More Millennial households in the US are in poverty

[StatGuy2000]

Hi everyone. I thought I'd point out some disturbing news related to the Millennial generation (those born in 1980 and afterwards) in the US.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/06/5-facts-about-millennial-households/

What is striking is how this is not causing greater alarm with the broad fabric of American society that the younger generation has fewer opportunities for advancement and are living in poverty (Please note: I will not discuss the politics about this due to PF rules on political discussion).

 

[russ_watters]

...that the younger generation has fewer opportunities for advancement...

I don't see this in the article. Could you please cite/quote it specifically.

All I see is the trivially obvious fact that younger people make less money than older people because they are younger (and have less experience).

I don't see any cross-generational, age-levelized comparison at all (what the Baby Boomer poverty rate was when they were the millenials' age).

 

[StatGuy2000]

I don't see this in the article. Could you please cite/quote it specifically.

All I see is the trivially obvious fact that younger people make less money than older people because they are younger (and have less experience).

I don't see any cross-generational, age-levelized comparison at all (what the Baby Boomer poverty rate was when they were the millenials' age).

By definition, people who live in poverty have fewer opportunities for advancement. It is a truism that (in spite of all the Horatio Alger stories of the "American Dream") that breaking out of poverty is a very difficult path that is frequently not attainable for the majority of those living in poverty.

I should also add that the Pew Research article states the following: "The relatively high number of Millennial households in poverty reflects the fact that the poverty rate among households headed by a young adult has been rising over the past half century while dramatically declining among households headed by those 65 and older."

Also take a look at the following article from Pew (a link to it was provided in the above quote):

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/07/the-rising-age-gap-in-economic-well-being/

 

[russ_watters]

By definition, people who live in poverty have fewer opportunities for advancement.

No, that isn't what "poverty" is; that's mobility. Two different things. By definition, poverty it is simply the state of having less, regardless of where you came from or where you are going or what your odds are of moving. That's not defined in the article, but we have discussed it plenty in the past.

It should be trivially obvious that people make more money as they get older. Is that not obvious to you?

I should also add that the Pew Research article states the following: "The relatively high number of Millennial households in poverty reflects the fact that the poverty rate among households headed by a young adult has been rising over the past half century while dramatically declining among households headed by those 65 and older."

Also take a look at the following article from Pew (a link to it was provided in the above quote):

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/07/the-rising-age-gap-in-economic-well-being/

You're right, I missed that. That appears to me to be more in line with what you really want to discuss, so please provide your analysis of what that article says to you.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here is half that - the poverty rate among the elderly.

Granted, this is the first time I head that this fall was a bad thing, but this is the data.

(I'm looking for the equivalent for young adults, but so far everything is keyed on poverty being defined as a fraction of the median income. That's not poverty; that's inequality)

 

[russ_watters]

Here is half that - the poverty rate among the elderly.

View attachment 217855

Granted, this is the first time I head that this fall was a bad thing, but this is the data.

(I'm looking for the equivalent for young adults, but so far everything is keyed on poverty being defined as a fraction of the median income. That's not poverty; that's inequality)

Part of the picture:

This may not be broken down enough, but it does say that irrespective of the continued improvements for older people, the poverty rate for working age people ticked-up around 1980 and has remained pretty constant since (irrespective of the great recession blip). I'm trying to hold back from another of my old-people-are-stealing-from-young-people-via-social-security rants...

 

[Grands]

Hi everyone. I thought I'd point out some disturbing news related to the Millennial generation (those born in 1980 and afterwards) in the US.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/06/5-facts-about-millennial-households/

What is striking is how this is not causing greater alarm with the broad fabric of American society that the younger generation has fewer opportunities for advancement and are living in poverty (Please note: I will not discuss the politics about this due to PF rules on political discussion).

Same problem in Italy...

 

[gleem]

What is striking is how this is not causing greater alarm with the broad fabric of American society that the younger generation has fewer opportunities for advancement and are living in poverty

Certainly not to me from this article. Poverty is given in total numbers of each generation but millennials are more numerous than Xers or Boomers.. About not owning a home, Millennials tend not to marry early and if living with parents or cohabiting would not generally want to own a house.

The article http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/baby-boomer-generation-fast-facts/index.html looks at all the generations with some interesting info.

Of particular interest is that young adults of 2015 make $2000 less than 1980 even though millennials are more likely to have a college degree. On top of that the Consumer Price Index (measure of Inflation) was 82.4 in 1980 but 240 in 2016 and increase of 191% so it is actually surprising that millennials are not struggling more . But his has to have an effect on the choice they make.

 

[russ_watters]

Of particular interest is that young adults of 2015 make $2000 less than 1980 even though millennials are more likely to have a college degree.

Clicking through the link, I see that the numbers are not for 2015, that's just the year the study was done. The numbers for millenials are from 2009-2013. I'm not sure why it is a range, but it should be obvious that using data from the depth of the Great Recession skews those results. The US median income was around $4,000 higher in 2016 than the average of 2009-13.

On top of that the Consumer Price Index (measure of Inflation) was 82.4 in 1980 but 240 in 2016 and increase of 191% so it is actually surprising that millennials are not struggling more . But his has to have an effect on the choice they make.

All numbers we're discussing are inflation adjusted. Otherwise it would be impossible to make comparisons.

 

[nitsuj]

Here is half that - the poverty rate among the elderly.

View attachment 217855

That's not poverty; that's inequality

I think it was you that some time ago pointed out to me that poverty is a moving bar. Poverty today to poverty 30yrs ago is HUGELY different.

This continued measure imo shows that "poverty" (in the US) now ain't so bad lol

 

[StoneTemplePython]

I read through the Pew article though it didn't do that much for me.

However I did not look through CNN article.

All numbers we're discussing are inflation adjusted. Otherwise it would be impossible to make comparisons.

It's worth nitpicking 'inflation adjustment' for the moment as its germane to the thread.

The market basket of goods purchased by young people doesn't match up with CPI. In particular more young people are going to college and the cost of 4 year college is radically higher than it was 3 - 4 decades ago -- this and the associated debt burden is a huge budget item for young people. The situation of course gets worse if people enroll and borrow the money but don't complete the degree. Put differently, a big idea is: college costs compound at a rate much higher than CPI and they are not an insignificant budget item for young people.

I'm willing to guess the inflation adjustment done was CPI related -- or something close to that-- not very close to reflecting the cost of actual goods 'consumed' by this age group. Economists will call this 'Ricardian vice' and generally look the other way.

 

[russ_watters]

It's worth nitpicking 'inflation adjustment' for the moment as its germane to the thread.

The market basket of goods purchased by young people doesn't match up with CPI. In particular more young people are going to college and the cost of 4 year college is radically higher than it was 3 - 4 decades ago -- this and the associated debt burden is a huge budget item for young people.

This is true. It is very difficult to keep the CPI applicable over time and across demographics. The only way around that that I know of is to dig deeper into statistics on direct measures of standard of living, such as house size, market penetration of TVs and air conditioning, etc. These are tracked over time, but as far as I know are not broken down by age.

The problem, though I've seen most often cited as an indicator of lower current standard of living, can actually go either way. Young people today pay more for college than people did decades ago, but they can still afford bigger houses, bigger and more TVs, computers/cell phones, better cars, etc.

