Millennials (Are we doomed)? (San Jose, Compton: sale, crime, house prices)

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by user_id

And I'll repeat, before modern technology life expectancies were low, starvation was common, disease was common (you can say the same of today for different reasons, but technology has little to do with it) and life was overall difficult.

We covered the low life expectancies. They have nothing to do with living simplistically and without technology. We have covered starvation - it was NOT common until the advent of agriculture (strangely), when people relied on storage of foods commonly grown. Disease was very uncommon until the Neolithic. Technology has EVERYTHING to do with present day disease being common. Present day NCD's are directly correlated to the rise of modern technology. User, there is copious scientific evidence of these things, and you know it.

As for life being difficult -- it's difficult as all hell now, just in different ways ... that's what we are talking about here. Anyway, "difficult" is subjective.

Originally Posted by user_id

People in the modern world may do some strange things, but I can't think of a single case where those strange things are direct result of technology rather than poor government policy, culturally manipulation, etc.

I agree with you that poor government policy and cultural manipulation, conditioning, etc. is rampant and rotten. But the examples of people wasting their lives through technology are practically endless, regardless of policy and marketing

Originally Posted by user_id

I'm not going to discuss what you're saying about "primitive" societies, it all seems to be rooted in some sort of noble savage fantasy.

I never lionized the Amish ... I never suggested farming with oxen ... and I have never spoken of savages as "noble". Not once. Ever. Because I don't find savagery noble. Simple. I am not discussing the Amish, oxen, or savagery. I am discussing refined simplicity. You are doing your best to make inferences that suit your love of ridicule. But you are just making things up out of thin air.

Originally Posted by user_id

I don't agree, we have very useful information its just being poorly utilized due to the structure of our society.

I agree. I have said exactly that throughout this thread.

Originally Posted by user_id

In any case, there is little chance that the Millennials will change the underlying structure of the nation...so its best to think how one can make the best of it. I'd suggest that minimizing the blood sucking from the boomer generation, is one such strategy. And there, Millennials can act both personally and politically. For example, they can avoid states like California. They can push for uniform solutions to social security and medicare, that is solutions that effect all generations not just theirs. Etc.

Ah, the bloodsucking Boomers ... yes ... allow me to post a rerun, which not one of you have commented on:

The American Dream of Retirement: Do You Have to Be Asleep to Believe It?
...the great majority of our potential "baby boom" retirees have little or no assets, nor do they have funds set aside to live on for even six months, let alone the rest of their lives.

Social Security checks, Medicare and food stamps represent the only income and/or support they will have going into the future. We have millions of people who are about to be trapped, resigned to infernal poverty and insecurity for the rest of their lives -- in other words, barely making it, surviving by a thread and marginal in every sense of the word.
The American Dream of Retirement: Do You Have to Be Asleep to Believe It? | The Business Desk with Paul Solman | PBS NewsHour | PBS

[nullgeo]

Read it and weep:

The Internet’s greatest disruptive innovation: Inequality

The logical consequences of Silicon Valley capitalism: Social stratification and class antagonism

Over the past three decades, the spread of technologies associated with the silicon chip and the Internet has been accompanied by growing income inequality and an increasingly squeezed middle class.

The Internet’s greatest disruptive innovation: Inequality - Salon.com

The problem isn't the Boomers at all. The problem lies in the concentration of wealth and an ever increasing reliance on technologies that have fed that wealth while simultaneously driving unemployment and creating a new social stratification.

Can't find a job? Because the Boomers stole your opportunity? Read the articles linked in this post and the one previous. Most of what the Boomers did is disappearing -- replaced by increasing automation and technology solutions.

[shiphead]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

I go by the the definitions on the following site:

The Fourth Turning

Homeland 2005-Present
Millennial 1982-2004
Generation X 1961-1981
Boom 1943-1960
Silent 1925-1942
G.I. 1901-1924
Lost 1883-1900
Missionary 1860–1882
Progressive 1843-1859
Gilded 1822-1842
Transcendental 1792-1821
Compromise 1767-1791
Republican 1742-1766
Liberty 1724-1741
Awakening 1701-1723

Rather than the simplistic fecundity curve basis, this has its basis in shared experiences and position in life versus the turnings of American History.

If you can remember JFK's assassination but not WW2, you are probably a Boomer.
If you can remember Ronald Reagan's First Term as President, but not JFK's assassination, you are probably an Xer.
If you can remember the Crash of '08 but not Ronald Reagan's First Term as President, you are probably a Millie.

This is really cool. Thanks for posting this.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

I never lionized the Amish ... I never suggested farming with oxen ... and I have never spoken of savages as "noble". Not once.

