<p>That’s what I meant about it being hard to discuss without knowing what a “household” was for the purposes of the study/survey/whatever it was that you read about. But to go back on topic, not matter how you slice it that doesn’t look like much of an intergenerational transfer for the vast majority of people our kids’ age to look forward to, does it? So most of them are going to be making their own way, as we have discussed doing back in our day, but on what looks to me to be a much steeper and more slippery road.</p>
<p>You can say what you will about the overall objective quality of life’s opportunities for the current college-age generation, but most parents feel that it is their goal to make things better for their children than it was for them. My view is that we’ve failed that assignment, not necessarily with regard to your own kids and and my own kids, but with regard to their entire generation. I didn’t inherit any money from my parents, but I did inherit a world which allowed me to achieve a modicum of financial success without any kind of heroic effort on my part. I’d like to say that’s the kind of world my kids’ generation will greet when they leave college, but I don’t think it’s true. I think they will have to struggle a lot more than we did to accomplish the same degree of financial security.</p>
<p>Actually “household” has a clear definition in the US Census and all government data which is where I got the info from.</p>
<p>It’s hard to predict the economy but it’s a heck of a lot better than when I started working in the early 70’s. Anybody that graduated in the early 80’s was looking at hard times too. I still remember unfondly the term “Rust Belt”. Guess Chicago is still there and better than ever. The only thing that worries me a little is the low birth rate among are better educated people.</p>
<p>The fact that the economy is better now just proves the point of the article, which suggests that the obstacles facing young people are systemic; things have fundamentally changed–making any generational comparisons moot.</p>
<p>A couple of anecdotes about some late 20’s types having 4-6 jobs says more about their poor planning and job selection than the economy. The fact that large numbers of folks will be retiring in the next 20 years should provide ample opportunities for the shrinking pool of younger educated workers. Most schools are reporting record numbers of recruiters on campus and the salary numbers are way up. Teaching jobs and nursing are wide open.
Now if you majored in Art History with a minor in Glassblowing and insist on keeping the nose, eyebrow and multiple earrings–not to mention the multiple tatoos–well you might have some difficulty landing that good corporate job. I hear bike messengers do OK.</p>
This is such a good point. That was the worst economy since the Great Depression, a really bad time in a whole host of ways. Anyone who thinks we’re in the midst of a bad economy now is spending too much time reading Time and the Times[es].</p>
<p>BTW while I agree that tatoos and piercings may be a liability, I do not subscribe to the notion that specific majors = career death. This may be true for ho-hum students coming out of middlin’ schools, but creative, driven, or brilliant kids can major in just about anything and will be employed.</p>
<p>I speak from experience. Nothing could be less commercially viable than English Lit with a thesis in poetry (okay, maybe “Semiotics”). It took a few years for me to find traction, and those were ultra lean years, but otherwise I have had very high-paying work since my mid-late 20’s. I am thankful I gave myself the time to develop a truly interesting and well-paid career rather than just leap to instant respectable mid-level job with a dead end.</p>
<p>I suspect ho-hum kids can major in so called ‘marketable’ fields and still have problems getting good jobs; I advocate choosing fields for love rather than based on career strategy.</p>