In addition, college is an investment, which still has a positive rate of return. So while going to college often means spending more money when you're young, you get that money back and then some, so the net effect on your life is a positive, not a negative, even if it is less positive than it used to be.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

This is true. It is very difficult to keep the CPI applicable over time and across demographics. The only way around that that I know of is to dig deeper into statistics on direct measures of standard of living, such as house size, market penetration of TVs and air conditioning, etc. These are tracked over time, but as far as I know are not broken down by age.

The problem, though I've seen most often cited as an indicator of lower current standard of living, can actually go either way. Young people today pay more for college than people did decades ago, but they can still afford bigger houses, bigger and more TVs, computers/cell phones, better cars, etc.

I basically agree, esp with bolded part. This stuff gets devilishly complicated without clear predictions to keep score by, which is one of the reasons I got disenchanted with econ stuff like this a while ago.

I'm not sure about the houses comment -- to the extent smart young people want to live in urban areas, particularly urban coastal ones with the most opportunity, I think housing costs have shot up (rent or buy) a lot more than inflation, basically due to NIMBYism and misc zoning issues. This is another composite type issue. I haven't poked around enough here though. (Stepping outside the US, this is a major issue in London vs everywhere else in UK -- jobs in London with but very pricey land.)

In addition, college is an investment, which still has a positive rate of return. So while going to college often means spending more money when you're young, you get that money back and then some, so the net effect on your life is a positive, not a negative, even if it is less positive than it used to be.

From a decision-making standpoint, this is right -- again assuming you graduate. But it addresses an issue different than, what (I think) was being raised. I think the mental model was older generations got a huge surplus when they went to college, and younger generations get slimmer surplus these days. People are unhappy when they find out some other group got a bigger surplus. It's human nature, I suppose.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure about the houses comment -- to the extent smart young people want to live in urban areas, particularly urban coastal ones with the most opportunity, I think housing costs have shot up...

They have. But I said housing size. I suppose as an inflation measure, you'd want cost per square foot so you're comparing equal houses over time. That's remained remarkably consistent. But house size in general has gone up 40% and per person has doubled in the past 40 years. So for inflation, the amount of "housing" in the CPI "basket" should be twice what it was 40 years ago. I don't know if it actually is.
http://www.aei.org/publication/toda...ce-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/
That link is new homes, but I think the same applies to apartments and condos. Can't be sure.

People are unhappy when they find out some other group got a bigger surplus. It's human nature, I suppose.

Agreed.

[edit] Incidentally, I think housing is the best one-stop measure of standard of living of anything we buy. It is by far our largest single expense and its elastic (unlike, say, food, which a little more does little for you but a little less is a disaster).

 

[Evo]

Addressing the housing issues, I am a baby boomer and due to common sense bought a home where I could afford one, which was way out in the suburbs, meaning a two hour one way commute to work, obviously I car pooled. Yes, I started driving at 5am, I had kids to get to day care first. I got home around 8pm.

I was watching a show on tv the other day about home buying and this husband turned down the PERFECT house because it had a ONE WAY 30 minute commute! It was too long! THAT's a problem I see with millenials. Lazy and self centered! (Not all mind you, many are normal.) They paid a LOT more for less house that they didn't like nearly as much, no large yard for the kids to play, and would need thousands of dollars in renovations, but was less of a drive for him. He didn't want to be "inconvenienced". But it was downtown, in a busy area, not good for the kids, noisy, dangerous, but he didn't have to drive. He was happy, family, not happy.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

They have. But I said housing size. I suppose as an inflation measure, you'd want cost per square foot so you're comparing equal houses over time. That's remained remarkably consistent. But house size in general has gone up 40% and per person has doubled in the past 40 years. So for inflation, the amount of "housing" in the CPI "basket" should be twice what it was 40 years ago. I don't know if it actually is.
http://www.aei.org/publication/toda...ce-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/
That link is new homes, but I think the same applies to apartments and condos. Can't be sure.

You've piqued my interest, so I may chase some more data down, not sure. (These chases have a habit of dead-ending with inconclusive evidence though.)

The data you are citing is clearly about newbuild housing. US Population has grown about 50% since 1973 (i.e. old population is about 2/3 of current) . I don't think it follows that average housing 'consumption' has doubled per person if you're using newbuilds as a your ruler. A quick calculation would suggest that its certainly possible less than half of the population lives in new housing. On top of this there's a mixture problem -- apartments (not covered in link I don't think) vs housing.

The sampling / underlying data for new houses skews towards places with lots of land that aren't over-run by NIMBYs though. One mental model is for older people who own and have a windfall in say Bay Area to sell (or rent) their old house to a younger family and retire in Arizona in newly constructed house. Appallingly little new construction in the Bay Area. Perhaps more surprisingly is it's also a big problem in LA. But I'm not trying to sidetrack this thread about messes in California.

For technical issues like this, it gets very complicated very quickly and you have to be extremely careful. Someone, e.g. an economist, close to the data who has an agenda (or a strong ideological filter) can easily manipulate you.

A couple red flags from that link:

1.) The first chart on that link really irks me -- there are very clear zero values and it ignores -- generally this seems manipulative to me. (If they want to show geometric growth, a log transform is fine but that isn't what they did.) Truncating the axes like the author did is quite common in marketing... but in scholarship?

2.) Isn't American Enterprise Institute too biased to rely on as a credible source of information? It has a partisan axe to grind-- for starters Lynne Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz both work there.

 

[russ_watters]

The data you are citing is clearly about newbuild housing. US Population has grown about 50% since 1973 (i.e. old population is about 2/3 of current) . I don't think it follows that average housing 'consumption' has doubled per person if you're using newbuilds as a your ruler. A quick calculation would suggest that its certainly possible less than half of the population lives in new housing.

Well, no: nobody lives in a "new" house. Every occupied house has a non-zero age. What my logic requires is only that the house size increase has been consistent over a long enough time that the trend covers all houses. If the average life of a house is 40 years and a new house today is 40% larger than a new house in 1977, then a new house in 1977 also had to be 40% larger than a new house in 1937. And on the other end, an average house torn down in 2017 was that new house in 1977. And it's 40% larger than a house torn down in 1977 but built in 1937.

My gut tells me the trend probably did hold back as far as the late 1930s. If nothing else, the post-WWII economic boom would have made houses a lot larger than houses built during or just after the Great Depression. But it is speculation.

On top of this there's a mixture problem -- apartments (not covered in link I don't think) vs housing.

Yes, this is only really houses. I don't have any actual data for apartments and condos. Again my gut tells me there have been increases there as well, otherwise it would cause a widening disconnect between houses and apartments that shouldn't be sustainable economically.

Appallingly little new construction in the Bay Area.

Well, again: the size of the house itself is actually only 40% of the issue. The other 60% (house size per person has gone up 40+60=100%) is due to smaller households. So an old house in San Francisco can get "bigger" by having fewer people living in it.

1.) The first chart on that link really irks me -- there are very clear zero values and it ignores -- generally this seems manipulative to me. (If they want to show geometric growth, a log transform is fine but that isn't what they did.) Truncating the axes like the author did is quite common in marketing... but in scholarship?

