5 ms·

> What's different with this generation is they don't seem to have much interest in forming families, so they move to the trendier areas and spend all their mon

by nilkn 11y ago

> What's different with this generation is they don't seem to have much interest in forming families, so they move to the trendier areas and spend all their money instead of living in a cheaper area, commuting, and saving for a situation that would be good for raising children. I think it might be simpler than this. They just can't afford to raise a family as easily as their parents and grandparents could, so many choose not to, not because they legitimately have no interest but because they don't see the numbers adding up. On top of that, it's often no more expensive to rent a small apartment in the city vs. a large house in a suburb. And that large house with its tiring commute is just a burden to someone without kids.

mjevans 11y ago
As someone a bit over 30; exactly this. The numbers do NOT add up and haven't at any point in my life. Then there's also the job stability issue as well; who wants to buy a house or start a family when you don't know you'll be somewhere for years? Also with many family units having two workers, what happens when one doesn't have a job? None of our social structures (including laws and tax incentives/disincentives) or market valuations reflect the necessary liquidity imposed by current job market. I happen to think that more nicely constructed MDUs are a good housing option (insulation could always be better).
- ghaff 11y ago
  >Then there's also the job stability issue as well; who wants to buy a house or start a family when you don't know you'll be somewhere for years? I can't help but feel that you're describing some mythical ideal that never really existed for most people. Yes, for a long time, a lot of manufacturing jobs were pretty stable and people worked for IBM for a long time. But, even in that case, even if the jobs were stable, people tended to move around the company a lot. The military, which has always been a large employer, is an even more extreme example of jobs being relatively stable but mobile. By the way, according to this Economist article from a couple years back, US workforce mobility has actually gone down significantly to a degree not explained by demographics: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/07/labour-mobility http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/07/labour-m... >Also with many family units having two workers, what happens when one doesn't have a job? And what happened when there was more typically one worker and he (the common case) lost his job?
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    But that's the point - workers mostly didn't lose their jobs. Some computer companies - DEC especially - made it a point of honour not to lay off or fire employees unless the circumstances were exceptional. I don't think people "moved around the company a lot" either. Certainly not any more than they do today. Mobility has gone down because only exceptional jobs pay relocation expenses, and the areas that offer the highest income also have the least affordable housing. So there's less disposable income around than there was in the 50s-70s, and that makes people much warier of starting a family.
tsotha 11y ago
>They just can't afford to raise a family as easily as their parents and grandparents could, so many choose not to, not because they legitimately have no interest but because they don't see the numbers adding up. That's the conventional wisdom, but I don't buy it. Raising a family was always tough - when I was young my parents scrimped and saved in a way that I've never seen among millennials. Everybody did, and it was considered just part of parenthood, especially in the beginning. It's not that younger people can't raise a family as easily as their parents and grandparents, it's that either they don't realize how tough it was back then or they're just not interested in making the same sacrifices. >On top of that, it's often no more expensive to rent a small apartment in the city vs. a large house in a suburb. And that large house with its tiring commute is just a burden to someone without kids. Sure, but it's far cheaper to rent a small apartment in the suburbs and commute than it is to rent in the city. Yes, commuting sucks. But it sucked in the 20th century as well. My dad spent more than an hour on the road each way. Every day. That't the kind of sacrifice I'm talking about. In addition to the commute my dad brown bagged his lunch every day, made his own coffee (Folgers), drank PBR non-ironically, did his own plumbing, painted what needed painting, mowed his own lawn, and fixed the family car himself when it broke down. If you live that kind of lifestyle today you can afford a family in the same way my parents did. I'm not making a moral judgement on the other peoples' procreation choices. All I'm saying is family was a priority for previous generations in a way that it isn't today. It was part of being an adult.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  >...in a way that it isn't today. I submit that you're comparing unmarried and childless people of today with married and child-bearing people of yesteryear. Do the other comparisons and you'll find that you are off base -- people today do make enormous sacrifices to start families at a young age, and people in the 50s to 80s who were single with no children did live lavish lifestyles. To the extent that there are differences between the primary peer comparison -- married couples raising children -- it's mostly a byproduct of the fact that people wait longer and have smaller families. Waiting longer is some combination of less social pressure to pop out kids (a good thing! Having kids because of an obnoxious parent's pestering is how you end up with broken families, divorced or otherwise) and a better understanding of fertility/access to medical care (also a good thing). Smaller family sizes are, IMO and as someone who grew up in a large family, a good thing as well. Keeping the size of one's family manageable means having the time to both build up a career and also heavily invest in the upbringing of each child. I think that's far more commendable than the "pop 'em out, pay for shit, parent on the weekends and leave wifey in the kitchen the rest of the time" mentality of a huge portion of the baby boom generation. And also more commendable than leaving yourself penniless and jobless in old age for your children to take care of you. It's possible to raise one or two or maybe three kids well. Doing a good job at raising five or six means someone has to give up a career, and even then you're probably just barely keeping up (i.e., not doing the best possible job at fostering intellectual and emotional health.)

