Attitude of people in their 20's (credit card, real estate, salaries, $30,000)

[BigDaveyL]

Originally Posted by redguard57

I think there'll be a bailout. Some kind of forgiveness for people with loan amounts over a certain amount.

After Obama got in, they started fudging the payback options and keeping the interest relatively low. For example, I'm on the extended graduated plan, which means for the first 10 years I only pay about $140 a month on a $30K loan where the payments go up about 15% every 5 years for 25 years. They also made Income based payment plans more attractive, although in all cases you end up paying the government back a hefty sum if you don't speed up repayment. A bailout could probably fudge the interest somehow so the government would still get its money back over time, but maybe not profit all that much from interest. There's also a plan in the works to engage a 10 year forgiveness program for anyone in any kind of public service employment with loans.

Depending on the college, a lot are too big to fail. Many colleges are the largest employer and economic engine of their communities.

When I was living in Texas, the governor proposed a budget that literally closed down four of the state's community colleges due to budgetary pressure. The debate in the legislature featured speeches offering an impassioned defense of education the likes of which I had never heard before. The people who gave those speeches were the republican representatives and senators from those 4 districts. Needless to say, the colleges are still open today.

If the parties can agree on anything, it'll be NOT to shut down institutions that employ hundreds or thousands of people in their communities and churn billions in economic activity in those regions. (ie: the University of North Carolina's operating budget is over $3 billion). They'll figure out a way to bail them out.

The schools that may have trouble are for-profits and the non-elite, but still expensive, private universities that won't be worth bailing out.

I am on the fence about the whole "too big to fail."

The problem is that the colleges (or the banks or the auto industry) have already failed us, so we are throwing good money after bad.

I would argue that the college towns are propped up much like the housing industry was in the last few decades. It's all built on the fact that students can get unlimited amounts of money at low interest.


Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of education, but I think we really need to address things now before we have a pop.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin

Not with that attitude you won't.

Perhaps they won't. Nobody has magical sooth saying powers because if they did they would work in finance and be sick millionaires. The issue is perhaps the days of US economic expansion are fine and there won't be a wave to bring wages above lower levels because as studies have shown, economists have seen puerile who Everett the workforce during recessions have lower average lifetime earnings than those who don't. No attitude would change that fact, it is just having the right skills. Two different issues at play.

[doodlemagic]

This is a tired topic, the younger generation is lazy, we've heard it all before. I don't think your sample of one kid and vaguely talking to a lady you work with is representative of an entire generation either.

Entry level jobs suck, they aren't fun, its tediouus busywork, and kids who went into debt for a college degree aren't too excited about busting their ass 60 hours a week for 35k, heck that comes to like $10 an hour.

It's not the world it used to be, companies have no loyalty to workers so working hard isn't rewarded in pay or loyalty so they are going to show up and do the minhtey can to get by and collect their check.

I realized I wasn't going to be paid what I'm worth by someone else so I started my own business. I know I can't be motivated working for others or making others money, only by doing it my way for myself. It's worked out pretty well.

[westender]

Originally Posted by redguard57

Today, a college degree doesn't mean all that much, so young people are kinda screwed. They can save the money and debt and forego the college degree - but then their job prospects are limited. Or, they can get a college degree and after several years, maybe get a decent job, but they've got so much debt that their net take home comes out to about the same.

I'll qualify that. Now that I've a decent job for a couple years, it's not as bad, and now I am one of those people who has some relevant experience. However, I certainly saw myself further along at age 31 than I am.

The societal propaganda machine told us that by one's 30s, you could expect to have that 2nd or 3rd promotion and be able to put the kids into private pre-school. The reality, at least for me, is 5-7 years behind schedule and I'll never catch up.

I think that if you have worked 10 years by your early 30s, yes, you will be looking at some kind of promotion. Affording private pre-school: no idea.