It can be manipulative, but I do it all the time to make it easier to read the graph (in engineering). It helps that the title of the article is right above it and very on-point.

2.) Isn't American Enterprise Institute too biased to rely on as a credible source of information? It has a partisan axe to grind-- for starters Lynne Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz both work there.

I found the article via google and am not familiar. The source data is from the Census Bureau, so I don't see an issue -- unfortunately, the Census Bureau is great for raw data, not so much for presentation of it. Heck, most times we talk about incomes, I take the most recent spreadsheet from the Census Bureau (they provide in XLS format) and graph it myself for posting here! But as these things go, I think the article is pretty good: everything above the "Bottom Line" is purely factual, so they clearly differentiate between facts and analysis/opinion. You don't always get that. It is certainly better sourced and presented than what is typical in "news" articles.

 

[bhobba]

I was watching a show on tv the other day about home buying and this husband turned down the PERFECT house because it had a ONE WAY 30 minute commute! It was too long! THAT's a problem I see with millenials. Lazy and self centered! (Not all mind you, many are normal.) They paid a LOT more for less house that they didn't like nearly as much, no large yard for the kids to play, and would need thousands of dollars in renovations, but was less of a drive for him. He didn't want to be "inconvenienced". But it was downtown, in a busy area, not good for the kids, noisy, dangerous, but he didn't have to drive. He was happy, family, not happy.

Many including myself have noticed that one.

While working as a programmer in Australia's Child Support Agency, I had, as part of what I had to do, the job of producing the relevant stats. While I was not a statistician, I had advanced statistical training so was often called upon to help interpret the results. That was one that stood out strongly. Millennials were making more selfish life choices. You could see, for example, older divorced Australians took their obligations more seriously than younger ones. They tried all sorts of 'dirty' tricks to get out of paying it. One was really interesting. We had asked this company to deduct the CSA payments from an employers wage (its called Employer Withholding) - but it was never done. Anyway someone went out there to see what was going on. It turned out the young pay clerk was the person whose money was to be taken out and simply never processed it He didn't care a hoot. Why should I pay - that relationship is over - I need to move on - the government should pay. That was the common attitude of younger people - they think the government is an endless source of money that should solve all their problems - no self responsibility needed. It goes of course without saying its a statistical thing - simply more people with that attitude amongst millennials - not everyone had that attitude, nor are all baby boomers lily white.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Evo]

Many including myself have noticed that one.

While working as a programmer in Australia's Child Support Agency, I had, as part of what I had to do, the job of producing the relevant stats. While I was not a statistician, I had advanced statistical training so was often called upon to help interpret the results. That was one that stood out strongly. Millennials were making more selfish life choices. You could see, for example, older divorced Australians took their obligations more seriously than younger ones. They tried all sorts of 'dirty' tricks to get out of paying it. One was really interesting. We had asked this company to deduct the CSA payments from an employers wage (its called Employer Withholding) - but it was never done. Anyway someone went out there to see what was going on. It turned out the young pay clerk was the person whose money was to be taken out and simply never processed it He didn't care a hoot. Why should I pay - that relationship is over - I need to move on - the government should pay. That was the common attitude of younger people - they think the government is an endless source of money that should solve all their problems - no self responsibility needed. It goes of course without saying its a statistical thing - simply more people with that attitude amongst millennials - not everyone had that attitude, not are all baby boomers lily white.

Thanks
Bill

I also see that more and more. Not making me feeling sympathy for the millenials. My generation was drafted in war. They aren't. I feel they should be kissing the ground they walk on.

 

[bhobba]

I also see that more and more. Not making me feeling sympathy for the millenials. My generation was drafted in war. They aren't.

Its a fact jack. That's why regardless of if you like whoever is your president, PM or whatever it's called where you live, the Millennials when they become the majority will vote for whoever gives them the most goodies. Forget issues like paying down dept - bracket creep will probably fix it anyway - but they will not like the tax they pay - interesting to see how future politicians handle that one - out here in Aus politicians generally don't want to touch it - even when directly asked - it is too much of a hot potato. I am 63 this year with significant health issues - I will be dead when it really bites - but bite it will.

Me - I have an entirely different attitude - I am entitled to all sorts of government benefits such as some free trips to the physiotherapist, podiatrist etc, but don't use it - I use my health insurance instead and pay a bit of a gap. Everyone says I am mad - but the way I see it is - this isn't meant for people like me that can afford health insurance - it's meant for those a lot worse off. The young don't see it that way - like I said - they think I am mad.

BTW baby boomers are not perfect either - we have many with houses worth millions of dollars, and collect all these benefits because the house is not included in the assets test. Why - I worked hard and paid for it - I deserve it. Yea right - you deserve, while sitting in your multi-million dollar mansion to freeload off others - pull the other one - it plays jingle bells. But pollies will not touch it with a pole 10 foot long - retirees are a huge voting block.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, let me agree with everyone else about lazy, entitled Millennials. Apart from everything else that has been said, I find them profoundly uncurious. We can even see this here - how many messages have we seen of the form "I might have to learn something with no immediate practical use! The horror!"?

Next I'll be saying "You kids! Stay off my grass!"

Now that that's been said, as much as I would like to blame this on the poor work ethic of Millennials, I think all of this can be explained by shifting demographics. The 18-34 demographic was 78% white in 1980 and is 57% white today. While poverty has gone down for all age groups (and here is where I wish I could find data with finer binning than 18-64) and both white and non-white, the poverty rate is still higher among non-whites, so the demographic shift in 18-34's towards non-whites is going to cause the poverty fraction to tick upward. Like I said, I don't have numbers binned finely enough to mathematically prove this, but it looks as if much of the effect - at least half, and perhaps even all of it - can be explained by this.

A related effect is from illegal immigrants. The age distribution of illegal immigrants doesn't look like the population as a whole, and indeed, is peaked in the 18-34 bin. In 1980, this was about 2% of the 18-34 demographic, and today it's more like 6-8%. Obviously, reliable statistics like this are hard to get hold of, but I don't think anyone doubts the trend, the rough order of magnitude, and the relative scale, at least not very much. This also explains much - more than half - of the effect. Note that there is some overlap with the above, as illegal immigrants are more non-white than the US population as a whole.

So when hearing this statistic, we shouldn't be visualizing the 30-something who lives in his parents' basement, drinks $6 soy lattes, and doesn't understand why his degree in art history doesn't get him a better job than barista at Starbucks. To oversimplify, it's not that our young have become poorer, it's that our poor have become younger - more accurately, that the 18-34 group is expanding and much of this expansion is coming from groups with an above-average poverty rate.

Now, "You kids! Stay off my grass!"

 

[gleem]

We can even see this here - how many messages have we seen of the form "I might have to learn something with no immediate practical use! The horror!"?

