10 ms·

The Boomerang Kids Won't Leave

90 points by wallflower 12y ago

msandford 12y ago
Younger people (say 30ish and under, so me included) have been told their entire (or close to it) lives that they're precious snowflakes and that they're going to change the world and they can be or do anything they want to. If you're a highly motivated, hardworking person or you already know what your passion is, this is great news to hear. The sky's the limit! If you're not so highly motivated or you aren't passionate about anything (that you know of) this kind of message is debilitating. The flip side of "you are talented and special" is that if you're not doing what you're passionate about and you're not changing the world and whatever, that the only person you have to blame is yourself. If the world isn't placing any constraints upon you to keep you from succeeding then the only thing that stands between you and success is you. I realize that in truth we tend to limit ourselves more than others put those constrains upon us. But what that cheery, the-world-is-your-oyster message fails to communicate is that life can be difficult and that for a great many people just keeping themselves alive SOMEHOW is really about all that they can do. And that for the entire history of the world minus about 50 years that could be considered Success(tm). It might be a job that they're not passionate about but are good at. Or it might be that circumstances out of their control took a substantial portion of their energy (sick parents for example). Or maybe they just found someone and got married and had kids before they figured their work-passions out and now they have whole other people counting on them for support. But when you could be Doing Anything (!!) just getting doesn't necessarily feel like success. The "you can do anything" SEEMS really amazing and that you really should impress it upon all kids from an early age. It SOUNDS great, I mean who doesn't want to encourage kids to succeed? Ultimately though it may have been a bit self-defeating. When faced with too many choices many people fail to take any action at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis
- lukasm 12y ago
  this and: - there more and more automation. Creativity and analytical skills are more important. Schools sucks at first and are OK-ish at second - Kids are defaulting to get a job. Brainwashed to be doctors, layers, firemen a.k.a "the real job" - "If you work hard you will get reward" - Nope. If you do something valuable you prob. get reward. Doing something hard may be critical to crush the competition or to solve the problem, but it's not essential.
  - ladzoppelin 12y ago
    Actually this is something the previous generation still fails to understand. The problem is besides being a Doctor or Lawyer , the concept of "be good at what you do and you will be reimbursed" is completely non-existent even in extremely important professions. How can we (USA specifically) still have no standardized schooling/testing for professions such as programing, network security, data management, etc where the "best" are recognized just like students are ranked in Law School? In my imaginary world the whole United States educational system would be rebuilt from the ground up, hopefully without invalidating past student accomplishments, creating a better framework that at least allows proper training and recognition of other technical professions.
    - lukasm 12y ago
      It's impossible to rebuild the system ground up politically. Smaller country could set up an example.
    - nsxwolf 12y ago
      I would be really unhappy if that kind of credentialism crept its way into technology professions. I shouldn't need a license to make money coding.
  - ladzoppelin 12y ago
    Actually this is something the previous generation still fails to understand. The problem is besides being a Doctor or Lawyer , the concept of "be good at what you do and you will be reimbursed" is completely non-existent even in extremely important professions. How can we (USA specifically) still have no standardized schooling/testing for professions such as programing, network security, data management, etc where the "best" are recognized just like students are ranked in Law School? In my imaginary world the whole United States educational system would be rebuilt from the ground up, hopefully without invalidating past student accomplishments, creating a better framework that at least allows proper training and recognition of other technical professions.
  - Karellen 12y ago
    Working hard is (virtually) necessary, but not sufficient. If you work hard and become proficient at something, you're in with a chance of having those skills rewarded. If you don't have useful skills, and it's unlikely you'll come by any without working hard, you'll find it very tricky to persuade people to reward you for anything you can actually do. Note that hard work is not a guarantee of reward. It helps to have the right skills in the right place at the right time. There's not much call for buggy-whip mfrs these days, so if that's your passion and you learn to excel at it, you still might find it hard to connect with anyone who's in a position to appreciate your work and pay you for it. And even with the right skills in the right place at the right time, the vast uncaring universe can still deal you the shittiest beats you never saw coming and clean you out in the blink of an eye. Or you could win the lottery. If you want to bet on the lottery, go right ahead. On the other hand, working hard at the right things is a good way of massively stacking the odds in your favour for keeping food on the table, a roof over your table, and shiny tech doodads in your pocket in the interim, while you wait for those numbers to come up.
- hawkice 12y ago
  So, I'd like to maybe focus in on three points you bring up. Specifically: (1) If you are unmotivated, hearing you can accomplish great things would lead people to believe their behavior is what is preventing them from doing so. (2) Life is hard so setting your sights high is a bad thing for some people. (3) "You can do anything" leads to analysis paralysis -- a better strategy would give children fewer options so as to encourage acting on them. I think (2) is nonsense simply because life doesn't get any easier when you try to do great things, and yet we still try and many still achieve great things. If you life being hard meant you shouldn't reach for the stars then no one in the world would. It's also worth noting that life doesn't seem to get substantially easier if you decide to be a corporate stooge -- that social contract is broken so badly that I think it's misleading to imply it's the secret to stability. There exist challenges on all paths, at least the ones on the road to greatness are generally first-class problems. I don't understand the danger of (1). All I can change is my behavior. If something aside from that is causing the world to be a way I don't like, that doesn't do me much good to know except in scenarios of absolutely impossible goals and inevitable failure. (3) isn't absurd, but I think there's a dearth of safe, unlimited capacity options for children these days, which is why there is no coherent script for them. "Engineer" is a fairly good script, but having worked with quite a few, I can say that if you don't have the temperament for thinking carefully and trying things out then even after 10 years you won't be any good. I imagine the fairly short list of "opportunities for youngsters" these days would be mostly filled by similar fields, where there could be a personality type conflict -- but that's merely speculation. If you have a script you want to advocate for children, parents are worried about their kids and listening for a direction they can point them in. Persuade them, and your ideal change will be made.
  - couradical 12y ago
    Addressing number 1, I saw the other day a study that indicates that this can back fire for individuals with low self-esteem. [1] [1]: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/7/860 http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/7/860
    - hawkice 12y ago
      [Link isn't working?] "Back fire" is an interesting choice of words. Would you prefer we endeavor to improve children's self-esteem by telling them their failures are out of their control? I am concerned this both hyper-coddles them and encourages a victim mindset. It's a trade-off in the cases of people with worryingly low self-esteem -- I wouldn't say it's a "back fire", it's just we now have to choose precisely which bad thing happens to people with low self-esteem. The choice sucks, but let's not draw a false equivalency because it sucks.
- gatehouse 12y ago
  I don't see how it is about anything but money. I (27) don't know anyone who lives with parents without a major financial reason. Occasionally it is the parent who can use help to make rent, but usually it's the child.
  - tzakrajs 12y ago
    Having parents to fallback on is a great ruiner of motivation for some people. The amount of negligent enabling that takes place between some parents and their spawn is staggering. I think the extra assurance that they have the ability to live cheaply with their folks hamstrings childrens desire to establish their own support mechanisms.
    - waps 12y ago
      Sadly psychological studies confirm this : there's nothing that motivates people quite like seeing a few others fail, and the consequences of that failure, like homelessness. This motivates a lot better than anything on Maslow's pyramid. But would you really want to live in a world where this is actually implemented ? I wouldn't. Your and my parents thought we wouldn't and didn't create such a world, even though they (or maybe their parents) did grow up in such a world, where failure to earn a living would effectively mean physical misery or even death (good luck trying to survive a winter homeless in Europe anywhere north of Italy). I say thanks for that. I mean I have a big fight with my parents but it's not about this.
