Exactly, I feel a lot of my coworkers fell under this trap: if you need cashflow for mortgage on your 4m mansion in (affluent neighborhood), you can't really afford it.
I make a decent salary as a programmer (150k) but my house only cost 250k and my mortgage is about 1400. How I see it, if I have to flip burgers to keep my house, I can pull it off. I can't imagine have a mortgage that's 10gs a month.
Sadly it seems it's unlikely they'll hire you even though they might need the help that bad because they're afraid of paying to train you and then you leaving once something better, and in your line of work, comes along.
I mean I just meant a low paying job. During COVID which even have more oversupply, I was bored and I was drive around doing doordash and other delivery services even though I had my tech job. There is always a surefire way of making one or two thousand a month here in the states if you're properly motivated.
Not sure what you mean. Job growth is continually rising, and unemployment continues to remain at historic lows (where it has been since 2021-ish). [0]
The job market is doing just fine, unless you’re in very specific areas such as the automotive industry or certain types of manufacturing.
These charts use "employment" in a very pedantic way. They don't look much at underemployment nor the shifts in proportions of salary ranges.
I believe they also count gigs. So I could run Doordash for under minimum and be "employed" technically.
The other dangerous thing is "averages". This is one of the special cases where you need to look at the lower quartiles. The average/median can look great, but if we have an entire quartile unable to pay rent we'd be in trouble as a whole.
To be clear, I was only responding to your first statement about “how bad the job market's been.”
You can click through to the BLS survey to read more about their methodology, but the job growth number of +254k jobs in September only includes payroll employees. And reading the report would tell you that they do, in fact, track underemployment (people who worked part time but would have preferred full time employment). And neither job growth nor the unemployment rate has anything to do with “averages.”
Can you provide any data to refute the numbers I shared? Because again, the job market is looking pretty good to me.
> Can you provide any data to refute the numbers I shared? Because again, the job market is looking pretty good to me.
This is why everyone hates economists.
They have zero insight into how lives are for ordinary people.
I applied for a job at grocery stores and fast food restaurants.
I did not get ONE call back from any of these places.
Also another thing -- they keep saying rate of inflation is now under control.
Well guess what, the prices went up and have not come down. Wages did not keep pace with the high rate of inflation so unless you can have negative inflation somehow, there is still constant pain every day, every month. I mean it is so obvious and yet economists chase spherical cows...
> This is why everyone hates economists. They have zero insight into how lives are for ordinary people. I applied for a job at grocery stores and fast food restaurants. I did not get ONE call back from any of these places.
I understand your frustration with your personal situation, but at least regarding unemployment, how else would you propose we measure it? Unless there's some flaw with the methodology or the data that was collected, your situation is very clearly not the norm. Until we identify any possible problems with the measuring process, the number that's released is the best view we have of the employment situation nationwide. Are you saying that "ordinary people" are somehow excluded from the data? Or what?
> Also another thing -- they keep saying rate of inflation is now under control. Well guess what, the prices went up and have not come down. Wages did not keep pace with the high rate of inflation so unless you can have negative inflation somehow, there is still constant pain every day, every month. I mean it is so obvious and yet economists chase spherical cows...
The rate of inflation is under control, and I realize you might know better and are just speaking for "the average person," but comments like this reflect a gross misunderstanding of the concept of inflation. This is a perfect reason why education is so important to an informed and effective electorate.
BTW, you can, in fact, have negative inflation, and it is widely considered to be bad, for a multitude of reasons. [0]
Sorry, yes, I meant somehow have negative inflation without the terrible consequences (iirc Japan had it at slightly above zero for a decade and that was bad enough, can't imagine actually negative numbers enough to reverse the inflation since 2020).
> The rate of inflation is under control
Stop saying that because that message is clearly not resonating with people. They don't understand and they don't want to understand. Don't shoot the messenger here but this is a spherical cow. It doesn't matter that a car that has you pinned against a wall is no longer accelerating but it is merely attempting to crush you at a steady, cruising speed.
Yes, this was a big achievement and clearly we failed to communicate this message because the next question is ok great but how do I stretch my paycheck to meet my expenses.
And that goes back to the original problem -- there are fewer jobs than there were before. I have ZERO data to back this up but just my own personal anecdotes but it feels like at least for web developers that companies are laying off people AND hiring people back at lower wages. If they are not actively laying off, they are taking any excuse they can get to end a contract or "return to office" to force people to quit and come back at a lower salary.