I don't know how old you are but this attitude of only wanting courses that are relevant to current (practical) problems started in the sixties with the Baby Boomers.
This thread started off with the notion that poverty is significant for the younger generation which seems to be generically identified as Millennials. But it was noted that as poor as they might "seem" to be as least some are quite affluent being majority buyer of large homes and automobiles which presumably requires some availability of wealth or a positive outlook on access to future wealth. Looking closer at the period of time that Millennials grew up and the values of their parents it is not surprising that we have an apparent dichotomy. Early Millennials children of Boomer and maybe Silent Gen have different values from later Millennials who are children of Xers. Early Millennials hit adulthood at the Internet bubble with parents who benefited from this economic period. They had access to an economy opening new opportunities at least for a while. Then in 2008 the great recession put a lot of aspirations on hold for these persons but produced barrier to any aspirations of the younger millennials These "younger millennials" are currently generation GenZ born after 1995, HS and college age students in fact the generation that we mostly experience on the forum, children of the X Generation. . Boomer may have given the impression to their children because of the relative economic prosperity of the times that one only needed to try, to succeed. As we know Xer put great emphasis on trying and rewarded their children for participating and only trying.
Anyway the early Millennials are finally attaining their aspirations. The later Millennials and GenZ are still waiting for the American dream if it has not further sidetracked by the insidious influence of social media.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It's interesting how the thread has quickly degenerated from discussing poverty rates among the Millennial generation to how "lazy" and "entitled" these people are. Even though I am technically part of "Generation X" preceding the Millennials, this wholesale condemnation of the Millennials is frankly insulting and backed up by nothing other than all of your own prejudices.

I'm not going to go over all of the threads thus far, but let me start off with @Vanadium 50 's comments first. While I have no issues with paragraphs 3 to 5 in his post #22, he also goes on to say how Millennials are "uncurious". That is a sweeping judgement based on a highly biased sampling of posts here on PF where "I might have to learn something of no practical use...". My experience has been that attitude exists in spades among the Baby Boomers and generations well before them -- this is hardly a trait that is either prevalent in or unique to Millennials.

And frankly, Millennials being "lazy"? I've seen more than my share of people from the Baby Boomers and "Gen X" people who are far more lazy than any of the Millennials who I know who are working themselves off trying to pay off their student loans.

Granted, all of the observations I've made above are anecdotes based on my own personal experiences and observations -- this is a disclaimer I'm making since I am not specifically quoting any research findings as such.

 

[WWGD]

It's interesting how the thread has quickly degenerated from discussing poverty rates among the Millennial generation to how "lazy" and "entitled" these people are. Even though I am technically part of "Generation X" preceding the Millennials, this wholesale condemnation of the Millennials is frankly insulting and backed up by nothing other than all of your own prejudices.

I'm not going to go over all of the threads thus far, but let me start off with @Vanadium 50 's comments first. While I have no issues with paragraphs 3 to 5 in his post #22, he also goes on to say how Millennials are "uncurious". That is a sweeping judgement based on a highly biased sampling of posts here on PF where "I might have to learn something of no practical use...". My experience has been that attitude exists in spades among the Baby Boomers and generations well before them -- this is hardly a trait that is either prevalent in or unique to Millennials.

And frankly, Millennials being "lazy"? I've seen more than my share of people from the Baby Boomers and "Gen X" people who are far more lazy than any of the Millennials who I know who are working themselves off trying to pay off their student loans.

Granted, all of the observations I've made above are anecdotes based on my own personal experiences and observations -- this is a disclaimer I'm making since I am not specifically quoting any research findings as such.

Single data point: I don't have data either, but I do have a Millennial friend who has been mooching of his mom for some two years (he has felt tired after school, going on two years now), yet repeatedly tells me how I have to " rough it out" if I want results.I have been biting my tong not to tell him that if I want to learn how to sleep till one and ask my mom for money, I will call him for training.

 

[Vanadium 50]

is frankly insulting and backed up by nothing other than all of your own prejudices.

I would say it's backed up by our experiences. You can argue that it's overgeneralizing, but that's different than prejudice. And my response to a claim of overgeneralizing is "Hey, you kids - get off my grass!"

I am interested in your thoughts on whether we are seeing more than just the shifting demographics in the poverty stats.

 

[russ_watters]

It's interesting how the thread has quickly degenerated from discussing poverty rates among the Millennial generation...

In fairness to the rest of us, you didn't provide much to go on and proposed a change in direction but then didn't actually provide the change in direction, so the thread has been meandering since then. You can always get it on the track you wanted it by providing it.

And frankly, Millennials being "lazy"? I've seen more than my share of people from the Baby Boomers and "Gen X" people who are far more lazy than any of the Millennials who I know who are working themselves off trying to pay off their student loans.

The stats show millenials delaying the "adult" actions like getting out of their parents' houses, buying their own houses, getting married, having kids, etc. This creates a perception of not wanting to grow up, which is interpreted as too lazy to grow up. While I think some of the criticism is valid, it is more complicated than that. Student loan issues are no doubt part of the "problem". Another is probably women's lib and fertility treatment improvements.

 

[opus]

Just looked up the age bracket for Millenials, and was shocked to see that I'm right smack in the middle of it (born in '89). I've always thought they were born in the mid-nineties and later. I've always pictured Millenials as being arrogant, lazy, entitled, little idiots that want everything for the price of nothing because they deserve it. I will say that this is still true for many of them(us). But I will say that being involuntarily grouped in with this stereotype is nuts to me. I'm nothing like that (doesn't mean much when I say it, but you'll have to take my word for it).

I'm in college right now, and started way late (27) because I didn't have the money or the smarts to start college out of high school and I wouldn't ask my parents to pay for me. So I did a couple hops in the Navy (7 years) so I could experience some unique things, be of service, save some money, and get a way to pay for my school. From my perspective as a "Millenial student", I can see how people hate us. Students are always asking for extensions, whining to the professors, being disrespectful, and lazy. In my last math class, one girl wrote a complaint to the Math/Stats Department because the recitation leader wouldn't write the basic relevant graphing equations on the board for the class to use during the test (she wanted slope-intercept form written on the board, with labels saying what was slope and what was y-intercept). Absolutely disgusting behavior.

On the flip side, another criticism that I've heard about Millenials is that we're always on our phones like zombies. I can see why this would look bad, but I don't think that's quite the case (with exceptions such as social media). When I'm walking to class, I'm on my phone the majority of the time. But I'm sending emails, checking postings and grades for my classes, reading news, etc. I think this is being productive with what would otherwise be wasted time.

I guess what I'm saying is that although many Millenials fit into this negative stereotype, just being born in a certain time-frame doesn't mean someone is a lazy, entitled idiot.

 

[paulo84]

DISCLAIMER: I was born in 1984.

It occurs to me that although college is becoming a less attractive option, the internet in all kinds of ways is creating opportunities for enterprising youngsters. Some of which I take advantage of myself, in both work and personal life.

It seems to me this shifts things a bit more back to 'survival of the fittest' than perhaps was the case previously.

 

[bhobba]

having kids, etc.

Overall probably true. But believe me some have kids like bunny's and then don't give a hoot about the responsibility required. Out here in Australia for a while we had this thing called a baby bonus to make it easier for those wanting a family. Birth rates went up - it worked great from that perspective - but did they want the kids or just the money. The fallout I saw at the Child Support Agency suggested they just wanted the money. Have a kid, get the money then let someone else worry about them - they didn't abandon them or anything that bad - but the feedback we heard from social workers was they didn't want the kids to interfere with their lives. Divorce went up and CSA related issues boomed. I remember the sigh of relief in CSA when it was done away with - and guess what - birth rates dropped - but really did we want to encourage people to have children they didn't really want?

