
Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades - adnanh
http://census.socialexplorer.com/young-adults/
======
tsunamifury
These numbers are really grim, and considering the job market only gets more
cruel a few years after the top end of this age bracket, it makes it hard for
young people to have a lot of hope for the future.

Granted, maybe some of them are reflective of age-agnostic trends but still!
Start in higher debt then make less than ever! As a young person looking at
these numbers I realize I am squandering my blessings as a high paid tech
worker.

We are setting up our future for failure while claiming we needed to make
these sacrifices for today.

~~~
kaoD
Welcome to "staying competitive".

Here at Spain (and generally Southern Europe) we've been told over and over
again that we have to stay competitive, which is just an euphemism for working
more and earning less (i.e. becoming Europe's China).

In a globalized market with a (still) steadily growing population, competition
is growing and therefore salaries are shrinking.

It's happening in all industries (e.g. tech firms offshoring) but also at
homes. I don't know about the USA but here in Spain housewives love hunting
for sales, buying as cheap as they can, and proud about it. Why are they
surprised later when their children can't find a decent salary? Buying Perú's
asparagus cheaper than in our home country (including transportation across
the Atlantic!) is only driving prices lower and lower, which hinders the whole
economy in the long term.

And now the USA is going to sign a trade agreement with Europe which will
further increase competition and will drive wages even lower than they're now
for both parties.

On the other hand, isn't this just leveling the playing field for developing
countries? After all, for them to grow, we have to shrink.

~~~
disputin
Seems to me it's the government which needs to stay competitive, not the
workers, ie regulation and bureaucracy.

~~~
juliangregorian
Thank you for submitting HN's most hackneyed comment.

~~~
dang
Please try harder to follow the HN guidelines.

------
cryoshon
Relative to the year 2000 is the part that scares me the most. It seems that
largely things have changed for the worse over the last decade.

For Massachusetts:

Lower employment by an entire %4. Lower wages by 4k/year (%10 less!!!),
adjusted for inflation. More people living with parents, fewer people living
alone (read: piled into group houses with their former college
roommates/friends). More people in poverty. More people never married (can't
afford a real wedding, or ring). More people with higher education, likely not
being put to use. Student loan debt and credit card debt aren't even listed on
here as statistics.

The bleakest part is that the damage has mostly already been done to this
cohort of people who I am a part of. The low wages now cripple wage growth in
the future, which is bound to be bearish for people who aren't already rich.
The race to the bottom is a real thing.

Thankfully, many people are starting to refer to our period of time as "late
capitalism" for increasingly obvious reasons. Things will have to bottom out
and improve at some point.

~~~
ProAm
> More people never married (can't afford a real wedding, or ring).

You cannot leap to the conclusion that people are not getting married because
they cannot afford it. I seriously doubt that is correlated (of course I have
no proof either).

~~~
Kluny
It's not that they can't afford the wedding. I think it's more of a refusal to
settle down and commit with someone who doesn't have a stable career/future,
or the inflexibility of a spouse whom you'll have to convince to move when the
only job options you can find are in a different state.

------
humanrebar
Aside from the economic indicators, which are already being discussed here,
the numbers for "never married" (up), "veteran" (way down), and "foreign born"
(up) really jump out as trends. "Living with a parent" (up) is also a trend,
but perhaps one more directly tied to the employment economy.

For better or worse, all these trends have had and will have important
societal impacts. Why don't we see more discussions on this sort of thing?
Other issues, like who's paying what in taxes, seem less important by
comparison.

Note that I'm not making qualitative judgments on the people that fall into
different categories. The numbers just jump out to me and I wonder why they
aren't discussed more in conversations about who millenials are, what they
think, and how they will approach the society, culture, and government.

~~~
wavefunction
>>Other issues, like who's paying what in taxes, seem less important by
comparison.

There are many people who think this is exactly what the source of many of
these trends. People have been ignoring "who is paying what" for far too long
as the burden gets shifted from the wealthy who benefit disproportionately
from our civil society to the middle and working classes.

------
debacle
The Median Earnings for Full Time Workers page was quite sad for America.

Language Other than English Spoken at Home was quite surprising for me. I had
no idea it was that high.

I don't understand how the employment numbers can be that bad. 35%
unemployment - that is mostly impacted by people rearing children and college
age folk, I hope.

~~~
zhemao
A significant portion of that age group is still in school, hence not employed
nor unemployed. They should really just show the unemployment rate, not the
employment rate.

But yeah, the median income drop and poverty rate increase is pretty sad.

~~~
danieldk
I wonder about the median income. Another statistic says that more people have
at least a Bachelor degree. Consequently, more people start working at a later
age, reducing the median income. On the other hand, new employees with a
degree should earn more. It would be interesting to know the interaction
between the two.

~~~
VLM
"On the other hand, new employees with a degree should earn more."

