You know this Atlantic article, "The Incredible Shrinking Incomes of Young Americans," is good because it only uses the term "Millennials" twice and does so reluctantly. Wages for this generation are falling in all fields excepting healthcare, which the author explains away as a result of the recession economy. The recession created a climate with less demand for superfluous purchases (retail and restaurants) on top of an already accelerating trend of automation and outsourcing. And thus, wages became suppressed for this generation and building a nest egg, much less buying a nest, has become unfeasible for a whole segment of the population.
I like this article for not placing the blame on us. About time. But, it's missing something I suspect but just can't prove.
I think that if you read enough about the worthlessness of an entire generation, those themes about entitlement and inability become a part of your worldview. Maybe we're not getting paid fair wages, because enough people have heard the message that we're not worth fair wages. Maybe if I weren't such a Millennial, I could expect to make more. Even in this economy.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Saturday, November 15, 2014
What really makes Millennials special
Finally there's a good response to this horrible stick figure critique of Millennial entitlement and unhappiness.
Here's what's up: We're unhappy because we've been given reason to be unhappy!
I had an advising meeting with a staff member from my graduate school a few weeks ago. I was trying to front load my classes so I can graduate early and therefore with less debt. Unfortunately my school makes that near impossible to do--turns out they like collecting my tuition.
She suggested I fill my spare time with an internship. I told her I wouldn't work for free and she responded with all sincerity with a wide-eyed "Why not?"
I'm still speechless.
Sound off Boomers [and Gen X]: How many of you worked for free? How many of you worked for free after you already received your Bachelor's? How many of you worked for free and assumed that position would not get you a job at that company/organization?
Now, how many of you are willing to hire a student or recent grad and pay them nothing, even though this asinine practice was never expected of you when you were young?
Here's what's up: We're unhappy because we've been given reason to be unhappy!
I had an advising meeting with a staff member from my graduate school a few weeks ago. I was trying to front load my classes so I can graduate early and therefore with less debt. Unfortunately my school makes that near impossible to do--turns out they like collecting my tuition.
She suggested I fill my spare time with an internship. I told her I wouldn't work for free and she responded with all sincerity with a wide-eyed "Why not?"
I'm still speechless.
Sound off Boomers [and Gen X]: How many of you worked for free? How many of you worked for free after you already received your Bachelor's? How many of you worked for free and assumed that position would not get you a job at that company/organization?
Now, how many of you are willing to hire a student or recent grad and pay them nothing, even though this asinine practice was never expected of you when you were young?
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Employ a Millennial! You don't actually have to pay them!
I actually like this piece in the Atlantic, 25 is the new 21. It brings up the sad truth that even the successful and better-financed of the Millennial generation are dependent upon mom and dad as they begin their lives. It must be a great time to be an employer. College graduates are a dime a dozen, and you can get away with underpaying them because thankfully their parents are willing to step in for living expenses. Really, though, I think the issue here is with a cultural myth that tells young people that everybody should go to college, regardless of the expense, and expect a return.
I was sold a promise that with a college degree, I would out-earn my less-educated peers. I'm still waiting for the return on that investment. President Obama is still trying to tell me that as a Millennial, the most important thing he can do for me is make sure I can get a college education.
I think that in light of our Millennial job crisis--too few jobs, too low wages, too much college debt--it's time to start considering the real problem. There aren't too few college graduates; there are too many.
Here's what's up: half of college graduates are working jobs that don't require a college degree. That's because only 35 percent of jobs require a bachelor's degree. That means that 65 percent of jobs don't require a four-year degree!
So why the big push to go to college? Well, Sallie Mae's doing pretty well. I sure would love to stumble into an industry where the government pays me subsidized credit on top of the millions (billions) I'm charging my clients.
My point? 25 doesn't have to be the new 21. If we as a society can step back and align our educational values with the job market, we might see a country where young people aren't held hostage by a never-ending adolescence.
I was sold a promise that with a college degree, I would out-earn my less-educated peers. I'm still waiting for the return on that investment. President Obama is still trying to tell me that as a Millennial, the most important thing he can do for me is make sure I can get a college education.
I think that in light of our Millennial job crisis--too few jobs, too low wages, too much college debt--it's time to start considering the real problem. There aren't too few college graduates; there are too many.
Here's what's up: half of college graduates are working jobs that don't require a college degree. That's because only 35 percent of jobs require a bachelor's degree. That means that 65 percent of jobs don't require a four-year degree!
So why the big push to go to college? Well, Sallie Mae's doing pretty well. I sure would love to stumble into an industry where the government pays me subsidized credit on top of the millions (billions) I'm charging my clients.
