3 ms·
I would track 18-30, as that catches those who are likely to be living independently.
by Shared404 6y ago
I would track 18-30, as that catches those who are likely to be living independently.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoAnd it lumps them in with those who are likely still in school and have no real job yet thereby making it basically impossible to draw (useful) conclusions about independent young people.
- Shared404 6y ago> And it lumps them in with those who are likely still in school I won't argue that one, but where do you draw the line with > have no real job yet I would argue that as long as you are working, you have a real job. Probably the best would be to track both 25-30 and 18-30 and see how it changes.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago>I would argue that as long as you are working, you have a real job. If you're working nights in a warehouse while you finish your degree that will get you into an industry with nearly six figure starting salaries then I would argue that you're not "working yet" you're just a student with income.
- Shared404 6y agoWhat does salary have to do if somethings a "real job"? Or what about blue collar workers who aren't going to school, and are at that same warehouse? Are they not working at a real job?
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoSalary has nothing to do with it. Finishing one's education for the foreseeable future has everything to do with it.
- Shared404 6y agoI've thought about this for a while now, and for the purposes of this discussion I agree. That being the case, I think that the study would be best off tracking those 18-30 who are living individually and are not attending school. Thoughts?
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoYeah that would be ideal but that's much harder for the people doing the study than just picking an age.