By on May 29, 2016

Millennial Consumer Scrabble Letters, Image: Optician Training

The nonpartisan Pew Research Center recently published the starkest evidence yet of the issues facing millennials versus those that faced boomers during the same periods of their lives.

Millennials, who are now between 18 and 34 according to the study, are more likely to live at home than any other type of living arrangement due to changing social attitudes and the economy.

The analysis uses data from 2014, which shows more millennials living at home with parents (32.1 percent) than with a spouse or roommate (31.6 percent), alone (14 percent), or in another arrangement (22 percent). It’s the first time those living at home have outnumbered those in any other living arrangement in over 130 years, and is a stark contrast to boomers who were only 20-percent likely to live at home with their parents versus 62-percent likely to live with a spouse in 1960.

Pew states the main reason for the shift is a changing attitude toward marriage amongst those in the 18-34 age group, but other factors affect the shift as well.

From Pew:

In addition, trends in both employment status and wages have likely contributed to the growing share of young adults who are living in the home of their parent(s), and this is especially true of young men. Employed young men are much less likely to live at home than young men without a job, and employment among young men has fallen significantly in recent decades. The share of young men with jobs peaked around 1960 at 84%. In 2014, only 71% of 18- to 34-year-old men were employed. Similarly with earnings, young men’s wages (after adjusting for inflation) have been on a downward trajectory since 1970 and fell significantly from 2000 to 2010. As wages have fallen, the share of young men living in the home of their parent(s) has risen.

Economic factors seem to explain less of why young adult women are increasingly likely to live at home. Generally, young women have had growing success in the paid labor market since 1960 and hence might increasingly be expected to be able to afford to live independently of their parents. For women, delayed marriage—which is related, in part, to labor market outcomes for men—may explain more of the increase in their living in the family home.

The Great Recession (and modest recovery) has also been associated with an increase in young adults living at home. Initially in the wake of the recession, college enrollments expanded, boosting the ranks of young adults living at home. And given the weak job opportunities facing young adults, living at home was part of the private safety net helping young adults to weather the economic storm.

The Pew study doesn’t talk about car sales at all, but one can draw some similarities between home and car ownership for the defined group.

In short, millennials — and especially males — have it worse off than their parents in the job market, which contributes to their likeliness of staying at home or boomeranging back to live with parents.

[Photo credit: Optician Training]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

185 Comments on “Report: More Millennials Living with Parents than Any Other Living Arrangement...”


  • avatar

    Must be unsettling for the parents since the stated age range are the years of peak male sexual performance.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    Real wages peaked in 1968. There have been dozens of factors since then, all part of the war on the middle class, which has led to where we are at. It’s a big part of the reason that candidates like Bernie and Trump are so popular, they are the backlash candidates against the Status Quo. Many thought Obama was the cadidate of hope and change, but he turned out to be a false prophet.

    Vietnam, Failure of Bretton Woods II leading to petro dollar stagflation, oil crises, failed price controls, destruction of pensions via rule 401k, 1980-1988 (there are hundreds of things that Reagan and his cronies did to destroy the poor and middle class, multi volume books could be written about it), NAFTA, deregulation, China, 9-11 and the aftermath with two unfunded wars based on lies, the patriot act, Enron type scandals, housing bubble, healthcare bubble (still inflating), student loan bubble (still inflating), the great recession, quantitative easing I II and III, and purposely driving folks away from savings with no safe returns on money, etc.

    What is more to come? It is not going to get better, I can tell you that.

    The vast majority of millennials know this and the vast majority of them live life accordingly. The used Honda Civic is the iconic car of the Millennial, a single person with no plans of having children or a family or even buying a house. Gotta stay mobile so when the next recession hits, you can pack up and go on to the next job.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Billy Joel sang “every child had a pretty good shot, at getting at least as far as their old man got….something happened on the way to that place – they threw an American flag in my face…”

      That America is dead. The good news is that some will achieve greater opportunity that they would have had they simply followed their father’s steps by taking that manufacturing job. However, for the vast majority, the place on the economic ladder is lower, not higher. Income disparity continues to grow, and you got that right – that is why Sanders and Trump are where they are at the moment. You can’t have all the rules written to benefit only the very top. I’m curious about how many at the top started from modest standings and reached high levels. I’d bet that the vast majority had a hand by riding on the past performance of their family. Well, give me 5 million and I, too will have no problem growing that into big bucks. The millennials I do know are not car-adverse – they just have so much debt for school and questionable futures that buying a car is just not on the radar at this time. The parental units pony up for a used car and they provide shelter while the search for the elusive good paying job continues.

      It’s kind of ironic that some jobs that were once the staple of this economy, such a being a machinist, are going unfilled due to lack of skilled applicants. Imagine how many kids of machinists saw their folks going from job to job as they were “downsized” out of work. Can’t imagine why they chose to avoid the trade…

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        golden2husky,
        I travel to the US two to three times a years, and it is quite evident the disparity that exists.

        I don’t believe the US is failing, these problems are global.

        “We ain’t seen nothing yet” in the job/career front. I do believe it will take some time, but the world will become better.

        I don’t think the problem is just that of the politicians, some of the problem has been created by our technological progress.

        A classic example is agriculture. Agriculture employed 50% of the population a little over 100 years ago. Now agriculture employs around 8% of the population in Australia. But, we are producing staggering amounts of produce compared to back then.

        The same can be said for manufacturing. Those who want to keep people on the factory floor are ignoring the necessary changes required to transition from “labour” intensive manufacturing to robotics. Even the Chinese have lost over 30 million jobs in the past decade and a half due to robotics.

        So, I see manufacturing gradually moving back to advanced economies and like agriculture we will see far less people employed to produce far more goods.

        Even Adidas is setting up a trial factory to produce it’s joggers (sneakers). They are planning (hoping) to open up a similar automated factory in the US and Adidas states the price of the joggers will be around the same price as the Chinese/Asian made product.

        This will be our future, either we take it and run or be left behind.

        Job protection for the sake of job protection will on protract the problem and reduce the standard of living for any nation that thinks they are protecting jobs.

        The auto industry still needs to shed many jobs and the consumer should not pay additional taxes subsidising those deadend jobs.

        Where are the candlestick makers?

        http://www.reuters.com/article/us-adidas-manufacturing-idUSKCN0YG0X6

        • 0 avatar
          Johnster

          Lately I’ve been reading news stories about an alleged renaissance in American manufacturing, as well as about the “new American factory worker.” Apparently, without union representation, the new American factory worker is no longer very well-paid and factory workers are now the fastest growing group of food stamp recipients, displacing fast food, restaurant and retail workers.

          Additionally, I’m reading about manufacturers saying they are having trouble finding workers with the skills to program their computers. A news story I recently read gave, as an example, a man who had previously worked as a programmer at a factory, but who quit because he could make more money working as a tattoo artist.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Johnster,
            This renaissance is not really hitting the numbers of worker that occurred in the past. I do believe the use of language is a beat up by the media.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Vocational education has taken a serious hit in the US and has been seriously atrophied in the K12 system ( I remember reading about one school repurposing its former auto shop class as a study/detention area ).

        Even back in my highschool days the “washouts” were steered into vocational education and generally forgotten about ( as one of those washouts I learned quickly that I only had to show up for half the day at the votech campus and could skip the rest of my regular classes with no fear or repercussion weeks at a time ).

        It’s a real shame Vocational education isn’t seen as a viable path along side going to a college or university since I don’t have enough appendages on my body to count the number of people that have a four year degre and are paying on loans and are not utilizing that degree in the slightest.

    • 0 avatar
      Crosley

      Amazing that the topic at hand, that more people from age 18-34 are living with their parents than any other arrangement, has only been a phenomenon over the last 7 or so years. Before that, not so much.

      but let’s blame it on Vietnam and Reagan.

    • 0 avatar
      dantes_inferno

      > Many thought Obama was the cadidate of hope and change, but he turned out to be a false prophet.

      Anyone who looks to any president (or politician) for that matter as some sort of prophet is an idealistic idiot who deserves to have his/her “hopes” CRUSHED like a vehicle in a scrap metal yard.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        dantes_inferno,
        I just love how commenters smash the left and right over failings for change.

        I’m no Obama supporter, but what has occurred over the past decade with the US economy? What about your Congress?

        Why do you guys just lampoon someone with little explanation other than “he just not up to it”?

        Obama couldn’t do much, his hands were tied. Why isn’t anger and dissatisfaction directed at those who should be held to account? The bankers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac?

        It doesn’t matter what side of politics were in power over the past decade, things wouldn’t be much different under the GOP.

        All hands were tied.

        • 0 avatar
          Mandalorian

          I am wondering how they actually define “living with”? For a kid in some sort of educational program (college/graduate/vocational/etc) and possibly the military, it would make sense that their legal address be their parents’, but they reside somewhere else for a large portion of the year.

          Back in the day I was an out of state college student and I didn’t change my driver’s license/registration/plates/bank statements/etc from my parents’ address until graduation and subsequent employment. On paper during that time it would appear I lived at my parents’ address, but 9 months out of the year I was not even in that state.

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      Ironically, the heyday of the American middle class was during the 1960s – when the US was most like a Northern European socialist country.

      – high tax rate on high income earners;

      – disparity between CEO and average company worker was only 18:1 in 1965 (which ballooned to 411:1 in 2000);

      – govt. aid in the form of the GI bill allowed larger numbers of American males to obtain a college degree and buy a house (out in growing suburbia);

      – big govt. taxpayer financed projects like the interstate highway system (which allowed aforementioned growth of the suburbs), etc.

  • avatar
    Shiv91

    25 year old millenial chiming in here. Yep, still live with dad (my parents are divorced). Don’t want to though. I am saving up as much as I can for my own house, hopefully once I’m promoted from part time to full time at my job, it’ll get easier. Luckily housing prices are relatively low where I live.

    I think another large factor is the tremendous amount of student loans the average millennial has, because for some reason we insist on getting a Master’s Degree in some bull- major and then end up working at Applebee’s.

    Also, nope not a fan of marriage for personal reasons. Would rather save myself the trouble (and money) and live by myself.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      “Also, nope not a fan of marriage for personal reasons. Would rather save myself the trouble (and money) and live by myself.”

      Sorry for your loss.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        this again. It’s not a “loss” if I don’t have something I don’t want.

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        Marriage is legal enslavement of a man to a woman with the blessings of the state. Its no secret women are good little consumers so the state and business has every incentive to keep marriage a one sided arrangement.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          that’s a bit extreme.

          • 0 avatar
            nickoo

            Extreme views come from extreme situations…For the life of me, I can’t figure out why a guy gives into temptation and marries. A woman has all the power and gets all the benefits in a relationship when it comes to divorce rights and benefits after divorce. That de facto puts her in charge of the marriage, including finances, children, where they want to live, how they want to live, etc. because the legal authority given to women by the state looms over him at every waking moment. It’s a fact that among college educated couples, 90% of divorces are initiated by women.

            What confuses me even more, is when a guy gets raked through the coals in a divorce and then remarries, that’s just craziness.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Wow, Nickoo, It’s hard to understand why you’re still single yourself.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Nickoo – “90% of divorces are initiated by women”

            It is just basic psychology. Despite popular myth men are always the quickest to commit to a relationship and the last to bail. Women are the opposite.

            Laws used to favour men and obviously the pendulum has swung more to the opposite side.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Shiv91,
      I do believe it’s sad when you consider full time employment a promotion.

      What about a higher paying part time job, or research and find out what are the careers of the future.