> Stop saying that because that message is clearly not resonating with people
I’m not a politician running for office, so fortunately I don’t have to make it resonate with people. I will continue to say it because it’s true.
> And that goes back to the original problem -- there are fewer jobs than there were before. I have ZERO data to back this up but just my own personal anecdotes but it feels like at least for web developers that companies are laying off people AND hiring people back at lower wages.
I prefer to believe things that are based on data and evidence rather than feelings, even if it goes against whatever preconceived notions I may have.
Here’s an anecdote for you: I’m a developer and found a new job about 2 years ago, after the big tech layoffs started happening, and went from starting my search to offer signed in about 5 weeks, give or take. I still work for this same company and since the whole company is fully remote, there are going to be no RTO mandates, ever. I make more money than I have at any previous job in my prior 20 years in the profession. I have several close friends in similar positions as me. The job market is doing great!
I find it hard to believe you can flip enough burgers to pay that mortgage and still survive. Not many fast food places will pay over 30 hours a week to burger flippers. Managers yes. You would barely survive.
That is nonsense. That's more than enough to afford a studio in New York City.
You can easily afford a luxury studio with a doorman and a pool making half of that!
Is a "luxury studio" a real thing in NYC real estate or was this a joke?
The term itself sounds absurd and oxymoronic to me, but also I know NYC housing is absurd and I can imagine that there are places that do nice interior finishes on studio apartments and call them luxury so maybe it's real?
really depends on CoL and remote work and a half dozen other factors. My house is around the same mortgage but also twice as expensive in a suburb that is arguably the boonies. Even with the $20/hr miniumum wage for flipping burgers It'd be a tight fit after utilities and other payments.
Every house requires cash flow, regardless of mortgage amount. There's something to be said for overspending on a house for sure - but let's not forget mortgage(if any), maintenance, property tax, utilities, insurance, etc. Last year I spent more on maintenance than my mortgage cost.
You get a mortgage because most people cannot just outright buy a hosue with cash. We can discuss the balance of how big a mortgae to your salary, but most people through American history could "not really afford it" by that definition.
But most of history relied on a labor market focusing on retention and training. We're far past that. We're a gig econnomy in all but name with these kinds of evonomic swings.
The only mortgages that don't require cashflow are the paid off mortgages. Even if someone has a year of savings, or two years, or three, after that amount is drained, they need cash flow again. So how does one buy a house without being dependent on cash flow?
Well, you need cashflow on a house in general. Even with a paid-off mortgage, I'm easily $10K/year and probably closer to $20K if I'm not pushing various stuff off.
2025 standard deduction is $30k for MFJ. Ain’t many people passing that mark these days in itemized deductions so the mortgage interest deduction is moot.
Well the most obvious approach would be to pay cash.
The more fiscally conservative option is to only borrow money if you have capital which is earning income at a higher rate than the mortgage. This probably necessitates having more capital than the house costs.
The problem with that is that unless you have an extremely well paying job or rich parents, you have to outsave inflation and rising house prices. You may never own. Getting a loan just locks you into an inflation proof price as a "forced" savings. I don't think it's realistic at all for 85% of Americans to save for a new house.
If you save $2.5k/mo for 15 years, after 14 years (mid-30s), you’d have $800k at 8% interest.
Even in Seattle, $800k would get you a decent starter home.
(I chose $2.5k, bc 15 years ago out of college, that’s how much I saved living in GA on a $70k salary). I saved even more when I move to California in my mid 20s.
That' assuming houses don't go up in price though right?
Also I think it's pretty rare for people to have the mental fortitude to save 2.5k a month for a house on top of living expenses, rent, and trying to build your retirement / savings / emergency fund.
It's definitely possible but I think it's out of reach for the average person.
> That' assuming houses don't go up in price though right?
No, it isn’t. You can invest your savings. If you had put $2,500.00 a month into SPY500 since October 2009 (15 years ago) you’d have $1,388,302.13 today.
> Also I think it's pretty rare for people to have the mental fortitude to save 2.5k a month for a house on top of living expenses, rent, and trying to build your retirement / savings / emergency fund.