    - gutnor 12y ago
      The flip side is that when you don't have parents to fall back the risk level of all your actions become higher, and that will limit you in other ways. For example, I emigrated in another country. Knowing that if I failed, I could go back home for a few months was a key factor ( as was the possibility to be there for a few months before, to manage the transition ). Maybe the extra-motivation of having my back against the wall would have pushed me in another successful adventure, but I would not have risked my career the way I did. So well, that's really not black and white. And depends a lot on the type of parent you have.
  - 12y ago
- zecho 12y ago
  This old canard is quite tiresome, and is rarely presented with evidence, but it's always written as capital T truth. The realities, laid out in the article, are all economic and well researched. Millennials have high debt and low wages with a poor job outlook. The underlying trends have existed for quite some time and appear to be getting worse over time, especially with the recent recession hitting youth hardest. But yeah, let's blame motivation rather than figure out how to improve the system. Clearly kids with college degrees aren't motivated enough to will jobs that can cover their debts and maintain the comfortable standard of living their parents had.
  - opendais 12y ago
    Yes. The only people in my social circle I know that didn't boomerang were STEM graduates. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2012/03/01/most-college-grads-cant-find-work-in-their-field-is-a-management-degree-the-answer/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2012/03/01/m... 60% can't find a job in their field isn't a "motivational problem" or a "I picked the wrong degree problem". It is a general, widespread economic problem. If your assumptions require more than 10% of people to be incompetent, your assumptions are wrong.
    - ChuckMcM 12y ago
      I get the 'I can't find a job opening in the area I'm trained/passionate about' but what I would like to understand is whether or not that includes "I can't create a job in the area I am trained/passionate about." I have coached a number of folks who seemed to feel strangely disempowered, which is to say that the world had to change (job opening appears, company moves to their area, etc) in order for them to make progress on their goals. I've had some success at simplifying the question using the common trick of assuming solutions to the presumptive problems. So for example starting with "Ok lets stipulate that there is a million dollars in a bank vault that is paying you $1,200 a month in 'free' money. And you're living in an area where that pays all your food, rent, and gas. Now, what do you want to do with your time?" That gets us past blaming "the economy" and taking ownership of what they want to do. It is a different way of thinking, but it gets out of the rut of 'answer' based thinking. Life is like riding a train that you know is on a track with a bridge out over a 1000' chasm. When the train gets there, it will fall into the chasm, and everyone on board will die. Given that every train you could take from a station has this same "feature" what train do you pick? Who do you pick to ride with you? What places does the train need to go through before it gets to the missing bridge? Sometimes it isn't as complicated as what do you want to do with your life, it is simply what can you do today that is fulfilling to you?
- callmeed 12y ago
  I wish I could upvote this 1000x. It's not just "you can do anything" ... it's that it's been coupled with "do what you love for your career" and similar platitudes. I love cooking and photography as much as I love programming (maybe more). In fact, I recently told a recruiter that my "dream job" would be at a startup spending 1/2 the day being the company chef and 1/2 the day hacking. He thought I meant the Chef config framework :) I am never going to pursue either of those as a career. First of all, because it's a lot harder to make a decent living at. Second, I've come to learn that once your passion intersects with the pressure to make a living and pay your bills, it's less enjoyable. Sometimes it's better to keep your passions as just that–passions. Furthermore, I feel like the "do anything + do what you love" thinking can lead to a weird class division (I don't know the right term, sorry). The set of people's passions do not perfectly intersect with the set of people's wants/needs. I seriously doubt many people have a passion for standing in a field for 10 hours a day picking strawberries. Yet, we all love to put strawberries in our crepes. So, unless you're willing to live in a world where you can only have products/services that people are passionate about making (or wait for the strawberry-picking robots), it seems like a double-standard.
  - tekalon 12y ago
    The book 'Too Good They Can't Ignore You' explains this well.
    - aliston 12y ago
      Agree -- though the book is actually called "So Good They Can't Ignore You." http://www.amazon.com/Good-They-Cant-Ignore-You/dp/1455509124 http://www.amazon.com/Good-They-Cant-Ignore-You/dp/145550912...
  - silencio 12y ago
    > I am never going to pursue either of those as a career. I think that's a shame. I'm a coder and I also run a restaurant. My wedding photographer really loves what she does. Even when coupled with the pressure to make a living - which I have to say, programming fell under the same bucket for me - when you actually sit down and figure out how it could be done, it's very doable. The only reason I don't go with one or the other is that I don't enjoy one more than the other ;) I also have friends that love to cook and are really good at it. Honestly the thing that pops their bubble about "I want to be a chef/open a restaurant" is not the cooking, it's that a restaurant is also about management, staffing, and food safety in a completely different manner from programming. My roommate LOVES to cook and cooks all the damn time and it wasn't until he got food poisoning from a super swank SF restaurant that he finally started to wash his hands more often and actually listen to food-safety-manager-trained me about cleanup and cleanliness, and forget about trying to do other standard stuff like labeling food to figure out when to throw it out or hiring people for roles he's unfamiliar with. Would love to see more people in tech diversify a bit. Running a restaurant and knowing all levels of it is like a whole new fun challenge, and it also puts me at a different level from the rest of the stuff I do. I go from friends/coworkers making 6 figures sipping $5 coffees in SF, to a 30 minute train ride later in East Bay, employees that get paid just above minimum wage and people counting pennies to get something to eat. It's eye opening and worth seeing the differences when you're not exposed to it regularly.
- cafard 12y ago
  "have been told their entire (or close to it) lives that they're precious snowflakes and that they're going to change the world and they can be or do anything they want to." By whom, where and when? I've been to three commencement speeches in the last several years, and even there didn't hear this. As a baby boomer and parent of a millenial, I sure as hell didn't aim to convey that message. And by the way, a couple of my college friends lived with their parents for a year or more after college and while not in school.
  - msandford 12y ago
    >By whom, where and when? I've been to three commencement speeches in the last several years, and even there didn't hear this. As a baby boomer and parent of a millenial, I sure as hell didn't aim to convey that message. When I was growing up it was prevalent in the media and in schools. Not all parents bought into it of course -- perhaps even the majority of them didn't -- but if the TV says something and your parents don't tell you it's a lie, it must be true right? What is a 5-10 year old's capacity to tell fact from fiction, especially if an authority figure (like a teacher or someone on TV) is saying it? I was fortunate enough to be able to figure out at a young age that not everyone could grow up to be President or an astronaut and to temper my expectations accordingly. But should it be required skills to figure that out WELL before you hit puberty? Should that be the standard by which all persons are judged? By the time a commencement speech has rolled around it's already a decade or two too late. Minds have been impressed with crazy ideas that have little/no bearing on how the world ACTUALLY works. Some people take years to un-learn these silly notions; others never do. You might not have aimed to convey that message. You might have done a good job explaining to your kids that life is hard and success isn't becoming President but making your own way in life. But even if you did that, they might have still picked up enough nonsense elsewhere to believe it. Other phrases of a similarly unfortunate bent: "Follow your dreams" "Reach for the stars" "Do what you love" If you don't believe me that this is prevalent in culture, check out Google n-grams in books. It's imperfect of course but it's illustrative: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=follow+your+dreams%2Creach+for+the+stars%2Clove+what+you+do%2Cget+a+good+job&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cfollow%20your%20dreams%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bfollow%20your%20dreams%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFollow%20your%20dreams%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFollow%20Your%20Dreams%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFOLLOW%20YOUR%20DREAMS%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Creach%20for%20the%20stars%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Breach%20for%20the%20stars%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BReach%20for%20the%20Stars%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BReach%20for%20the%20stars%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BREACH%20FOR%20THE%20STARS%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Clove%20what%20you%20do%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Blove%20what%20you%20do%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BLove%20What%20You%20Do%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BLove%20what%20you%20do%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cget%20a%20good%20job%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=follow+your+dr...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