      Be realistic about it. No one is entitled to a job, like everything in life it’s earnt.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        Al, stifle.

        Obtuse platitudes from bloviating, 60-something beer bellies can be found much closer to his home and are just as beneficial to him.

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        Al, that outdated thinking is going to come back to bite the industrialized world hard. It’s already starting to actually as this article indicates. “Nobody is entitled to a job” “Nobody owes you anything” blah blah blah, we’ve been hearing it from a-holes who grew up in the most prosperous time in history and could have 3 jobs by lunch our whole lives…

        Millions of my generation have looked right back at the dragon and say “I don’t owe you or anyone else a damn thing” and then drop out of society, no job, no education, no marriage, living at home leaching off mom and dad. How do you think that is going to work out for society in the next 10-20 years?

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Wow. Entitlement much?

          When unemployment is at 5%, there really is no excuse for sane, able-bodied adults not to be working.

          • 0 avatar
            raph

            Is 5% a true figure? Seems to me that’s a cherry picked number.

            Hell you have people that have become unemployable simply by dint of being unemployed for too long.

          • 0 avatar
            TriumphDriver

            The U-3 unemployment statistic is not really a very realistic measure of unemployment. The broader U-6 measure that includes discouraged workers and those working part-time because they cannot find full time employment is double the U-3 rate.
            If you calculate the unemployment rate the way it used to be tracked before the Clinton administration removed long-term discouraged workers from the calculation the unemployment rate is 22.9%.
            You can learn about the way inflation and unemployment statistics have been manipulated at http://www.shadowstats.com
            Most of the site is on a subscription basis but there is a fair amount of information available free of charge.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            TriumphDriver,
            I do believe rather than the use of “Unemployed” a better measure would be to give the figure of “Employed”.

            Then break the employed figure into full-time and part-time, etc employment.

          • 0 avatar
            bd2

            There are tons of minimum or near-minimum wage jobs (service or retail) jobs available in many of the major urban areas, but the cost of living is too high.

      • 0 avatar
        catenoid

        Al, part-time in the US often means no benefits, so no health insurance etc. In Australia, working part-time mostly means you get paid for fewer hours.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          catenoid,
          Good point, it’s easy to forget the differences in our industrial relations policies.

          We have a excellent public (and private) health system, even partime workers are entitled to holidays (vacation).

          You know even school kids that work in Australia have money being paid into their superannuation (similar to 401k) accounts.

          Superannuation in Australia is compulsory. Around 10% (5% employer, 5% employee) of your income is paid into a form of investment account. I think this will be our saviour when other countries languish under the future cost of maintaining the aged.

          This also adds to the cost of producing goods and services. But like I mentioned above the little “bit” we have been investing will gradually be a lot. 10% of all Australian workers over the past 25-30 years. Lots of money somewhere.

          • 0 avatar
            Mercury Mark 75

            Big Al,

            The US has something similar to your superannuation called social security. Right now employees pay in 6.2% of their earnings and employers match that amount.

            Maybe your system has a better firewall protecting the funds from the politicians, but be careful when you hand large amounts of money over to anyone.

            Lastly, I am a teacher and have a similar system to fund my pension. I contribute 10% of my earnings and the state matches that every year. Except for all those years that the did not. After 60 years of these occasional (40% of the time or so) contributions by the state the system is now considered underfunded and the state wants to declare bankruptcy and wipe away its responsibility.

            I hope everything works out better for you.

      • 0 avatar
        its me Dave

        Earnt. Right. The Koch bros and the Walton kids EARNED their fortunes by choosing their parents wisely. More than a third of the Forbes 25 richest people list are second-generation rich. Opportunity, bootstraps, hard work, making something of yourself: myths, all of it.

        • 0 avatar

          A majority of the 25 richest people in the world did not inherit their wealth and you say that making something of yourself is a myth. Okee dokee.

          Just wondering, do you feel as strongly about Chelsea Clinton’s $65,000 speaking fees as you do about the Kochs and Waltons inherited wealth? The congressional seat that Debbie Dingell inherited from her husband who inherited it from his father? The Dingells are charter members of the lucky sperm club. His dad was a congressciritter and she is a Fisher Body heiress.

          Regarding inherited wealth, Sam Bronfman said that making $50 million out of $1 million takes a lot of hard work, but making $500 million out of $50 million only takes time if you don’t overspend.

          Life isn’t about getting dealt a good hand, it’s about playing the hand you’re dealt well.

          • 0 avatar
            dantes_inferno

            > A majority of the 25 richest people in the world did not inherit their wealth and you say that making something of yourself is a myth. Okee dokee.

            And yet you’re using 25 people as a barometer representing the majority of the richest people in the world. Okee dokee.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            Ronnie,

            life isn’t a dichotomy between the extremes of “entirely self-made” and “inherited wealth.” Bill Gates is who he is because he *bought* an operating system to sell to IBM, and he found a bunch of people who were willing to write Windows etc. for pay. he’s not “self made” since he had to buy something from someone, and he’s not “self made” because the vast majority of his company’s products have been produced by people not named “Bill Gates.”

            Martin Shkreli is another one. people talk about his “net worth” like it’s all his fairly gained money. He’s a con man who has convinced people to give him their money to play with.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            JimZ,
            So, then why did this not occur prior to Bill Gates? Bill to the risk, the risk paid off.

            Being engineers we know there are only two machines, inclined planes and levers, so every machines can only have this.

            The same can be said for investing. There are only two ways to invest. Create something that does not exist, ie, Bill Gates and/or buy something and hope for capital growth.

            I have found throughout my life the investors that whine the most are those looking for capital growth, almost as if it’s and entitlement. I find this odd when capital is a riskier venture.

            It’s also the industries looking for capital growth, ie, banks are the ones who screw up economies, through greed.

            “Creators” tend to be more realistic.

      • 0 avatar
        Shiv91

        KixStart: Thanks but I’ve never been married. What I’m trying to say is that I have no intention to marry because I personally don’t think it’s worth it. I don’t care if other people want to but I’m not interested.

        Big Al from Oz: I love my job, the only reason why I’m part time is because all the full-time positions at my house (I work in a group home for handicapped people) are currently filled. I could go full-time at another house but I’ve bonded with my residents. And I fully agree with you, I fully believe in earning what you have through pure hard work, a good attitude and playing with the cards you’re dealt. I was referring to my peers. I didn’t finish college.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Shiv91,
          You then must live with your decision and hopefully understand your decision might be fulfilling in a more emotive way, it’s not a financial decision or career advancement decision.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Agree nickoo. I thought it was hard when I graduated from college 41 years ago without any prospects for job and I went back to college to get some additional Accounting hours to work myself into a job. Not easy but at least I was able to do it. Job prospects for today’s college graduates are even more limited and much bleaker. Not too hard to see why most millennials are not that interested in the latest vehicles. Little hard to be interested in something beyond your reach.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      There needs to be a more realistic look at education.
      What will keep me content and self-supporting?

      Too much emphasis has been placed upon the mantra, “it doesn’t matter what you do as long as you are happy”. We are seeing the fallout of that ideology mid to long term. You can’t be happy if you can’t look after yourself and are drowning in debt due to a useless degree that “made you happy.”

      The “attack” on the middle class has occurred over time because the legislative focus has been based upon corporate and elitist profitability. I don’t begrudge anyone being rewarded for there risks but when multibillionaires flourish at the expense of the middle class there definitely is inequities in the system.

      We have seen massive growth in intelligence gathering, private military contractors (PC wording for mercenaries), and “HomeLand” Security. It has all been conveniently packaged as needed due to “Muslim Extremist Terrorism”.

      Who is the ruling class really afraid of?

      You collapse the middle class and you collapse the most critical pillar of a society.

  • avatar
    kobo1d

    28 y/o male, lived with parents about 1 of the past 10 years. 9 months in 2006 (before first move out), 3 in 2012 (in between apartment lease and house renovation completion), 1 in 2014 (finding a new place after moving back from across the country). I feel very lucky to have had an extra bedroom available to me in those situations.

  • avatar
    CliffG

    Well, in Italy the number is closer to 70% living at home. In Spain young male unemployment is around 50%. Most of France is on strike right now. Germany has decided to import a vast quantity of literally unemployable males from the Mid East while trying to kick out the Turks who have lived there since the 1950’s. Ain’t just ‘Merica for what it is worth. Interesting times indeed.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    This is a helluva thing. And whites are better off (which is to say, having the wherewithal to live independent of their parents) than African-Americans in this regard.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Not sure why this is so shocking. The rest of the world is catching up, and as such we can’t afford the luxuries afforded to us by the once in a lifetime conditions that afforded us the prosperity we took to be the American normal. Someone said wages peaked in ’68 here. Where was China? Where was Japan? Where was Mexico? Hell, Europe had only just found its post WWII feet. On top of that stuff like real estate and energy were dirt cheap, and the population was a good bit smaller. Even within the US the legacy of stuff like Jim Crow laws further filtered out the segment of the population able to reap the benefits of those exceptional conditions.

    Now the self-declared greatest country in the world actually has to prove its mettle and demonstrate its greatness and everyone is bent out of shape about it. Multiple generations living in the same house is normal in most of the rest of the world, but here it’s a mark of failure. It’s silly. Either America has to step up to demonstrate the standard of greatness we have hid behind for decades or accept our new standing. All that said there’s still no place I’d rather be. But post WWII USA wasted a ton of opportunity.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @sportyaccordy – I do agree that for most of the world multigenerational households are the norm. We see it as a failure but it may very well be a return to a global norm.

      My parents were both from rural farm families and grew up post WW1 and lived through WW2, the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl of the Thirties. Large families always stayed together and if one left it was to work to send money home.
      My brother and I were both encouraged to get an education but one that was practical and applicable to a secure life. We both had zero pressure to leave the nest until we were self supporting.

      There was a lot of guilt heaped upon us for not moving out as early as possible. The irony of it all is that the both of us launched much more successfully than many of our peers.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      sportyaccordy,
      Somehow your comment about the “rest of the world” being different than the US is incorrect. You will find trends like this are quite consitent between most Western EU nations and other OECD countries.

      I do believe the US needs to catch up to some t other nations, especially when it comes to disparity and social issues (not welfare).

      As for jobs in the future and a young person starting out, I agree with Lou on this. Most now think it about “me” and I deserve. Well the reality is the world doesn’t operate this way and you must earn every darn bit of what your have and are.

      Education must change and revert back to what it was when I went to school, that is to teach and prepare us for the workforce.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Shocking.

        Young adults who spend $100/month on a cellphone,$50/month on cable, $50/month on video games, $300/week going out with friends and $800/month on clothes can’t afford their own apartment.

        Life so hard!

        • 0 avatar
          sportyaccordy

          Can you point to the study/source of these figures?

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            No. My point wasn’t about how exact my figures were, but rather that millennials have different values from their predecessors.

        • 0 avatar
          tjh8402

          @vogo – when I was working for $12ish/hr, I was taking home about $1800/month.

          Let’s tally up costs
          $100 phone
          $80 internet (no cable TV)
          $125 utilities (water/power)
          $125 car+rental insurance
          $125 month gas ($2.50/gallon, 25 mpg, 15k miles/year)
          $250 groceries
          $150 car ownership (could be $100 for maintenance or $200 for payment)
          $280 health insurance (hard to standardize. My employer at that time paid our total PPO insurance cost for us. Currently I have what is becoming increasingly common – a HDHP/HSA combo. IRS maximum allowable contribution is $3350/year, which is $280/month)

          We’re now at $1235/month in basic living expenses. I’ve got $565 left for saving, fun/entertainment, retirement, and rent, which will be challenging since a decent one bedroom apartment in this area easily goes for $700+/month.