Thanks
Bill

 

[opus]

Overall probably true. But believe me some have kids like bunny's and then don't give a hoot about the responsibility required. Out here in Australia for a while we had this thing called a baby bonus to make it easier for those wanting a family. Birth rates went up - it worked great from that perspective - but did they want the kids or just the money. The fallout I saw at the Child Support Agency suggested they just wanted the money. Have a kid, get the money then let someone else worry about them - they didn't abandon them or anything that bad - but the feedback we heard from social workers was they didn't want the kids to interfere with their lives. Divorce went up and CSA related issues boomed. I remember the sigh of relief in CSA when it was done away with - and guess what - birth rates dropped - but really did we want to encourage people to have children they didn't really want?

Thanks
Bill

The movie Idiocracy is becoming a reality.

 

[bhobba]

The movie Idiocracy is becoming a reality.

Politicians - I won't regale people with my view of them - suffice to say balancing public opinion and doing the right thing by them and the country is not easy - sometimes they get too carried away with making people happy and not thinking it through properly. I am being balanced and kind - I will not express here how I feel personally about such idiocy.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Bystander]

a couple hops in the Navy (7 years) so I could experience some unique things, be of service, save some money,

That's responsible behavior; you are no longer "A Millennial."

 

[bhobba]

Ithis wholesale condemnation of the Millennials is frankly insulting and backed up by nothing other than all of your own prejudices.

Well I specifically stated it was a statistical thing - not everyone is like that - its just a higher percentage than other groups - and I am 100% positive everyone agrees.

My evidence? In my previous job I compiled statistics such as the default rate in paying child support. Amongst the young it was greater than those older. Does it prove anything - of course not - but its more than anecdotal evidence.

I also specifically pointed out other age groups, including mine - the old, are not lily white. Their sense of entitlement may be even greater under the banner - we have worked hard and earned it than Millennials. Sorry - roads, schools, hospitals etc still need to be paid for - that you worked hard does not entitle you to be a freeloader.

There are many issues in society that lay squarely on the attitude of certain demographics - again not everyone in the demographic - but as a statistical thing it's true.

Thanks
Bill

 

[opus]

That's responsible behavior; you are no longer "A Millennial."

Well thanks! I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[nitsuj]

lol I see irony in the complaints about millennials behaviour and attitude; as if they raised themselves, provided their own ideals and instilled their own work ethic. my parents were born in '50. With high school education they essentially "fell into" great careers that afforded them a house, kids and even some extras like a boat extra car latest gadgets, fashion, furniture ect.

With post secondary in bus. admin. I've yet to achieve either of their salary...unadjusted... :/

Today both of the careers they were in now pay about 25k less, unadjusted.

But yea never mind those kinds of details...

If I instead chose comp. science or nursing post secondary I'd more likely have been making more than them. But instead I'm on a commited, education/experience path in slow growth Highly competitive area; unable to afford the things my parents had, like kids or a house...nah I'm just joking, I don't want those things I'd rather sit here and read/watch internet. Fair conclusion. :/

I highly doubt the maturity of our industrial age (and in turn retail/manufacturing) has a single thing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[StatGuy2000]

In fairness to the rest of us, you didn't provide much to go on and proposed a change in direction but then didn't actually provide the change in direction, so the thread has been meandering since then. You can always get it on the track you wanted it by providing it.

My intention in this thread was to specifically discuss poverty rates in the US among Millennials, what are the factors involved in such, and means of suggestions on how we could alleviate poverty. Instead, the perception I have is that because there is a greater level of poverty among Millennials in comparison to other generational groups in comparison to when they were at the same age bracket (thus countering your point in an earlier thread about younger people earning less than than older people), that somehow this is "their fault". Curiously, this train of thought is prevalent among Americans -- perhaps a holdover from the Horatio Alger-type myths?

The stats show millenials delaying the "adult" actions like getting out of their parents' houses, buying their own houses, getting married, having kids, etc. This creates a perception of not wanting to grow up, which is interpreted as too lazy to grow up. While I think some of the criticism is valid, it is more complicated than that. Student loan issues are no doubt part of the "problem". Another is probably women's lib and fertility treatment improvements.

I both agree and disagree with your sentiments above. Yes, the stats certainly show that Millennials are delaying "adult" actions like getting out of their parents' houses, buying their own houses, getting married, etc. That's not disputed. What I dispute is the notion that these Millennials are seen as lazy because of it.

As you have stated, the fact that Millennials are disproportionately burdened by student loans (due to tuition rates that have arisen far faster than tuition, which is itself due to large-scale cuts in funding to state universities in the US) is widely dismissed but is a reality among these people, followed by relative lack of economic opportunities to establish themselves (particularly during the Great Recession of 2008, which disproportionately affected Millennials during a key period of their lives when they would otherwise have been entering the workforce). Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that instead of Millennials mooching off their parents, that they are forced to live with them because they can't afford to move out?

Additionally, there are places in Canada (which did not experience the collapse in housing prices like in the US during the Great Recession), you have home prices that have been booming, which has resulted in many people being priced out of the market, especially in cities like Toronto or Vancouver, and we're seeing similar trends in certain regions in the US like San Francisco. That's a factor that needs to be considered.

Finally, I'm confused by what you mean about women's lib and fertility treatment improvements. I don't see how that is at all relevant to the discussion of poverty rates among Millennials.

 

[Evo]

my parents were born in '50. With high school education they essentially "fell into" great careers that afforded them a house, kids and even some extras like a boat extra car latest gadgets, fashion, furniture ect.

With post secondary in bus. admin. I've yet to achieve either of their salary...unadjusted... :/

Today both of the careers they were in now pay about 25k less, unadjusted.

Actually this is a very good point and something I often bring up when speaking with younger people about how much harder it is to get and keep a job now compared to when I was their age. Of course (and no, I don't have the statistics), but it seems that there are less jobs and more applicants. So many large companies have drastically downsized their workforce. You now have one person assigned what used to be the work of 2-3 or even more people. I survived many downsizings before I finally retired. And by that time I had taken over close to 5 former employees accounts/responsibilities. I was coming into work around 6 am and sometimes staying until 9pm, and working weekends, I was salaried management, so I did not get paid more for working the extra hours, but it was probably why I kept surviving the layoffs. And yes, your point about them hiring a younger person for the same position at a lower pay level is also something I witnessed. Yes, you expect to be started off at less than someone that has been there longer, but we're talking about the starting pay being significantly lower than in previous years, although there was actually more work required.

Both of my kids are Millenials as are their friends and I've never seen a harder working more motivated, smarter group of people. But as I also previously said, I have known many in that age group that are among the laziest and most entitled of any age group I've known. Well, with the exception of a few baby boomers I worked with that I wouldn't say were lazy as much as they were just dumber than rocks and just incapable of doing their job. They were lucky they were hired when anyone that could breathe could get a job just by applying, how they held onto their jobs as long as they did was mind boggling.

 

[russ_watters]

My intention in this thread was to specifically discuss poverty rates in the US among Millennials, what are the factors involved in such, and means of suggestions on how we could alleviate poverty.

Great. That's a direction.

