re: When Did “Difficult” Become “Impossible”?

quote:

---

I could make a very long list of challenges we are going to face within the next 30 years that did not exist 30 years ago. I won't because some of those challenges may be perceived as political, and I hate politicization of the money board topics.

---

I can appreciate the intention to keep it apolitical but I doubt that's possible for a topic that has roots that are nearly 100% political.

Yes, you could make a list of challenges we are going to face within the next 30 years that did not exist 30 years ago, but that list, in and of itself, doesn't really mean anything outside of a note on the evolution of our economy - challenges, opportunities, etc. To believe young people today are staring a more difficult future in the face than generations past, you need the other half of the equation - what was it like and how does it compare to 100 years ago, for example?

A hundred years ago, we legit struggled to feed everybody at times. Our "food insecure" were starving, as opposed to today where our "starving" have an obesity rate that's nearly double the rest of the public.

A hundred years ago the infant mortality rate was about 70 deaths per 1000 births. Today it's a shade over 5.

A hundred years ago, maternal death at childbirth ran about 700 per 100K. Today it's about 25.

A hundred years ago, life expectancy was about 58. Today it's about 78.

Today we can wring our hands about the affordability of a "proper" house in part because many of the primary concerns that dominated earlier generations—child survival, maternal mortality, infectious disease, workplace death—have been dramatically reduced.

And let's talk about housing as it's a major focus of today's economic debates. There's no doubt "stats" can be cherrypicked that paint a bleak picture for young adults. However, a little perspective is helpful.

Home ownership rates:
Pre-WWII - 44%
1960 - 61%
1990 - 63%
Today - 66%

So while the narrative surrounding difficulty in the housing market "feels" very real, it's not a bad thing to realize that home ownership rates have generally increased over time. That doesn't mean affordability cycles aren't a real thing, they are - but they're also not new.

And there's more - houses have changed, and so have households.

In 1950 the median new single-family home was about 980 sq ft, and household size was 3.4. That's 290 sq ft per person. That compares to today's 925 sq ft per person.

And then consider what goes into a house. It's easy (and sometimes fun) to discuss creature features like electronic gizmos, countertops, flooring, etc., but let's consider three truly fundamental aspects.

Plumbing - less than a hundred years ago, nearly half of new homes lacked complete plumbing. Today it's 100%

Air conditioning - in 1960, about 15% of new homes had AC. Today that rate is north of 90% and the only reason it's not 100% is AC isn't needed in certain regions of the US.

House fires - in 1950, fires per 1000 occupied home was about 22. Today, due to better technology, higher quality of materials and craftsmanship, better safety engineered into homes, the rate is less than 3.

How we work -

A hundred years ago, about 70% of the workforce was engaged in physically demanding labor. Today it's less than 25%.

U.S. workplace fatality rates (deaths per 100K per year):

1920 - 45
1970 - 14
Today - 3

I'm not trying to downplay challenges in front of us. AI and jobs is one that's discussed a lot, and it's a real thing. But is it unprecedented? Nobody can answer that with certainty today, but it's highly probable that it won't be. Very different, unique in certain characteristics - yes, absolutely; but not unprecedented in the sense of economic disruption relative to society's ability to adapt.

Give me a minute to touch on politics because I think it brings important context.

Central premise - because of dramatic (and increasingly rapid development of) technological advancements and wealth, life gets better and easier over time in the United States for everybody (that doesn't mean there aren't individual exceptions).

And the reason this premise is not shared far and wide is because of politics. Political narratives across the spectrum often emphasize decline/threat because urgency is persuasive. A population, or a segment of the population, convinced its future is uniquely bleak will naturally be more receptive to arguments for systemic change than one that sees long-term evidence of broad progress.

In a 2019 Gallup poll, 58% of 18-34 yo Americans had a favorable view of socialism. That is astonishing.

Socialism has more mainstream traction today than at any point in living memory. That's not a political accident.

quote:

---

What injustices am I pining for?

---

I qualified it, but you neither confirmed nor denied my interpretation of your “kill old people” diatribe. So, how do you feel about Soylent Green and mandatory death at a certain age?

I'll chime in with my thoughts as a middle age millenial.

Between my wife and I, we bring home right around $100K a year after taxes, 401K, health insurance, etc.

I find it very hard to "save" in the sense of saving liquid cash, or "padding" the bank account. Now we both contribute to our 401Ks and have a couple of roth accounts. But we arent close to being able to max our contributions to those or hsa much less just stash money in a savings account. We have a modest house in a suburb of Baton Rouge, It's 50 years old and needs repairs. We have two cars, one paid off and one with a note less than $500/mth. Two kids in public school. I dont think $100K is impossible, but it is damn sure feeling more and more difficult. I've picked up a second job just to supplement our income. In order to max our contributions to 401ks, IRAs, and HSA, we'd need about an additional $65K per year of gross income.

quote:

---

nobody including me said anything about his you fricking idiot

---

I said it. I was asking you to confirm. It went over your head. But feel free to express yourself.

Easy times make weak men. To your final point, in some cases it makes weak, stupid men.