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          Millennials are the one most likely to have “cut the cord” (but probably have a Netflix account).

          Sure, data charges are something that past generations didn’t have to deal with, but think that bigger reasons for the greater % of millennials living with the ‘rents has to do with the depression of wages and the burden of school loans.

          Difficult for someone to pay rent (on the typical salary), much less to save up to purchases RE, when they have high school loan payments to make every month.

          Lots of millennials live at home for the time being and move out when they have paid off their school loans (or most of it).

          These days, a college degree is equivalent to a HS diploma 2-3 decades ago and a post-secondary degree is like a college degree.

    • 0 avatar

      “Multiple generations living in the same house is normal in most of the rest of the world.”

      It is because in less developed societies children are supposed to support their parents when those become too old to take care of themselves. I can hardly believe that American millennials will provide for their old patents. Most likely they will kick out them out to retirement home.

      Society evolves according to laws of nature as everything else in Universe, nothing in the world is random stays constant or continues indefinitely. US is simply ahead of time and transforming into the society of the future which Karl Marx tried to predict using laws of evolution (already known in 19th century) and certain criteria he considered as a key in his theory of communism. What he came to in his analysis looks a lot like the society where everything is done by machines and run by AI and Government and financial institutes as well as money is not needed anymore and people are evolved far enough to not behave as a hungry animals in the jungle.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Exactly. Though I wouldn’t call the conditions in the 40’s-60’s unique to our country. Other great countries have also had peaks where they were global leaders, now China is having it’s run. It will be interesting to see how China handles the switch to automated manufacturing and how the upcoming environmental regulations they are implementing restrict growth.

      In a very broad stroke look at our history, our decline in manufacturing and prosperity started in the late 60’s are we implemented a host of environmental restrictions, as well as instituted many of the expensive social welfare programs. China is about to do the same. Where will the dirty cheap manufacturing go next?

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        Vietnam and Myanmar are where companies are going now. I dare say SE Asia is running its course. Africa is there but I don’t see it as stable enough to build significant industry right now.

      • 0 avatar

        Technically China is still a communist country. If communism is not about entitlements I do not know what it else is about. BTW in SU if you did not work you were considered to be criminal and officially called a “parasite”.

        BTW USA is also gradually becoming a communist country. Millennials are all for introducing censorship and the fact that Sanders is seriously considered for POTUS and is overwhelmingly supported by millennials who are the future of this country. I wish Millennials good luck because they will need it unlike any other generation if not for living in communist paradise – for facing direct competition from AI.

        • 0 avatar
          JuniperBug

          Millennials aren’t looking for “communism.” They’re looking for relief from the corporate welfare system that we’ve labeled “capitalism.”

          When the unfathomably rich keep getting richer, corruption goes unpunished, and any resulting losses are paid for by public funds while the hard-working middle who pay for it all are losing ground, you can’t act surprised when they start looking for alternatives.

      • 0 avatar
        bd2

        China is having its run since large multi-international corporations pushed for “free trade” and the easier movement of manufacturing jobs to China.

        Aside from the cheap crap one gets at Walmart (which was most instrumental in setting up China’s manufacturing boom) and the like, note how apparel and other products from higher-end brand names haven’t reduced their prices once their manufacturing costs had gone down (but their margins sure increased which justified the immense increase in CEO compensation).

        For instance remember that a Ralph Lauren (made in the USA) polo shirt was around $40-45 when I was a kid.

        Today, the same shirt is $98 despite being made in China or somewhere similar like Pakistan or Bangladesh.

        The decline in US manufacturing had to do with the greater availability of cheap labor overseas.

        During the 1950s – Europe and Japan were still recovering from the destruction of WWII so the US didn’t have much competition and China was still closed off.

        Japan started with cheap manufactured goods (such as toys) and then moved into higher end goods such as electronics and then automobiles.

        A similar thing happened/is happening to China but on steroids.

        But it’s not just the transfer of manufacturing jobs overseas.

        US corporations have not only moved customer service jobs overseas to India, but now even legal and accounting work.

        And it’s also bringing in cheap labor whether it be hiring illegals (chicken/seafood/beef processing plants, landscaping, janitorial work, etc.) or abusing the various visa-work programs.

        CEOs will do whatever they can (with a few exceptions) to cut their labor costs – as that means greater profit margins for the company and hence, fattening their own bank account.

  • avatar
    CincyDavid

    When I got out of college in 1989, my mother told me I was welcome to move back in with them as long as I wanted, or two weeks, whichever came first. And she wasn’t kidding, I don’t think.

    We have several kids in college, one of whom has NO clue what she wants to be when she grows up, so I expect that at least one will wind up back at home.

    On the subject of black vs. white families, the black families I know personally tend to push their kids out of the nest at age 18 and let them sink or swim on their own, with a high school diploma and limited opportunities to succeed. I don’t know if education isn’t valued, or if the parents are barely getting by, so they aren’t in the position to help the kids. I do think, from the limited exposure I have to black families, they are MUCH more fluid as far as where they “stay”, as opposed to other people who “live” somewhere, and are more open to multi-generational households, with grandparents and whatnot in the same household. I want to stress that this is a small sample, and strictly from personal experience.

    • 0 avatar
      montecarl

      CincyDavid you are correct in your observation..In most Black Families’ you are expected to leave home when you turn 18 and finish High school…More so with the male that the female..

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Meh I’d argue that socio-economic status has more to do with attitude than race: Growing up rural with two parents who just managed to finish high school, a dad who was working 60+ hours a week, and a mom who had various part time jobs depending on what age us kids were my Dad let me keep coming home while I was paying and borrowing my way through my bachelors degree but he made sure that I knew that I was cramping his style and not welcome to linger.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Well, since poverty is more prevalent among black people, the imperative to basically push their kids out the door earlier might make some sense. The same would be true of poorer white families.

      My perception is that the whole “millenials at home” thing is as much a function of parents who can afford to do that as it is of kids who can’t afford to live in their own. I have a feeling that further up the affluence ladder, families of all races are more apt to do this.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    I’m pretty much at the end of “gen X” so I think I’m fortunate to have missed out on this. When I got my BS in mechanical engineering, the school I went to charged about $250-300 or so per credit hour, and when I got through it I had maybe $15k or so in loan debt to pay off. Which I did in short order.

    now, the same school charges OVER $1000 per credit hr. for undergrad courses. and even though engineers (and other STEM grads) are in demand, I can’t imagine how much debt they’re leaving with.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Don’t forget those engineers are now competing with engineers from abroad that are more than willing to work for lower wages. I saw this over and over again.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        but… but… but I thought there *were* no people here with those skills, so we *have* to bring in more H1-Bs?

      • 0 avatar

        From my experience American engineers are notably better trained and smarter than their counterparts from India or China. If it was to me I would hire American engineers and pay them higher salary and doing so would hire twice as less engineers and make more profit. On the other hand even engineering jobs are not all equal. Some work is so boring that good engineer would not like to do it and would rather leave the company e.g. working constantly on sustaining issues and not developing new products. That’s where Indian and Chinese engineers come handy since they want to get green card and fulfill their American dream and ready to do a dirty job.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          I don’t honestly know if American engineering graduates are as dismally incompetent relative to their predecessors as grade inflation would have one believe, but I do know enough Gen X managers of engineers to have heard many a horror story of hiring millennials only to discover that they’re ill-prepared to be contributing members of society. They expect special accommodations of their personal issues from day one and take jobs they think they’re above and simply refuse to do with any enthusiasm. I’m inclined to believe my friends, since I have experience with millennials who expect to be promoted because of their self-concept, which is so high it precludes them performing their present job responsibilities. Oh well. They’re well on the way to getting what they deserve.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Can’t always stereotype. I hired a millennial mechanical engineer and frankly, was not sure what to expect. Surprise – he was intelligent, a self-starter, eager to jump in and help, and for his limited experience, had pretty good insight. Not to mention he has helped me upgrade my knowledge of computer tricks and shortcuts. One thing millennials are very good with is near telepathic use of technology. Pretty helpful to a early gen X guy like me. Maybe I just go lucky but I would hire six of him if I could. So they are out there.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            not in my experience. Other than fiddling with their phones more often, the “kids” we have coming in straight out of college have been pretty bright and hit the ground running, so to speak.

            the biggest headache we have to deal with is software written “off-shore” by people who can write code but clearly have no idea what the software is meant to do.

          • 0 avatar

            @ToddAtlasF1

            Try to compete will kids in Silicon Valley. You will be surprised. Badge of honor includes working overtime without pay as long as is required until objective is met. It is do it or die attitude. People do not understand it and it seems to them that e.g. Musk is delusional with his goals which is he is pretty serious. Try to work you way out at Tesla, Amazon or Google.

    • 0 avatar

      My fantasy ZR-1 does not sit next to my fantasy 1967 Fury in my nonexistent garage because my kid is at college, and I’d rather she didn’t begin adult life with cement shoes.

      For those not in this loop, undergrad College in a name University (private) is now 60K per year…that’s a quarter million folks, for a degree that doesn’t begin Dr. or end Esq, CPA or MBA. State school is now more expensive than private was when I went…25-40k per year, depending on state and residency. (Yes, I know, you can get the credits cheaper at community college and transfer)

      The least I can do is get her out of undergrad with no debt. She gets a merit scholarship so she’s pulling her weight.

      I was a “yuppie”, or the last generation to attend college and post grad without computers…and the hill is steeper now than when I started….and my view is among people in four year colleges surrounded by parents of like education and achievement. Kick out any of those supports and I can only imagine….

      There was never anything free out there, but more folks are fighting over less than in the past. Between college tuition and health insurance, I could buy a ZR1 every year for cash.

      Colleges are priced they way they are because “You want your kid to have a shot at living in the top 10%, right ???” Charge what the market will bear. We know folks who are sending their kids to the top $ school and taking massive loans, and hoping for the best. My daughter and I both want her to move out when the time is right..without a student loan collector on the phone. You do know that student loans are collected like taxes, not bad debts, and that almost nothing is exempt…..

      Oh, and she likes cars, but prefers to drive the one with a manual trans…

  • avatar
    matador

    When a person can’t receive good employment, doesn’t have a large savings amount, and doesn’t see the future as improving, a new car is the last thing on their minds. That $2999 Chevy Lumina is more than enough for them then.

  • avatar
    CincyDavid

    I might agree with sportyaccordy…post-WWII affluence was a one-shot-deal and will likely not be repeated. If the 20th century was the American Century, I suspect the 21st will be shaped by Asian economic powers.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I’m thinking of the 21st century more as the Global Century.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Economic efficiency doesn’t generally go backwards. Peak Oil, if it had happened as quickly as the doomsayers a decade ago predicted, could have been an exception. But it didn’t happen. And neither are there any other fundamental reasons for wealth and incomes to have declined.

      Instead, the declines have come about as a result of misallocation of resources. The US taking it upon itself to fill the world with bomb craters is one. But by far the most insidious, has been the growth of financial, legal real estate, investment and bureaucratic sectors. Neither of whose members contribute much, if anything, to value creation, yet those are the fields in which incomes have risen the most since the 60s.

      With today’s technology, it’s dirt cheap to put up a dwelling for all those living at home who doesn’t want to. The reason it doesn’t happen, is simply because the army of better connected leeches blocking it; in order to keep alive the charade of the shack they stupidly borrowed a fortune to buy, being “worth” way above replacement cost. Literally propping their own unproductive, useless self up, on the back of young people, with the aid of the totalitarian state. While, seemingly successfully, trying to hide behind the idiocy that the fault lies with some poor sap halfway around the world.