briffle 12y ago
Also during the US recession, many people had their retirement funds drastically affected (I know several people that saw near a 40% loss) This forced many people nearing retirement age to keep working. Those people are often more senior, and with them staying on, there was no "movement" up the chain, so not many new entry level positions opening up. if they were smart, and did not touch the money, it should be fully recovered now, so we might start seeing some mobility again.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- bronbron 12y ago
  Compounding that problem, however, I would imagine that parents with "boomerang children" are inclined to keep working longer (because they're essentially supporting a dependent again). It's kind of a vicious cycle.
- Balgair 12y ago
  A previous reply mentioned that the US, finally, after 6 years, is back to the pre housing crisis workforce numbers. This is true, however, the population has grown since then and we are still about 7 million jobs short [0]. Also, the labor department includes, as said in the OP, underemployment. Typically you then have to work more jobs or live much less high on the hog. This is in addition to the older workforce continuing to stay in their positions. I have an anecdote on this as well. My brother used to work for Lockheed. Many times, an expert would retire with no replacement in the free world to step up. They would then need to hire the expert back again for a much inflated price. The cows recently came home for that particular plant, as this last year all 4000 employees were fired. I'm sure the rehiring of more expensive contractors played a role. [0]It's Friday, google it please, my apologies on the laze.
schnevets 12y ago
I was only able to skim this particular article, but I'm really curious about the international perspective of this "phenomenon" and the general attitude in America. Europe is dealing with staggering unemployment among people in their twenties. Meanwhile, plenty of developed countries still cling to the multi-generational home system where you stay with your parents until you're a married homeowner. Would an influx in the number of people remaining with their parents even be considered a "generational crisis" in the rest of the world?
- cliveowen 12y ago
  I'm Italian, we're one of the countries in Europe that have been hit the hardest by the economic downturn. Staying at home with your parents in your early 20s has always been the norm here (mostly because you don't have to move to go to college, the local university is usually as good as any other). The problem is, even if it's generally acceptable to say that you still live with your parents, there are literally no jobs, not even low-wage, menial jobs. There is no hope for things improving in the long term and there's the lingering suspicion that this whole staying at home with your parents is more than a temporary situation. The only option seems to be moving to another country, but it's not as simple as it sounds. First of all, if you're unemployed, you don't have the money to move to another place, let alone stay there until you find a job. Secondly, you can't move to another country if you don't know someone who's already there and can help you out. And lastly, there's no reason for an employer to pick you (a foreigner) over some local guy. So the outlook is really grim and there's not even an inkling of hope on the horizon.
- nroets 12y ago
  Many South African kids who went to college were so determined to stand on their own feet that they went to the developed world to take whatever job they could find. Now the parents rarely get to see their kids (and their grand kids). So American parents should be careful what they wish for !
at-fates-hands 12y ago
One big point that I think was missing in the article was the proliferation of a temporary workforce. I just read temp hiring accounts for 15% of all hires these days. The days when you're pop took a job at the steel mill and then worked his way up to management and then president are long gone. Most workers are only temporary. They put in their time, do the work and then its off to the next gig. This makes it nearly impossible to ever move up in any organization. And when you gain some experience as a contractor? Your job opportunities diminish since your experience demands a higher salary. I've also seen a lot of commentary about the lack of motivation the millennial generation has which I'm sure is adding to the "normalization" of this boomerang stage in young adults lives. EDIT: just found the article about increasing temp workforce: http://www.economicmodeling.com/2013/06/21/temp-employment-is-dominating-job-growth-in-the-largest-cities-is-that-a-good-thing/ http://www.economicmodeling.com/2013/06/21/temp-employment-i...
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  You can still work your way up to management, you might just move through more companies in order to do it. This might be as a result of workers now having more options as recruitment is easier due to the internet and other things. It might be better to have the flexibility and gather a variety of experience rather than feeling indentured to a single company. The flipside of this is that companies are less likely to invest in workers who they are worried will leave them in a few years.
zw123456 12y ago
One thing my Mom taught me is that when you child reaches around 14 years old, or around high school age, you have to stop coddling them. My parents started "being mean" as my sister and I called it, when we got into high school. Later she told us it was on purpose and from love. She was right. I think this tradition has been forgotten, but it used to be conventional wisdom in that generation (my Parents are in their 80's). What we called "being mean" meant taking responsibility for yourself. For example, if you wanted to live in their house after age 18, they charged rent.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  This, as well as a lot of things that are fine when economics is okay, makes zero sense when there's recession. I see a great number of commenters who don't understand that and therefore shovel blame around
  - chondos 12y ago
    The problem with your argument is that this trend has been going on for over 20 years (Even during economic boons). Certainly the numbers jumped when the economy tanked, but the numbers were already growing steadily. The point is that the problem transcends the economy. It is most definitely largely a social issue. How many boomerang kids did we see during the great depression? How about the recession in the 70s? Very few when comparing the numbers to today.
  - hnal943 12y ago
    Your comment embodies the millennial stereotype. There's a recession, therefore I can't be successful. The economy doesn't improve by magic, we need people creating wealth. And that may not be in their chosen field.
    - _delirium 12y ago
      I don't think it's a very scientific approach to recommend that we focus on "drive" and "gumption" or something, rather than systemic analysis, when we want to understand economic behavior. Even sports have more or less given up their previously obsessive focus on "gut" and "clutch" and "will", in the face of sabermetrics.
jiggy2011 12y ago
Is there anything wrong with young people staying at home for longer? The "move out before you're 21 or you're a loser" message is a relatively new one and doesn't make all that much sense. There are so many people paying half of their salary to live in some tiny flat in London while their parents have a 5 bedroom house somewhere much nicer that is mostly unoccupied. Just because they feel they must be "independent" (even though some of these people are receiving parental subsidies anyway). Why not just let the buy to let market shrink and bring some semblance of sanity back to house pricing. People who live with their parents will have much lower financial risk and thus can take jobs which focus on experience rather than salary and they can save money for entrepreneurial activity or to later on buy the houses which will be cheaper as a result.
- bronbron 12y ago
  > thus can take jobs which focus on experience rather than salary and they can save money for entrepreneurial activity Yeah, but the tone of the article is that they're not doing that. They're working menial or frustrating jobs that they're not sticking around very long at. And very likely not saving much money from. Whether that's self-imposed or a reality of external factors is a source of debate, but the outlook's the same either way: bleak.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    Some are, I know a few. As long as sufficient of the saved money is invested wisely it can be used to the betterment of the economy and eventually employment.
