
The Boomerang Kids Won't Leave - wallflower
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/magazine/its-official-the-boomerang-kids-wont-leave.html?hp
======
jiggy2011
Is there anything wrong with young people staying at home for longer? The
"move out before you're 21 or you're a loser" message is a relatively new one
and doesn't make all that much sense.

There are so many people paying half of their salary to live in some tiny flat
in London while their parents have a 5 bedroom house somewhere much nicer that
is mostly unoccupied. Just because they feel they must be "independent" (even
though some of these people are receiving parental subsidies anyway).

Why not just let the buy to let market shrink and bring some semblance of
sanity back to house pricing. People who live with their parents will have
much lower financial risk and thus can take jobs which focus on experience
rather than salary and they can save money for entrepreneurial activity or to
later on buy the houses which will be cheaper as a result.

~~~
TheCraiggers
>Is there anything wrong with young people staying at home for longer?

Well, one of the reasons is that oftentimes this ends up being a crutch.
Little reason to take any chances, or really apply yourself when you can tell
yourself that mom & dad will bail you out. Of course, not everyone is like
this; some people have the necessary drive (and resources) to kick ass right
out of high-school. But many don't realize their true potential until they're
forced to do so.

~~~
jiggy2011
If you live at home you can afford to take more chances. You can start a
business with less worries of having to cover extortionate rent every month
which is something that keeps many people in their 9-5.

~~~
TheCraiggers
I totally agree with you. But there is a big difference between living at home
so you can get your business off the ground, and living at home so you can
more easily afford your video game hobby.

All I'm saying is that the world isn't black-and-white. Parents need to make
the judgement call about _what is best for their child_. Sometimes that's
letting them stay at home to build up resources. Sometimes it's forcing them
out to let them learn and develop themselves. Sometimes it's probably
something between the two, like charging rent.

~~~
vonmoltke
> I totally agree with you. But there is a big difference between living at
> home so you can get your business off the ground, and living at home so you
> can more easily afford your video game hobby.

Or so that you can afford the rent-sized payment on your student loan debt.

------
eumenides1
Here is another thought, younger generation are being sold a bill of goods and
the older generation is not delievering.

The bill is the time/cost of education and the end product is supposed to be
"training for a career".

We have this younger generation who is not ready work (needs more training)
and/or trained for something that no longers pays out (greater than the cost
of education or jobs that no longer exists).

I've seen enough job postings that should just require basic skills, but ask
the world (5+ years experience where it's only been out for 3 years). Also the
cost of education is really crippling, that is pretty obvious.

It's hard to blame the kids for problem. the older generation created it by
working longer than ever, creating the job postings requirements, and not
training the next generation. But I see these boomerang kids are pretty
clever, because they found the best place to live for less. Some will create
their own jobs, or find meaningful work. Others will just fail. That's life,
but in the past failing was way worst, now it's "going to your parents home".

When the younger generation has kids, they will create problems for the next
generation, and deal with the consequences. Maybe the younger generation will
better train the next, maybe they will lower hiring requirements, and maybe
they will just be happier with less.

------
msandford
Younger people (say 30ish and under, so me included) have been told their
entire (or close to it) lives that they're precious snowflakes and that
they're going to change the world and they can be or do anything they want to.

If you're a highly motivated, hardworking person or you already know what your
passion is, this is great news to hear. The sky's the limit!

If you're not so highly motivated or you aren't passionate about anything
(that you know of) this kind of message is debilitating. The flip side of "you
are talented and special" is that if you're not doing what you're passionate
about and you're not changing the world and whatever, that the only person you
have to blame is yourself. If the world isn't placing any constraints upon you
to keep you from succeeding then the only thing that stands between you and
success is you.