    • 0 avatar

      There is more money per capita now then back post WW2, adjusted for inflation. It just goes much more disproportionately to the top. We could have a much stronger middle class if their were political and societal will for it to happen.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Or better yet, less opportunity for “politicals and societals” to do much about “their” will, leaving more room for individuals to do something about theirs.

  • avatar
    PriusV16

    ” When I got my BS in mechanical engineering, the school I went to charged about $250-300 or so per credit hour, and when I got through it I had maybe $15k or so in loan debt to pay off. Which I did in short order.

    now, the same school charges OVER $1000 per credit hr. for undergrad courses. and even though engineers (and other STEM grads) are in demand, I can’t imagine how much debt they’re leaving with.”

    From the looks of it, around three to four times as much….?

    “I might agree with sportyaccordy…post-WWII affluence was a one-shot-deal and will likely not be repeated.”

    WWIII, here we come…..!

    ;)

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    23 year old millennial here, I have zero hope of leaving home making $10 an hour in an area where rent for a 1 bedroom apartment is about $700 a month.

    At least I can keep the old Thunderturd going.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    All good points, but we’re also missing some other key components of this phenomenon:

    1) In previous generations, the whole “you’re out when you’re 18” was partially out of pure practicality – there were more families that couldn’t afford to support adults. Lots of people HAVE become far more affluent, and thus able to keep the older kids at home.

    2) Once upon a time, families of six were living in two bedroom houses. Now, families of three live in five-bedroom houses. Not surprising that “there’s no room in the inn” doesn’t work anymore.

    3) The current millenial generation is also the helicopter parent generation. These are the folks who insisted on the ultra-safe car seats, outfitting the kids with Rollerball-style protection when they went out for bike rides, and on and on. Thus, the tendency exists for parents to “protect” their kids endlessly and for the kids to accept that protection.

    4) We hear a lot about how millenials stay out of home from economic necessity, but that’s also sometimes true of their parents, who gladly take their money. For a lot of families, that’s how everyone gets by.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      FreedMike – great points. We forget that in many instances it is the parents that do not want to let their kids leave the nest.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      The same parents who have the unmitigated audacity and gall to rip their spoiled brat’s COLLEGE PROFESSORS for some alleged slight!

      If I was one of the profs in that situation, I would only have one thing to say to that parent: “How old is your son/daughter? OVER 18!! Hmm..by my definition an ADULT! They should be able to deal with me as one, and live with the consequences of their decision to skip my class to go on a drinking binge or whatever! Good day, Mr./Mrs. Bell!!” (Helicopter, get it? I’ll show myself out!)

      All because of the damn trophies just for showing up! Now we get the stuff like the scenario I mention above, “microaggressions,” and the need for these pansy wastes to have to curl up in the fetal position in a “safe space!”

      God save us!

  • avatar
    sgeffe

    As one solidly in “Gen-X,” I only stayed at home until I was 28 in order to be able to afford a comfortable down-payment on a place; my folks understood that I wasn’t going to want to throw away money in some sort of rental arrangement; I could have just flushed that money down the toilet, or burned it in the fireplace.

    Same with my brother; he literally started as in intern at his engineering company, and was recently promoted to VP, and will likely become CEO before long. (I was fortunate to land my present job right out of college, working in a county IT division; not making quite as much as I would in the private sector, but I’m sure I would have had several positions by now, the end of most likely coming via an E-Mail stating that you have an hour to vacate the premises, the rather large individual with the Glock in his pocket who just stepped behind you will facilitate that in as expeditious a manner as possible. That, or “the gentleman named Submirinanimambo Bumblegefvckototebam who was just hired in your department will be taking over your position at the end of this month; as a condition of your severance with this company, you are to train this individual in all aspects of your position, after which time your services with this organization will no longer be needed. Failure to properly train Mr. Bubble..Bunbleduck..this individual will result in no severance, no COBRA benefit, and that our H/R department will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that you will never even be able to find a position as a dishwasher at Wal-Mart!”

    Further, I was fortunate enough to have had my parents pay for roughly half of my college education, and unlike my brother, I commuted to a nearby university instead of living on-campus. (Didn’t do much for my social life, but oh well.)

    My advice to folks just graduating high school is to start building a network of folks who know you and your goals — eventually they might know of a position, or know someone who knows of one, etc. Obviously LinkedIn or other such sites help to facilitate this activity. If you can, get an internship in your chosen field, since if you bust your a$$ enough, you might end up with an offer right out of school, and they might even help with some of the debt.

    • 0 avatar
      JuniperBug

      I find it ironic that there’s a considerable subset of people who consider renting housing “throwing money away,” while ignoring the money burned in property taxes, real estate agent commissions, mortgage interest, condo/home owner fees (where applicable), home repairs, notary fees, welcome taxes, lost opportunity cost of a considerable down payment, and all other costs associated with owning a home.

      I don’t know about your parents, but the money I spent during the second half of my 20s in order to have the freedom to have my own space wherein I did who and what I wanted in addition to the pride of knowing I was funding my existence on my own is money I consider well spent.

      There are definitely long-term benefits to buying your own property, but if you’re only able to boil it down to “buying is money you keep, renting is throwing money away,” you clearly haven’t considered all the variables.

      People regularly look at me with pity because I’m still renting a small apartment at 32. I look at them with pity because they have no liquidity, limited mobility, and unfunded pensions. Buying a house is something I’ll do when I’m ready. In the mean time I’m too busy with studies, vacations, and having a financial cushion (without mentioning my pension) to worry about it. The feeling of knowing that I could live for 2 years with zero income without incurring any debt or lifestyle changes is something I enjoy. I also just finished eating a fresh-grilled steak on my balcony while watching a sunset view over the city skyline while boaters went by on the canal next to my building – something I wouldn’t be doing had I already bought a house.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “Short term”, buying a home is usually a bad move, but not always. It’s different for everyone, same as leasing a car isn’t for everyone. If you’re better at doubling down on a secure, retirement nest egg, then by all means.

        • 0 avatar
          JuniperBug

          Absolutely, and it varies from market to market. Some markets favour renting, some favour buying. You have to consider that in addition to an individual’s short- and long-term goals, which of course, also vary from person to person.

          My point was mainly that, “buying, responsible; renting, throwing money away” is a highly-over-simplified position.

          I think part of what makes some people believe that buying is so great is because it forces you to put some of your income into something with equity. But guess what: if I can put 30-40% of my take-home into Savings while renting (ideally with some kind of interest, but that’s hard to do today), I’m building equity, too.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I’m not convinced there’s housing markets that favor renting, while others favor buying. A Starbucks barista can’t afford to buy in The Bay Area, but renting is also “sky high” there. It’s all relative. Either way, The Bay Area “renter” is making the house payment for the “owner”, same as in The Death Valley Area.

        • 0 avatar
          Mandalorian

          This is largely geographical too. In many areas of the country, homes, even nice ones, are quite inexpensive.

          A lot of these kids, it seems are unwilling to move to lower cost of living areas. They want to live in the “Cool” places, which are very expensive. My home for example, is not cheap for the state or area I live in, not really cheap on the national level either. However, if it was in any halfway decent area in Southern California, the Bay Area, the Boston Area, NYC, etc, I would not have been able to afford it unless I spontaneously developed the ability to precisely hurl a fastball at triple digit speeds.

          Personally, I’ve always been big on the pride of ownership. I think I tend to treat things I own much better than those I borrow for money.

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        @Juniper Bug – while there are costs associated with owning especially short term, you still get some of your $ back whereas with renting you get none of it back. I’m paying about $775/month for my mortgage, which is less than the rent for a decent one bedroom apartment in my area and includes my insurance, which rent doesn’t. Many of my friends who are renting get sick when they here that I’m paying less than they are, and I have a 3/2 home with a garage and 1/5 acre. And that difference will only grow. Rents go up every year, sometimes dramatically, whereas my mortgage won’t (Florida has homestead exemptions and “save our homes” limits on property tax increases in its state constitution). 10 years from now, when rents are probably in the $1k/month range, my mortgage will still be about $800/month. 20 years from now? Maybe $850/month? 28 years from now? I’ll be retired and only paying taxes and insurance, plus I’ll have an asset worth something (I know housing goes up and down, but I feel pretty confident that my home will be worth at least what I paid for it. Meanwhile, if I had been renting this whole time, I’d still be paying rent while having nothing to show for all the $ I’d spent on rent for the decades up to that point.

        This is nothing against your apartment lifestyle. You are obviously enjoying yourself, and that’s what matters. However, it’s more about what you want and makes you happy then what’s the more financially prudent decision. I’m also 32, and my buying a house isn’t depriving me of the equivalent to your steak on the balcony sorts of enjoyment. I get to go sit on my back patio in the morning, drinking a nice cup of coffee, taking in the view of my very green backyard while watching the joy my boyfriend’s dog gets from having a good size yard to run around and chase squirrels. My grill is being delivered next week and I already have Tiki torches, so grilling out steaks on the patio can start soon. I could have had a house with a nice sunrise/sunset on a lake or canal view for the same price, but that would’ve required me to move about 20-30 minutes further out of town. Alternatively, I could’ve bought a townhome in a lakefront community with a pool and gym, but I would’ve had to give up the yard from the dog, and I didn’t want to be spending hundreds of $/month on an HOA (again $ thrown away). My only complaint about home ownership is the amount of work you have to put into it, although I could’ve alleviated a lot of that by buying the townhome instead of a house.

  • avatar
    "scarey"

    Quote- “Pew states the main reason for the shift is a changing attitude toward marriage amongst those in the 18-34 age group, but other factors affect the shift as well.”
    Obama, with the full approval of the Obama Republicans in congress has done NOTHING to improve employment with the exception of a few UNION jobs in a few industries.
    This is not by accident, it is a part of the intentional destruction of the middle class.
    We need Trump to turn our country around before it is too late. Sorry, liberals !
    BTW, I left home at 17 when I got a full-time job. They were more plentiful back then. I did not go to college but worked my way up to better-paying jobs.
    This generation is screwed in several ways. I am afraid that we will repeat our economic recovery of 1939-1945 by having another World War.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      This! Trump is a billionaire who cares about the average Joe!

      I hope your name is Joe and that you aren’t particularly outstanding in any regard.

      • 0 avatar
        "scarey"

        Donald Trump cares about our country. I know that this point of view is unfathomable to the Obama generation, since our country has had exactly ZERO VICTORIES in the past eight years, and is unlikely to score any more ever again if Hillary or Bernie are elected.

        • 0 avatar
          Kenmore

          Something bad will surely happen to me if I try to ingest that much stupid in one sitting.

        • 0 avatar
          dantes_inferno

          >Donald Trump cares about our country. I know that this point of view is unfathomable to the Obama generation, since our country has had exactly ZERO VICTORIES in the past eight years, and is unlikely to score any more ever again if Hillary or Bernie are elected.

          Politicians who care about this country? BWAAHHAAAHAAAHAAH! If you believe that, I have a bridge to Hawaii to sell you – since you’ve just demonstrated the innate ability to fall for anything.

        • 0 avatar
          SC5door

          Bin Laden—Caught.

          Unemployment—Down. More jobs were created in 2010 than in Bush’s entire 8 year run.

          Increased pay for members of the Military. (Funny how the other side has a hard on for weapons and war but never bothered to raise pay for the military). Increased support to veterans.