But just to be clear, here, my complaint is that you are providing conclusions and commentary without the starting data and analysis. You still haven't specifically cited the data you are referring to to make sure we're all on the same page about the factual basis of what we are discussing. I know V50 and I have provided some, but its not enough for us to provide it and then you not to cite if it is what you were after. All this needs is a handful of bullet points of stats, their associated dates and a couple of sentences tying them together. You're skipping these steps. This forces the rest of us to choose to:
1. Respond to the commentary as-is by assuming you've done the analysis even though you haven't posted it (or even linked the correct article, which implies you haven't!).
2. Look for the data and do our own analysis to see if it matches what you seem to be saying about it.

As you are no doubt aware, stats are not straightforward, use-in-a-vacuum facts. They have to be interpreted in context in order to understand what they mean. THEN it is appropriate to move forward to discuss what to do about it. Your skipping the steps and/or putting the onus on us to do it for you is in bad form, particularly since it doesn't seem like you have a grasp on them yourself. Plese, please! start giving us the data and your direct interpretation of it. This is a worthy topic of discussion and I don't want to have to close it because it meanders/is of poor quality.

So please, please!: if your intention is to discuss poverty rates among Millenials (in comparison with other age groups? With other age groups at their arge?) post and cite specifically the data you are referring to!

Instead, the perception I have is that because there is a greater level of poverty among Millennials in comparison to other generational groups in comparison to when they were at the same age bracket (thus countering your point in an earlier thread about younger people earning less than than older people) that somehow this is "their fault".

Per the above: Cite your data. I don't want to make this an "is not"/"is too" debate (that's what I'm trying to fix!), but I don't think the data says what you think it does and until you show me the numbers you are referring to, I don't accept your interpretation.

Yes, the stats certainly show that Millennials are delaying "adult" actions like getting out of their parents' houses, buying their own houses, getting married, etc. That's not disputed. What I dispute is the notion that these Millennials are seen as lazy because of it.

As you have stated, the fact that Millennials are disproportionately burdened by student loans (due to tuition rates that have arisen far faster than tuition, which is itself due to large-scale cuts in funding to state universities in the US) is widely dismissed but is a reality among these people, followed by relative lack of economic opportunities to establish themselves (particularly during the Great Recession of 2008, which disproportionately affected Millennials during a key period of their lives when they would otherwise have been entering the workforce). Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that instead of Millennials mooching off their parents, that they are forced to live with them because they can't afford to move out?

No. And this is my #1 complaint of this group and wider, of a lot of Americans. This is America (btw, you're Canadian, right? I always associated your attitude with Southern North America, not Northern North America, but it seems to fit up there too). Nobody is "forced" into life choices here. We get to make our own. What changes is the input data that helps us decide those choices. And living with your parents above aged 30 is a big benchmark of that: nobody with a full-time job* and no real emergency (like an illness or unplanned kid) needs to be living with their parents above age 30 (and few people from 25-30). Can't buy a home at 25? Fine!: get an apartment. Can't afford an apartment on your own? Fine!: Get a roomate. Can't find a real job because you were a philosphy/art history major and only finished a BA? That's tougher to escape, but it is still a life choice people made that put them in their situation.

People who take ownership of their lives do better in life. People who blame others/circumstance have less incentive to try to do better because they don't believe it will help. Both are self-fulfilling.

The trend of delaying adulthood is real and predates millenials, so it cannot be blamed entirely on the recession. I'm 42 and I've seen friends/acquaintences in my age bracket make immature/selfish/passive life choices in their 20s and 30s that likely would have horrified Boomers.

One of my best friends is unmarried at 43 and works at an aquarium (without a marine biology degree) and rents a room in someone's house. Why? When he was in his mid-20s he decided he didn't like his advertising job and quit (despite being offered a raise to stay), started volunteering and then got a full-time job. He still hasn't gotten back to the standard of living he had when he worked in advertising. Now I don't know if he's currently happy or unhappy with that decision (I think he's happy with it, but don't know if he really thinks it through), but his failure to move out of his income quintile - when I've moved up 3 in the same period - is all on him and his decision.

*By comparison, I got out of the Navy and moved in with my parents in the fall of 2002, when I was just short of 27. I dropped my green duffel bag on the floor and hugged my mom. She said: "nice to have you home, but I'm not excited to see all your stuff back in the house." I replied; "don't worry, me and my stuff aren't staying long." I got a job exactly 2 months later and moved out exactly 3 months after that. We had briefly talked about me paying rent, but they never got a chance to implement it before I left. At the time, the unemployment rate was about 6% as we were emerging from the minor 2002 recession. The last time it was that high was three years ago. Today, it is 4.1%. I didn't have student loan debt (had some credit card debt), but I also didn't take a roommate: getting a roomate would cover $500/mo in additional debt.

That's why I have so little sympathy. Today, for a millenial to be living with their parents above aged 25, they pretty much have to be doing something wrong/making a choice to be in that situation. The economic issues that were relevant in 2008-13 are not relevant to that today. You can say, wow, it sucks they lost 5 years to a bad economy, but so what? I lost 4 years to a poor path through college/the Navy (some people enlist by choice though and I do think it is positive). I got on my feet in 5 months. So what have millenials living with their parents been doing for the past 2.5 years?

Finally, I'm confused by what you mean about women's lib and fertility treatment improvements. I don't see how that is at all relevant to the discussion of poverty rates among Millennials.

Womens' lib and fertility treatments take marriage/kid pressure off of women. It is part of the reason the age of marriage/kids has been rising for decades: women don't feel like they need to do it in their 20s and can instead do other things like get established professionally, be choosier about their spouse pick or party. This is a major part of the cause of what we are discussing - probably the most significant portion of the ongoing shift (everything unrelated to the recession).

And, bonus: it should be reducing financial pressure to help overcome the additional challenge of higher student loan debt.

 

[russ_watters]

That's responsible behavior; you are no longer "A Millennial."

Lol, Millenial/Probationary Adult Status revoked! Congrats!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

My wife is a millennial. She is a highly educated, brilliant and experienced Montessori teacher 7 years out of college. Still well in debt making $30k a year in public schools. Puzzling how we disrespect quality teachers.

 

[russ_watters]

lol I see irony in the complaints about millennials behaviour and attitude; as if they raised themselves, provided their own ideals and instilled their own work ethic.

Excellent point: raising kids in a bubble seems like it started in the 80s and results in grown adults who have never had to "deal" and "can't even". And that issue appears to be continuing to get worse.

 

[gleem]

I mentioned this before but the stats in the OP relevant to poverty are given in the total number of household for a given generation. Since Millennials are more numerous (up to 20% more than GenX) the Millennial's poverty rate is in line with GenX and even close to the Boomers. Also as noted earlier most new home buyers are Millennials. So what is the problem?

I got on my feet in 5 months. So what have millennials living with their parents been doing for the past 2.5 years?

Saving their money to buy 40% larger homes and SUV's?

We who have been successful due to diligence and hard work can pontificate at the slackers and perhaps justifiably But let us not forget other possibilities for lack of success.

******************************************

Pray, don't find fault with the man that limps,
Or stumbles along the road.
Unless you have worn the moccasins he wears,
Or stumbled beneath the same load.

There may be tears in his soles that hurt
Though hidden away from view.
The burden he bears placed on your back
May cause you to stumble and fall, too.

