20 somethings not growing up

Glenn Page wrote:

I found this with a quick google search and have no idea about the American Sociological Association? But i'm in my 40's and i know about 20 people in their 20's living at home. I'm calling BS on you."

Call BS all you want. Between my college friends, high school friends, post-college friends, softball teammates, work friends, siblings, cousins, girlfriend, girlfriend's friends, and girlfriend's family, I am not aware of a single person in their 20's living at home. Even my sister who is disabled went off to school in another state then decided to stay there after graduation. She has a nursing aides round the clock but does not rely on my parents. The closest person would be my brother who is 19 and still lives at home. To be fair, he had a daughter last June (idiot), so it's been tough for him to move out since he is the only one providing for an infant (the mother doesn't work). But even still, he would like to get a place of his own if he could.

As for the other markers of adulthood - marriage, house, kids - yes, I would agree that those happen later than they used to.

I didn't have time to read this tread in detail, but I think a big reason for that a lot of 20 somethings remain at home for so long is student loan debt. College as a whole has really be oversold to American families as the end all be all of moving up in the world. Meanwhile the cost of an education has skyrocketed while starting salaries in many professions have stagnated. Many young people end up with crippling student debt as a result. Its pretty hard to afford your own place when your paying 700-800 dollars per month or more to service student loan debts.

I attended what is generally considered an pretty elite university (consistantly top 10-12 per US News), and I can't tell you how many classmates I know who decided to pursues lower paying professions (teacher, scientist, engineer, or similar) who have really struggled to stand on there own two feet as a result of oweing 60K, 70K, up to 100K+ for their educations. While a college education still confers to many a huge benefits in terms of lifetime earning power, I would definitly give my kids this advice:

1) Only consider paying full price to attend an elite university if you are committed to a career such as investment banking, management consulting, law, medicine, or a similar field. A degree from an elite school is necessary for entry into these fields (or the graduate schools that will get you into these fields) and salaries are sufficiently high to justify the cost. The average cost of four years tuition at an elite school is ~120,000K (or roughly 1400 per month for 10 years). If your going to pay that much make sure you will be earning six figures within a year or two of graduation. Most careers do not offer that income potential.

2) The quality of education available at top public schools (Berkeley, Michigan, University of Washington - Seattle, University of Wisconson - Madison, etc...) is the equal of that available at any university in the world. If you live in a state with a top public school, and can get in you should not pass up the in-state tuition to pay full price at a private school.

3) If you intend to pursue a low paying career such as teaching, non-profit work, etc... you should be very careful to avoid any and all student debt. A student who wants to be a teacher and who can get into Harvard/Princeton/Yale can easily get a full scholarship to a second tier school. If they are really committed to teaching/non-profit, they should take the scholarship over the Ivy League degree as they will be more likely to stay in the profession without the stress of large student loans.

&

4) If you are not a good student, can't score over 1000 on the SAT, or can only get into a diploma mill type school, perhaps you would probaly be significantly better off financially pursuing a skilled trade. 4 years time and 5 figure debt is not worth it to end up making 30K per year as a deadend job cubicle jockey. Harsh I know, but its the truth.

I used my degree to become and engineer. While I don't regret my decision, and enjoyed my career, I am currently headed back to school for an MBA (this time with a large scholarship). The career advancement/income potential for a engineer is just not there for one to live what is generally considered a middle class lifestyle while at the same time dealing with mortgaged sized student loans. Eventually, no matter how much you like your job you will want to start a family, buy a home, etc... Excessive student loans can make that hard to manage.

CMU - I think you are absolutely correct.

I graduated from two USNWR top 10 schools - one on athletic scholarship, the other, a graduate professional school, paid for with a couple of intense, frantic years of futures trading, with no debt. I have been entirely on my own since age 18 - my single mother was unemployed for a long time, had lots of health trouble, and sticking around was not an option (helping her out later in life is my life's greatest victory).

I could not possibly imagine asking my daughters to do such a statistically improbable thing. So hence I am completely supporting them (with no debt or need to work on their part) through college.

Having said this, oldest daughter does attend a school like your own (my nephew went to your place - great school), but has a really competitive academic scholarship that pays for about 50% of the costs, making it equal to Univ. of Virginia (the flagship school of my home state and another incredible deal), so I have a break. She will, no question, be able to be entirely on her own once she finishes undergrad (she already attracts great summer jobs and is highly recruited), but since grad school is on her horizon I will likely continue to be on the hook - especially with cars, insurance, and some money here and there. I, like most spoiling parents, worry constantly about whether she appreciates it all. I take solace in comments like those above that correctly point out that there is no real correlation between wealth and motivation, so let's hope that this turns out to be the case.

Younger daughter goes to the so-called number 1 ranked high school in the nation (a claim that has some merit), is at the top of the class there, and has ridiculously scores. She will be competitive, and will get in, one of these absurd name brand private schools, and yet it makes no sense

for her to go a school other than UVa or a like school with similar economic demands. And more to the point, the most important thing is what one does at school once they get there, not the name brand to be thrown around, although, unfortunately that, to a degree, helps.