How is saving for a house “on top of” literally “saving”? If you can save for retirement, savings, and emergencies then you have the mental fortitude to save for a house. People are bad with money, we know that. One of the best examples is buying a house they can’t afford.
> It's definitely possible but I think it's out of reach for the average person.
Yeah, I just think examples like this need to work for the masses in order to be useful otherwise they're just pie in the sky advice like abstinence to prevent childbirth. It does work and it's 100% effective but humans are horny. Same with saving this amount of money, there's a select few that can pull it off but most are incapable. Those are the people advice is for
>Live within your means and save as much as you can
It's expensive being poor and the job market isn't getting better to compensate this economy. If you rent forever you spend more than someone paying off a mortgage (only amortized by needing to upkeep the house youself). If you're wokrking your back out everyday you're more likely to pay more insurance and medical bills than the cushy white collar job with proggresion options.
Most people don't even have the $1000 rainy day fund. They are 3 steps removed from the thought of a "diversified portfolio".
They can’t afford a rainy day fund so they should buy a house?
I have a “cushy white collar job” and I can’t afford a house. Prices are absurd. I can make mortgage payments but it would destroy any other savings. Buying a house when poor isn’t a smart financial move.
I wish everyone could afford a house but that’s not the world we live in. Nothing will change until people wake up and stop killing themselves to inflate home prices.
Just because you buy something doesn’t mean you can afford it.
If you can’t retire or pay medical expenses or maintain your physical and emotional wellbeing because you spent money on a house then you couldn’t afford it. Owning a house doesn’t mean you can pay the property taxes or maintenance costs.
My point is that people are making financially unsound home buying purchases.
Another way to say this is that Bugatti doesn’t sell Veyrons to people with $1,000,000.00. Bugatti sells Veyrons to people with an extra $1,000,000.00.
Now I’m curious how this happened. This is the portion of homes owned by their residents, not the number of owned homes as a portion of total population. I’m also curious what the income and wealth to home ratios are. Looks like I have a weekend project.
The pre-war/post war duality is easy to understand. The US made it official policy to increase homeownership. The government subsidizes housing for all income levels and there was tons of housing built.
The post-war era has seen only minor changes in homeownership rates. And those tend to be around macro economic events like 2008 and Covid (and the Reagan era mortgage rates woof).
My bet is simple: Boomers are all at retirement age if we use the cap of 1954, they were basically given land during the post-war boom. Many had a lifetime career so there was no need to constantly hustle and move about to get a comfortable life. Home ownership is likely very top heavy for Boomers and older Gen X as a result.
If that's even in the ballpark we're going to see a lot of assets aquired by insurance and hospitals to pay off the final years and this residential ownershio will torpeo.
The census bureau has looked at this. The Reagan years hit boomers hard causing their percentage of homeownership to drop compared to a similar age cohort historically. Then 2008 wrecked the young boomers and gen x similarly.
In general terms the oldest cohort has steadily advanced in home ownership (I’d guess due to our welfare for the aged that isn’t needs based and better old age health, not land gifts but who knows). So there is definitely a trend of the oldest age cohort increasing its homeownership % while the other cohorts decrease.
But for the under 35 crowd today, they own their own home at a higher percentage than boomers or gen x did when they were in that cohort.
There is also the consideration that the US is just older than it’s ever been. I’m not a demographer do I have no idea how that plays out.
No, those are considered. That $2,500/mo is at the bottom of your career. You will be saving more as you age, even accounting for employment gaps.
If we are considering kids, presumably there is another partner (and income) to be added to the equation. While you may have half the amount saved due to the cost of raising children, your partner would have the other half.
8% was chosen to discount 3% inflation (cost of living) from SnP 500’s average 11% growth.
Ah yeah fair. The numbers I quoted are median and I don’t have the source. They are from a quick search of financial news. Your index numbers are probably a more sound comparison of overall house prices.
But even using the index numbers it isn’t hard to see that housing prices do in fact go both up and down.
They are not going down because of lack of inventory. Look at commercial, some properties had an 80% discount. But that requires that supply overwhelms demand. It’s not happening with regular housing.
That's not guaranteed, and not how you save for a fixed goal.
I don't know of any lower-risk and higher-interest alternative to the 30-years-fixed that is currently offered to US consumers, and based of the above answer, neither do you.