Don't sneer at the man who is down today
Unless you have felt the same blow
That caused his fall or felt the shame
That only the fallen know.

You may be strong, but still the blows
That were his, unknown to you in the same way,
May cause you to stagger and fall, too.

Don't be too harsh with the man that sins.
Or pelt him with words, or stone, or disdain.
Unless you are sure you have no sins of your own,
And it's only wisdom and love that your heart contains.

For you know if the tempter's voice
Should whisper as soft to you,
As it did to him when he went astray,
It might cause you to falter, too.

Just walk a mile in his moccasins
Before you abuse, criticize and accuse.
If just for one hour, you could find a way
To see through his eyes, instead of your own muse.

I believe you'd be surprised to see
That you've been blind and narrow minded, even unkind.
There are people on reservations and in the ghettos
Who have so little hope, and too much worry on their minds.

Brother, there but for the grace of God go you and I.
Just for a moment, slip into his mind and traditions
And see the world through his spirit and eyes
Before you cast a stone or falsely judge his conditions.

Remember to walk a mile in his moccasins
And remember the lessons of humanity taught to you by your elders.
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave
In other people's lives, our kindnesses and generosity.

Take the time to walk a mile in his moccasins.

"Judge Softly"

Mary T. Lathrap 1895.

Thank you liberal education.

 

[russ_watters]

I mentioned this before but the stats in the OP relevant to poverty are given in the total number of household for a given generation. Since Millennials are more numerous (up to 20% more than GenX) the Millennial's poverty rate is in line with GenX and even close to the Boomers. Also as noted earlier most new home buyers are Millennials. So what is the problem?

Yes, I think we've well covered that we got off to a bad start. Hopefully we'll get a good course correction with better stats...

Saving their money to buy 40% larger homes and SUV's?

We who have been successful due to diligence and hard work can pontificate at the slackers and perhaps justifiably But let us not forget other possibilities for lack of success.

I did caveat the statement by pointing out it didn't apply to people who've had a real emergency/hardship, but that is generally only a few percent and is relatively constant over time (though some hardships are decreasing over time). So it shouldn't factor much here.

I will throw another log on though and point out that the whole idea of "generations" is pretty pointless, at least in the post-Baby Boom era. In WWII, 16 million people served (1.1 million didn't come home whole or at all) and everyone on the homefront was profoundly affected. This then created the Baby Boom generation. These have had real/significant demographic and formational impacts on the USA (and other countries).

My generation (generation X) is united by...our shared experience watching "Brat Pack" movies? Sorry, but that's just not a significant binding force. The current "Stay off my lawn you crazy kids!" is a media creation, fanning both sides. The links that started this thread were basically clickbait to fan the "woe is me" feeling that the "millenials" have - but shouldn't - while others are intended to play-up the laziness and "Stay off my lawn!" angle.

Edit:
Though much is clickbait, I still blame millenials for being fooled by it. This "woe is me" tale just isn't as big of a deal as they think it is. Yes, it was the worst recession since the Great depression, but not by a lot (it is a lot closer to prosperity than it is to the Great Depression), and did it really hit millenials harder than a 35 year old with two kids and a $100k layoff?

And as rough as it may have been to waste a couple of years playing xbox in your parents' basement because the best you could do was a part time job at Target, do you [any random millenial] really think that's worse than spending a good fraction of your formative early adulthood in a ditch in France with bullets wizzing over your head? Sorry, but you're going to have to come up with a better tale of woe!

 

[StatGuy2000]

Great. That's a direction.

But just to be clear, here, my complaint is that you are providing conclusions and commentary without the starting data and analysis. You still haven't specifically cited the data you are referring to to make sure we're all on the same page about the factual basis of what we are discussing. I know V50 and I have provided some, but its not enough for us to provide it and then you not to cite if it is what you were after. All this needs is a handful of bullet points of stats, their associated dates and a couple of sentences tying them together. You're skipping these steps. This forces the rest of us to choose to:
1. Respond to the commentary as-is by assuming you've done the analysis even though you haven't posted it (or even linked the correct article, which implies you haven't!).
2. Look for the data and do our own analysis to see if it matches what you seem to be saying about it.

As you are no doubt aware, stats are not straightforward, use-in-a-vacuum facts. They have to be interpreted in context in order to understand what they mean. THEN it is appropriate to move forward to discuss what to do about it. Your skipping the steps and/or putting the onus on us to do it for you is in bad form, particularly since it doesn't seem like you have a grasp on them yourself. Plese, please! start giving us the data and your direct interpretation of it. This is a worthy topic of discussion and I don't want to have to close it because it meanders/is of poor quality.

So please, please!: if your intention is to discuss poverty rates among Millenials (in comparison with other age groups? With other age groups at their arge?) post and cite specifically the data you are referring to!

Per the above: Cite your data. I don't want to make this an "is not"/"is too" debate (that's what I'm trying to fix!), but I don't think the data says what you think it does and until you show me the numbers you are referring to, I don't accept your interpretation.

In my very first post in this thread, I have provided information from Pew Research regarding poverty among households headed by Millennials, and I provided my interpretation of what the numbers/statistics reported in Pew Research implied to me. If you disagree with my interpretation -- that is fine, we can all make our own judgments -- but I feel like I've cited my sources.

If you're asking me to dig deeper -- well, I'm posting in between work projects, and I'll have to spend a considerable amount of time doing research, so everyone here on PF will have to wait!

No. And this is my #1 complaint of this group and wider, of a lot of Americans. This is America (btw, you're Canadian, right? I always associated your attitude with Southern North America, not Northern North America, but it seems to fit up there too). Nobody is "forced" into life choices here. We get to make our own. What changes is the input data that helps us decide those choices. And living with your parents above aged 30 is a big benchmark of that: nobody with a full-time job* and no real emergency (like an illness or unplanned kid) needs to be living with their parents above age 30 (and few people from 25-30). Can't buy a home at 25? Fine!: get an apartment. Can't afford an apartment on your own? Fine!: Get a roomate. Can't find a real job because you were a philosphy/art history major and only finished a BA? That's tougher to escape, but it is still a life choice people made that put them in their situation.

People who take ownership of their lives do better in life. People who blame others/circumstance have less incentive to try to do better because they don't believe it will help. Both are self-fulfilling.

The trend of delaying adulthood is real and predates millenials, so it cannot be blamed entirely on the recession. I'm 42 and I've seen friends/acquaintences in my age bracket make immature/selfish/passive life choices in their 20s and 30s that likely would have horrified Boomers.

One of my best friends is unmarried at 43 and works at an aquarium (without a marine biology degree) and rents a room in someone's house. Why? When he was in his mid-20s he decided he didn't like his advertising job and quit (despite being offered a raise to stay), started volunteering and then got a full-time job. He still hasn't gotten back to the standard of living he had when he worked in advertising. Now I don't know if he's currently happy or unhappy with that decision (I think he's happy with it, but don't know if he really thinks it through), but his failure to move out of his income quintile - when I've moved up 3 in the same period - is all on him and his decision.