All well and good, my parents helped some in undergrad but after I graduated that was it.IMHO kids do not need help with grad school in any way, shape or form. Any parent that is helping them with grad school is spoiling their kids or just being a pushover. Maybe because I didn't get any aid from my parents but I don't think so. My dad apologized at one point for not being able to help - I remember telling him don't be ridiculous, I wouldn't want your help. He paid enough and I meant it.Costs can be taken care of with combination of loans/teaching and stipends. And if they can't - the person needs to rethink the grad school choice.

I'm 25 and in graduate school, and I still don't feel like I am an adult, mainly in terms of "figuring out what to do with my life". At least I don't live with my parents, though.

I just wanted to say that we should make the criteria a bit stricter: a twentysomething can still need to grow up even if they don't live with their parents.

this thread basically explains every assclown living in hoboken. it's like a post-collegiate college town for yuppie twentysomethings who have jobs and expensive apartments thanks to mommy and daddy's money/connections.

Kids is selfish wrote:

I think it's important to think about what your parents want in this situation. Remember, they have spent 18+ years raising and supporting you. At some point, it is time for you to leave and let them enjoy their time. Perhaps once the kids are finally gone they can re-connect as a couple. With you in the house, well, that may not be an option. It's unlikely your parents would tell you NOT to move in, because, well -- they're your parents, and if they think you need help, they'll help. Try not being so selfish, your entire post is about what you want/need, and doesn't even consider the wants/needs of your parents.

I wouldn't exclude their re-connection as a couple from me living with them. Believe me, they'll enjoy plenty of their time since I'll be working; I know their personal habits enough that I won't change them. What gall you have to think that I haven't considered their needs at all! Since I actually know them, I think I'm more qualified to talk about their needs more than you, as if being older/a parent is enough to gain salient insight on two people you've never met. The offer was given to me, not asked for, and I know them well enough that they live vivaciously through me; my success is their success; my happiness is their happiness. If I knew they held reservations about my returning home, I would not move back with them.

I had a scholarship that paid for about 75% of my total undergrad costs, so I was very lucky. My parents, bless them had the ability to pay for grad school and they said that since I saved them so much money with my undergrad scholarship, they would foot the bill for grad school--to a point. They gave me their budgeted figure. As a result, I got my MBA in 3 semesters and came in under budget. All of this was at state schools which can be a bargain compared to private schools. I agree with the poster who said you MUST consider your career path and the salary track when choosing a school.

I moved out of my parents house at age 23, 6 months after finishing grad school and had a decent job and was able to support myself. I see far too many of my peers (I'm 29) who are still depending upon the Bank of Mom and Dad. I have offered to send my parents on a vacation as a thank you for what they've done for me, but they said that I have already given them the best gift they could ask for by being an independent responsible adult.

Posters who are in their late teens/early twenties, it is crucial that you think of yourself as a adult and not as a dependent child of your parents.

"they live vivaciously through me; my success is their success; my happiness is their happiness."

There is something very selfish and wrong about this thought.

well, i meant to type vicariously. i can see how it can be interpreted as selfish, but my parents would agree with this assessment of them.

UVA is a fantastic school. I don't think that there will be any doors closed to your daughter by that "brand", especially if she is a top student. Your entirely correct that your education is what you make of it. Its a hard lesson to sell to a highschooler, but there are plenty of Harvard/Stanford etc... students who are slackers, and will go on to accomplish nothing of note later in life. A top name school is not a magic bullet for a successful career - its still all about you and how hard your willing to work for your dreams. Its a hard lesson to accept until you've seen it happen to your peers.

It really comes down to your daughters goals. Does she want go to Yale Law and then work at a big law firm in NYC (or similar)? If so is she ready to commit to busting her butt in college to get the 3.9 GPA and 170+ LSAT needed to get in? Is she ready to commit to 70 or 80 hour work weeks for years after law school? If the answer is YES with an exclamation point, then go for one of the big names, but if it is anything less (and especially if she wants to "find herself" in school) a "public elite" like UVA is probaly a better choice for long term happiness.

I'm calling bullshi* on this argument. They don't point out that wealth and oppurtunities accumulate in the hands of the established. Well, we have a huge bubble of baby boomers sitting on top of it right now.

How are we supposed to be self sufficient when the resources are monopolized? Especially when the job market isin't anything like it was in the from 1945-1980?

They trained us to go to college thinking that was good enough. They thought the economy would grow forever. They were wrong and now we'll have to wait for them to die off to get anywhere.

Well, I don't mean to pass judgment on your parents if that's the way they are, but I'm very thankful that my spouse and I do not depend upon our children for our happiness. True happiness comes from within, not from things, experiences, or other people. All other things are pleasure, not happiness.

Mr. Price wrote:

I'm calling bullshi* on this argument. They don't point out that wealth and oppurtunities accumulate in the hands of the established. Well, we have a huge bubble of baby boomers sitting on top of it right now.