    - bronbron 12y ago
      Sure, but this article isn't really about that group. Regardless of being a super responsible person saving/investing your money wisely while living at home, if you're unable to obtain fruitful employment by your early 30s then something has gone seriously awry, either internal or external to that person.
33W 12y ago
So I'll admit my biases up front: I got a BS,CS degree at an in-state school, and used the GI Bill to pay for all of my tuition, and took loans for study abroad. But taking a look at the slideshow, I'm seeing a trend in degrees/schools/debt. BA, advertising & PR, Loyola, $75K BA, lit & writing, UC San Diego, $44K BA, economics, Loyola, $90K BA, film studies, Full Sail, $80K BA, psychology UCF, MS, counseling, Nova Southeastern, $40K BA, biology, Northwestern, $50K BA, economics, Hunter, $12K BA, asian humanities, UCLA, $10K BA, art history, Sonoma State, $27K BA, history & religion, Midland, $11K BA, comparitive literature, Hamilton, $20K BFA, painting, Rhode Island School of Design, $25K BFA, graphic design, School of Visual Arts, $130K BA, communications, Calf. St. Fullerton, $22K How do any of these student think that they'll do anything with these degrees to overcome the debt? The only two that make some sense to me are the $40K to get psychology/counseling, and $12K for economics.
- artimaeis 12y ago
  I think most potential students are encouraged and told that it will work out - we see all our peers doing it and only hear the success stories. It seems more common these days for the people to at least have heard of not going to college; but when you're in high school and trying to figure everything out you have a ton of people you probably respect explaining how college is what ALL successful people do. They make it seem so possible that if you pursue your dreams you'll be successful. No one who's guiding these students wants to be the person to say "maybe you should pursue welding". They often don't even know that trade-schools do offer a higher probability for a good ROI.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Because having a bachelors degree from a good (not necessarily elite) university should equip you to handle any number of jobs in general management or government. If that's not happening, there could be a few different reasons: 1. Getting a BA isn't as rigorous as it used to be, and no longer means "This is an educated person. Besides their specialty, they should be smart and adaptable enough for most administrative-level purposes." Pseudo-professionalism has also closed the doors to some of these jobs, maybe as a way to get around civil service tests as a way for the educated to get government jobs without specific training. 2. The white collar, middle class job pool has been decimated, and not enough places need generally well-educated people.
eumenides1 12y ago
Here is another thought, younger generation are being sold a bill of goods and the older generation is not delievering. The bill is the time/cost of education and the end product is supposed to be "training for a career". We have this younger generation who is not ready work (needs more training) and/or trained for something that no longers pays out (greater than the cost of education or jobs that no longer exists). I've seen enough job postings that should just require basic skills, but ask the world (5+ years experience where it's only been out for 3 years). Also the cost of education is really crippling, that is pretty obvious. It's hard to blame the kids for problem. the older generation created it by working longer than ever, creating the job postings requirements, and not training the next generation. But I see these boomerang kids are pretty clever, because they found the best place to live for less. Some will create their own jobs, or find meaningful work. Others will just fail. That's life, but in the past failing was way worst, now it's "going to your parents home". When the younger generation has kids, they will create problems for the next generation, and deal with the consequences. Maybe the younger generation will better train the next, maybe they will lower hiring requirements, and maybe they will just be happier with less.
up_and_up 12y ago
The amount of debt some of these BA and BFA holders have is staggering: 80k, 90k, 130k (with a graphic design degree!!) Didn't anyone sit them down and run the math of avg salary vs monthly loan payments for any of these careers? It would be tough to pay them off quickly without a hefty salary. I feel like the parents are to blame here big time, setting these kids up for failure by not being real with them. I have 3 kids and I definitely plan to instill a serious respect for loans and career goals etc.
- cylinder 12y ago
  I know someone who is currently thrilled about soon going to physical therapy school (3 year graduate degree). Estimated debt taken on: approximately $240,000. Federal government will let you take all this with a few clicks of a button. Average income of these "doctors" is what -- $70k?
  - will_work4tears 12y ago
    wow, really? 240k for a DPT? My wife graduated the last year her school offered the Masters program, 2007 I believe with something like 7k in loans. Granted, her parent's pretty much covered everything, somehow. I walked away with my CS degree (CIS, really) with ~80k in debt in 2008. Average income varies I think, starting salary for her in 2007 was 45k, but that was Mid Missouri. Here in the Seattle area, it's a bit higher, and as a manager of a clinic (also practicing PT) it's close to twice that. I think as a non manager, 70k is about right here though.
  - tsotha 12y ago
    If you're gonna do it, there's no reason not to go big any more. If you get on a debt repayment plan and work for either a nonprofit or the government you only pay 15% of you disposable income toward your debt for ten years. Then it's gone.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
My parents started making me pay rent as soon as I was 18, but that's not what made me want to get my own place - I just couldn't live the lifestyle that I wanted at my parent's. So, as soon as I got my first real job I left and never looked back. I would love to live with a bunch of like-minded people, but that's easier said than done.
johngalt 12y ago
The 'boomerang kids' are just people who were socialized to see a middle class life as beneath them. Offer these young adults 40k to drive a bus for a living and they would turn it down. They will stay at home and hold out for that job that pays a political science major $100k starting. The middle class is being decimated because no one aims for middle class. edit: Perhaps bus driver was a bad example. I do know plenty of people who lead comfortable middle class lives as electricians, installing garage doors, commercial fishing etc... I don't know how many would describe it as their 'passion'.
- _random_ 12y ago
  Driving a bus is not a middle class job. Also politics is not automatable in the nearest future, so could be a wise choice if you have an aptitude.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- ebiester 12y ago
  I can't find the article now, but during the BART strike it was mentioned that over 100 (and it was much more than that) apply for every BART driver job that opens up. Most of the applicants had college degrees. People are still willing to pay their dues, but they want to make sure they aren't 45 and laid off and suddenly making minimum wage. After all, the current middle class doesn't have a union to protect them in most cases.
skywhopper 12y ago
Staying with your parents as long as they'll let you is often the smartest financial move you can make. With student loan debt skyrocketing, housing prices high, job market weak, and wages stagnant, there's almost nothing economically to encourage kids to stake out on their own. Moving to a different city in pursuit of a job is unlikely to be worth the financial risk over keeping the job you have near enough to your parents and living without room or board expenses. That would have to be one hell of a good paying job to justify a move.
- aianus 12y ago
  Pretty much my whole graduating class is shipping off to San Francisco immediately. The pay is literally 3x more than you can get in Canada and everything but the rent is cheaper.
ap22213 12y ago
I was born in the 70s and grew up in the late 80s, early 90s. My friends and I consider ourselves 'GenX' though I'm not sure what we are. I find this article interesting because my friends and I often discuss how lucky we are to have been born when we were. We got off a crazy train right before it was about to take a perverse, fiery decent into economic hell. In the 90s, college was cheap, and it was easy to get in to. In the 90s, it was cool to be a 'slacker' - and you could accomplish quite a lot, as one. There was hardly any competition and tons of opportunities. With a little bit of brain and a little bit of motivation, you could get into a top school, and it didn't matter much what your grades were. But, it wasn't just schooling that was easier to achieve - everything seemed a lot easier, and simpler. I was recently talking to an older acquaintance, a person who recently retired as a top executive for one of the largest technology companies in the world. He's about 20 years older than me. And, he basically said the same thing: he was a B-C student in high school and college. He was pretty much a slacker, as I was. We both joked about how neither of us would be able to accomplish much, if we had been born in the 80s, or later.
j2kun 12y ago
> “Everyone tells me to just pick something,” she says, “but I don’t know what to pick.” Why is this not the obvious and glaring problem? After four years of going to a college with doubtlessly many opportunities, and she doesn't even know what she enjoys?

