Young adults today: No school, no job, living at home with mom and dad

http://nj1015.com/young-adults-today-no-school-no-job-living-at-home-with-mom-and-dad/

A quarter of 25-to-34-year-olds still living at with their parents are neither going to school nor working, according to a recent U.S. Census bureau report.

More than 2 million older millennials fall in this category across the country. The majority are men and most are aged 25 to 29. About half are white.

“In 2005, the majority of young adults lived independently in their own household, which was the predominant living arrangement in 35 states. A decade later, by 2015, the number of states where the majority of young people lived independently fell to just six,” the report said.

Young adults today are experiencing milestones—purchasing a home, getting married, having a child—later in life compared to previous generations.

 

Why go into debt for school if you are not that likely to get a good job and without a good enough job what are the options for other things listed?

 

It's true.

I have 4 adult nieces.

1 still lives at home with her child.

The other 3 are married and out on their own.

 

I got my first job at 14 years old, I cleaned toilets. My second job was working as a grounds keeper at an ultra-rich family's mansion, rode my bicycle (about 30 min) to work after school, did manual labor for 4 hours, then rode home and did my schoolwork. My third job at 16 years old was as a cook, I got it by walking in and asking to see the boss and convincing him to give me a shot. When I needed a job, I didn't sit on my ass, I went out and got a job.

I have no sympathy at all for millenials, particularly those who complain about their college loans.

 

And most of the ones I know that fit your study are slacker deadbeats who elect not to work because it interferes with their social life with the other slacker deadbeats.

 

You would have been better off by saying you have no sympathy for those millenials with college loans or aren't working or whatever. Those of us working with homes, savings, multiple retirement plans, college degrees and great credit who make responsible decisions don't need your sympathy. So screw off.

 

Not Mine,

 

My two kids live at home and they are not slackers, no sir. The sad truth is that us boomers created a world for them that is far harsher than the one our parents gave us. Kids today are much further behind economically than we were and most of us boomers were broke at those ages. But we still had hope and we were not competing with cheap foreign outsourcing, paying exhorbitant rents, burdened with huge loans and industry was still vibrant, we actually used to enforce monopoly laws so there were more companies in each sector to work for unlike today.

 

Who is surprised?

Look, we have entered the Information Age and the Industrial Age has hightailed it to southeast Asia. If a high-school graduate does not obtain a post-secondary degree, how is s/he supposed to find a job that requires such a degree?

Manufacturing employees barely 12% of our workforce. Services industries are the major employers, and they typically seek higher credentialed personnel. A typical post-secondary degree is simply out of reach - even at a state-school.

Bernie and Hillary proposed free tertiary-education in a state-school to any family earning a combined salary of $100K. (Meaning vocational, 2 - or 4-year schooling.) Hillary won the election but we got Donald Dork for PotUS - and he not the least bit keen on funding higher-education.

Dunce that he is ...

 

You are not asking for my sympathy, you are trying to take my wealth, talent, energy, and time, to try to make your fantasy utopia come true.

 

It's not about the kids themselves, it's about their slacker parents. It all comes down to how they've been raised.

Technically, you should have sympathy for kids who've been given bad or no guidance. As for college loans which can't be repaid, this is again the fault of the parents - for consenting to idiotic degrees.

 

It's up to us (parents) to kit out our kids to survive the world we've left them. Adapt or perish.

 

As the buying power of the minimum wage has decreased, the ability of any 20-25 year old to rent a place, come up with first month/last month/ cleaning deposite, and them come up with utilities, the phone, the food, the car, the insurance payments etc, on one income becomes slimmer and slimmer. You need three full time jobs to make this work anymore and we all know what a Russian Roulette it is when you are dealing with room mates either of the opposite gender or the same gender. Its a crap shoot. I am very lucky that my two adult kids have succeeded as long as they have! Wages are low. Credit is hard to come by, and rents are high.

 

There is always drug dealing, theft and prostitution as options!

 

My son's story is that he joined the Marines in 2005 at age 19 and got out 4 years later. He immediately used his GI benefits and went to university receiving a B.S. in 3 years. Because of his military experience and B.S. Degree, he was recruited by multiple different employers, and he made his pick. While working full time, he attended night school and finished his Masters last year. He makes around $90k at his job right now, and other employers continue to make offers to him. To get where he is at age 31, he has worked hard and sacrificed a lot. It hasn't been easy.

 

Pathetic BS.

In a certain class of family on the lower income scale, in which the children need most to go to university, it is not the fault of the parents is they were thrown out of work in the past 7-years since the Great Recession. And average post-secondary tuition costs have skyrocketed.

See the chart of tuition cost increases estimated by the National Center for Education Statistics, here - excerpt:

For the most part, the poorest families in America cannot afford to send their kids to a post-secondary schooling ...

 

Yeah, right. Pure Yankee hype!

Which goes like this: "Put your ass on the line over in some middle-east tinderbox and IF YOU SURVIVE we'll pay your postsecondary schooling fees!"

What an asinine bit of heartless logic. A tertiary education should be free, gratis and for nothing - just like secondary-schooling is today and has been for over a century!