How are we supposed to be self sufficient when the resources are monopolized? Especially when the job market isin't anything like it was in the from 1945-1980?

They trained us to go to college thinking that was good enough. They thought the economy would grow forever. They were wrong and now we'll have to wait for them to die off to get anywhere.

As bitter and callous the post above sounds, I believe there is some validity to it. Inflation, and the global economy have not been kind to the current younger generation. The cost of housing, adjusted for inflation, is nearly 100% higher than a generation ago. Similarly, the cost of education, adjusted for inflation, is 70% than a generation ago. Meanwhile, real wages have been largely stagnent since the late 1970's. We currently have low unemployment, but much of that employment is in low paying service sector jobs.

I wouldn't go so far as to blame the baby boomers, but the older generation would do well to realize that the period from immediately post WWII until the early 1980s were halcyon days for economic growth and prosperity in this country. The current generation (aged 16-25 or so today) is entering the workforce in a period with significantly fewer opportunities for meaningful economic mobility relative to their parents generation (aged 45-60 or so today). Food for thought.

Mr. Price wrote:

I'm calling bullshi* on this argument. They don't point out that wealth and oppurtunities accumulate in the hands of the established. Well, we have a huge bubble of baby boomers sitting on top of it right now.

How are we supposed to be self sufficient when the resources are monopolized? Especially when the job market isin't anything like it was in the from 1945-1980?

They trained us to go to college thinking that was good enough. They thought the economy would grow forever. They were wrong and now we'll have to wait for them to die off to get anywhere.

Dude, I got a job in 1983. We were in a recession and it was tough, however I had a marketable skill and I busted my butt in college. You're making excuses.

No one "trained" you to think that college was good enough. You trained yourself to think that way. I'm not saying that things aren't difficult and that you wont have to struggle. You will. Most of us do, but you have to get started. Take the entry level job, work your tail off, take risks and responsiblity, work OT, move up, be smart about your money. It will pay off. Stop complaining and get out there and hustle.

uh oh. wrote:

Well, I don't mean to pass judgment on your parents if that's the way they are, but I'm very thankful that my spouse and I do not depend upon our children for our happiness. True happiness comes from within, not from things, experiences, or other people. All other things are pleasure, not happiness.

are you totally devoid of emotion?

Most parents are going to be happier if their kids are happy.

Carnegie Mellon 2010 wrote:

I wouldn't go so far as to blame the baby boomers, but the older generation would do well to realize that the period from immediately post WWII until the early 1980s were halcyon days for economic growth and prosperity in this country. The current generation (aged 16-25 or so today) is entering the workforce in a period with significantly fewer opportunities for meaningful economic mobility relative to their parents generation (aged 45-60 or so today). Food for thought.

Are the positions not there for the job seekers or are the types of positions the job seekers would like not there?

SearchingForFrankSoder wrote:

uh oh. wrote:

Well, I don't mean to pass judgment on your parents if that's the way they are, but I'm very thankful that my spouse and I do not depend upon our children for our happiness. True happiness comes from within, not from things, experiences, or other people. All other things are pleasure, not happiness.

are you totally devoid of emotion?

Most parents are going to be happier if their kids are happy.

Of course you're going to be pleased if your kids do well and are happy. But looking to others should not be the basis of your happiness. We have 3 children. Two of them are successful and stable. The other unfortunately is not and doesn't seem to be happy either. I have done everything in my power to help him. I brought him up the same as his siblings. In the end, I have to give him responsibility for his success and happiness. It can't come from me, just as mine can't come from him. That doesn't mean that I'm not devoid of emotion as you claim. But I've come to the realization that his life is his to live and I can't live it for him.

SearchingForFrankSoder wrote:

Are the positions not there for the job seekers or are the types of positions the job seekers would like not there?

I think the answer is closer to #2 - the positions the job seeker would like are not there. Thats not to say that the type of work is wrong, or they don't like the company, or the hours are to long, or anything like that. It more that the jobs that are out there, by and large, do not come with salaries and benefits commemorat with the cost of obtaining those jobs. Its one thing to ask a highschool graduate to take a job paying $10 and hour with no benefits, but quite another to require a college degree (which generally requires a five figure outlay and 4 year commitment on the part of the job seeker) for that same job.

While that may seem like sour grapes to you, there is a significant body of literature out there which indicates that "sucking it up" and taking the lower paying job in an effort to "work your way up from the bottom" is, statistically speaking, a very bad idea. Those college graduates who do take that route and go with the low paying first job, on average, find there lifetime earnings and socio-economic status perminently supressed relative to their peers who decide to hold out (even if it takes several years) for that first good paying job.

From a purely economic prospective, todays college graduates are making an entirely rational decision when they turn there noses up at low paying work. Statistically, its the right decision. When you reduce the number of good paying entry level jobs (while at the same time increasing the number of college graduates entering the workforce) its only natural, and completely rational, that larger numbers of young people will decide to "put off the real world" and hold out for "the right job".