90 points by wallflower 12y ago

Younger people (say 30ish and under, so me included) have been told their entire (or close to it) lives that they're precious snowflakes and that they're going to change the world and they can be or do anything they want to. If you're a highly motivated, hardworking person or you already know what your passion is, this is great news to hear. The sky's the limit! If you're not so highly motivated or you aren't passionate about anything (that you know of) this kind of message is debilitating. The flip side of "you are talented and special" is that if you're not doing what you're passionate about and you're not changing the world and whatever, that the only person you have to blame is yourself. If the world isn't placing any constraints upon you to keep you from succeeding then the only thing that stands between you and success is you. I realize that in truth we tend to limit ourselves more than others put those constrains upon us. But what that cheery, the-world-is-your-oyster message fails to communicate is that life can be difficult and that for a great many people just keeping themselves alive SOMEHOW is really about all that they can do. And that for the entire history of the world minus about 50 years that could be considered Success(tm). It might be a job that they're not passionate about but are good at. Or it might be that circumstances out of their control took a substantial portion of their energy (sick parents for example). Or maybe they just found someone and got married and had kids before they figured their work-passions out and now they have whole other people counting on them for support. But when you could be Doing Anything (!!) just getting doesn't necessarily feel like success. The "you can do anything" SEEMS really amazing and that you really should impress it upon all kids from an early age. It SOUNDS great, I mean who doesn't want to encourage kids to succeed? Ultimately though it may have been a bit self-defeating. When faced with too many choices many people fail to take any action at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