I was, of course, referring to this:

Noble savage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I still think its cute that you think disease was "very" uncommon in the paleolithic era, may I suggest that you write a diet book around this idea? Oh wait.....

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Ah, the bloodsucking Boomers ... yes ... allow me to post a rerun, which not one of you have commented on:

What you're quoting doesn't address what I'm talking about, namely, the transfers of wealth between younger generations and the boomers. Also, trying to make boomers sound broke while ignoring that younger generations will have even less opportunities for wealth creation is silly.

The transfers of wealth are all very apparent, its just that they are typically known by other names. For example, the federal deficit, taxes, inflation, etc.

[zdg]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

But you have not considered the Silicon Valley area, where houses are much more expensive for a similar quality of neighborhood.

Let's play this game.

What zip codes would you consider to be the desirable zip codes for people actively working in tech in Silicon Valley? I'm not talking about the millionaires, I'm talking about the employees making $80k-$250k.

Anyone may answer this question.

[jm1982]

Also good to point out that there are other technology too, and many more are growing fast.

Silicon Valley and Austin aren't the only ones.

I think Millennials need to "think outside the box"

Another problem is the idea of champagne taste on a beer budget.

Oftentimes people don't HAVE to live in California but they WANT to live in CA for various reasons.

What's wrong with someone starting out in a city where they can live well and not have all their money go to housing expenses? Too often high housing costs keep people poor.,especially if they are paying high rents.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

^Yep, and I'm back to agreeing with Nullgeo

Well now I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy again Life is good ...

[zdg]

Originally Posted by jm1982

I think Millennials need to "think outside the box"

Not just Millennials. This isn't new.

Another problem is the idea of champagne taste on a beer budget.

Not just Millennials. This isn't new.

What's wrong with someone starting out in a city where they can live well and not have all their money go to housing expenses? Too often high housing costs keep people poor.,especially if they are paying high rents.

Location, location, location. I've lived in a place I could easily afford that sucked (El Paso) and lived in a place I could barely afford but had a ton of amenities and things to do (New York City, the first year we were there) and I can tell you I was much happier in NYC.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by zdg

And again, are you from Austin? Are you familiar with those parts of town and the issues with houses of that age in the Central Texas heat and humidity? Of course there are cheap houses in what looks like close-in Austin, but I'm telling you that those houses and areas are less desirable than you think they are. Go see for yourself. I did.

Though you won't find anything for $200k in the most desirable areas of Austin, there are pretty of reasonable and safe communities in Austin where you can purchase a home for $200k. The situation is vastly differently in the bay area, where $200k lands you in the ghetto at best and the desirable areas are all $1+ million.

But comparing Austin, by itself, to the entire bay area isn't a fare comparison in the first place. Outside of Austins, in cities like Round Rock, etc, a family can purchase a very nice home for $200k in an area with good schools, etc. Again, the situation is much different in the bay area.

The bay area is terrible for middle-class families.

[zdg]

Originally Posted by user_id

Though you won't find anything for $200k in the most desirable areas of Austin, there are pretty of reasonable and safe communities in Austin where you can purchase a home for $200k. The situation is vastly differently in the bay area, where $200k lands you in the ghetto at best and the desirable areas are all $1+ million.

Please, seriously, provide me with the house/area you speak of. I just looked at Redfin for any house with at least 3 bedrooms that costs less than $200,000 in Austin, Texas. There is literally (look it up yourself) not a single house below 183, above the river, and west of 35. Not one. Once you raise your price to $250k, you find this single property listed: "Fantastic teardown investment property." It's a duplex that is actually falling over.

But comparing Austin, by itself, to the entire bay area isn't a fare comparison in the first place. Outside of Austins, in cities like Round Rock, etc, a family can purchase a very nice home for $200k in an area with good schools, etc. Again, the situation is much different in the bay area.

Round Rock? That's a full hour away in light traffic. I can attest to this first hand because I used to live in Round Rock and had to drive in to go to classes at UT. Certainly there are bedroom communities an hour inland from the Silicon Valley where people can purchase tract housing in "cities" with almost nothing in the way of urban amenities. Perhaps I'm incorrect (in which case, I will gladly apologize).

Again, something that is being completely omitted is the difference in property taxes. We owned a house in Houston (not Austin, but still Texas) that we bought for about $500k. The taxes on that house were more than $11,000, or about the same as a house with a value of almost twice that in California. The difference is an additional $150,000 in home price.

The bay area is terrible for middle-class families.

I wasn't being funny, please give me the zip codes you consider to be the desirable middle class zip codes for the Bay Area. I want to see what I can buy in both areas.