by nilkn 11y ago

mjevans 11y ago

As someone a bit over 30; exactly this. The numbers do NOT add up and haven't at any point in my life. Then there's also the job stability issue as well; who wants to buy a house or start a family when you don't know you'll be somewhere for years? Also with many family units having two workers, what happens when one doesn't have a job? None of our social structures (including laws and tax incentives/disincentives) or market valuations reflect the necessary liquidity imposed by current job market. I happen to think that more nicely constructed MDUs are a good housing option (insulation could always be better).

ghaff 11y ago
>Then there's also the job stability issue as well; who wants to buy a house or start a family when you don't know you'll be somewhere for years? I can't help but feel that you're describing some mythical ideal that never really existed for most people. Yes, for a long time, a lot of manufacturing jobs were pretty stable and people worked for IBM for a long time. But, even in that case, even if the jobs were stable, people tended to move around the company a lot. The military, which has always been a large employer, is an even more extreme example of jobs being relatively stable but mobile. By the way, according to this Economist article from a couple years back, US workforce mobility has actually gone down significantly to a degree not explained by demographics: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/07/labour-mobility http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/07/labour-m... >Also with many family units having two workers, what happens when one doesn't have a job? And what happened when there was more typically one worker and he (the common case) lost his job?
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  But that's the point - workers mostly didn't lose their jobs. Some computer companies - DEC especially - made it a point of honour not to lay off or fire employees unless the circumstances were exceptional. I don't think people "moved around the company a lot" either. Certainly not any more than they do today. Mobility has gone down because only exceptional jobs pay relocation expenses, and the areas that offer the highest income also have the least affordable housing. So there's less disposable income around than there was in the 50s-70s, and that makes people much warier of starting a family.

tsotha 11y ago

>They just can't afford to raise a family as easily as their parents and grandparents could, so many choose not to, not because they legitimately have no interest but because they don't see the numbers adding up. That's the conventional wisdom, but I don't buy it. Raising a family was always tough - when I was young my parents scrimped and saved in a way that I've never seen among millennials. Everybody did, and it was considered just part of parenthood, especially in the beginning. It's not that younger people can't raise a family as easily as their parents and grandparents, it's that either they don't realize how tough it was back then or they're just not interested in making the same sacrifices. >On top of that, it's often no more expensive to rent a small apartment in the city vs. a large house in a suburb. And that large house with its tiring commute is just a burden to someone without kids. Sure, but it's far cheaper to rent a small apartment in the suburbs and commute than it is to rent in the city. Yes, commuting sucks. But it sucked in the 20th century as well. My dad spent more than an hour on the road each way. Every day. That't the kind of sacrifice I'm talking about. In addition to the commute my dad brown bagged his lunch every day, made his own coffee (Folgers), drank PBR non-ironically, did his own plumbing, painted what needed painting, mowed his own lawn, and fixed the family car himself when it broke down. If you live that kind of lifestyle today you can afford a family in the same way my parents did. I'm not making a moral judgement on the other peoples' procreation choices. All I'm saying is family was a priority for previous generations in a way that it isn't today. It was part of being an adult.

nmrm2 11y ago
>...in a way that it isn't today. I submit that you're comparing unmarried and childless people of today with married and child-bearing people of yesteryear. Do the other comparisons and you'll find that you are off base -- people today do make enormous sacrifices to start families at a young age, and people in the 50s to 80s who were single with no children did live lavish lifestyles. To the extent that there are differences between the primary peer comparison -- married couples raising children -- it's mostly a byproduct of the fact that people wait longer and have smaller families. Waiting longer is some combination of less social pressure to pop out kids (a good thing! Having kids because of an obnoxious parent's pestering is how you end up with broken families, divorced or otherwise) and a better understanding of fertility/access to medical care (also a good thing). Smaller family sizes are, IMO and as someone who grew up in a large family, a good thing as well. Keeping the size of one's family manageable means having the time to both build up a career and also heavily invest in the upbringing of each child. I think that's far more commendable than the "pop 'em out, pay for shit, parent on the weekends and leave wifey in the kitchen the rest of the time" mentality of a huge portion of the baby boom generation. And also more commendable than leaving yourself penniless and jobless in old age for your children to take care of you. It's possible to raise one or two or maybe three kids well. Doing a good job at raising five or six means someone has to give up a career, and even then you're probably just barely keeping up (i.e., not doing the best possible job at fostering intellectual and emotional health.)