OT: Fintech

[flyer]

Interesting article, which, looking into our crystal ball, begs the question, “As a whole, will generations X, Y, and Z retire with lesser or greater wealth than past generations?”

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2015/03/19/the-job-boom-in-fintech/

[The-Shoveler]

IMO, Each new gen will retire better and earlier.

But I am an optimist.

[FlyerInHi]

Maybe retire later because they will live longer and can work longer… because they want to work longer.

The wealth will be different. They may not have large houses with bigger yards, but they will live better.

[spdrun]

Oh come on, we all know that they’ll be commuting 3 hours round trip in self-driving cars powered by unicorn farts. Thus, they’ll have big houses with yards up in thar hills…

[The-Shoveler]

Self driving cars will happen, the transition to all cars being forced to be self driven will be interesting, but traffic Jam’s will be a thing of the past (mostly).

in 20-30 years it will either be Wall-e or the Terminator/ultron (or maybe all three).

One thing is for sure, accelerating Technology change keeps getting faster.

It will be interesting.

(Dilbert 06-04-14).
If you engineers work hard, someday the spoils will go to liberal arts majors who partied while you studied.

[flyer]

From the stats I’m reading, it appears that as more people enter the workforce, there will, of course, be more millionaires going forward, but, proportionately, the percentage of that population will remain about the same–which is, amazingly, quite low.

On the flip side, there will also be a much higher percentage of people living paycheck to paycheck (for reasons too numerous to mention), and working longer–because they have to–with the net result being a diminishing quality of life for more and more people as each generation enters their 50’s and 60’s–whether they want to retire or not.

I guess only time will tell how things play out.

[FlyerInHi]

I read Thomas Pikety’s book in which he argues that Capitalism’s natural state is income inequality. I agree with him.

In the 20th century people got educated and we had a rising middle class. And there was pressure from the communist world also. Capitalist countries had to adopt more egalitarian policies to counter the prospect of revolution.

Now we have an integrated capitalist global economy.

Back in the 1950s the owner a car dealership or radio station were probably of the same background as the lawyer, carpenter or plumber, and their kids played together. But today, kids are socio-economically segregated in their schools and neighborhoods. We also have had the rise of the gated communities of the last several decades.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whats-splitting-new-generation-haves-nots/

[spdrun]

It wasn’t so different in the 90s — I went to public school with the son of the VP of a major telecom company, with children of Costa Rican immigrant laborers, and with children of plumbers and electricians. It all depends where you grow up. I think the East is still more mixed. Gated communities are pretty rare and public schools are still good enough (thanks to high property taxes) to allow people of different backgrounds to send their kids there.

[FlyerInHi]

I don’t know about the east coast spd.

The way I see it, for better or worse, people are segregating.

For example, in Ft Lee, NJ, can the lower paid parents afford the real estate anymore? I have a friend who’s a teacher. The only way she was able to afford her $800k house is because her parents bought it for her.

Egalitarian suburbia and economic expansion across the country outside of the main old cities was a great experiment. The economy grew and businesses grew…

[spdrun]

Fort Lee is an extension of NYC, mainly condoland. By contrast, you can buy something that needs a bit of elbow grease in Berkeley Heights (suburb of NYC, think San Marcos) for under $400k.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/6-Pine-Grove-Rd_Berkeley-Heights_NJ_07922_M62219-04618?row=3

Problem is that homes in those towns don’t change hands frequently, but when they do, they’re often not as expensive as you may think.

[The-Shoveler]

LOL, Suburbia is far from dead.

You guys are too depressing.
You should get out and drive around more.

[FlyerInHi]

This is an interesting article about prediction of inequality.

It may not turn out that way as one young economist argues.

BUT, inequality in the housing sector could very well continue. So the rich live in La Jolla and Carmel Valley and Del Mar, while the poor will commute from wherever out in the exurbs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/19/meet-the-26-year-old-whos-taking-on-thomas-pikettys-ominous-warnings-about-inequality/?tid=pm_business_pop

Piketty had worried in his book that wealth inequality could soon explode at such a velocity that it would continue to widen essentially on autopilot. Wealthy people would accumulate more capital in the form of stocks, real estate and other assets, would continue to earn high returns on them, and then would have more capital to invest. As more and more money became concentrated among the wealthy, less and less would be available to workers. The book turned Piketty into an international celebrity.

[joec]

It’s harder now for a few reasons. Obvious ones are healthcare (more expensive), wages not keeping up with inflation (in general), education costs, jobs are not as stable (no unions), etc…

Tech is also a great destroyer of jobs (like this Fintech and outsourcing of all manner of jobs now in the US) as is Amazon killing off a lot of small businesses.

Overall, if you don’t make it by 50-60, it’s probably too late and the US is just becoming more like other countries in the world probably in terms of trying to get ahead. The American dream is mostly dead IMO since as has been discussed, sometimes getting your foot in the door depends on who you know, etc…and family wealth/connections. If you are born poor in a very bad part of town, it’s unlikely you will be able to get into a decent college, or at alletc…Maybe be a musician or athlete (only way I see ultra poor people make it).

I’d say nearly everyone I knew had family help to buy their first home (nice areas) so future generations, if they want to get ahead without parental help, will have to make sacrifices in their lives for their kids (which asian immigrants have been doing in the past)…less so now for many people I think since most people seem to like their luxuries/coffee/you name it.

[FlyerInHi]

joec, inequality could increase because of the way we mate.

Educated females want to marry educated males, as educated or smarter. That will result in more privileged children.

Males tend to marry less intelligent females. That group will result in less educated children.

And in a knowledge economy, education is a good indicator of social mobility.

Interesting article here by George Will:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dubious-task-of-making-everyone-above-average/2015/03/20/0ec5a4e6-ce6e-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html

[spdrun]

The funny thing is that many men actually WANT to marry less intelligent women. I knew a woman in the advertising business. Smart, funny, etc, but she always acted below her actual level. I asked her why, she said she was used to it since it made the men she interacted with feel less awkward.

It confused me why anyone would want to spend the rest of their life with someone whom they have to talk down to.

[Author]

Posts