lukasm 12y ago
this and: - there more and more automation. Creativity and analytical skills are more important. Schools sucks at first and are OK-ish at second - Kids are defaulting to get a job. Brainwashed to be doctors, layers, firemen a.k.a "the real job" - "If you work hard you will get reward" - Nope. If you do something valuable you prob. get reward. Doing something hard may be critical to crush the competition or to solve the problem, but it's not essential.
- ladzoppelin 12y ago
  Actually this is something the previous generation still fails to understand. The problem is besides being a Doctor or Lawyer , the concept of "be good at what you do and you will be reimbursed" is completely non-existent even in extremely important professions. How can we (USA specifically) still have no standardized schooling/testing for professions such as programing, network security, data management, etc where the "best" are recognized just like students are ranked in Law School? In my imaginary world the whole United States educational system would be rebuilt from the ground up, hopefully without invalidating past student accomplishments, creating a better framework that at least allows proper training and recognition of other technical professions.
  - lukasm 12y ago
    It's impossible to rebuild the system ground up politically. Smaller country could set up an example.
  - nsxwolf 12y ago
    I would be really unhappy if that kind of credentialism crept its way into technology professions. I shouldn't need a license to make money coding.
- ladzoppelin 12y ago
  Actually this is something the previous generation still fails to understand. The problem is besides being a Doctor or Lawyer , the concept of "be good at what you do and you will be reimbursed" is completely non-existent even in extremely important professions. How can we (USA specifically) still have no standardized schooling/testing for professions such as programing, network security, data management, etc where the "best" are recognized just like students are ranked in Law School? In my imaginary world the whole United States educational system would be rebuilt from the ground up, hopefully without invalidating past student accomplishments, creating a better framework that at least allows proper training and recognition of other technical professions.
- Karellen 12y ago
  Working hard is (virtually) necessary, but not sufficient. If you work hard and become proficient at something, you're in with a chance of having those skills rewarded. If you don't have useful skills, and it's unlikely you'll come by any without working hard, you'll find it very tricky to persuade people to reward you for anything you can actually do. Note that hard work is not a guarantee of reward. It helps to have the right skills in the right place at the right time. There's not much call for buggy-whip mfrs these days, so if that's your passion and you learn to excel at it, you still might find it hard to connect with anyone who's in a position to appreciate your work and pay you for it. And even with the right skills in the right place at the right time, the vast uncaring universe can still deal you the shittiest beats you never saw coming and clean you out in the blink of an eye. Or you could win the lottery. If you want to bet on the lottery, go right ahead. On the other hand, working hard at the right things is a good way of massively stacking the odds in your favour for keeping food on the table, a roof over your table, and shiny tech doodads in your pocket in the interim, while you wait for those numbers to come up.
hawkice 12y ago
So, I'd like to maybe focus in on three points you bring up. Specifically: (1) If you are unmotivated, hearing you can accomplish great things would lead people to believe their behavior is what is preventing them from doing so. (2) Life is hard so setting your sights high is a bad thing for some people. (3) "You can do anything" leads to analysis paralysis -- a better strategy would give children fewer options so as to encourage acting on them. I think (2) is nonsense simply because life doesn't get any easier when you try to do great things, and yet we still try and many still achieve great things. If you life being hard meant you shouldn't reach for the stars then no one in the world would. It's also worth noting that life doesn't seem to get substantially easier if you decide to be a corporate stooge -- that social contract is broken so badly that I think it's misleading to imply it's the secret to stability. There exist challenges on all paths, at least the ones on the road to greatness are generally first-class problems. I don't understand the danger of (1). All I can change is my behavior. If something aside from that is causing the world to be a way I don't like, that doesn't do me much good to know except in scenarios of absolutely impossible goals and inevitable failure. (3) isn't absurd, but I think there's a dearth of safe, unlimited capacity options for children these days, which is why there is no coherent script for them. "Engineer" is a fairly good script, but having worked with quite a few, I can say that if you don't have the temperament for thinking carefully and trying things out then even after 10 years you won't be any good. I imagine the fairly short list of "opportunities for youngsters" these days would be mostly filled by similar fields, where there could be a personality type conflict -- but that's merely speculation. If you have a script you want to advocate for children, parents are worried about their kids and listening for a direction they can point them in. Persuade them, and your ideal change will be made.
- couradical 12y ago
  Addressing number 1, I saw the other day a study that indicates that this can back fire for individuals with low self-esteem. [1] [1]: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/7/860 http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/7/860
  - hawkice 12y ago
    [Link isn't working?] "Back fire" is an interesting choice of words. Would you prefer we endeavor to improve children's self-esteem by telling them their failures are out of their control? I am concerned this both hyper-coddles them and encourages a victim mindset. It's a trade-off in the cases of people with worryingly low self-esteem -- I wouldn't say it's a "back fire", it's just we now have to choose precisely which bad thing happens to people with low self-esteem. The choice sucks, but let's not draw a false equivalency because it sucks.
gatehouse 12y ago
I don't see how it is about anything but money. I (27) don't know anyone who lives with parents without a major financial reason. Occasionally it is the parent who can use help to make rent, but usually it's the child.
- tzakrajs 12y ago
  Having parents to fallback on is a great ruiner of motivation for some people. The amount of negligent enabling that takes place between some parents and their spawn is staggering. I think the extra assurance that they have the ability to live cheaply with their folks hamstrings childrens desire to establish their own support mechanisms.
  - waps 12y ago
    Sadly psychological studies confirm this : there's nothing that motivates people quite like seeing a few others fail, and the consequences of that failure, like homelessness. This motivates a lot better than anything on Maslow's pyramid. But would you really want to live in a world where this is actually implemented ? I wouldn't. Your and my parents thought we wouldn't and didn't create such a world, even though they (or maybe their parents) did grow up in such a world, where failure to earn a living would effectively mean physical misery or even death (good luck trying to survive a winter homeless in Europe anywhere north of Italy). I say thanks for that. I mean I have a big fight with my parents but it's not about this.
  - gutnor 12y ago
    The flip side is that when you don't have parents to fall back the risk level of all your actions become higher, and that will limit you in other ways. For example, I emigrated in another country. Knowing that if I failed, I could go back home for a few months was a key factor ( as was the possibility to be there for a few months before, to manage the transition ). Maybe the extra-motivation of having my back against the wall would have pushed me in another successful adventure, but I would not have risked my career the way I did. So well, that's really not black and white. And depends a lot on the type of parent you have.
- 12y ago
zecho 12y ago
This old canard is quite tiresome, and is rarely presented with evidence, but it's always written as capital T truth. The realities, laid out in the article, are all economic and well researched. Millennials have high debt and low wages with a poor job outlook. The underlying trends have existed for quite some time and appear to be getting worse over time, especially with the recent recession hitting youth hardest. But yeah, let's blame motivation rather than figure out how to improve the system. Clearly kids with college degrees aren't motivated enough to will jobs that can cover their debts and maintain the comfortable standard of living their parents had.
- opendais 12y ago
  Yes. The only people in my social circle I know that didn't boomerang were STEM graduates. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2012/03/01/most-college-grads-cant-find-work-in-their-field-is-a-management-degree-the-answer/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2012/03/01/m... 60% can't find a job in their field isn't a "motivational problem" or a "I picked the wrong degree problem". It is a general, widespread economic problem. If your assumptions require more than 10% of people to be incompetent, your assumptions are wrong.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    I get the 'I can't find a job opening in the area I'm trained/passionate about' but what I would like to understand is whether or not that includes "I can't create a job in the area I am trained/passionate about." I have coached a number of folks who seemed to feel strangely disempowered, which is to say that the world had to change (job opening appears, company moves to their area, etc) in order for them to make progress on their goals. I've had some success at simplifying the question using the common trick of assuming solutions to the presumptive problems. So for example starting with "Ok lets stipulate that there is a million dollars in a bank vault that is paying you $1,200 a month in 'free' money. And you're living in an area where that pays all your food, rent, and gas. Now, what do you want to do with your time?" That gets us past blaming "the economy" and taking ownership of what they want to do. It is a different way of thinking, but it gets out of the rut of 'answer' based thinking. Life is like riding a train that you know is on a track with a bridge out over a 1000' chasm. When the train gets there, it will fall into the chasm, and everyone on board will die. Given that every train you could take from a station has this same "feature" what train do you pick? Who do you pick to ride with you? What places does the train need to go through before it gets to the missing bridge? Sometimes it isn't as complicated as what do you want to do with your life, it is simply what can you do today that is fulfilling to you?
callmeed 12y ago
I wish I could upvote this 1000x. It's not just "you can do anything" ... it's that it's been coupled with "do what you love for your career" and similar platitudes. I love cooking and photography as much as I love programming (maybe more). In fact, I recently told a recruiter that my "dream job" would be at a startup spending 1/2 the day being the company chef and 1/2 the day hacking. He thought I meant the Chef config framework :) I am never going to pursue either of those as a career. First of all, because it's a lot harder to make a decent living at. Second, I've come to learn that once your passion intersects with the pressure to make a living and pay your bills, it's less enjoyable. Sometimes it's better to keep your passions as just that–passions. Furthermore, I feel like the "do anything + do what you love" thinking can lead to a weird class division (I don't know the right term, sorry). The set of people's passions do not perfectly intersect with the set of people's wants/needs. I seriously doubt many people have a passion for standing in a field for 10 hours a day picking strawberries. Yet, we all love to put strawberries in our crepes. So, unless you're willing to live in a world where you can only have products/services that people are passionate about making (or wait for the strawberry-picking robots), it seems like a double-standard.
- tekalon 12y ago
  The book 'Too Good They Can't Ignore You' explains this well.
  - aliston 12y ago
    Agree -- though the book is actually called "So Good They Can't Ignore You." http://www.amazon.com/Good-They-Cant-Ignore-You/dp/1455509124 http://www.amazon.com/Good-They-Cant-Ignore-You/dp/145550912...
- silencio 12y ago
  > I am never going to pursue either of those as a career. I think that's a shame. I'm a coder and I also run a restaurant. My wedding photographer really loves what she does. Even when coupled with the pressure to make a living - which I have to say, programming fell under the same bucket for me - when you actually sit down and figure out how it could be done, it's very doable. The only reason I don't go with one or the other is that I don't enjoy one more than the other ;) I also have friends that love to cook and are really good at it. Honestly the thing that pops their bubble about "I want to be a chef/open a restaurant" is not the cooking, it's that a restaurant is also about management, staffing, and food safety in a completely different manner from programming. My roommate LOVES to cook and cooks all the damn time and it wasn't until he got food poisoning from a super swank SF restaurant that he finally started to wash his hands more often and actually listen to food-safety-manager-trained me about cleanup and cleanliness, and forget about trying to do other standard stuff like labeling food to figure out when to throw it out or hiring people for roles he's unfamiliar with. Would love to see more people in tech diversify a bit. Running a restaurant and knowing all levels of it is like a whole new fun challenge, and it also puts me at a different level from the rest of the stuff I do. I go from friends/coworkers making 6 figures sipping $5 coffees in SF, to a 30 minute train ride later in East Bay, employees that get paid just above minimum wage and people counting pennies to get something to eat. It's eye opening and worth seeing the differences when you're not exposed to it regularly.
cafard 12y ago
"have been told their entire (or close to it) lives that they're precious snowflakes and that they're going to change the world and they can be or do anything they want to." By whom, where and when? I've been to three commencement speeches in the last several years, and even there didn't hear this. As a baby boomer and parent of a millenial, I sure as hell didn't aim to convey that message. And by the way, a couple of my college friends lived with their parents for a year or more after college and while not in school.
- msandford 12y ago
  >By whom, where and when? I've been to three commencement speeches in the last several years, and even there didn't hear this. As a baby boomer and parent of a millenial, I sure as hell didn't aim to convey that message. When I was growing up it was prevalent in the media and in schools. Not all parents bought into it of course -- perhaps even the majority of them didn't -- but if the TV says something and your parents don't tell you it's a lie, it must be true right? What is a 5-10 year old's capacity to tell fact from fiction, especially if an authority figure (like a teacher or someone on TV) is saying it? I was fortunate enough to be able to figure out at a young age that not everyone could grow up to be President or an astronaut and to temper my expectations accordingly. But should it be required skills to figure that out WELL before you hit puberty? Should that be the standard by which all persons are judged? By the time a commencement speech has rolled around it's already a decade or two too late. Minds have been impressed with crazy ideas that have little/no bearing on how the world ACTUALLY works. Some people take years to un-learn these silly notions; others never do. You might not have aimed to convey that message. You might have done a good job explaining to your kids that life is hard and success isn't becoming President but making your own way in life. But even if you did that, they might have still picked up enough nonsense elsewhere to believe it. Other phrases of a similarly unfortunate bent: "Follow your dreams" "Reach for the stars" "Do what you love" If you don't believe me that this is prevalent in culture, check out Google n-grams in books. It's imperfect of course but it's illustrative: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=follow+your+dreams%2Creach+for+the+stars%2Clove+what+you+do%2Cget+a+good+job&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cfollow%20your%20dreams%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bfollow%20your%20dreams%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFollow%20your%20dreams%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFollow%20Your%20Dreams%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BFOLLOW%20YOUR%20DREAMS%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Creach%20for%20the%20stars%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Breach%20for%20the%20stars%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BReach%20for%20the%20Stars%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BReach%20for%20the%20stars%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BREACH%20FOR%20THE%20STARS%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Clove%20what%20you%20do%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Blove%20what%20you%20do%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BLove%20What%20You%20Do%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BLove%20what%20you%20do%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cget%20a%20good%20job%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=follow+your+dr...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