I realize that in truth we tend to limit ourselves more than others put those
constrains upon us. But what that cheery, the-world-is-your-oyster message
fails to communicate is that life can be difficult and that for a great many
people just keeping themselves alive SOMEHOW is really about all that they can
do. And that for the entire history of the world minus about 50 years that
could be considered Success(tm). It might be a job that they're not passionate
about but are good at. Or it might be that circumstances out of their control
took a substantial portion of their energy (sick parents for example). Or
maybe they just found someone and got married and had kids before they figured
their work-passions out and now they have whole other people counting on them
for support. But when you could be Doing Anything (!!) just getting doesn't
necessarily feel like success.

The "you can do anything" SEEMS really amazing and that you really should
impress it upon all kids from an early age. It SOUNDS great, I mean who
doesn't want to encourage kids to succeed? Ultimately though it may have been
a bit self-defeating. When faced with too many choices many people fail to
take any action at all.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis)

~~~
zecho
This old canard is quite tiresome, and is rarely presented with evidence, but
it's always written as capital T truth.

The realities, laid out in the article, are all economic and well researched.
Millennials have high debt and low wages with a poor job outlook. The
underlying trends have existed for quite some time and appear to be getting
worse over time, especially with the recent recession hitting youth hardest.

But yeah, let's blame motivation rather than figure out how to improve the
system. Clearly kids with college degrees aren't motivated enough to will jobs
that can cover their debts and maintain the comfortable standard of living
their parents had.

~~~
rayiner
This is absolutely on point. My observation among my circle of friends (I'm
30), is that we are if anything more pessimistic and pragmatic than our
parents.[1] Indeed, look at how 'msandford couched his point: in terms of what
baby boomer parents said to millenials, not in terms of what millenials
actually believe. My parents have always said: just get an education, don't
worry about the debt, if you work hard you can do anything! I'm the one who
has always had to push back with reality.

[1] For example, millenials are less trusting in others:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-
cage/wp/2014/03/1...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-
cage/wp/2014/03/17/the-real-reason-why-millennials-dont-trust-others).

~~~
tsotha
>This is absolutely on point. My observation among my circle of friends (I'm
30), is that we are if anything more pessimistic and pragmatic than our
parents.

That's true _now_ , but was it true the day you graduated from college?
Finally finishing school is always a splash of cold water, but my impression
is it was especially so for people your age.

~~~
eitally
I think there have been two times in the past 15 years that it's happened.
Once in 2000ish after the first tech crash and once again starting in 2008 as
the general recession took hold. We haven't recovered from the recession yet,
and although corporations are making more money now than [in some cases] ever
before, there isn't adequate profit sharing via increased salaries and broader
hiring to affect worker sentiment in a meaningfully positive way.

I graduated in 1999 and, after shifting from physics to history mid-way
through, I got a temp-to-hire job doing web dev as the bubble was popping.
while everything worked out for me, things are not working out for people
who've graduated in the past few years. I only paid $2500/semester tuition
and, with a 15-25hr/wk side job was able to live happily and graduate with
barely any debt, which I repaid in the first year of employment. Many public
universities now charge upwards of $15k/yr tuition for in state students --
this is just untenable for the majority of matriculating high school grads
given the current job market. When I went to college, my engineer father said
"study anything that interests you. You're smart and if you work hard you
won't have any trouble finding good work." He was right. Now, when my son is
planning and preparing for college, I will very strongly encourage him to
pursue an engineering degree with a minor in math, statistics, or economics...
unless he's set on a physical science, in which case I'll encourage at least a
minor in CS. I don't want my kids to be forced into unskilled work while
carrying boatloads of debt, and the way things are going, the only pretty
reliable way around that is to have the skills and knowledge to create things
(and communicate clearly verbally & in writing).

Like rayiner, I'm pessimistic. Living/working through this and experiencing
wage stagnation and utter apathy from employers & government only reinforces
it.

