4 ms·

The subtitle is much better: "Millennials are lagging behind on the traditional markers of adulthood." Also: "There's also no sign that young people today are

by thyrsus 10y ago

The subtitle is much better: "Millennials are lagging behind on the traditional markers of adulthood." Also: "There's also no sign that young people today are lazier than three decades ago. In 1980, 74 percent of baby boomers reported that they had worked in the past week, the Census data show. In 2015, slightly more millennials, 77 percent, said they'd been to work in the past week."

mikekchar 10y ago
TL;DR: It seems to me that this is a misleading evaluation of the data. It appears to me that more people are being financially supported by their parents. In 1980 the unemployment rate (according to a quick google search) was around 7%. In 2015 it was around 5%. If I understand correctly, the unemployment rate measures the number of people actively looking for work. So I guess this means that in both cases the population between ages 25-35 who are not working, but also are not looking is pretty close to 20% (!?!?!) So, if I look at the pretty graphs in the article, the percentage of married people in 1980 is nearly 70%, while it is roughly 40% in 2015. It's frustrating because I have no idea if they are counting "equivalent to married" status here (or if that's a thing in the US). The number of people living with their parents (and presumably not in an "equivalent to married" situation) is about 10% in 1980 and about 20% in 2015. So what I'm getting at here is that some part of the 20% that are not looking for work is because their spouse (or equivalent) is working, some part is because the parents are working, and some part is because the people are independently wealthy or living on the streets. I couldn't get poverty rates for 1980, but it appears to have been relatively consistent for the last 30-40 years (with a reported dip in the 1990's). So, it appears to me that, indeed, there are more people being supported by their parents in 2015, while in 1980 there were more people supported by their spouses. I think this probably does indicated a problem in the future, though less to do with the institution of marriage and more to do with the financial outlook of the population. Aside: for an organisation built on financial data, Bloomberg publishes some pretty awful articles data-wise.

by thyrsus 10y ago

mikekchar 10y ago

TL;DR: It seems to me that this is a misleading evaluation of the data. It appears to me that more people are being financially supported by their parents. In 1980 the unemployment rate (according to a quick google search) was around 7%. In 2015 it was around 5%. If I understand correctly, the unemployment rate measures the number of people actively looking for work. So I guess this means that in both cases the population between ages 25-35 who are not working, but also are not looking is pretty close to 20% (!?!?!) So, if I look at the pretty graphs in the article, the percentage of married people in 1980 is nearly 70%, while it is roughly 40% in 2015. It's frustrating because I have no idea if they are counting "equivalent to married" status here (or if that's a thing in the US). The number of people living with their parents (and presumably not in an "equivalent to married" situation) is about 10% in 1980 and about 20% in 2015. So what I'm getting at here is that some part of the 20% that are not looking for work is because their spouse (or equivalent) is working, some part is because the parents are working, and some part is because the people are independently wealthy or living on the streets. I couldn't get poverty rates for 1980, but it appears to have been relatively consistent for the last 30-40 years (with a reported dip in the 1990's). So, it appears to me that, indeed, there are more people being supported by their parents in 2015, while in 1980 there were more people supported by their spouses. I think this probably does indicated a problem in the future, though less to do with the institution of marriage and more to do with the financial outlook of the population. Aside: for an organisation built on financial data, Bloomberg publishes some pretty awful articles data-wise.