10 ms·

Millennials are forced to be more careful, because they're climbing a difficult and important ladder into financial security. Most people I know who aren't look

Millennials are forced to be more careful, because they're climbing a difficult and important ladder into financial security. Most people I know who aren't looking to marry are just very aware that this is not the right time for them, neither finically nor in relation to achieving their professional goals.

komali2 8y ago
I'm trying to find correlated information on young birth rates. My unprofessional guess is that a hell of a lot less people are getting teen pregnant and then marrying about it, which could lead to a messy divorce down the road (the thought of marrying some of the first people I hooked up with... I was 18 fucks sake...)
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  I don't know, but anecdotally, it seems like people don't feel they have to get married as much. As for marrying younger... I met my wife at 14, married at 21, and had our first daughter at 25. We're 34 now and have two girls, and see no reason why we'd ever split. We're happy. I honestly don't think age has nearly as much to do with it as maturity and mindset.
- AJ007 8y ago
  Yes this is correct at least for the US, teen pregnancy rates have been declining http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/29/why-is-the-teen-birth-rate-falling/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/29/why-is-the-t...
52-6F-62 8y ago
I think about this from time-to-time. My partner and I know we couldn't afford children now, though she's constantly ..."noticing the clock ticking". I'd like children some day. But what makes me snicker is it sounds exactly like the beginning of Idiocracy.
- sakopov 8y ago
  That movie got a heck of a lot right. Still amusingly scary at times.
  - Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
    Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/603/ https://xkcd.com/603/
    - x220 8y ago
      That comic is fake news. I can't find the source, but the Economist made a pretty good graph with good data demonstrating that when you control for certain factors, poor people and people with measured below average IQ definitely are more likely to have children. I saw the graph I'm referring to a couple years ago on the Economist website.
      - AWildC182 8y ago
        I think you're missing the point of the comic. Yes, it's absolutely possible that you could measure this effect but worrying about it won't help and attempting to "fix" it will almost certainly backfire in hilarious and/or terrifying ways. See China.
        x220 8y ago
        You avoid China by not forcing people to do things they do not want to do. Here's a likely way to reverse the trend: give free birth control and abortions (no questions asked), government subsidized child care, government subsidized college tuition, and higher tax incentives for marriage and having children. The largest obstacle for rich and generally high IQ women to having children is lack of money and lack of practical child care. A huge reason that poor people and generally low IQ people tend to have more children is lack of sex education and lack of access to birth control and contraceptives. This is a completely peaceful, non-violent way to reverse the trend. And just so we are clear, this assumes that you already think that humans who tend to be rich or have high IQ scores have genes worth propagating. It's not hard to avoid Chinese atrocities when you keep yourself from thinking that you are so justified that people should be forced to live the way you think is correct.
combatentropy 8y ago
Statistically though, married people have more money. "married women can pay as much as $1 million less than their single counterparts over a lifetime" "married men between 28 and 30 years old earn around $15,900 more a year in individual income compared to their single counterparts, while married men between 44 and 46 years old make $18,800 more than single men of the same ages" + other benefits https://www.businessinsider.com/how-being-married-makes-you-more-successful-2016-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-being-married-makes-you-...
- philwelch 8y ago
  Do married people have more money, or do more financially secure people get married?
  - thedaemon 8y ago
    It's cheaper to live with someone and split bills than live alone and pay all of the bills by yourself. So yes, married people have more money in general.
    - sov 8y ago
      That's both a fact and not an answer to the question he's asking. For example, unmarried people can live together and split the bills. The above poster isn't asking if it's cheaper to live together with someone--they're asking if selection bias causes it to look that way. That is, whether or not there's sufficient distinction between single folk, long-term non-married split-the-bills relationships, and marriage.
    - detaro 8y ago
      Many people still are living together and splitting bills without being married, so it's not all that relevant to the question.
      - nightski 8y ago
        It's pretty relevant if married people are more likely to be living together and splitting bills, which is probably the case.
encoderer 8y ago
I’m a millennial so I’m sympathetic but this is something I’ve heard a lot about anecdotally without a lot of data behind it. Here are two more anecdotes: My dad graduated in 1976 in the middle of stagflation and had a 12% apr on his first house in the mid 80s. His dad graduated into the recession that stretched between ww2 and Korea. I think we’re too quick to look at generations that have accumulated wealth and accuse them of having always had it easy.
- whamlastxmas 8y ago
  The rate was 12% but you completely ignore the average home price and its relation to average income. Housing was tremendously less expensive (even after interest), largely in part to the higher rate.
  - hndamien 8y ago
    High rates result in lower prices. Low rates result in higher prices. The rate on its own is really pretty irrelevant.
    - astura 8y ago
      Exactly. Most home buyers take out a mortgage. Most people also look at monthly payments as a proxy for affordability. Monthly payments raise when interest rates rise. Therefore, sellers need to ask for lower prices when rates are high in order to attract buyers. A $150,000 mortgage at 12% interest has monthly payments of $1,543, at 5% interest its $805.
- dnadler 8y ago
  > My dad graduated in 1976 in the middle of stagflation and had a 12% apr on his first house in the mid 80s. But inflation over the next few years meant that in real terms (the most important terms), that rate was between 6% and -2%(!). Inflation hit 14% in 1980. The ability to refinance also means that he wouldn't have to keep that high interest rate once inflation settled down. So he probably did quite well with that mortgage. edit: I misread the dates in that sentence, so your Dad probably didn't benefit from the inflation in the early 80s. That said, it is important to consider high mortgage rates in real terms.

komali2 8y ago

I'm trying to find correlated information on young birth rates. My unprofessional guess is that a hell of a lot less people are getting teen pregnant and then marrying about it, which could lead to a messy divorce down the road (the thought of marrying some of the first people I hooked up with... I was 18 fucks sake...)