*By comparison, I got out of the Navy and moved in with my parents in the fall of 2002, when I was just short of 27. I dropped my green duffel bag on the floor and hugged my mom. She said: "nice to have you home, but I'm not excited to see all your stuff back in the house." I replied; "don't worry, me and my stuff aren't staying long." I got a job exactly 2 months later and moved out exactly 3 months after that. We had briefly talked about me paying rent, but they never got a chance to implement it before I left. At the time, the unemployment rate was about 6% as we were emerging from the minor 2002 recession. The last time it was that high was three years ago. Today, it is 4.1%. I didn't have student loan debt (had some credit card debt), but I also didn't take a roommate: getting a roomate would cover $500/mo in additional debt.

That's why I have so little sympathy. Today, for a millenial to be living with their parents above aged 25, they pretty much have to be doing something wrong/making a choice to be in that situation. The economic issues that were relevant in 2008-13 are not relevant to that today. You can say, wow, it sucks they lost 5 years to a bad economy, but so what? I lost 4 years to a poor path through college/the Navy (some people enlist by choice though and I do think it is positive). I got on my feet in 5 months. So what have millenials living with their parents been doing for the past 2.5 years?

First of all, to clarify, I'm a dual American/Canadian citizen (I was born in Japan to an American father from the Detroit suburbs in Michigan and a Japanese mother, raised in Canada, and became naturalized Canadian citizen). So I'll let you and others decide if that makes me an American in your eyes (legally I am unambiguously).

At any rate, I disagree with the notion that people are not forced to make certain choices over others. For example, here in Toronto, where I live, I occasionally come encounter homeless youths living on the streets. In many of these cases, these youths are runaways fleeing abusive situations in their home. Sure, these kids could have "chosen" to endure the abuse (or end up being killed by their abusers -- it is often a life or death choice), but are you seriously implying that these kids really had much of a choice? Now granted, this is an extreme example, but let's take a more relevant one.

Suppose someone has graduated from college/university, with a degree in, say, physics (since we are here on PF). Let's assume that said student graduated from the University of Toronto (my alma mater), with debt in the tune of $80000 CDN (a conservative estimate based on tuition, residence, incidental fees, books & school supplies, and supplemental health insurance provided by the school for its students) at the age of 22. Suppose that she finds a job in Toronto whose starting salary is $30000 per year (a not-unheard of salary for those fresh out of school, if a little on the low end). Rent in Toronto for a 1-bedroom apartment is approximately $1800 per month, and not much cheaper for the surrounding municipalities. Our income tax is about 70%, so her take-home pay per month is approximately $20000 per year. Now $20000/12 = $1667 < the monthly rent. That means that she cannot afford to pay rent, let alone pay off her student debt or pay for her food, heat, electricity, etc.

So basically her choice would be to either:

(a) live with her parents for however long it takes to pay off her student debt and hope that her salary rises so that she can afford to rent and eat, or stay long enough to some day afford a home (note: that the average price for a single detached house in Toronto is > $1,000,000),

(b) scrounge to find a roommate

(c) seek public housing assistance

(d) find someplace where she can both work and afford to live

or (e) be homeless

Now none of these choices are particularly great choices, so I don't fault people who chooses to live with their parents after graduation to pay off their student debt (and yes, it could take until such people are about 30 to pay off that student debt and save to buy that home). Perhaps because you live in a part of the world where home prices are less expensive (I don't know housing prices where you are, but I bet they are considerably less expensive than houses in much of southern Ontario, Canada where jobs are actually available).

 

[Vanadium 50]

, the fact that Millennials are disproportionately burdened by student loans (due to tuition rates that have arisen far faster than tuition, which is itself due to large-scale cuts in funding to state universities in the US) is widely dismissed but is a reality among these people

The average student loan is $30,000. The average new car loan is also about $30,000 (and there are many more of them, even when restricted to 18-34s). Why is the former a crisis, but the latter not?

 

[StatGuy2000]

The average student loan is $30,000. The average new car loan is also about $30,000 (and there are many more of them, even when restricted to 18-34s). Why is the former a crisis, but the latter not?

I did a quick Google search, and according to the student support organization College Board, published tuition fees for the 2014/2015 average tuition fees in state colleges/universities in the US is $9,139 for state residents and $22,958 for everyone else.

Let's just take state residents for the time being. That means that tuition alone, their full tuition burden is $9139 x 4 = $36,556. That's just tuition -- if you could books/school supplies, residence/housing, food, etc, we could easily be talking about costs running into $80,000 - $100,000 (and this is for state residents, never mind for out-of-state students). And much of that funding will be coming out of student loans. So I find it hard to believe that the average student loan is only $30,000.

 

[russ_watters]

In my very first post in this thread, I have provided information from Pew Research regarding poverty among households headed by Millennials, and I provided my interpretation of what the numbers/statistics reported in Pew Research implied to me. If you disagree with my interpretation -- that is fine, we can all make our own judgments -- but I feel like I've cited my sources.

Your post contains no numbers and roughly half a sentence of analysis. And I think we later established (after you pointed out a click-through link) that the first link wasn't even relevant to your point. I cannot fathom how you could possibly believe that represents sufficient depth.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So I find it hard to believe that the average student loan is only $30,000.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/pf/college/average-student-loan-debt/index.html

Note that this is the average student debut among borrowers. Since only 2/3 borrow, the average debt among graduates is lower. (Probably around $20K)

So now that we have established the numbers, why is $30K in student loans a crisis, but $30K in car loans not?

 

[WWGD]

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/pf/college/average-student-loan-debt/index.html

Note that this is the average student debut among borrowers. Since only 2/3 borrow, the average debt among graduates is lower. (Probably around $20K)

So now that we have established the numbers, why is $30K in student loans a crisis, but $30K in car loans not?

I don't know to what extent we have established them. From your link:
" ...The report might underestimate the average debt. It excludes students who went to for-profit colleges, because so few of those institutions report relevant data. But a majority of for-profit students do borrow money."

But I don't see the reason to go to a private school, when a state school is often just as good; according to mazon.com/Higher-Education-Colleges-Wasting-Kids/dp/031257343X
Classes at the top tier schools, who advertise Nobel Laureates in their staff, are often taught by TAs most of whom took the class a few semesters prior. Seriously,do you think a Nobel Laureate will be interested in talking to Bob undergraduate about Bob's Calc exam? Most likely s/he will be talking with colleagues , travelling, or working in their own research. No one seems to understand the fact that teachers/profs. are hired based on the research they conduct and the money they bring to the school, not because of their credentials/ability/skills as educators. An internet connection, together with self-motivation is, I believe, nowadays, the great equalizer. And it seems like a top-Tier-level education does provide an initial bump for students, but, some 10 years after they have obtained their degrees, most students will be, by many measures, doing as well as their State U counterparts. Besides, if you study at State U , U may be able to live at home, maybe-hopefully working a side job to help pay some rent to Mom and Dad, without paying for fancy dorms with Whirlpools, etc.
EDIT: Another cheaper path is that of starting at a 2-yr Community College and then transferring to College for the ensuing 2 years.

 

[Vanadium 50]

According to the U.S. Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics, 10% of college students are at for-profits, and the average tuition at a private for-profit is $16K, compared to $8K public in-state, $18K public out-of-state and $23K for private not-for-profit. Even if you imagine that comparable costs somehow lead to larger loans, the vast majority (90%) of students don't attend these schools.

So why is $30K in student loans a crisis, but $30K in car loans not?