First, young people make a lot more than they did 10 years ago (both nominally and inflation adjusted).
Second, no it does not cost 5x as much, closer to 15-20% more based on all the data I could find. Anecdotally in San Francisco, NYC, and Austin it is maybe 2x more at the most expensive places.
Drinks are like $15-20 now. 15 years ago I was getting double wells for like $2-5. Bars had actual legit specials too like dollar beers. Uber 10 years ago would be like $7 at the most.
Uber basically didn't exist 10 years ago and was insanely VC subsidized. Compare cab prices.
Drinks in some places are more, other places have not increased as much. You basically couldn't find a $5 drink in SF in 2015. You can still find $2 drinks in Austin today
The CPI is misleading because it does silly things such as counting increases in CPU speed as “getting more computing for your money.” If all you use your computer for is word processing then you’re really not getting 1000x “more computing” for your money today than you were in the 1980s, you’re getting only minor increases in productivity.
If all you use your computer for is word processing then you can buy a low-end desktop for very little money. Computers (and other consumer electronics) are cheaper now than they have ever been. Uninformed whining about hedonic adjustments in CPI is so tiresome.
How many average home computer users are 1000X more productive with a computer today than they were with a 1980s computer? The CPI is the consumer price index. It doesn’t cover business uses of computers which take more advantage of the improved performance.
No it measures CPU speed, memory, etc under the assumption that scaling these provide some kind of tangible benefit to warrant the idea that we’re getting “more computer for less money” but these benefits are clearly nowhere even close to a linear relationship with CPU speed.
Productivity was an example of a benefit I chose off the cuff but you could choose others. Are today’s video game consoles 1000X more fun than a NES? Given that many people actually prefer old NES games and are even willing to pay inflated prices to collect them suggests the answer is a resounding no.
You are getting more computer for your money. And only a tiny niche of collectors are foolish enough to waste a lot of money on old video games. You can find the same hobbyist collectors for anything: figurines, model trains, coins, etc. Collectors are economically meaningless.
The question is not: "are you getting more computer for your money?"
The question is: "are you getting (anywhere near) a linear scaling of computer for your money?"
Because to me the answer to the second question is a resounding "no" and the strongest evidence of that is all the people walking around with high-end iPhones who can barely afford rent on tiny single-bedroom apartments.
>"First, young people make a lot more than they did 10 years ago (both nominally and inflation adjusted)."
I need a source on this, like [1], and I need you to also share the cost-of-living average increases, which PLAINLY show that despite wages increasing, the increasing costs for goods and services within that same time period have outpaced wage increase percentages [2][3].
And don't be a typical HN-crowder and say ANYTHING about wages in our industries — it's white-collar work, and a functioning society sees to accomplishing an ever-progressing standard of living for members in ALL sectors of the status-quo 'bell curve'.
Shit, even average household income is down 2k from 6 years ago [4]
EDIT: the data you shared is not specific to "young people", that's why it's different. While everyone's wages are up over the last 10 years relative to prices (according to the data you shared), young people have gained much more
Rent, household items, cost of external activities, and health insurance (sometimes, see parents' insurance plans) are still subject to that group - which my sources show clear outpacing for - even with youth's increase in wages.
For someone that lives with their parents and works full time, yeah - they've probably never had it better. But a lot of youth right now have expenses drawn out in such a way where, even if they're making more than their predecessors, they have less upwards mobility for today, let alone any potential to invest in assets that afford them any upwards mobility in the future.
But what you are claiming is contradicted by the data you shared. When you weight the categories you listed by how much that age group spends, they still have more money (young people spend much much less on healthcare, you'd be shocked at how little they actually spend. You have to look at out of pocket costs, not provider charges which mostly not paid in full)
It doesn't, and you’re slicing a narrow cohort and using a generic basket. Under-25/25-34 spend a much bigger share on housing, and rents ripped; that combo compresses “real” gains even when wages tick up. If you match the cohort to the basket, the situation looks tighter for young renters. Unless you'd want to come from the position or angle that young people AREN'T renting or buying groceries that these data points support?
I don't think what you're saying is true actually, do you have data? I assume young people actually spend a smaller proportion on rent because older people spend a very large portion (65+ spend around half)
I mean partly, but it's because you’re mixing up aggregate vs within-group numbers. In this BLS table [1], the housing tenure lines do the work: 85% of under-25s rent, 58% of 25-34 rent, and only 22% of 65+ rent, while 53% of 65+ own outright. That’s exactly the exposure I’m talking about: young adults are mostly renters, so the rent surge bites them first.
You're going to have to share with me what that means. Are you using GPT to come to your conclusions? Did you read the BLS table and literally CTRL+F the data percentages I gave?
While correct, CPI-U is still an average. The spending mix of a young adult runs differently, and recent Fed work shows inflation isn’t uniform by group, with younger age groups often higher post-2021. So CPI-adjusted can still overstate how far a young renter’s paycheck goes.
I don't see how. You are engaging in a discussion about what is generally happening, meaning aggregating data is required.
If you want to have a conversation about specific people, then yes, you can find some young renter that is having problems. But that does not make it generally true.
Second, no it does not cost 5x as much, closer to 15-20% more based on all the data I could find. Anecdotally in San Francisco, NYC, and Austin it is maybe 2x more at the most expensive places.
EDIT: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LEU0252882200Q