briffle 12y ago

Also during the US recession, many people had their retirement funds drastically affected (I know several people that saw near a 40% loss) This forced many people nearing retirement age to keep working. Those people are often more senior, and with them staying on, there was no "movement" up the chain, so not many new entry level positions opening up. if they were smart, and did not touch the money, it should be fully recovered now, so we might start seeing some mobility again.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bronbron 12y ago
Compounding that problem, however, I would imagine that parents with "boomerang children" are inclined to keep working longer (because they're essentially supporting a dependent again). It's kind of a vicious cycle.
Balgair 12y ago
A previous reply mentioned that the US, finally, after 6 years, is back to the pre housing crisis workforce numbers. This is true, however, the population has grown since then and we are still about 7 million jobs short [0]. Also, the labor department includes, as said in the OP, underemployment. Typically you then have to work more jobs or live much less high on the hog. This is in addition to the older workforce continuing to stay in their positions. I have an anecdote on this as well. My brother used to work for Lockheed. Many times, an expert would retire with no replacement in the free world to step up. They would then need to hire the expert back again for a much inflated price. The cows recently came home for that particular plant, as this last year all 4000 employees were fired. I'm sure the rehiring of more expensive contractors played a role. [0]It's Friday, google it please, my apologies on the laze.

schnevets 12y ago

I was only able to skim this particular article, but I'm really curious about the international perspective of this "phenomenon" and the general attitude in America. Europe is dealing with staggering unemployment among people in their twenties. Meanwhile, plenty of developed countries still cling to the multi-generational home system where you stay with your parents until you're a married homeowner. Would an influx in the number of people remaining with their parents even be considered a "generational crisis" in the rest of the world?

cliveowen 12y ago
I'm Italian, we're one of the countries in Europe that have been hit the hardest by the economic downturn. Staying at home with your parents in your early 20s has always been the norm here (mostly because you don't have to move to go to college, the local university is usually as good as any other). The problem is, even if it's generally acceptable to say that you still live with your parents, there are literally no jobs, not even low-wage, menial jobs. There is no hope for things improving in the long term and there's the lingering suspicion that this whole staying at home with your parents is more than a temporary situation. The only option seems to be moving to another country, but it's not as simple as it sounds. First of all, if you're unemployed, you don't have the money to move to another place, let alone stay there until you find a job. Secondly, you can't move to another country if you don't know someone who's already there and can help you out. And lastly, there's no reason for an employer to pick you (a foreigner) over some local guy. So the outlook is really grim and there's not even an inkling of hope on the horizon.
nroets 12y ago
Many South African kids who went to college were so determined to stand on their own feet that they went to the developed world to take whatever job they could find. Now the parents rarely get to see their kids (and their grand kids). So American parents should be careful what they wish for !

at-fates-hands 12y ago

One big point that I think was missing in the article was the proliferation of a temporary workforce. I just read temp hiring accounts for 15% of all hires these days. The days when you're pop took a job at the steel mill and then worked his way up to management and then president are long gone. Most workers are only temporary. They put in their time, do the work and then its off to the next gig. This makes it nearly impossible to ever move up in any organization. And when you gain some experience as a contractor? Your job opportunities diminish since your experience demands a higher salary. I've also seen a lot of commentary about the lack of motivation the millennial generation has which I'm sure is adding to the "normalization" of this boomerang stage in young adults lives. EDIT: just found the article about increasing temp workforce: http://www.economicmodeling.com/2013/06/21/temp-employment-is-dominating-job-growth-in-the-largest-cities-is-that-a-good-thing/ http://www.economicmodeling.com/2013/06/21/temp-employment-i...

jiggy2011 12y ago
You can still work your way up to management, you might just move through more companies in order to do it. This might be as a result of workers now having more options as recruitment is easier due to the internet and other things. It might be better to have the flexibility and gather a variety of experience rather than feeling indentured to a single company. The flipside of this is that companies are less likely to invest in workers who they are worried will leave them in a few years.

zw123456 12y ago

One thing my Mom taught me is that when you child reaches around 14 years old, or around high school age, you have to stop coddling them. My parents started "being mean" as my sister and I called it, when we got into high school. Later she told us it was on purpose and from love. She was right. I think this tradition has been forgotten, but it used to be conventional wisdom in that generation (my Parents are in their 80's). What we called "being mean" meant taking responsibility for yourself. For example, if you wanted to live in their house after age 18, they charged rent.

guard-of-terra 12y ago
This, as well as a lot of things that are fine when economics is okay, makes zero sense when there's recession. I see a great number of commenters who don't understand that and therefore shovel blame around
- chondos 12y ago
  The problem with your argument is that this trend has been going on for over 20 years (Even during economic boons). Certainly the numbers jumped when the economy tanked, but the numbers were already growing steadily. The point is that the problem transcends the economy. It is most definitely largely a social issue. How many boomerang kids did we see during the great depression? How about the recession in the 70s? Very few when comparing the numbers to today.
- hnal943 12y ago
  Your comment embodies the millennial stereotype. There's a recession, therefore I can't be successful. The economy doesn't improve by magic, we need people creating wealth. And that may not be in their chosen field.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    I don't think it's a very scientific approach to recommend that we focus on "drive" and "gumption" or something, rather than systemic analysis, when we want to understand economic behavior. Even sports have more or less given up their previously obsessive focus on "gut" and "clutch" and "will", in the face of sabermetrics.

jiggy2011 12y ago

Is there anything wrong with young people staying at home for longer? The "move out before you're 21 or you're a loser" message is a relatively new one and doesn't make all that much sense. There are so many people paying half of their salary to live in some tiny flat in London while their parents have a 5 bedroom house somewhere much nicer that is mostly unoccupied. Just because they feel they must be "independent" (even though some of these people are receiving parental subsidies anyway). Why not just let the buy to let market shrink and bring some semblance of sanity back to house pricing. People who live with their parents will have much lower financial risk and thus can take jobs which focus on experience rather than salary and they can save money for entrepreneurial activity or to later on buy the houses which will be cheaper as a result.

bronbron 12y ago
> thus can take jobs which focus on experience rather than salary and they can save money for entrepreneurial activity Yeah, but the tone of the article is that they're not doing that. They're working menial or frustrating jobs that they're not sticking around very long at. And very likely not saving much money from. Whether that's self-imposed or a reality of external factors is a source of debate, but the outlook's the same either way: bleak.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  Some are, I know a few. As long as sufficient of the saved money is invested wisely it can be used to the betterment of the economy and eventually employment.
  - bronbron 12y ago
    Sure, but this article isn't really about that group. Regardless of being a super responsible person saving/investing your money wisely while living at home, if you're unable to obtain fruitful employment by your early 30s then something has gone seriously awry, either internal or external to that person.