          Stop loss policy–Gone.

          Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform–Signed.

          Unnecessary Iraq War–Pulled the troops.

          Expanded hate crime protections, eliminated DOMA and DADT, expanded funding for the Violence Against Women Act….

          But yea….didn’t do anything.

          Trump cares about one thing—himself. He has no idea about anything outside of his own little world and his people don’t either.

          “I won’t take your guns away”—But you can’t bring one into his hotels or casinos can you?

          “Women are fat pigs and dogs.” Want to say that to your wife, mother, or daughter let alone have someone else say that? What does he think of the women members of the military? Are those disgusting pigs too?

          “Trump University has a BBB rating of A+” More like D- and went bankrupt. 5,000 people ripped off. But yea that’s “caring” about the citizens of the country.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Yeah, the George Bush era provided “win” after “win”…well, it did for Cheney Corp and Halliburton. Scarey you are a fool.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      Trump is a clown who is highly unlikely to do a single damn thing he claims he’ll do. He knows how to play an audience, but there’s no “there” there. All sizzle, no steak.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        I can agree with all of that. What do you think President Hillary Clinton would do for the good of the country?

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          A lot more than President Donald Trump would do. Unfortunate that this is our choice…but there you have it.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I wasn’t born this morning though, so I disagree.

          • 0 avatar
            FromaBuick6

            “A lot more than President Donald Trump would do.” I bet you’re one of those people that complains about how Trump never offers specifics…

            The only thing Hillary should be doing is sitting in a prison cell after that little private email server stunt she pulled as Sec of State. Lower-ranking federal employees have been sent up the river for far less egregious mishandling of sensitive information.

            Trump may be a clown, but how are Clinton, Sanders and the 16 GOP losers that ran for president this year any less clownish? What, because they spent years (decades) on the taxpayer dime accomplishing nothing but driving the country further down the toilet? Please.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            “Lower-ranking federal employees have been sent up the river for far less egregious mishandling of sensitive information.”

            Name a couple.

          • 0 avatar
            runs_on_h8raide

            FreedMike, you say a lot more….what is your definition of “a lot more”? A lot more war? A lot more poor? A lot more unemployed? A lot more closed stores? A lot more of the same old whores?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Trump is a protectionist xenophobe wannabe conservative whereas Clinton is a neoliberal liberal.
            Right now as a Canadian I’m happy that I’m not the one saddled with that choice.

            BUT

            Clinton’s neoliberal business views would be less damaging globally and to the USA than Trump’s “wall around America” approach.

          • 0 avatar

            Hillary would be a vote for consistency. She is a fairly middle ground democrat with some close to right wing leanings on things like foreign policy. She would basically be like A mashup of the last 4 presidents.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            ….The only thing Hillary should be doing is sitting in a prison cell after that little private email server stunt she pulled as Sec of State….

            Oh, please. I’m not a fan of hers but spare me. We have had presidents who have traded arms for hostages, destabilized the entire middle east for no go reason other than to make their friends rich and your worried about stupid emails? Get over it.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          I’m not f***ing talking about Hillary Clinton. Take your redirection bulls**t elsewhere.

  • avatar
    Acd

    So it looks like since millennialis can’t even afford to move out of their parents house then Cadillac’s strategy of targeting them to buy their $50k and up vehicles and alienating its older customer base might not be the best strategy to increase sales and grow the brand.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      I’m sure that incongruity astonishes most of us TTAC readers and I’m waiting for anyone with a good guess as to how the mature, affluent, wholly invested and presumably industry-savvy decision makers at GM could POSSIBLY have permitted the brand to become the plaything of capricious children like Johan and Melody.

      It’s like seeing poodles in the pilot seats of an Airbus; it leaves you mouth agape, needing an answer.

      • 0 avatar
        its me Dave

        I hear ya, Kenmore. I’m forced to fly Spirit Air pretty often too.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        Perhaps those poodles might have a better understanding of “Alternate Law” than the other pilots!

        (A jetliner in “Normal Law” flight will basically “self-correct” to straight-and-level flight thanks to the myriad of computers controlling the flight surfaces at a given time, whereas in “Alternate Law,” some manual control is needed depending on conditions in order to avoid stalling the aircraft. Several years ago, an Air France A340 with several hundred souls aboard pancaked into the Atlantic Ocean because the flight crew failed to take appropriate action when the aircraft entered this flight regime.

        I’m not a pilot, not do I play one on TV; if I’m spitballing or talking out my backside, please advise.)

        • 0 avatar
          tjh8402

          @ sgeffe – not quite but you’re close. You’re more describing autopilot, a feature common on many airplanes from small single engined pistons to all airliners, both Boeing and Airbus. Depending on the sophistication of the system, the plane pretty much flies itself. Pilots input the flight plan (altitude, speed, heading, etc), make adjustments as necessary, and the plane does the rest. No fly by wire is necessary for this (most Boeing Airliners in the sky, the 717, 737, 747, 757, and 767, are not FBW, nor are the many Douglas MD-80s/90s still out there)

          Airbuses, like newer Boeings (the 777 and 787), are fly by wire. That is, there is no mechanical link between the pilots flight controls (a side stick on the Airbus and a yoke on the Boeings). The pilot commands the airplane through his control input and the flight computer manipulates the control surfaces in the best way to accomplish the commanded maneuver. however, there are key differences between the two systems, to the point that you can speak to aeronautical engineers from other companies and they’re refer to them as the “Boeing system” and “Airbus system”. In Boeings, even though the yoke isn’t connected mechanically to the control surfaces, the plane will respond exactly as if it were. So if you turn the yoke right, the plane will roll right and if you let the yoke return to center, the plane will level the wings. If you want to hand fly the plane (not on autopilot), you’ll have to keep your hands on the controls to maintain course. Both yokes will move in sync with each other thanks to servos. Also, the pilot has final control of the airplane. The computers will cry and scream if they don’t like something he is doing, but ultimately the plane will respond to his exact commands.

          Airbuses are a bit more complicated. They respond to control inputs differently depending on the law they operate in. In normal law, the pilot will command the aircraft make a move with the sidestick, and the airplane will determine if that is appropriate, and if so, how to do it. Under normal circumstances this prevents a pilot from doing things the airplane doesn’t like, such as stalling, or rolling too far (you can’t barrel roll an Airbus in normal law). This is called envelope protection. Also, if the pilot commands a turn with the stick and then allows the stick to return to center, the plane will hold that turn until the pilot then commands it to level off. He need not hold the side stick in position to maintain the turn (unlike the Boeing where you have to keep the yoke turned). Leave the stick dead center and the plane will fly straight and level. If you’re “hand flying”, you don’t have to keep your hand on the controls to make corrections and maintain course like you would in a Boeing.

          However, when the flight control computers start noting certain malfunctions or discrepancies, they will begin to dial back the envelope protections because they are unable to determine what the airplane is actually doing and/or they make a determination the situation is emergent. Note that it is the computers that make this determination, not the pilot. When this happens and the envelope protections against things like stalls, overspeed, or extreme maneuvering angles is removed, it is called alternate law, and there are several phases of it as the envelope protections are progressively rolled back.

          If a situation continues to deteriorate, the plane goes into direct law, where it the computer no longer tries to determine the best way to perform a maneuver and the plane handles and responds to control inputs like a traditional airplane. The Miracle on the Hudson A320 was being flown in direct law, as a dual engine failure is a scenario where the plane defaults to that.

          The crash you reference was Air France 447, an A330 (essentially a smaller twin engined A340). In that case, the pitot tubes which give the airplane its airspeed ratings began to ice over and the planes computers had conflicting airspeed indications. This is a scenario where the plane disengages autopilot (requiring the pilots to fly it) and enters alternate law and removes envelope protections against stalling, which it did. For reasons that will forever haunt aviation due to not being able to answer why, the first officer (FO), who was the pilot flying (PF) responded in the worst possible way, by pulling back on the stick and ultimately stalled the plane. he then ignored the stall warnings (again for reasons we don’t know) and continued to pull back, which even basic private pilot training will tell you is the absolute opposite of what you should do in a stall (Colgan Air 3407’s PF had a similarly incorrect response to a stall with similarly tragic results in NY around the same time).

          Unfortunately, here’s where an Airbus vs Boeing design difference came into play (I’m trying to remain as objective as possible, but in the interest of disclosure, I favor the Boeing philosophy here). The second pilot, the pilot in command (PIC) realized that the plane was stalling and pushed his stick forward (correct response). However, because unlike the Boeings, the Airbus control sticks are not motorized and don’t move in sync with each other, he didn’t realize that the other pilot was pulling back. It’s a literal case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. In Airbus’s defense, this is first and foremost a failure of Crew Resource Management (CRM) – the PIC (the one correctly pulling back) is ultimately responsible for taking command of the planes controls and ensuring his FO is following his instructions. Here in the US, we use the phrase “My airplane” or “I have the airplane” (with responses of “your airplane” or “you have the airplane), which ensures that only one person is trying to fly it, and if the PIC commands that, the FO obeys and acknowledges. However, had the controls been linked and motorized (like a Boeing), the AF PIC would’ve seen and felt what was going on because his stick would’ve reflected the FO’s control input and been back. There was some further confusion as the Captain (who was on a break) was summoned and they tried to figure out what was going on (again poor CRM, but arguably in part as a result of poor interface). Ultimately, the plane fell basically straight down at a staggering rate (something like 10,000 ft/minute) and pancaked into the Atlantic.

          Ok, here’s my editorial on the subject. Unfortunately, my understanding is this change in response to control inputs in the different laws as a result of an emergency as well as poor pilot communication leading to asynchronous control input was a factor in the crash of Air Asia 8501, an Airbus A320. I’m not trying to call Airbus’s unsafe. Statistically, they are extremely safe, as are Boeings and pretty much all airliners in the sky. That being said, I do think that Airbuses control interface and design is unsafe, places too much hope on a crew responding appropriately and working together effectively instead of providing an additional layer of protection, and can, and has, led to fatal crashes. I used to know someone who worked as an engineer for Boeing, and he said they subjected many of their pilots to the AF447 scenario (pitot tube icing causes bad airspeed readings and autopilot to disengage) in simulators without telling them thats what they were doing, and none of them crashed.

          I should add, I am not a pilot or an aeronautical engineer. I worked in aviation for 8 years very closely with pilots and got to talk to a lot of them and get their inputs, but mostly I’m just an aviation enthusiast. I’ll certainly defer to the expertise of someone who knows this material better than me.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            I think you nailed it perfectly! Thank you for your response!

            I had read up on the AF447 incident, but didn’t realize that opposite control-movements are necessary to bring an Airbus out of a maneuver, if I understand you correctly. To bring that back to the subject of this site, that’d be like turning a steering wheel, then releasing it..and the car continues to turn!

            Almost doesn’t make sense! More along the lines of driving an inboard boat..but the helm still stays where the rudders are pointed if you let go, and doesn’t return to center.

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            You are correct that it’s similar to how a boat works (or a theoretical car) except in this case, unlike the boat or the car you mentioned, the control doesn’t remain in the turn position, but actually returns to neutral even though the vehicle is continuing to turn. To me, its counter intuitive in normal situations (not to mention different than all the airplanes you will have flown prior to the Airbus) and risky in an emergent situation, because a method that you’ve become accustomed to for controlling the aircraft will suddenly change and the plane will respond differently to control inputs. I would think its far safer to have the plane respond the same in all situations, so that in in an emergency, you operate the controls the same as you are used to and have muscle memory for and can focus on managing whatever the emergency is, not remembering and relearning to fly the airplane differently. However, I will say that the lack of feedback and movement in the controls is what bothers me the most, especially since that’s been the factor in fatal crashes. Crashes are typically a result of several breakdowns or failures, and what you have is a design that, when a crew is not communicating well as can happen in an emergency, will fail to be a backup source of information.