LyndsySimon 8y ago
I don't know, but anecdotally, it seems like people don't feel they have to get married as much. As for marrying younger... I met my wife at 14, married at 21, and had our first daughter at 25. We're 34 now and have two girls, and see no reason why we'd ever split. We're happy. I honestly don't think age has nearly as much to do with it as maturity and mindset.
AJ007 8y ago
Yes this is correct at least for the US, teen pregnancy rates have been declining http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/29/why-is-the-teen-birth-rate-falling/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/29/why-is-the-t...

52-6F-62 8y ago

I think about this from time-to-time. My partner and I know we couldn't afford children now, though she's constantly ..."noticing the clock ticking". I'd like children some day. But what makes me snicker is it sounds exactly like the beginning of Idiocracy.

sakopov 8y ago
That movie got a heck of a lot right. Still amusingly scary at times.
- Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
  Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/603/ https://xkcd.com/603/
  - x220 8y ago
    That comic is fake news. I can't find the source, but the Economist made a pretty good graph with good data demonstrating that when you control for certain factors, poor people and people with measured below average IQ definitely are more likely to have children. I saw the graph I'm referring to a couple years ago on the Economist website.
    - AWildC182 8y ago
      I think you're missing the point of the comic. Yes, it's absolutely possible that you could measure this effect but worrying about it won't help and attempting to "fix" it will almost certainly backfire in hilarious and/or terrifying ways. See China.
      - x220 8y ago
        You avoid China by not forcing people to do things they do not want to do. Here's a likely way to reverse the trend: give free birth control and abortions (no questions asked), government subsidized child care, government subsidized college tuition, and higher tax incentives for marriage and having children. The largest obstacle for rich and generally high IQ women to having children is lack of money and lack of practical child care. A huge reason that poor people and generally low IQ people tend to have more children is lack of sex education and lack of access to birth control and contraceptives. This is a completely peaceful, non-violent way to reverse the trend. And just so we are clear, this assumes that you already think that humans who tend to be rich or have high IQ scores have genes worth propagating. It's not hard to avoid Chinese atrocities when you keep yourself from thinking that you are so justified that people should be forced to live the way you think is correct.

combatentropy 8y ago

Statistically though, married people have more money. "married women can pay as much as $1 million less than their single counterparts over a lifetime" "married men between 28 and 30 years old earn around $15,900 more a year in individual income compared to their single counterparts, while married men between 44 and 46 years old make $18,800 more than single men of the same ages" + other benefits https://www.businessinsider.com/how-being-married-makes-you-more-successful-2016-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-being-married-makes-you-...

philwelch 8y ago
Do married people have more money, or do more financially secure people get married?
- thedaemon 8y ago
  It's cheaper to live with someone and split bills than live alone and pay all of the bills by yourself. So yes, married people have more money in general.
  - sov 8y ago
    That's both a fact and not an answer to the question he's asking. For example, unmarried people can live together and split the bills. The above poster isn't asking if it's cheaper to live together with someone--they're asking if selection bias causes it to look that way. That is, whether or not there's sufficient distinction between single folk, long-term non-married split-the-bills relationships, and marriage.
  - detaro 8y ago
    Many people still are living together and splitting bills without being married, so it's not all that relevant to the question.
    - nightski 8y ago
      It's pretty relevant if married people are more likely to be living together and splitting bills, which is probably the case.

encoderer 8y ago

I’m a millennial so I’m sympathetic but this is something I’ve heard a lot about anecdotally without a lot of data behind it. Here are two more anecdotes: My dad graduated in 1976 in the middle of stagflation and had a 12% apr on his first house in the mid 80s. His dad graduated into the recession that stretched between ww2 and Korea. I think we’re too quick to look at generations that have accumulated wealth and accuse them of having always had it easy.

whamlastxmas 8y ago
The rate was 12% but you completely ignore the average home price and its relation to average income. Housing was tremendously less expensive (even after interest), largely in part to the higher rate.
- hndamien 8y ago
  High rates result in lower prices. Low rates result in higher prices. The rate on its own is really pretty irrelevant.
  - astura 8y ago
    Exactly. Most home buyers take out a mortgage. Most people also look at monthly payments as a proxy for affordability. Monthly payments raise when interest rates rise. Therefore, sellers need to ask for lower prices when rates are high in order to attract buyers. A $150,000 mortgage at 12% interest has monthly payments of $1,543, at 5% interest its $805.
dnadler 8y ago
> My dad graduated in 1976 in the middle of stagflation and had a 12% apr on his first house in the mid 80s. But inflation over the next few years meant that in real terms (the most important terms), that rate was between 6% and -2%(!). Inflation hit 14% in 1980. The ability to refinance also means that he wouldn't have to keep that high interest rate once inflation settled down. So he probably did quite well with that mortgage. edit: I misread the dates in that sentence, so your Dad probably didn't benefit from the inflation in the early 80s. That said, it is important to consider high mortgage rates in real terms.