Had Dubya not wanted to mess around in the Middle-east, we'd not be there in the first place. Afghanistan was enough, we should have ended our implication there. The eternal strife between the two principle Muslim religious factions (the Shiites and the Sunnites) - since the 7th century AD - is their business, not ours!

We've had a hundred-years war between the Protestants and Catholics in Europe, and have since learned better. I hope!

Training fighters is fine, but putting THEIR BLOOD in the game is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Why "our boys" are dying is beyond comprehension - perhaps to fulfill some silly Hollywood notion about male "manhood"?

Any notion that is so screwy as to cost American lives in foreign wars is not worth having. Period ...

 

KEY IDEA!

I want to thank you for the above link that leads-on to the National Center for Education Statistics here. It contains interesting information regarding the subject of post-secondary education.

Namely, from that linked report:

Given that the American economy only started creating "net jobs" in 2014 (see here), the above is not surprising. The Great Recession was a whopper of an economic event and stagnated seriously tertiary educational development.

But if most Americans believe that education and economic accomplishments are important, then why did they not vote Hillary into the presidency? After all, it was she who borrowed Bernie's KEY IDEA to provide government subsidies (under conditions) to state-schools for tertiary-education programs!

That is the method employed largely in Europe to assure that its youth (at least) have a chance - because far too many of the jobs their parents one had have long since fled to the Far East ...

 

It's never been "free". Last year, for example, I paid just under $1400 to my local schools to support them. The expense is a part of the property taxes on my home. Having been a homeowner for the past 33 years, this means that in today's dollars I've paid $46,200 to my local schools in this manner. Before I owned a home, I rented. And a part of my rent was paid to those same schools by the landlord as a part of his property taxes. Everyone who rents is doing the same thing. As a matter of fact, whenever you do routine business in your community - like shop at the supermarket, get gas, eat at a restaurant - you're paying for schools because those businesses also pay property taxes. Additionally, I have paid state income taxes every year, and a portion of those taxes go to the state higher education system. In 2016, about $1000 of my state income taxes went to support the state higher education system. I've lived in my state for 37 years. This means that, in today's dollars, I have paid the equivalent of about $37,000 to the state's public colleges. So, rather easily, I just showed you $83,200 of my money that I have paid for public education. So no, it's not free.

You and I interacted a day or two ago, talking about choosing to pay for things we want. And I'll repeat ... If we want government to pay for something, be prepared to pay for it, with real dollars, out of your income. Don't look to the magical, mystical "someone else". (Bernie Sanders proposed that Wall Street would pay for it.) You ... We ... have to pay for it. If we won't pay for it, we can't have it. It's just like anything else.

 

My kids worked and are becoming wonderful adults. We did the best we could to let them enjoy college while not worrying about money like I did. I learned nothing by being desperately poor and working paycheck to paycheck to attend college. These blanket statements about kids are silly.

 

First of all, your local state taxes are used for all sorts of government functions and services beyond schools. Secondly, free public education is the cornerstone of an advanced society and is the key to the growth of any nation regardless of economic power or status. Lastly, we pay taxes to create the world we want to live in and that desired world includes smart young people who will end up taking over when you and I are gone. It is a sound investment and you should be proud of your contribution.

 

First, I already know that my state income taxes go to things other than education. About a tenth of my state income taxes go to higher education. My total state income tax was about $10,000 last year, hence my estimation of $1000 for the state college system.

Second, my property tax bill is broken down by item in the bill, so I know exactly how much is going to local education, hence the accounting for the $1400.

Last, I never said I am not proud of the fact that I contribute to the overall good. Nor am I necessarily opposed to tuition-free college. What bothers me is this widespread belief that we can have everything we want, but somebody else should pay for it. As a lifelong payer for the things we do have, I know better.

Both Rs and Ds hate my perspective. Generally, Rs don't want to pay, and Ds want someone else to pay.

Look at California. Single payer health just failed in their state at the hands of Democrats because it was not politically viable to ask Californians to pay for it. This, in the richest, most liberal state in the union.

Those rich liberal progressive Californians....

"What? You want ME to pay for it?"

 

In most areas, the school tax is separate from the rest of the property taxes. I can see on my property tax bill that about $780 of my $1500 tax bill is school taxes, both state and local. I have no problem with that, as long as it's being spent wisely, which locally it is for the most part.

 

SAY IT ISN'T SO

Yes, especially if one thinks that monetary-value is the ONLY MEASURE of political decision-making.

Education is beyond money - aside from the fact that it is key to obtaining a better-paying career. Education helps people understand one another in terms of their common destiny and their responsibility for the right policy-making towards the right objectives. Most importantly, not just for some but for all.

I see that happening in Europe, because - though all people would like to have more money - affluence is not a primary consideration. Whereas in the US, it has become uniquely a prime behavioural motivator. Thusly it has evolved as the "American Touchstone".

Money and its accumulation has become obsessional in the US. Further to that notion, the NYT (Jan. 2014): When Making Money Is an Obsession - excerpt:

Say it isn't so ...

 

Who's trying to take your wealth? Just because you have this childish notion that all millennials are the same is your problem. Nobody wants anything from you. I damn sure don't.