            Gulfstream’s newest models, the G500 and G600, have sidesticks, and at a minimum, they are supposed to be motorized and move in sync with each other. When the G650, their first FBW jet came out, I remember asking one of their engineers about what system they were using, and they said the Boeing system. Embraer uses a mix of both Boeing and Airbus, but critically, their sidesticks do feature tactile feedack when both pilots are trying to manipulate the controls. However, they use the same sidestick to neutral maintain turn system that Airbus does, which, in its defense does have its practical advantages. Here’s a really good write up on the Embraer system that gives info on envelope protection, side stick interface, and advantages to the system:

            http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2010-12-23/embraer-flight-testing-fbw-legacy-flies

            wikipedia actually has a good article on the Airbus control laws:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes

          • 0 avatar
            redapple

            I agree.
            Boeing (same as Douglas, Lockheed, Cessna, Piper ……..) system is superior. Clearly.
            But, Airbus and Europe have too much invested to make a change.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            If I recall from the article I read on the AF crash, an advantage to the Airbus system is that, in a case of pilot incapacitation or worse, suicide by plane, the other seat can hit the button to override the other stick and regain control. (Of course, as was the tragic case with the Germanwings incident a year ago, that’s not going to do squat if the other pilot is locked out of the cockpit, or, as I thought may have happened before, the one pilot incapacitates the other.)

            Ironically, that Captain on the AF flight was the head pilot for that aircraft at the airline, and the FO, IIRC, allowed the backup, someone more on the maintenance end of things, to occupy the other seat, while the Captain was on break. Both men missed the indication that the autopilot (and the autothrottles, presumably), had disengaged after the airspeed indicator failed. (Adding insult to injury, I thought I read that Airbus had identified the pitot icing issue and had issued a fix, but sadly, that particular plane hadn’t had the fix applied — don’t recall if it was a heater or something involving an anti-freeze chemical.)

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            @Sgeffe – I don’t believe Airbuses have that override button. The article mentions that the Embraers will, but if Airbuses did, the PIC on AF447 should’ve been able to take control of the airplane and recover it from the stall. Instead, from what I remember reading, he was pushing forward on his stick (correct action) while the FO was pulling back on his (wrong action).

            From what I recall, the Captain was on a mandatory break period and a Senior FO assumed the PIC role while a Junior FO assumed the PF role. This is not unusual. One reason people in aviation don’t like the phrase “co-pilot” and prefer “First Officer” is that it makes that person seem like they’re something other than a pilot which is untrue. They are a pilot same as the Captain, it’s just that he’s the one designated in charge of the airplane. Typically, the FO (right seat) is the one actually flying the plane, while the Captain monitors and supervises. In the AF case, because the Captain was on his break, the senior FO moved to the left seat to become PIC while the junior FO became the right seat PF.

            You mention autothrottles, which is actually another difference in the Boeing vs Airbus system. Despite all modern airliner engines being FADEC (electronic throttles), Boeing (and Embraer among others) has the throttles motorized to move as if they were mechanically connected, so when you’re at full power, the throttles are all the way forward. If you’re at 60%, they are 60% of the way forward, and they move as the FADEC and autopilot adjust the amount of power the engines are making, giving you a visual cue that the autothrottles are working. Airbus doesn’t do this. My understanding is that pilots have settings (idle, taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, etc) they move the throttles to, but once in that setting, they don’t move. The airplane’s computers will determine the correct amount of power required to accomplish whatever that setting requires. What this means is that the throttle lever will remain in the same position, but the amount of power it is generating in that position will vary. In other words “cruise thrust” position may be 50% power, 60% power, etc but the throttle levers will remain in the same position no matter what thrust the engines are actually producing. They won’t move as the autothrottles adjust power. It is only under certain alternate law settings or direct law that the throttle levers will move like a traditional throttle. I checked and AF 447 was in alternate law 2, which means no autothrottle. Again, to me this removes a certain layer of tactile and visual feedback for the pilots about what the airplane is actually doing. You have no way of knowing by just looking at the throttles whether the autothottles are working or how much power the engines are actually being commanded to make. Admittedly, the Boeing system isn’t foolproof either as the OZ 214 crash demonstrated. Those pilots thought their autothrottles were armed but failed to notice that the levers weren’t moving to maintain the aircrafts speed despite the stall warnings.

  • avatar
    atbz99999

    Glad this was posted. I too am a millennial who’s been riding this storm out for nearly a decade already. This situation surely isn’t what I imagined when all the adults were pushing college as the ticket to success.

    I busted my butt working and volunteering all over the county my entire teenage years in preparation for it all. Went to a really tough private college, paid for some of it in cash, some on loan, and the rest in scholarships. I was told I could get a job anywhere with that ticket.

    Along with graduation came the economic collapse. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were being lost every month, General Motors was on the verge of closing its doors, the Dow dropped 55%, banks were closing, and schools were laying off teachers. There went my job prospects! But I’m glad Big Al was there to steer us safely through with such sage expressions as “No one is entitled to a job!” and “Education must prepare us for the workforce!”

    VoGo thinks millennials spend $800/month on clothes. He’s also wrong on the $100/month cell-phone bill. I’ve had a smartphone ($60/month) for less than two years. I manage my money really well; I drove a 300,000 mile car all those years, went on a total of 0 vacations, and rarely treated myself. Throughout the past several years, it’s been tough to come out ahead. Thankfully, I kept a stash from all those years prior and have that as a dwindling cushion. I guess we all have different stories, huh?

    My dad made me stay in college instead of taking time off for one of those machinist jobs. My parents went to parochial school paid for by their parents–yet, they didn’t pay for a dime of mine. Just listen to your elders, kids!

    Sorry for the long post (my first ever), but I love exchanging ideas and am always appreciative of reading others who “get it” (Kenmore: “none of this is your fault”). I’ve never lived beyond my means, taken a dollar from anyone else, or used any of the benefits I paid into…just one of those “entitled” millennials.

    Well, off to my “candlestick making”!

  • avatar
    yamahog

    The more things change the more they stay the same – young people still buy cars but they buy cars like poor-30 year olds – they rarely but sensible cars and use credit / debt to do so. At my last job, my cube mate was 25 years old making ~55k/yr and driving a brand new Evo Lancer. He puts about 30k miles on his car each year and only about 8k of that is driving to work and back. Obviously he’s not really saving for the future with that.

    Yamahog’s other acquaintances fall into the trap of buying new cars as ‘cheap transportation’ because their junky 90s American cars are rusting apart. But they don’t make smart choices (like leasing Camrys or Cruzes when they offer the deals of the century) or buying older Ford Fusions.

    And the people with good jobs overwhelming flock to luxury or performance cars. Where Yamahog lives, you can’t drive past a firm that hires young software engineers without seeing an incredible about of 3 series / CLAs / Ford STs / WRXs.

    The picture for young adults is bleak but it’s getting better (though it can’t get much worse).

    Unfortunately, as young adults enter the economy, the cost of housing is sky-rocketing. Especially in the cities where most young people are employed. I actually was talking about this very issue with my friend at brunch on Saturday.

    There are houses out there that are ‘affordable’ but it seems like the price of houses is quickly walking away from their value. A 900 sq. ft. house in poor condition, 25 minutes away from Minneapolis (the nearest metro) and near an airport can cost $200k. In some neighborhoods that are popular with younger people who have money, the prices of homes have increased ~20% in the past year. And when I put an offer in on a junky fixxer-upper, (10% over asking, BTW) the listing agent rejected my offer nearly right away because they had higher, cash offers.

    In many ways, the market is too hot. The idea of paying 200k for a disappointing house is unappealing and I’m sure the activity is driven by speculation that people will find a bigger fool when it comes time to sell the house. But Yamahog saw the peril of speculation in 2007/2008 and would rather rent and buy something in the next recession’s fire sale.

    But when Yamahog talks to his real estate agent, she just tells Yamahog that his budget it too low and reminds Yamahog that he got pre-approved for $350k and should spend it all on a house. But Yamahog knows better and is storing his money away and will be liquid AF. But, that’s the attitude that causes deflation. And watch out, this economy is conditioning the high-earners of tomorrow to forego consumption which isn’t a bad thing but if it gets too popular, it could really mess up some retirements.

    But renting is also unfortunate. The price of renting a house reflects the house’s inflated value and the only houses with garages with affordable monthly rents are in neighborhoods that have a high likelihood of stealing Yamahog’s tools and motorcycles and playstation.

    A studio apartment in the ‘burbs near Yamahog’s work can cost $800/month. And Yamahog is probably going to have to move and sell his poor bikes because he can’t take store them through the winter. Buy fret not, Yamahog is going to find a 1 bedroom with a walk in balcony and store his bike in his living room and not regret it at all.

    All in all, people can afford cars but making a hobby out of it requires time and space and those are at a premium for the people who can afford cars. If you can’t afford cars, you apparently just have to spew bile on youtube and jalopnik.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    I’m a 32 year old millenial. When this study was done I would’ve been among those living with my family. Based on my experience and that of my peers, it almost seems to be another right of passage into adulthood immediately after college – moving back in with the rents. I lived either with family, or in family subsidized housing until I bought my house last year except for a 6 month stay in a rented room (although I did pay some rent to some family). I was lucky – the state of Florida paid 75% of my college tuition and my parents paid the rest and I ended at one of the best paid agencies in my area making right about the median total income. The cost of everything, housing especially, is simply too high. If I hadn’t stayed with family, I would’ve never been able to save up enough $ to buy my own place. If you can’t buy, what other options do you have.Renting an apartment by yourself is ridiculously expensive. Typical rent for a one bedroom is more than my mortgage. Meanwhile, the most you can likely hope for just out of college with any degree is $10-15/hour, which doesn’t pay that kind of rent. If you want more, then prepare to assume mid to high five figure student loan debt for a trade certification. There’s just no way to really get ahead.

  • avatar
    dusterdude

    “scarey”,

    “This generation is screwed in several ways. I am afraid that we will repeat our economic recovery of 1939-1945 by having another World War”..

    This statement may be true.. I am not afraid of Trump’s domestic policy, its his foreign policies that I think should concern everyone…as the next World War will very possibly be the last !

  • avatar

    What is wrong with Millennials living with their family to get a head start in life? Most Millennials have Boomer parents and the house is big enough to take them back in or keep them in.
    At least a decade ago Boomers quickly realized that their children (Millennials) were going to have a “challenge” starting out in life, and earning a reasonable compensation package.
    If a Millennial can graduate from college or university with the “Bank of Mom” paying for tuition, stay in the family house to get a head start, its the new reality of the 21st century.
    You can point fingers to a gazillion reasons, from most manufacturing jobs being exported out of North America, to easy student loans that become a burden, the exploding rise in the price of homes to name just a few.
    Millennials are the “digital natives” of North America with access to a bunch of platforms within “social media, very often used for entertainment purposes instead of refining their “brand”.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “What is wrong with Millennials living with their family to get a head start in life? ”

      You’re being judged by a generation which benefited from the post-WWII manufacturing boom, and in their minds you’re a failure if you haven’t moved out, got a good paying job, bought a house, and started a family the day after your 18th birthday.

