Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Millennials still flock here (well, 20-somethings, which isn't necessarily millennials). Our population pyramid had a big wide spot around 20-30, specific to the city-of.
Why? Some is tech. Some is that a truly urban lifestyle is often desired...an apartment, maybe a roommate or two, often no car, etc. The finances can work. Then when people have kids they often migrate to cheaper regions.
Not surprised by NC's poor performance. Many kids come here for college and then leave when they graduate. It has particularly bad entry level income for college graduates, as far as states go. Companies love that. They love low taxes and highly educated yet exploitable workers, so the state will rank high on lists like Forbes and Fortune.
The thing to keep in mind is that the best states are still not doing well, and it's a pretty small difference between the best and the worst in the grand scheme of things. Millennials in general are not doing well.
- The home ownership metric is wrong.
"To analyze millennial home ownership, we once again used the ACS data to find the percentage of homeowners under 35 in each state." What they really want is the percent of under 35 residents who are homeowners not the percent of homeowners who are under 35. This could be derived from the data they used by dividing by the under 35 share of the population, then multiplying by the share of the population who are homeowners.
- I don't understand the point of the student loan debt metric. It looks like this is based on current state of residence, not the state where a person was enrolled in school. I could see using this if wages were included in the ranking (to account for professional degree holders who are earning more but still paying off loans) but they aren't.
- The ACS 5 year estimates may be a bit old for unemployment data, especially for a ranking supposedly for 2020.
- Not quite sure how they performed the weighting. Some of the criteria are more granular than others.
That they made this mistake makes this list a catastrophic fail, to use a millennial term.
That makes it a pretty awful place for (the vast majority of) millennials who aren't employed in tech.
Imagine being a 28 year old Seattle-native in education, nursing, etc. trying to compete for housing with people who just moved there making $200k+!
RNs in Seattle make decent money. But a lot of MAs and lower level staff have to live in more distant suburbs with 30-60 min commutes. Similar to Boston area.
It’s hard to be a local when you have to compete with highly educated and skilled people across the country who are moving here, and one of the main reasons they are moving here is the higher salaries and urban amenities. This makes the core extremely competitive for housing. They are mainly competing with other millennials.
Some interesting findings based on Millennial Unemployment Rate, Average Student Loan Debt, Millennial Home Ownership Percentage and Percent Of Millennials Living In Poverty. Each of the four categories were weighted equally. https://www.zippia.com/advice/worst-states-millennials/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharif662
I'm viewing listings such as with grain of salt all the time now. When they don't include details ; ex : COL , Ethnicities, Industries quotient , etc.
Any place where they actually have to physically work for a living is "bad" I suppose. If they have a big enough trust fund they can just pop over toe Seattle or SF and get a job with MSFT or google.
Any place where they actually have to physically work for a living is "bad" I suppose. If they have a big enough trust fund they can just pop over toe Seattle or SF and get a job with MSFT or google.
I'm trying to understand your logic.
Why would you need a trust fund if you're working at Microsoft or Google, where most people earn six figures?
Not surprised by NC's poor performance. Many kids come here for college and then leave when they graduate. It has particularly bad entry level income for college graduates, as far as states go. Companies love that. They love low taxes and highly educated yet exploitable workers, so the state will rank high on lists like Forbes and Fortune.
The thing to keep in mind is that the best states are still not doing well, and it's a pretty small difference between the best and the worst in the grand scheme of things. Millennials in general are not doing well.
Charlotte was kind of "the place to be" prior to the 2008 recession and Raleigh-Durham wasn't far behind. Sad to see the state having lost some of it's luster.
I'd say some of the most popular Millennial hotspots of the 2010s such as Portland and San Francisco no longer make sense in 2020.
But aside from that, it's really hard to do well when you've had to deal with two of the worst economic crashes in the past century since graduating college.
This list are weird because another .com site will come out with another list and watch these cities end up being the best for all of these things. I prefer to stick to a than stats that are current.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