If you have had a serious period of youthful unemployment, then you may need extra time to "catch up", and that extra time will probably be at the end. Instead of 40 years and out, from age 22 to age 62, you're looking more at 40 years from age 27 to age 67. Age 67 is what the Social Security Administration now considers full retirement, so it's not as bad as you think.

The expectation for employees with a college degree is 40 years of solid work. Professional degrees tend to average more like 35 years; they start a little later. The independently wealthy or true entrepreneurs may work less than 35 years, but a regular employee would get dinged on Social Security pay if the work history totals less than 35 years.

The key is to find something you love to do, so that you don't mind the many years of work. You'll often meet people who continue to work long past 70, because they love what they do so much. The flip side is the people who never saved or who had very spotty resumes; they must work until the bitter end.

[redguard57]

If you have had a serious period of youthful unemployment, then you may need extra time to "catch up", and that extra time will probably be at the end. Instead of 40 years and out, from age 22 to age 62, you're looking more at 40 years from age 27 to age 67.

Unemployment is an issue, but the bigger one is underemployment -- working jobs that contribute nothing to a career or experience. Service, retail, temp contracts, etc... That's what I had to do for about 4 years, which is more or less normal from what I hear.

Now that I'm no the other side of hiring decisions I see it in people's resumes and in their interviews. One young lady expressed it very clearly when we asked what she would bring to the organizaation - her answer started with, "I fully understand what it means to have a full time position - for the employee, for the employer, and for the clients - it's an investment that means much more than a job or transaction." She looked to be in her late 20s, and she had relevant experience but none of it was full time from what I could tell. She spun it as best she could.

I understood exactly what she was talking about, and she jumped to the top of my list as a result -- when you're working pt or temp gigs *trying* to get where you want to be. We're getting to the point where full time jobs are kind of like winning a lottery. Better odds than the state lottery to be sure, but 1 out of 50, 60, or 80 odds are not good. This is not for some kind of 6 figure job - what we offer are decent benefits but salaries in the low 40s.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by redguard57

I think there'll be a bailout. Some kind of forgiveness for people with loan amounts over a certain amount.

After Obama got in, they started fudging the payback options and keeping the interest relatively low. For example, I'm on the extended graduated plan, which means for the first 10 years I only pay about $140 a month on a $30K loan where the payments go up about 15% every 5 years for 25 years. They also made Income based payment plans more attractive, although in all cases you end up paying the government back a hefty sum if you don't speed up repayment. A bailout could probably fudge the interest somehow so the government would still get its money back over time, but maybe not profit all that much from interest. There's also a plan in the works to engage a 10 year forgiveness program for anyone in any kind of public service employment with loans.

Depending on the college, a lot are too big to fail. Many colleges are the largest employer and economic engine of their communities.

When I was living in Texas, the governor proposed a budget that literally closed down four of the state's community colleges due to budgetary pressure. The debate in the legislature featured speeches offering an impassioned defense of education the likes of which I had never heard before. The people who gave those speeches were the republican representatives and senators from those 4 districts. Needless to say, the colleges are still open today.

If the parties can agree on anything, it'll be NOT to shut down institutions that employ hundreds or thousands of people in their communities and churn billions in economic activity in those regions. (ie: the University of North Carolina's operating budget is over $3 billion). They'll figure out a way to bail them out.

The schools that may have trouble are for-profits and the non-elite, but still expensive, private universities that won't be worth bailing out.

I don't think there is going to be a bailout. I live in Ma and we have more colleges and universities per square mile then any other place in the planet. I've met people that owe 100k in loans. A coworker has a daughter that owes 200k!

I didn't have a penny. I saved planned and budgeted to the point where I could afford it. It's not that hard when you factor in inflation, book costs and how much you make. Go to public instead of private, commutte instead of living on campus, check out book prices, take summer/winter classes to hedge against inflation etc. Median college debt is about 25k. 25k at a weekly basis for 4 years can be possible working in retail part time. Yes of course there's those that went to medical or law school but the salaries are supposed to justify it.