  • avatar
    Superdessucke

    “The Pew study doesn’t talk about car sales at all, but one can draw some similarities between home and car ownership for the defined group.”

    It means that they will not be demanding expensive overpriced SUVs or CUVs. Let me put it to you this way, Hyundai might want to consider resurrecting the Excel, Mitsubishi may want to bring back the Precis, and Subaru might want to dust off the Justy name plate and keep it on the shelf, just in case. You heard it here first!

    • 0 avatar
      Superdessucke

      On the same topic, many Millennials I know pretty much know they’re not going to be competing in the job market as we know it. So they’re more into things like adventures and nature and things like that. So I think a very affordable off-road vehicle might have a good future. Samurai II anybody?

  • avatar
    runs_on_h8raide

    Its not just millenials struggling, its also the 35-60 range. I’m fortunate enough to be single, but I see all my married friends barely above water. They all did the supposed “right thing” or “‘Murican Dream” thing and they are in misery. Mortgage payment, property taxes ($10-15k cash money per year where I am), kids, etc etc. None of them live beyond their means but even with a fairly decent income, its a struggle. If a catastrophe in their life were to hit, they’d be sent to the poorhouse, immediately. But yea…’Murica and some shit.

    • 0 avatar
      Spartan

      Where do you live? $10k -$15k in property taxes? For comparison’s sake, I have a 2,500 sq ft house on water on the East Coast in a somewhat pricey market and my property taxes are no where near that high.

      Your married friends may be above water, but pooling resources and buying a house is the right idea. Even in tough times, it’s better to have a partner than to be single, at least in my opinion.

      I’m biased, though. I’m married and weathered the 2008 crash with the wife. We survived. Today isn’t nearly as bad as it was then.

      • 0 avatar

        If you live in Bergen County, NJ, Westchester, NY, or Nassau County, NY or Fairfield CT (slightly lower, not much) you will see 10-15k yr for property taxes for a normal middle class three bedroom home.

        This mostly isn’t property taxes….it is majority for school taxes. Without getting way off topic, the balkanization of school districts, each with overpaid administrators, is responsible for the costs. These districts break on class and income lines, and the concept of merging districts is a no start everywhere. On the flip side, if you live in one of these districts, YOUR kid is in a school with all the amenities, sports, music, class trips, etc. In my area, a few towns voted to exceed our state tax cap of 2%.

        Contrast this with schools upstate, where it is triage every day. I know an accountant who works in an upstate district, and they are trying to keep the lights on, not work out this year’s foreign exchange program. Unlike my area, hers relied on businesses, and when IBM and others pulled out, the tax base cratered. My area is 99% residential.

        Recent construction in my area, with the American Big Box House done with the marble kitchen can easily pull $25k/yr in taxes.

        (Source-elected to village government, worked on tax issues)

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “Unlike my area, hers relied on businesses, and when IBM and others pulled out, the tax base cratered. My area is 99% residential.”

          Look what happened to Highland Park after Chrysler moved to Auburn Hills.

  • avatar
    Spartan

    I’m 32, my wife is 31. We have one kid and another on the way. We’re doing fine. All of my married friends are doing fine. We have one new car, one paid off car, fully funded retirements, kids nest eggs, and we own a house. It’ll be paid for in 11 years. We got a 15 year mortgage. Most of my married friends can say the same.

    MOST of my single friends aren’t doing so well. They’re renting or living at home, they aren’t saving and a few have bad credit.

    Say what you want, but once we (Americans) decided to embrace the single life, individual debt has grown and it continues to grow. I’m not saying marriage is the key to success, but finding a good partner will benefit you in the short and long term if you pool your resources accordingly.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @spartan – you are definitely correct that it is less expensive to live together than it is to live separately. That being said, allow me to play devils advocate and note the incredible financial devastation divorce causes, and the likelihood that any marriage will end in that.. I’ve already told my boyfriend that I want a prenup if we get married. I already bought and own my house on my own (he’s not on the title nor has he provided any $ towards it) so I’m keeping that. More importantly, I am fortunate to work in a job with a pension retirement, and I know too many colleagues whose retirements are screwed up because half their pension will be going to ex spouses. This may sound callous and rather non romantic, but that pension is the single most valuable thing my job provides, and I’m not risking it. Also, it’s just being realistic with the odds. I’m a firefighter, a profession with a higher than average divorce rate that is second only to the military, which happens to be what my boyfriend does.

      • 0 avatar
        Spartan

        I’m glad you brought up your profession. That’s an incredibly important factor as well. My wife and I are in the same line of work and we make roughly the same amount of $. We’ll likely steer our kids to do the same when it comes their time to find a life partner.

        In your case, I’m not sure I’d get married. Unless you know quite a bit about the military, it’s incredibly easy to be strung along as a military spouse and be completely in the dark. Nothing like your Sergeant (Paygrade E-5) husband coming home one day to tell you he’s out of work after 15 years because he’s a dud and failed to make rank. I’ve seen it happen. My advice? Marry a fighter fighter, pool your resources, have a family, save, save, save for your future your kids future.

        Military guys are…well they’re military guys. The single mil guys are usually bad with money and spend frivolously. I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry a military guy.

        • 0 avatar
          jimmy2x

          Wow – talk about glittering generalities! Being a military spouse is not easy but the implication that single military men are a bunch of loser duds is beyond the pale.

          My wife and I married in 1973 when I’d been in the Navy for six years. I retired from the USN in 1987 as a CPO and worked in private industry for 22 years before retiring. Raised two kids who are self-supporting and always have been. Living at home much past majority was not an option as I’ve always been a firm believer that NOBODY grows up until they are totally responsible for themselves.
          I do recognize that times change and things are a bit tougher now, but the self-pity is a bit hard to take. My folks grew up during the depression and I never heard them whine about anything. People are responsible for their own lives and if they wind up as failures, have nobody to blame but themselves

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            @Jimmy2x and Spartan – I’ve been with my boyfriend nearly 3 years, so I’ve gotten a halfway decent taste of what it means to be in a military relationship. He’s an E-6 (Navy 1st Class Petty Officer) with 12 years in so he can do 20 if he stays in his current rank. I don’t know that he’ll stay in that long as a CS1 though. He wants to make Chief and/or transition to Officer by getting into nursing. If the Navy doesn’t pick him up for Nurse Corps, he may decide to separate early (before 20 years) and go to nursing school as a civilian on the GI bill. Although it would be tight, I make enough to afford to support us both, although my suggestion to him has been to do EMT and Paramedic before going to nursing school as a civilian. Either way, point is that I have a pretty good idea of what I’ve gotten myself into and know what the future possibilities for us may be. As far as why get married, it would certainly be financially beneficial to us. I could go on Tricare and stop putting $50/week into the HSA I have with my employer. His BAH would go up which would put more $ in his pocket. Also, either you’re married in the military or they basically don’t acknowledge your existence. I’ve was lucky that the ombudsmen on his boat kept me in the loop during their most recent patrol despite not being married.

          • 0 avatar
            Spartan

            No, not all single military men are loser dudes. However, many of them are indeed just that. Some mature, some don’t.

            Now, here comes the tough love. You served 22 years and have a lifetime pension from the government at E-7 pay with COLA increases. So for you to say without any reservation that people who are failures all on their own have nobody to blame but themselves is callous, to say the least. It shows your lack of perspective because you’ve lived life by looking through a rose colored lens. That doesn’t make you a bad person, but it does show how out of touch you are. Naturally, as people age, it happens. My parents share a similar view and I kindly let them know that times have changed. You can’t buy a 3 bedroom brick house in a safe neighborhood for $25k anymore.

            Believe it or not, you’re dependent on the taxpayer to continue to pay taxes to maintain your pension.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “MOST of my single friends aren’t doing so well.”

      I think you’re confusing “correlation” and “causation” here.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Spartan – Yeah some dudes require their *2nd mommy* AKA “wife” to hold it together, or they spinout. Is that you? Wouldn’t you be right there, next to your loser, single friends, if it wasn’t for your wife??

      Hey they’re your friends, there must be a common thread.

      • 0 avatar
        Spartan

        My wife and I hold each other together. If it weren’t for her, I’m sure I would have made some ridiculous set back decisions that most people in their 20s make (an emotional car purchase, lots of credit card debt, multiple women). But, I doubt I’d be the position that some of my friends are in right now.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          “…an emotional car purchase, lots of credit card debt, multiple women…”

          Uh, since when are these things, BAD THINGS???

          Ask me how I turned “lots of credit card debt”, directly into an 850 FICO.

          I’ve seen and done “emotional car purchases” that turned a tidy profit.

          And “multiple women”? Hey speaks for itself…

          Those were the *essentials* for my friends and I, single, 20-something and beyond. Even back then and now, most of us had decent to excellent credit, fairly debt free, and successful earners.

          Being married can be a financial setback, or even lead to bankruptcy just the same. It all depends on too many factors.

          • 0 avatar
            Spartan

            Emotional car purchases, credit card debt and being a womanizer are very bad things in your 20s that can easily derail you financially for years. More often than not, they do just that.

            There isn’t a right or wrong course of action. There are better courses of action than others, depending on the individual. I wouldn’t trade being a bachelor longer for the stability I have now. If anything, I would have married my wife a year sooner.

            FWIW, I bought an Infiniti G37S 6MT Coupe in my mid 20s. It was purely an emotional purchase, but I’m glad I bought it. However, I could easily afford it, I could still fully fund my retirement and I could still afford my mortgage. If I were renting and wasn’t saving any money and I made that same purchase, I would have been a fool. That’s what I mean.

            Being married can be a financial setback, for sure, if you pick the wrong partner. However, if you choose the right partner and you pool your resources, it can put you ahead of those who were single for so many years in their 20s and 30s, even with kids.

            We were DINK for many years and we saved so much cash, it was ridiculous. Even now with one kid and one on the way, we still put away quite a bit in investments and savings because we don’t spend frivolously.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “Multiple Women”, wasn’t always the same night, sometimes not even the same week! And “Womanizer”? What’s that got to do with “Multiple Women”??

            Is your “Better Half” breathing on the keyboard now???

            I didn’t know “an emotional car purchase, lots of credit card debt, multiple women”, can more often than not, derail you financially for years. Maybe mostly just your friends, huh?

            I’d understand it if you’re NOT, emotional car buying, credit card spending and womanizing *within your means*, but otherwise you and your wife couldn’t be more wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            Spartan

            “but otherwise you and your wife couldn’t be more wrong.”

            You’re looking at it as a right and wrong issue. I’m not. Life is about choices. If you chose to life the life I was describing in your 20s, by all means. I chose not to do that and I know I am better for it.

            When I look at what we’ve accumulated over the years, I can easily say that I don’t have anything to worry about for the rest of my life thanks to the decisions we made years ago. My kids won’t have anything to worry about, either.

            That’s what most millennials are lacking. Too many aren’t thinking about the future and are instead thinking about themselves and living in the moment. I’m not sure if you’re a millennial, but it sure sounds like it.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            My friends and I wouldn’t change a thing either. So we indulged in most every thing we weren’t supposed to, wild spending, unprotected sex with lots of girls/women, pot, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc, and not only did we turn out OK, with most of us married, responsible, kids, pension, 4O1K, veterans, business owners, etc, I’m positive we’re better off for it, not in spite of it.

            Too much is “made” of that stuff by the media anyway.

            If you didn’t indulge, married your childhood sweetheart, congrats, more power to you.

            But it does’t have spell one thing or another for the rest. Anyone can ruin their life or simply, their finances, while taking a righteous path.

