarship I
qualified for in high school, but was out of a job for a year, living on what
I've saved up and loans from my parents.

Eventually, I got a job as a developer in a mid-size city, making decent money
relative to cost-of-living and not having to have roommates because I was
spending only ~33% on rent. Though I'm not swimming in money, I have become
financially independent as much as any wage or salaried worker is able.

Though in my outlook I never really subscribed to the notion that all problems
are fixable by pulling oneself up by their bootstraps, I'm realizing that this
held true in my case. And as I get older I am finding it harder and harder to
sympathize with my peers who've learned less marketable skills and are now
living many three or four to an apartment in economic insecurity, or have
moved to urban centers or boomtowns chasing their dream yet aren't much better
off. Those who continuously receive assistance from their parents do not
mirror my own experience, as any money my parents lent me was sorely missed
and paid back at first opportunity, while those who are doing this on their
own are making little measurable progress to attain a better quality of life,
notwithstanding their best intentions.

It's unfortunate that one's socioeconomic wealth still so strongly predicts
their own wealth, It's unfortunate that certain systems perpetuate structural
problems, and some people never get the chance to climb out of poverty, but
some others are afforded a way up and choose not to pursue it.

------
RestlessMind
A complaint against boomers is that they pulled up the ladder for upward
mobility. That they benefited from cheap education, a booming economy,
relatively cheap houses and stock market and fully funded social security and
medicare. Whereas millennials have to face expensive education, stagnant
economy and uncertain prospects for social security / medicare.

If that's the case, we should welcome parent->children transfer of wealth to
balance out the situation of two generations, no? Some people might prefer
government to do this, but that is just a different mechanism (with lots of
political opposition) to achieve the same end goal - wealth transfer from
boomers to millennials.

~~~
pm90
The problem with parental wealth transfer is when your parents may not be in
the position to help you. Which is why this is most certainly not a good
trend.

~~~
RestlessMind
Yes, and a lot of Government wealth transfer projects would also result in
problems where they are unable to help a subset of people. Eg. Obamacare not
helping a middle class family with income just above the threshold to receive
subsidies but not enough to afford a high deductible or high premium insurance
plan

As I said, there can be different mechanisms for wealth transfer from boomers
to millennials. Govt directed programs (means-tested or universal) might be
preference of some and might even perform better, but they also tend to have a
lot of political opposition.

So while we are gridlocked on other fronts, its better to see some transfer
happening between parents and children.

------
luvstarteps
Literally 80% of my friends now live with their parents. It's not really down
upon like it used to be. People enjoy living at home and actually brag about
how nice (and cheap) it is.

------
qstyk
If you were taking a woman on a date to a place where women are objectified,
I'd be open to the possibility that money isn't your only obstacle.

~~~
akita-ken
Get off your moral high horse, you can't possibly know the full circumstances
of the OP to make such assumptions. This SJW mentality has to stop.

~~~
ClassyJacket
It's funny because it was actually a group of girls that decided to go to the
strip club and then just invited me at the last second because I was there.

I didn't touch the stripper, but the girls did. I didn't pay to have her rub
her boobs in my face, but the girls did.

I'm not saying something can't be sexist if a girl does it, but I am pretty
sure it blows that commenter's assumptions out of the water. I actually hadn't
yet said that they were female strippers at that point either.

Personally I don't like the idea of assuming a stripper doesn't like their job
or is being taken advantage of or objectified. I don't see why it's any of our
business to tell them how to feel about their job or make assumptions.

------
eli_gottlieb
As a tenant in one property in Boston who receives no help from his parents, I
deeply resent the ease with which you attained wealth by just renting out
ever-rising Bostonian housing.

~~~
Godel_unicode
Curious how you know it was easy? A colleague of mine is a landlord and it
seems externally to be a huge pain. Definitely put me off of trying to do the
same.

~~~
acomjean
In my condo building a lot of people who have moved out (out of town, out of
state) they keep renting their places out with the help of a local
realtor/manager that takes a cut and is supposed to deal with stuff. They
don't really, and the volunteer condo board ends up dealing with a lot of the
loose ends.

Based on the how much rent is in Boston are, there is a strong , strong,
strong incentive to rent out. I could make about 3x my mortgage/fees by
renting my place in cambridge which I bought early part of this century (of
course where would I live...).

Since we have about 50% owner occupied, and the tenants are paying a lot, so
they expect a lot.

Its becoming a city for rich people and students. I can understand the
resentment. I think it hurts the region.