------
zw123456
One thing my Mom taught me is that when you child reaches around 14 years old,
or around high school age, you have to stop coddling them. My parents started
"being mean" as my sister and I called it, when we got into high school. Later
she told us it was on purpose and from love. She was right. I think this
tradition has been forgotten, but it used to be conventional wisdom in that
generation (my Parents are in their 80's). What we called "being mean" meant
taking responsibility for yourself. For example, if you wanted to live in
their house after age 18, they charged rent.

~~~
guard-of-terra
This, as well as a lot of things that are fine when economics is okay, makes
zero sense when there's recession.

I see a great number of commenters who don't understand that and therefore
shovel blame around

~~~
hnal943
Your comment embodies the millennial stereotype. _There 's a recession,
therefore I can't be successful._ The economy doesn't improve by magic, we
need people creating wealth. And that may not be in their chosen field.

~~~
scott_s
I think you're missing the larger observation: the expectation that children
will move out of their parents homes around age 18 may have been a temporary
phenomenon.

I find it strange that some people would rather assume that an entire
generation is uniquely incompetent, rather than assume that they're pretty
much like all other human generations, but the environment in which they live
has changed.

~~~
hnal943
I don't believe that this generation is uniquely incompetent, nor do I believe
that they are uniquely hampered from succeeding. I would be more swayed to
your point that this is some sort of cultural shift towards multi-generational
households if there weren't so much angsty finger-pointing from self-appointed
millennial spokespeople.

------
at-fates-hands
One big point that I think was missing in the article was the proliferation of
a temporary workforce. I just read temp hiring accounts for 15% of all hires
these days.

The days when you're pop took a job at the steel mill and then worked his way
up to management and then president are long gone. Most workers are only
temporary. They put in their time, do the work and then its off to the next
gig. This makes it nearly impossible to ever move up in any organization. And
when you gain some experience as a contractor? Your job opportunities diminish
since your experience demands a higher salary.

I've also seen a lot of commentary about the lack of motivation the millennial
generation has which I'm sure is adding to the "normalization" of this
boomerang stage in young adults lives.

EDIT: just found the article about increasing temp workforce:
[http://www.economicmodeling.com/2013/06/21/temp-
employment-i...](http://www.economicmodeling.com/2013/06/21/temp-employment-
is-dominating-job-growth-in-the-largest-cities-is-that-a-good-thing/)

~~~
jiggy2011
You can still work your way up to management, you might just move through more
companies in order to do it. This might be as a result of workers now having
more options as recruitment is easier due to the internet and other things. It
might be better to have the flexibility and gather a variety of experience
rather than feeling indentured to a single company. The flipside of this is
that companies are less likely to invest in workers who they are worried will
leave them in a few years.

------
33W
So I'll admit my biases up front: I got a BS,CS degree at an in-state school,
and used the GI Bill to pay for all of my tuition, and took loans for study
abroad.

But taking a look at the slideshow, I'm seeing a trend in
degrees/schools/debt.

BA, advertising & PR, Loyola, $75K

BA, lit & writing, UC San Diego, $44K

BA, economics, Loyola, $90K

BA, film studies, Full Sail, $80K

BA, psychology UCF, MS, counseling, Nova Southeastern, $40K

BA, biology, Northwestern, $50K

BA, economics, Hunter, $12K

BA, asian humanities, UCLA, $10K

BA, art history, Sonoma State, $27K

BA, history & religion, Midland, $11K

BA, comparitive literature, Hamilton, $20K

BFA, painting, Rhode Island School of Design, $25K

BFA, graphic design, School of Visual Arts, $130K

BA, communications, Calf. St. Fullerton, $22K

How do any of these student think that they'll do anything with these degrees
to overcome the debt? The only two that make some sense to me are the $40K to
get psychology/counseling, and $12K for economics.