Its the other way around, if the jobs don't change but the number of degrees
granted increases, then assuming degree holders cluster at the higher end,
building downward would have to result in average salary of a degree holder
decreasing over time.

Another interesting statistic is lifetime income. If you have a job that does
not require a degree, and spend 10% of your working life earning a degree
instead of earning income, your lifetime income will be about 10% lower. Its
actually worse because starting wage for a coffee barista or waiter is the
same, but presumably toward the end of your career you'll make more at a
better job, but a degree holder will have retired for years 36-40 whereas a
non-degree holder will continue to earn income for the full 40 years at the
higher 36-40 yr rate. You'd see this a lot more in the trades, obviously 4
extra years of union master payscale is worth more than 4 extra years of
journeyman.

------
kilroy123
As a millennial these trends are frighting to see.

It's frustrating when I chat with friends who are a few years older than me
about this (mid 30s), and they blame all of this on millennials just being
lazy. Or stupid, for picking bad degrees. I think the issues are larger and
more systemic than that.

~~~
colmvp
What we're experiencing in Canada is pretty similar to the U.S.

Perhaps your friends should listen to this specific podcast regarding 'lazy
millenials':
[http://canadalandshow.com/podcast/geritocracy](http://canadalandshow.com/podcast/geritocracy)

------
logicallee
This is nice but I'm surprised at the bracket 18-34? (at least separating
18-24 and 25-34 would have been better.) The listed bracket 18-34 covers young
adulthood where most eventual high earners would be earning near 0 in college,
to late twenties with some people pursuing masters but most joining workforce,
to _mid-thirties_ with some people fully educated and having 10-12 years of
experience in their field. (e.g. a programmer graduating at 24 and earning
$90K ($120K bay area) by 34 is not in any way unusual, but here gets averaged
with others, maybe including his future peer, who are _just_ starting college
and are showing very low earnings for a few years.)

Likewise, "living with a parent (18-34)"... "Bachelor's degree (18-34)"...
Quite the bracket!

------
jamesli
Considering there has been an increasing larger percentage of the population
going to college, the statistics might somehow get skewed by the population
between age 18~23.

If one is in college, it is natural to assume that she or he is not fully
employed, has low income, mostly not married, etc.

------
hnriot
I was surprised at the number who had a degree was less than the national
average for California. I guess there's a lot of immigrant workers who don't
achieve higher education levels which skews the perception living and working
in the valley. States like Virginia and Kansas beat the national average, yet
not california, that's really sad.

~~~
jboggan
I almost guarantee that any HN reader lives in a section of California that is
radically unrepresentative of the state as a whole.

~~~
zackify
I live in Fresno County, it's very representative sadly

------
Spectral
The age bracket doesn't really work out for certain categories, as for the
below example it automatically excludes most people age 18-21 as with a
standard 4 year degree will land you around the age of 22 minimum.

Bachelor's Degree or Higher, Age 18 to 34 Percent of total population age 18
to 34 years with bachelor's degree or higher

------
ryanSrich
Time for some personal experience.

Both my fiancé and I are employed. Most would consider our combined income to
be very good. Considering the economic climate we are both doing well.

The problem here, and why I think trends like "never married" and "living at
home" are up, is that even though we make a very good wage we still aren't
middle class due to student debt. So instead of buying a house we pay over $3k
each month on our student debt. Instead of purchasing new cars and a house
(thus pumping money back into the economy) we have to pay rent.

The point of this post is that even if you are one of the lucky ones to get a
well paying job right out of college you'll most likely have to put off
purchases that used to be the norm for middle class.

------
ryanhuff
While interesting, it leaves me wanting to filter down and isolate different
categories to see how they may impact other numbers. Its difficult to really
understand what is driving these trends on its own.

------
tswartz
Interesting to see how even though % with bachelor degrees has grown since
1980, salaries have decreased and poverty has increased. Obviously, not all
correlated, but still interesting.

~~~
dredmorbius
As I've been saying for some time regarding the current employment /
opportunity situation: we're not going to educate our way out of this mess.

------
ChuckMcM
Interesting how 'living in poverty' and 'not married' track.

------
lentil_soup
Shouldn't the title say something like "in the USA"?

~~~
dang
We put that in.

------
aw3c2
*in the USA

~~~
wernercd
Not needed... USA is the only place worth reporting on so it's implied.

------
kleer001
35+ y/o here.

Every time I hear things like this I call up my mother and thank her for
having me earlier than later. Also, I did not like the interface. I'd rather
all the data was just <schplat!> there in one map.

~~~
robodale
I'm 41. My years of experience and getting two degrees when I was young and
ambitious has helped greatly. I would NOT want to be 18-24 right now.

~~~
yuncun
I'm 23, it's meh. I think most 18-24 kids browsing hackernews will be ok, but
I have a lot of smarter classmates who are having trouble in other-than-CS
fields.