  • avatar
    dwford

    No offense to the ambitious millennials, but all the 20 somethings I know seem perfectly content to have low paying, low effort jobs and sponge of indulgent mom and dad. They are more than capable of getting real jobs, but don’t seem to have the drive or self pride to push themselves.

  • avatar
    redapple

    Employers want H1-B from INdia and whatever for a reason. To pay the H1-B LESS MONEY. And then that drives down the pay of all the others in the firm.

    Machinists and other skilled trades jobs are going unfilled because of the WETBACK EFFECT. Pay the person 1/2 of historic levels and nobody but a bottom feeder will take the work. Skilled trade jobs are unfilled because the employer is paying crap money.

    I m a Trustee / Board of Directors Member for an Engineering society related to the Auto manufacturing. We also grant money to STEM Universities. I now have spilkus. 75% of STEM graduates leave the field after 5 years. H1-B have driven down wages. Employers dont replace those who leave for a different job. Those who remain- “pick up the slack or else scumbag!”

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Employers want H1-B from INdia and whatever for a reason. To pay the H1-B LESS MONEY. And then that drives down the pay of all the others in the firm.”

      that might save money in the short term, but I’d wager it costs more in the long run. It’s all well and good to hire lower-paid people who can hammer out code, but when they likely don’t even understand what the software they’re writing is supposed to do, you’ve got a long road of debugging ahead.

      “Machinists and other skilled trades jobs are going unfilled because of the WETBACK EFFECT. Pay the person 1/2 of historic levels and nobody but a bottom feeder will take the work. Skilled trade jobs are unfilled because the employer is paying crap money.”

      also partly because we’ve adopted this mindset that if you don’t have a 4-yr degree, you’re an uneducated s**tkicker. “requirements inflation” has been a big incentive for kids to blow a ton of money for a degree they may not even use.

      • 0 avatar

        Yes requiring everyone get a degree is stupid and self defeating circle. Places like Verizon require retail associates have a bachelors degree for a 12/hr retail job, why because there were so many unemployed they could. I worked for an insurance company that kicked out every one with out certain degrees in the hiring process. I and another guy slid in because they desperately needed someone with specific industry experience and we went in thru a manual HR process, but normally would have been kicked out for lack of 4 year degree.

        • 0 avatar
          tjh8402

          @mopar4wd – The need for a college degree has become a self reinforcing cycle. My career, firefighter/emt, does not require a college degree. Here in Central Florida, the only formal education required by all departments is firefighter I and II and EMT or Paramedic. Beyond that, you only need a high school diploma. However, that’s the minimum requirement. Good luck getting a job being an 18 year old right out of high school with no job experience in anything and only firefighter/EMT. You’re competing against people with college degrees, military experience, and job history. Within the first year or two after graduating, the only people from my academy class with full time firefighting jobs were those that had a college degree or were former military. The younger kids had to go volunteer or be part time/reserve firefighters for a while before they started getting picked up. There is what the job says it requires, but then there’s what you actually need to be a competitive candidate. The only reason I got hired when I did was my degree. The then Fire Chief told me in my interview that even though I had no experience (something they typically like at my agency), I was one of only two candidates at that time with a Bachelor’s, and he liked people with higher education.

  • avatar
    sketch447

    Why do millennials live at home?
    College costs are insane. (I thought college administrators were champions of the working man??)
    All entry level jobs have been stolen by foreigners……manual labor jobs stolen by illegal Mexicans, white collar jobs stolen by Indians, Russians and Chinese on the corrupt H1B program.
    How does a guy coming out of college make a living?
    Answer: he doesn’t.

    • 0 avatar
      Sjalabais

      You should have had an alarm on those jobs. Really bad preparation, dude!

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Just don’t major in something like marketing. Bust your a$$ in the really tough math and bio courses. Several of my son’s classmates started right out of college at $65k as Chemical Engineers. Plenty of other biotech and engineering major got great jobs and good signing bonuses. My son joined a biotech startup.

      One of his friends went for marketing and liked to party. He’s a barista at starbucks. Another friend of his went into the army and became a heavy equipment mechanic. When he gets out, he’s going to be doing well.

      I do agree with you about the H1B program. It’s got to go – or at least be fixed.

  • avatar
    analoggrotto

    31, I live with my folks. My job requires a lot of travel, so why get my own place if i’m scarcely there. Plus, we look out for each other, travel overseas together, and they take my lotus out for a spin when im away – and I wish they would take it out more.

    I get a Lot of crap for my living arrangement.

    We are looking to buy a new house together, but they can’t find something likeable.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Trigger Warning: More Millennials Living with Parents than Any Other Living Arrangement

  • avatar
    JuniperBug

    I’m fairly lucky. 32, no real relevant post-secondary education (although I’m two thirds of the way towards a management degree, was briefly in mechanical engineering and did an 18 month auto mechanics diploma when I was dealing with failing at engineering). Ironically, despite not making crazy money, I make more than some aerospace engineers that I’ve worked with and more than the Canadian average, before considering benefits.

    For me, the winning combination turned out to be that I was already working for a large Canadian company which still offered defined benefit pensions, when they were looking for a customer-service type who spoke the three languages that I happen to speak. I work about 15-18 days per month, have all kinds of benefits, and am not overstressed (although not particularly challenged, either). Ironically, I’d like to move up and forward since I maxed out my pay scale a year ago, but any other job I may qualify for offers less money, less stability, and a worse pension in exchange for more stress and hours worked. Call me a lazy millennial, but I’m having trouble justifying that trade-off, although I continue to try.

    I moved out at 24 – was bumbling around with full-time education before that. Luckily education in Quebec is dirt cheap. I spent half a year working and travelling in Europe, paid for on my dime, except for relatives generously offering a room after I’d already made alternate plans. Since then I rented on my own for 7 years until my girlfriend moved in last year.

    Putting down 20% on a modest condo in the metro area or a modest house an hour away isn’t out of the question for me, despite the Canadian market’s emerging resemblance to the US’s during the bubble, but so far I’m choosing not to. Being debt-free and with money in the bank gives me a feeling of freedom and possibility that I’m not yet ready to give up. Besides, once you buy, you limit your mobility to a degree, and owning for less than 3-5 years before selling usually results in a loss, and I want to stay open to other opportunities. My company operates multinationally and I have European citizenship. Current prospects: trying to move into management in my current company or becoming an air traffic controller, but it is tough out there. Four years of applying to various job openings for which I felt qualified have netted very little.

    Regarding cars: my girlfriend at 25 has never owned one and has no interest in doing so, or even driving either of mine. Since I moved out of the suburbs at 24 up until my parents gifted me their $1,000 beater a few months ago, I happily took public transit and had my old Miata or a motorcycle as a toy. Despite being a car enthusiast since I could walk, I can’t justify to myself spending a year’s salary on a vehicle when I don’t need one. In fact, I almost turned down my parents when they offered me their old car simply because parking is expensive and/or a pain (I already pay $125/month for the Miata), and I get by just fine without one. Even now, I still take public transit to get to school.

  • avatar
    mtmmo

    During WWII the millennials of that time stormed Normandy Beach and went on to defeat the Nazi’s. Today’s millennials demand ‘safe spaces’. Millennials deserve the reputation they have and the economic condition they’re in.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      I’ve managed, promoted and mentored millenials since before I knew they had a name.

      You. Are. Full. Of. Old. Guy. Caca.

      • 0 avatar
        AJ

        He has a point that I’d never want to think of putting millennials on Normandy Beach!

        I do hire and manage millennials, and they do have less of a work ethic then previous generations as they are more use to being handed something for less effort. Ask them to work more then 40 hours and it becomes an HR issue. The best thing for millennials right now is the economy as they’re having to learn to work harder to keep their job.

        • 0 avatar

          First of all you do realize we are sending and have been sending millennials overseas to fight right. I know several of them, not much to indicate they were any less then those who fought on the beaches in Normandy. One coworkers brother for instance kept re-upping and keeping his infantry position because he wanted to be on the ground fighting as much as possible. After 3 different IED attacks he lost some hearing and some visual function and was pulled out much to his disappointment. Millennials can be as tough as anyone.
          Having worked with and over millennials (I’m either a young gen x or a really old Millennial depending on the study. ) I have found some can be a little whinny but really no different then their older peers. I have found Millennials in higher income professions (law, engineering, insurance) are the most likely to work ridiculous hours for no extra pay, even if there hourly they were often cheating themselves out of overtime for fear their job would be over at any time if they don;t work harder then the next guy. complaining about younger generations is old hat, remember Gen X was called slackers for a reason no one thought they would go anywhere either.

    • 0 avatar
      JuniperBug

      I find it funny that some parents of the Millennial generation are blaming the Millennials for how screwed up they believe them to be. The youngest of them/us are only now approaching adulthood. If they’re lacking in some way, whose fault do you think that is?

      Are you really trying to tell us that 18 year-olds deserve the blame for the state that their world is in? Who’s trying to avoid responsibility now?

  • avatar
    Chan

    As a fortunate millennial, it’s plain to see how disadvantaged our generation is relative to the generation before us.

    Every generation has its share of dropouts, leeches and deadbeats. It’s a bit rich for anyone in a position of power to generalise millennials as deadbeats.

    Who raised these deadbeat kids, and who turned actual value-generating industries into a game of punting money until something blows up?

  • avatar
    AJ

    I’m in the Gen X crowd and I left home when I was 17. I’d SHOOT myself before I’d ever move back in with my parents. In fact I currently supplement my mother’s income to keep her from moving in with me.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Wish I had not been on vacation week when this article was new.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Corey, it’s a recurring topic driven by America’s national economic policy.

      If you missed it this time, you’ll catch it the next time it comes around.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        This is true. It’s fun being part of a generation you’re almost nothing like.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          And you are to be commended for being “almost nothing like” them.

          People who’ve got their act together, have their act together.

          Those who don’t, move back in with mom and dad.

          With all the job vacancies in America today, labor force participation should not be at <63%.

          But it is too easy in America not to work and collect money fer nuttin' and food stamps fer free.

          Feed the freeloaders. Let's hear it for spreading America's wealth around.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Unfortunately this makes me appear to many other people my age – that “Uptight, boring” guy. I end up being slightly intimidating because I have my sh-t together and don’t have a weekly “Where is my life going?” crisis.

            Makes them feel insecure.

            I also don’t fit with the more rare “ultra go-getter” Millennial who views social interaction as “networking opportunity” and is a member of local Young Professional Associations and wears ties on the weekends to trendy organic restaurants. I don’t give f-cks about those things.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Pay them no mind. It’s just envy. I say, good on you!

            That’s what I told my kids and grand kids when they left home.

            Play your cards right, and the world will be your oyster.

            From a personal perspective: It was hard enough to house, feed and provide for me and mine during my working life.

            So why would I give a flying fvck about housing, feeding or providing for someone else’s crotch fruit?

            Each person has to carve out a niche for themselves.

            Those who can, DO!

            Those who can’t…., teach. Or move back in with mom and dad.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • FreedMike: Yeah, I remember my first joint.
  • Hummer: I can’t believe they want 30k for a Base truck. What was it 3-4 years ago Ram was selling $18k V8 1500’s like...
  • gtem: One of my father’s only speeding tickets in his 25+ years in America was in a bright red rental Dodge...
  • gtem: FWIW this generation still used the 5S (2.2L). A bit off the pace of the 158hp 2AZ that came in 2002, but also...
  • dal20402: There was a rumor that the Ford Tremor would be a regular cab with a 5 1/2-foot bed, but when produced it...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States