~~~
ForHackernews
The $50K biology degree from Northwestern is arguably worth it. Northwestern
is the best school on that list, and an undergraduate degree in biology is
often a stepping stone to an MD, MHA, MPH, or PhD.

~~~
hga
That's what I was thinking, it's one of the nation's top schools, and you get
paid for at least a PhD education. Still a tough job market.

I also wonder about the Rhode Island School of Design degree, I really don't
know much of anything about that whole area of design and fine arts, but I
been told they're one of the top schools in their areas of specialization, and
a moment with Wikipedia indicates they're #1. Plus it sounds like they're
intertwined with Brown.

So _if_ you're going to get such a major, it sounds like the place to do so.
And 25K in debt isn't _completely_ insane.

~~~
ForHackernews
Honestly, $10K for Asian Humanities at UCLA doesn't sound so bad, either.
Maybe that major isn't a natural moneymaker, but UCLA is another very good
school, and I bet plenty of companies wanting to do business in Asia would be
happy to hire a bright student with that background.

~~~
hga
I think it would depend on the quality of the studies. If focused on the
gender, class and race food group of a large subset of the humanities, I can
see corporate employers avoiding such potential trouble makers like the
plague, but there are always non-profits and NGOs, even Foreign Service,
although per Wikipedia the odds for the generalist path are very low.

If it actually made them useful, e.g. included some time "in country", and
ideally minimal language and cultural fluency in at least one country of note,
sure thing. Especially at such a price.

I have a friend who did both physics and Japanese and for a long time did well
using both.

------
briffle
Also during the US recession, many people had their retirement funds
drastically affected (I know several people that saw near a 40% loss) This
forced many people nearing retirement age to keep working. Those people are
often more senior, and with them staying on, there was no "movement" up the
chain, so not many new entry level positions opening up. if they were smart,
and did not touch the money, it should be fully recovered now, so we might
start seeing some mobility again.

~~~
Balgair
A previous reply mentioned that the US, finally, after 6 years, is back to the
pre housing crisis workforce numbers. This is true, however, the population
has grown since then and we are still about 7 million jobs short [0]. Also,
the labor department includes, as said in the OP, underemployment. Typically
you then have to work more jobs or live much less high on the hog. This is in
addition to the older workforce continuing to stay in their positions.

I have an anecdote on this as well. My brother used to work for Lockheed. Many
times, an expert would retire with no replacement in the free world to step
up. They would then need to hire the expert back again for a much inflated
price. The cows recently came home for that particular plant, as this last
year all 4000 employees were fired. I'm sure the rehiring of more expensive
contractors played a role.

[0]It's Friday, google it please, my apologies on the laze.

------
up_and_up
The amount of debt some of these BA and BFA holders have is staggering: 80k,
90k, 130k (with a graphic design degree!!)

Didn't anyone sit them down and run the math of avg salary vs monthly loan
payments for any of these careers? It would be tough to pay them off quickly
without a hefty salary.

I feel like the parents are to blame here big time, setting these kids up for
failure by not being real with them.

I have 3 kids and I definitely plan to instill a serious respect for loans and
career goals etc.

~~~
cylinder
I know someone who is currently thrilled about soon going to physical therapy
school (3 year graduate degree). Estimated debt taken on: approximately
$240,000.

Federal government will let you take all this with a few clicks of a button.

Average income of these "doctors" is what -- $70k?

~~~
will_work4tears
wow, really? 240k for a DPT? My wife graduated the last year her school
offered the Masters program, 2007 I believe with something like 7k in loans.
Granted, her parent's pretty much covered everything, somehow.

I walked away with my CS degree (CIS, really) with ~80k in debt in 2008.

Average income varies I think, starting salary for her in 2007 was 45k, but
that was Mid Missouri. Here in the Seattle area, it's a bit higher, and as a
manager of a clinic (also practicing PT) it's close to twice that. I think as
a non manager, 70k is about right here though.