Yes, it’s a tragedy of the commons. That doesn’t make taking on a loan you can’t afford less of a bad idea.
House prices are unaffordable because people take on loans they can’t afford. This reinforces the unaffordable prices. If milk was $40.00 a gallon you’d just stop putting it on cereal and eventually farmers get the message. Houses are the same thing.
If you can’t comfortably afford a house then don’t buy it. You’re stuck renting or buying something more modest. This isn’t complicated.
The idea that house prices can only go up is delusional. Nothing about a house is uniquely inflation proof or even inflation resistant. This isn’t the only investment vehicle available to you.
This idea that houses are an important part of financial security is putting the cart in front of the horse. It leads to the NIMBYism that prevents additional supply from being built because prices must always go up.
We all exist in the same economy and no action happens in a vacuum. When you buy something you have reduced supply and applied upward pressure on price. Individually this effect is so small it is immeasurable. In aggregate it isn’t.
This was a failure of regulation, not just in the US but elsewhere too; banks and mortgage brokers weren't doing their due diligence and were giving out loans and mortgages that people couldn't afford based on their income and other outstanding debts, eventually leading to the 2007/8 financial crisis.
Which should have been a lesson, but five years later, housing prices recovered and ballooned. I don't know why besides increased demand and reduced availability, clearly people can still get mortgages despite the lessons learned from the crisis.
No. How do you use it if it's in a safe? The only way this works is if you use the yubikey to log into google or some other auth provider and then use that auth provider for everything. But you are even worse off then as that auth provider now is a single point of failure... get that account revoked for any reason and you've lost access everywhere.
Figure out which doors you need to unlock and make sure you have at least two independent ways to get through each door. Some doors support Yubikey, so that counts as one, for those doors.
But why do THAT when what were asking for is control over our own data, our own secrets? Because it's imagined to be "less secure"?
Actually backing up keys, as in duplicating them and physically securing them, makes it simple, clear, and understandable to all involved what recovery looks like. TOTP is a great example in a similar space; my nontechnical spouse doesn't need to know "how TOTP works" to know that in case of my incapacitation she only has to read a packet of paper and follow instructions in order to perfectly recover all my accounts with zero chance of some 3rd party provider (e.g. Passkey stores like 1password/Google) having a political/technical glitch that'd get in the way of that.
Passkeys are like passwords with landlords added in. Just like with landlords for services provided,
Passkeys seem very convenient for day-to-day but nightmarish in the margins and on the 5+ year scale.
I always ask myself, "What was a government service necessary in order to obtain this money?" Since there are no capital gains without all manners of law enforcement, the answer is yes here. A capital gain is not a tax on the original income. It's a tax on the capital gain, which would be impossible without the rest of us.
Capital gains do depend on participants of the market and economy in general. But each and every one of them has already been taxed. I simply stating the obvious that money should be taxed exactly once, not so many times.
> I simply stating the obvious that money should be taxed exactly once, not so many times.
Why is that obvious? Doesn't a rule like that necessarily create distortions in who gets all the benefits of civilization? For example, in only income is taxed, but not gains on investments, doesn't that mean that working people do ALL the work AND pay ALL the taxes, while people who are rich enough not to work literally do NO work and pay NO taxes?
People like you don't realize that economics involves living, breathing humans.
I mean, the Lisp here technically uses the same approach - it runs just enough Lisp to boostrap the remaining functionality on top of what is provided.
I'm a car person but 20/30 mins of walk to get some coffee with my dogs sounds very pleasant (iff the pedestrian crossings are safer as the article proposed)
Just because the majority are fat doesn't mean it's healthy
Sure, and you can do that 20/30 minute walk if you want, there are many parts of minnesotan suburbs that are, in fact, very walkable already. On a weekend, that is a nice thing to do - but the day-to-day life that the majority of people live shouldn't be optimized for that.
I'm not sure why you're shoe horning body weight into this - that's a whole separate can of worms that tenuously related, but not relevant to the fact that these places are so spread out in such a way that walking isn't feasible for a myriad of other very practical and immediately relevant reasons (weather, ability to organize child care/education, ability to run errands before/after work, time spent "commuting", etc.)