The answer to this isn't a bailout but simply competition. UMass Amherst is opening a satellite campus in Springfield. Low and behold the private univerities are complaining about competition. When we subsidize demand prices go UP (health care, education etc). When we subsidize supply prices go DOWN (food, energy to a point).

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by redguard57

Unemployment is an issue, but the bigger one is underemployment -- working jobs that contribute nothing to a career or experience. Service, retail, temp contracts, etc... That's what I had to do for about 4 years, which is more or less normal from what I hear.

Now that I'm no the other side of hiring decisions I see it in people's resumes and in their interviews. One young lady expressed it very clearly when we asked what she would bring to the organizaation - her answer started with, "I fully understand what it means to have a full time position - for the employee, for the employer, and for the clients - it's an investment that means much more than a job or transaction." She looked to be in her late 20s, and she had relevant experience but none of it was full time from what I could tell. She spun it as best she could.

I understood exactly what she was talking about, and she jumped to the top of my list as a result -- when you're working pt or temp gigs *trying* to get where you want to be. We're getting to the point where full time jobs are kind of like winning a lottery. Better odds than the state lottery to be sure, but 1 out of 50, 60, or 80 odds are not good. This is not for some kind of 6 figure job - what we offer are decent benefits but salaries in the low 40s.

I think that is the problem with many companies. Rather than be like you and accept part time and non relevant experience, they complain when no talent had what they are looking for it just go for people with it who will jump for a thousand or two more.

[Whyrallnamestaken]

Originally Posted by doodlemagic

This is a tired topic, the younger generation is lazy, we've heard it all before. I don't think your sample of one kid and vaguely talking to a lady you work with is representative of an entire generation either.

I noticed you weren't too tired to post your view.

I didn't say it was representative of the entire generation. I was interested in what others have seen in their workplace with recent college grads.

I won't go so far to say this is a generalization of all twenty somethings, but I know of co-workers and also family members that have grown children living at home and working. So that is a good thing. They don't desire to live on their own. They spend most (not sure how many of these parents ask for "rent") of their income on themselves: ipads, iphones, cars, etc. One friend told me her daughter couldn't afford to live on her own. I have a vague idea of what her salary is from things her mother told me. She would be able to have her own apartment, BUT, she would not be able to buy expensive gadgets, upgrade to newer MacBook every time a new one came out or spend so much money on clothes and shoes. She also recently bought a expensive luxury car. I don't doubt this is happening in other homes.

I wonder how these still living at home kids will fare if they get married (I personally know some that do) because they have not learned how to make decisions on their own or budget themselves.

I had my own place when I was 23 and I lived from paycheck to paycheck with barely $5 left in my checking account at the end of the month. I didn't overspend. I didn't want to live at home. I wanted to feel good about making it on my own.

I think that their are more kids living at home than past generations. Some are irresponsible and others are working and are good kids.

[Rambler123]

There are two big reasons more young people are living at home now than at any point in time in our recent history:

1) Lack of jobs, in particular ones that pay much of anything. We all know about this, but there's a horrible shortage of jobs in this nation, and many jobs created in recent years are nothing but part-time, poverty-wage work, which is not enough to live on. If I recall, some study was done that showed that minimum wage wasn't enough to rent a 1 bedroom apartment in any state in the nation, so there you go.

2) Overpriced housing: This is the flip side. While the crash of the Housing Bubble knocked prices down, particularly in the most inflated areas, many places still have overpriced housing and rental properties... and prices are going back up again despite wages stagnating.

No amount of positive attitude can overcome these economic realities, and these are the biggest reasons for young people living at home and, in some cases, just giving up on independence.

[Whyrallnamestaken]

Lack of jobs and overpriced housing isn't the case for every area in the US. I didn't live fancy or have an expensive car and I didn't live in an expensive apartment or have a high salary. I was an adult and I wanted to make and pay my own way.