------
schnevets
I was only able to skim this particular article, but I'm really curious about
the international perspective of this "phenomenon" and the general attitude in
America. Europe is dealing with staggering unemployment among people in their
twenties. Meanwhile, plenty of developed countries still cling to the multi-
generational home system where you stay with your parents until you're a
married homeowner. Would an influx in the number of people remaining with
their parents even be considered a "generational crisis" in the rest of the
world?

~~~
cliveowen
I'm Italian, we're one of the countries in Europe that have been hit the
hardest by the economic downturn. Staying at home with your parents in your
early 20s has always been the norm here (mostly because you don't have to move
to go to college, the local university is usually as good as any other). The
problem is, even if it's generally acceptable to say that you still live with
your parents, there are literally no jobs, not even low-wage, menial jobs.
There is no hope for things improving in the long term and there's the
lingering suspicion that this whole staying at home with your parents is more
than a temporary situation. The only option seems to be moving to another
country, but it's not as simple as it sounds. First of all, if you're
unemployed, you don't have the money to move to another place, let alone stay
there until you find a job. Secondly, you can't move to another country if you
don't know someone who's already there and can help you out. And lastly,
there's no reason for an employer to pick you (a foreigner) over some local
guy. So the outlook is really grim and there's not even an inkling of hope on
the horizon.

------
ap22213
I was born in the 70s and grew up in the late 80s, early 90s. My friends and I
consider ourselves 'GenX' though I'm not sure what we are.

I find this article interesting because my friends and I often discuss how
lucky we are to have been born when we were. We got off a crazy train right
before it was about to take a perverse, fiery decent into economic hell.

In the 90s, college was cheap, and it was easy to get in to. In the 90s, it
was cool to be a 'slacker' \- and you could accomplish quite a lot, as one.
There was hardly any competition and tons of opportunities. With a little bit
of brain and a little bit of motivation, you could get into a top school, and
it didn't matter much what your grades were. But, it wasn't just schooling
that was easier to achieve - everything seemed a lot easier, and simpler.

I was recently talking to an older acquaintance, a person who recently retired
as a top executive for one of the largest technology companies in the world.
He's about 20 years older than me. And, he basically said the same thing: he
was a B-C student in high school and college. He was pretty much a slacker, as
I was. We both joked about how neither of us would be able to accomplish much,
if we had been born in the 80s, or later.

------
skywhopper
Staying with your parents as long as they'll let you is often the smartest
financial move you can make. With student loan debt skyrocketing, housing
prices high, job market weak, and wages stagnant, there's almost nothing
economically to encourage kids to stake out on their own. Moving to a
different city in pursuit of a job is unlikely to be worth the financial risk
over keeping the job you have near enough to your parents and living without
room or board expenses. That would have to be one hell of a good paying job to
justify a move.

~~~
aianus
Pretty much my whole graduating class is shipping off to San Francisco
immediately. The pay is literally 3x more than you can get in Canada and
everything but the rent is _cheaper_.

------
j2kun
> “Everyone tells me to just pick something,” she says, “but I don’t know what
> to pick.”

Why is this not the _obvious and glaring_ problem? After four years of going
to a college with doubtlessly many opportunities, and she doesn't even know
what she enjoys?

------
WorldWideWayne
My parents started making me pay rent as soon as I was 18, but that's not what
made me want to get my own place - I just couldn't live the lifestyle that I
wanted at my parent's. So, as soon as I got my first real job I left and never
looked back.

I would love to live with a bunch of like-minded people, but that's easier
said than done.

------
johngalt
The 'boomerang kids' are just people who were socialized to see a middle class
life as beneath them. Offer these young adults 40k to drive a bus for a living
and they would turn it down. They will stay at home and hold out for that job
that pays a political science major $100k starting. The middle class is being
decimated because no one aims for middle class.

edit: Perhaps bus driver was a bad example. I do know plenty of people who
lead comfortable middle class lives as electricians, installing garage doors,
commercial fishing etc... I don't know how many would describe it as their
'passion'.

~~~
_random_
Driving a bus is not a middle class job. Also politics is not automatable in
the nearest future, so could be a wise choice if you have an aptitude.