In a lot of places it's close to impossible to do what you're saying. There are no side walks. Many suburban streets and especially those bigger roads (stroads) are horrible. No shade because no trees because HUGE ADS SHALL BE VISIBLE FROM CARS, lots of dangerous driveway exists every 5 minutes that you can't even walk in peace lest you are run over by a huge truck, etc.
Streets are dangerous for cyclists (and I mean the regular cyclists, commuter/grocery shopping style, not the lycra-clad racers).
There are modern ways to design infrastructure, it isn't even a lot more expensive than the old fashioned way, and it makes for a lot more pleasant environment for everyone. Even drivers get to enjoy it because... people start walking (under 1km) and cycling (under about 5-7km), so a lot of car traffic just vanishes. So the remaining car drivers get to vroom-vroom a lot more :-)
I have a theory that at least some of them might be taking advantage of an (un)official website/forum that allows for free sharing/hosting of wsz files, which of course are just zips
From personal experience the coding round gets easier for senior/staff roles, even for the exact same question, because of the experience the interviewers have and the signal they are looking for (eg problem solving, communication, testing, etc.)
At junior and "SDE II" level coding rounds are just toxic newly minted SDEs trying to make it a competition between the candidate and themselves ( I've got interviewers offended when I came up with a simpler solution than the one he had in mind)
It's true that the interview result can only be as good as the interviewer's skill and awareness of what to look for. Which will often be terrible. BUT that does point out a mis-perception of the interview process. You will do better by getting along, "figuring out", going along with the interviewers' plan - rather than trying to demonstrate your own cleverness. Not saying this is what @dixie_land personally went for in that case - but perhaps that if you notice the interviewer getting offended, you better figure out fast what you did and work to make them happy again.
If you can figure out what the interviewer is trying to get out of you, then give them that. That may or may not reflect a useful job skill, but that is an interview skill.
Why work to make the interviewer happy again? If your solution is better than the interviewer's you should expect the interviewer to acknowledge that fact, like an adult and like a team player. He is not supposed to be offended or unhappy.
Agreed that it's a soft skills interview at that point for the interviewee, but I think what OP above may be pointing at is that if you've got a good solution, and your interviewer is getting mad... maybe you as the interviewee are getting culture fit signals from the interviewer?
Wanting the job might be down to you needing money. OK, use the soft skills, and make the interviewer happy. If you don't particularly need the money right now, then evaluate whether you want to work with this interviewer at all.
It's rare that you will be working for that interviewer. Much more likely this is just one of the juniors, one of the team, that you may work "with" but not "for". They still matter, as soft skill, because they will give a thumbs up or down to the boss or to the rest of the committee, and they can make up any reason for it that they want. And do you want the company to offer you the job or not?
But yeah, if you get to interview with the boss and they are a problem for you, then that does matter.
Also you are in a better situation if you get the job offer - they want you -, and let it go because you learned about them - and you don't want them anymore. Get the offer.
I agree. To be blunt, ass-kissing is a soft skill. Whether you choose to deploy that skill really depends on what you're looking for (eg big name companies, high TC, remote work, etc.)
And end of the day, interviews are also a chance for candidates to evaluate the company
This might also be because (at least back in the ZIRP days) you would get an order of magnitude or two more applications for junior roles than for senior ones.
Not agreeing with the (somewhat amusing) limited heartbeats theory, but even under that theory, cardio is beneficial since it lowers your resting heart rate.
e.g.
my HR is 50 thanks to running an hour a day, my HR during those runs are between 120 to 150, that gives 50x60x23+150x60 == 78000 beats a day
a non runner might've a HR of 60 (being very generous, most folks are well above 70), that gives 60x60x24 == 86400 beats
Again, the limited heartbeats theory sounds like an oversimplification. But the point of rigorous training (cardio and strength) is that your body adapts to the taxing efforts during training and doesn't need to work nearly as hard for your day to day.
For most adults, a resting heart rate above about 60 bpm is a sign of serious underlying pathology. Doctors usually won't recommend medical treatment unless resting heart rate exceeds 100 bpm, but over time there is a significantly increased risk of premature death.
> For most adults, a resting heart rate above about 60 bpm is a sign of serious underlying pathology.
Sources? The claim I most recently heard is that 60-80 bpm is within normal range (which itself surprised me, because I've usually been told a target of 60 bpm resting heartrate, leaving aside the 40 bpm achievable by some athletes).