33W 12y ago

So I'll admit my biases up front: I got a BS,CS degree at an in-state school, and used the GI Bill to pay for all of my tuition, and took loans for study abroad. But taking a look at the slideshow, I'm seeing a trend in degrees/schools/debt. BA, advertising & PR, Loyola, $75K BA, lit & writing, UC San Diego, $44K BA, economics, Loyola, $90K BA, film studies, Full Sail, $80K BA, psychology UCF, MS, counseling, Nova Southeastern, $40K BA, biology, Northwestern, $50K BA, economics, Hunter, $12K BA, asian humanities, UCLA, $10K BA, art history, Sonoma State, $27K BA, history & religion, Midland, $11K BA, comparitive literature, Hamilton, $20K BFA, painting, Rhode Island School of Design, $25K BFA, graphic design, School of Visual Arts, $130K BA, communications, Calf. St. Fullerton, $22K How do any of these student think that they'll do anything with these degrees to overcome the debt? The only two that make some sense to me are the $40K to get psychology/counseling, and $12K for economics.

artimaeis 12y ago
I think most potential students are encouraged and told that it will work out - we see all our peers doing it and only hear the success stories. It seems more common these days for the people to at least have heard of not going to college; but when you're in high school and trying to figure everything out you have a ton of people you probably respect explaining how college is what ALL successful people do. They make it seem so possible that if you pursue your dreams you'll be successful. No one who's guiding these students wants to be the person to say "maybe you should pursue welding". They often don't even know that trade-schools do offer a higher probability for a good ROI.
Zigurd 12y ago
Because having a bachelors degree from a good (not necessarily elite) university should equip you to handle any number of jobs in general management or government. If that's not happening, there could be a few different reasons: 1. Getting a BA isn't as rigorous as it used to be, and no longer means "This is an educated person. Besides their specialty, they should be smart and adaptable enough for most administrative-level purposes." Pseudo-professionalism has also closed the doors to some of these jobs, maybe as a way to get around civil service tests as a way for the educated to get government jobs without specific training. 2. The white collar, middle class job pool has been decimated, and not enough places need generally well-educated people.

eumenides1 12y ago

Here is another thought, younger generation are being sold a bill of goods and the older generation is not delievering. The bill is the time/cost of education and the end product is supposed to be "training for a career". We have this younger generation who is not ready work (needs more training) and/or trained for something that no longers pays out (greater than the cost of education or jobs that no longer exists). I've seen enough job postings that should just require basic skills, but ask the world (5+ years experience where it's only been out for 3 years). Also the cost of education is really crippling, that is pretty obvious. It's hard to blame the kids for problem. the older generation created it by working longer than ever, creating the job postings requirements, and not training the next generation. But I see these boomerang kids are pretty clever, because they found the best place to live for less. Some will create their own jobs, or find meaningful work. Others will just fail. That's life, but in the past failing was way worst, now it's "going to your parents home". When the younger generation has kids, they will create problems for the next generation, and deal with the consequences. Maybe the younger generation will better train the next, maybe they will lower hiring requirements, and maybe they will just be happier with less.

up_and_up 12y ago

The amount of debt some of these BA and BFA holders have is staggering: 80k, 90k, 130k (with a graphic design degree!!) Didn't anyone sit them down and run the math of avg salary vs monthly loan payments for any of these careers? It would be tough to pay them off quickly without a hefty salary. I feel like the parents are to blame here big time, setting these kids up for failure by not being real with them. I have 3 kids and I definitely plan to instill a serious respect for loans and career goals etc.

cylinder 12y ago
I know someone who is currently thrilled about soon going to physical therapy school (3 year graduate degree). Estimated debt taken on: approximately $240,000. Federal government will let you take all this with a few clicks of a button. Average income of these "doctors" is what -- $70k?
- will_work4tears 12y ago
  wow, really? 240k for a DPT? My wife graduated the last year her school offered the Masters program, 2007 I believe with something like 7k in loans. Granted, her parent's pretty much covered everything, somehow. I walked away with my CS degree (CIS, really) with ~80k in debt in 2008. Average income varies I think, starting salary for her in 2007 was 45k, but that was Mid Missouri. Here in the Seattle area, it's a bit higher, and as a manager of a clinic (also practicing PT) it's close to twice that. I think as a non manager, 70k is about right here though.
- tsotha 12y ago
  If you're gonna do it, there's no reason not to go big any more. If you get on a debt repayment plan and work for either a nonprofit or the government you only pay 15% of you disposable income toward your debt for ten years. Then it's gone.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

WorldWideWayne 12y ago

My parents started making me pay rent as soon as I was 18, but that's not what made me want to get my own place - I just couldn't live the lifestyle that I wanted at my parent's. So, as soon as I got my first real job I left and never looked back. I would love to live with a bunch of like-minded people, but that's easier said than done.

johngalt 12y ago

The 'boomerang kids' are just people who were socialized to see a middle class life as beneath them. Offer these young adults 40k to drive a bus for a living and they would turn it down. They will stay at home and hold out for that job that pays a political science major $100k starting. The middle class is being decimated because no one aims for middle class. edit: Perhaps bus driver was a bad example. I do know plenty of people who lead comfortable middle class lives as electricians, installing garage doors, commercial fishing etc... I don't know how many would describe it as their 'passion'.

_random_ 12y ago
Driving a bus is not a middle class job. Also politics is not automatable in the nearest future, so could be a wise choice if you have an aptitude.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
ebiester 12y ago
I can't find the article now, but during the BART strike it was mentioned that over 100 (and it was much more than that) apply for every BART driver job that opens up. Most of the applicants had college degrees. People are still willing to pay their dues, but they want to make sure they aren't 45 and laid off and suddenly making minimum wage. After all, the current middle class doesn't have a union to protect them in most cases.

skywhopper 12y ago

Staying with your parents as long as they'll let you is often the smartest financial move you can make. With student loan debt skyrocketing, housing prices high, job market weak, and wages stagnant, there's almost nothing economically to encourage kids to stake out on their own. Moving to a different city in pursuit of a job is unlikely to be worth the financial risk over keeping the job you have near enough to your parents and living without room or board expenses. That would have to be one hell of a good paying job to justify a move.

aianus 12y ago
Pretty much my whole graduating class is shipping off to San Francisco immediately. The pay is literally 3x more than you can get in Canada and everything but the rent is cheaper.

ap22213 12y ago

I was born in the 70s and grew up in the late 80s, early 90s. My friends and I consider ourselves 'GenX' though I'm not sure what we are. I find this article interesting because my friends and I often discuss how lucky we are to have been born when we were. We got off a crazy train right before it was about to take a perverse, fiery decent into economic hell. In the 90s, college was cheap, and it was easy to get in to. In the 90s, it was cool to be a 'slacker' - and you could accomplish quite a lot, as one. There was hardly any competition and tons of opportunities. With a little bit of brain and a little bit of motivation, you could get into a top school, and it didn't matter much what your grades were. But, it wasn't just schooling that was easier to achieve - everything seemed a lot easier, and simpler. I was recently talking to an older acquaintance, a person who recently retired as a top executive for one of the largest technology companies in the world. He's about 20 years older than me. And, he basically said the same thing: he was a B-C student in high school and college. He was pretty much a slacker, as I was. We both joked about how neither of us would be able to accomplish much, if we had been born in the 80s, or later.

j2kun 12y ago

> “Everyone tells me to just pick something,” she says, “but I don’t know what to pick.” Why is this not the obvious and glaring problem? After four years of going to a college with doubtlessly many opportunities, and she doesn't even know what she enjoys?