DD_equals_doodoo t1_jee83lm wrote

Part of this is incalculable. For example, the $60K job likely comes with higher potential earnings later on. It is generally much easier to move to $80K from $60K than it is from $42K and so on. Spending extra year(s) at a $42K job could come with significant opportunity costs down the road. Then you start thinking about time value of money, etc and those become magnified quite a bit.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_jee7fej wrote

I think the issue is that fresh grads (people in their first jobs) generally don't understand professional norms and that is a function of lack of experience (not their fault). Having fewer examples around that help establish professionalism can cause issues. While many people can manage remote work just fine, many people cannot. Companies are calling employees back into offices for this reason (and others) - it isn't because of the reddit excuse of "real estate."


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9yhz1s wrote

It's effectively the same thing. Hence why that measure is used. It matches perfectly with 1 - rental rates.

I don't dispute that housing costs have outstripped income gains. However, when you look at the drivers of that, homes are also getting larger and more modern (read: expensive to build). Asbestos was in basically all old homes because it was dirt cheap. Same with shag carpets. Same with lead in paint, etc.

Edit: Home sizes more than doubled from 1960 to 2010 https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wlmi4 wrote

Oh my gosh. My guy... you're being needlessly pedantic here. I showed you **RATES** by country. Do you understand what that means?

I've taught undergrads, grads, doctoral students for over a decade and, to be honest, you're possibly the most stubborn person I've encountered in my life.

You do you. Good luck. You win! You're the best ever. Whatever.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wi7nr wrote

I think you can demonstrate that homeownership is becoming less accessible over time.

... My original comment that seemed to cause you so much heartburn literally showed homeownership rates have increased since the 60s. Take the opinions out of the equation...

Aside from that, I show you the U.S. is better regarding homelessness compared with supposedly "better" countries and you immediately shift the goal post...

>My general impression is that we are heading toward an era where the
majority of people are renters and I think we can expect a further class
divide to emerge between renters and owners.

How can you possibly arrive at that conclusion when your initial complaint was over my source which showed that homeownership rates have actually increased since the 1960s....

You're a hammer in search of nails.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wfewj wrote

If you realllly want to argue this, I'm happy to do so. You're cherry picking (aka intentionally arguing). Given your passion (which I admire), I suspect you seem to believe the U.S. is uniquely bad for first-world countries. I strongly recommend that you look at homelessness rates (which you raised as an issue) for the U.S. against other developed countries. You'll find that the U.S. actually performs better than some peer countries (again, despite reddit opinions).

Homelessness (per 10K)

UK - 54.4

Australia - 49.1

Sweden - 36

US - 17.5

Denmark - 11

Iceland - 10

In the U.S. homelessness rates correlate almost perfectly with drug usage rates. I'm not trying to knock people who use drugs, but you can't exactly ignore "other factors" when they don't confirm your perceptions.

You seem (forgive me here) very invested in the idea where US = bad without sufficient evidence. This is a very common reddit perspective.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9w82bv wrote

>Its only pedantic if the detail is irrelevant.

... being pedantic is basically brooding over minor relevant details.

I completely agree that the chart you provided directly addresses the first portion of my comment I made better than the comment I provided.

What I am trying to point out to you is that my second line of commentary was addressing my broad concern regarding reddit perceptions regarding homeownership, rather than for homeownership for millennials specifically. Even a slightly charitable interpretation would recognize that once pointed out. I've pointed out that I made two separate statements that should be evaluated as such multiple times. You refuse to view it from this perspective. Look at how this comment (and my others) are structured. This is a comment section, not a peer reviewed paper. Some generous parsing and interpretation are generally required.

It doesn't take a stretch of imagination to figure out that redditors seem to perceive home ownership is out of reach for most people. I was attempting to point out that perception isn't grounded in reality.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vmcs6 wrote

> I am trying to say that the data you provided does not prove that.

Where in my original argument did I claim that? Did you stop to consider that my point wasn't to directly address the millennial portion of the argument and instead point to overall ownership in the U.S. (which is arguably more important)?

Again, you're being needlessly pedantic.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_iuehsvz wrote

  1. It doesn't work like that.
  2. It's unethical. If you know you won't receive unemployment (e.g., intentionally lighting the building on fire) and you apply anyway, you are doing something you know is wrong.
  3. It's a complete waste of peoples' time - have some respect for people who are there to do their job.

DD_equals_doodoo t1_iudrg10 wrote

It depends. Some things are pretty obvious. For example, if you no call, no show, the unemployment office is unlikely to rule in your favor. I forget the language they use, but if you show no regard or care to protect your unemployment, they will not rule in your favor. You don't have to a have a policy for everything as an employer.