My point? 25 doesn't have to be the new 21. If we as a society can step back and align our educational values with the job market, we might see a country where young people aren't held hostage by a never-ending adolescence.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
U.S. News Says What I've Been Saying All Along
The news was good today for Millennials.
The U.S. News and World Report today released a report showing Millennials are motivated researchers who want to make smart life decisions.
While they are financially burdened, they remain optimistic.
The most important take-away from this release? The Director of Marketing for U.S. news and the author of the report has discovered that "Millennials are not just interested in cat videos and celebrity gossip." This is news to me.
The U.S. News and World Report today released a report showing Millennials are motivated researchers who want to make smart life decisions.
While they are financially burdened, they remain optimistic.
The most important take-away from this release? The Director of Marketing for U.S. news and the author of the report has discovered that "Millennials are not just interested in cat videos and celebrity gossip." This is news to me.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Why Women Can't Have It All: The Unique Challenge for Generations X, Y and Z
EDIT 10/14
This just in! Apple and Facebook now pay to freeze their employees' eggs. Women of Apple and Facebook, now you can have it all!
I recently saw this 2012 Atlantic cover story. I'm two years behind, so that means that it's had plenty of time for reading and dissecting on the internet and Anne-Marie Slaughter herself followed up with it earlier this year. I'm really wondering how I missed this the first time around (or have utterly forgotten about reading it), considering it was the most "liked" Atlantic story ever on their website.
Dr. Slaughter's thesis goes like this: In the United States, women experience a high degree of reverence and also monitoring during pregnancy, but after a baby is born, a woman's experience of motherhood goes unsupported throughout her offspring's childhood. A lack of [paid] parental leave, an arcane school schedule, inflexible work scheduling with ever-increasing hours, and the socialized (and perhaps biological) need for women to "be there" for their children all help to create a structure that makes it impossible for women to have both a successful career and successful home life. To the detriment of her family, says Dr. Slaughter, she has been ignoring the blatant truth that women can't have it all--and it took the wisdom of younger generations to point out this truth.
It's not all hopeless. A redefinition of career success, policy implementation, and demographic shifts toward female leadership in government and business can address the issue. As far as workplace and government policy goes, Dr. Slaughter makes some concrete suggestions: (1) use technology to to limit work hours and travel; (2) leave avenues open for promotion and tenure to women who take parental leave by extending windows of opportunity and evaluation; (3) enact family leave policies that provide generous money and time following the birth of a child; (4) make family-work balance the priority of men by extending these same considerations to men.
This is all fine and well. How I'm going to launch my career and my family at the same time is literally an issue that keeps me up at night. But, Dr. Slaughter failed to realize that the problem of work-life balance will absolutely be worse for the upcoming Generations X, Y, and Z. The structural solutions to this issue will be much more drastic than planning for and around children.
At age 56, Dr. Slaughter is a Baby Boomer. The Silent Generation (also called the Lucky Few or Luckiest Generation) started the Baby Boom by having babies earlier than the generation before them. At age 20, 29.4 percent of women were already mothers, and by age 29, 82.8 percent of women were mothers. I can't find on the internet the birth dates of Dr. Slaughter's parents nor the exact year of birth for her firstborn--though if he was 14 or 15 in 2011 when she resigned her position, he was born either 1996 or 1997. So, given these assumptions, I would guess that when her first child was born in the 1990s, Dr. Slaughter's parents were between the ages of 58 and 66.
Birth trends have changed drastically since the Boomers were born to the Silents. Boomers started having babies older. At age 20, 25.3 percent of Baby Boomers were mothers. By age 28, 67.2 percent of Boomer women were mothers. Baby Boomers started their families later, and then continued having babies at later ages than their parents.
So, what does this mean? Well, for Dr. Slaughter's generation, the burden of aging parents was concurrent with their children's adolescence. This has two implications. First, Boomers as a generation were able to use grandparent support (if geographically possible) for childcare needs. They could rely on the older generation to still be young enough to take care of the Boomers' young children. Second, as the Boomers' children aged and needed less direct parental supervision--tweens and teens as opposed to babies or toddlers--Boomers' could afford to allocate time to supporting their aging parents.
This will not be the case for Generations X, Y, and Z. Maternal age has continued to increase and these generations will face the challenges incurred by aging parents concurrent with their children's most time-intensive younger years. That is, Generations X, Y, and Z were likely born to parents in their late 20s, 30s, or even 40s. They are also likely to be starting their families in their late 20s, 30s, or 40s. So, this generation will have both an infant and parents entering old age. Using myself as anecdata, if I have my first child at age 35, my parents and in-laws will range from 69-73 years old.
So, my parents and in-laws will be drastically older than the Boomers' parents when they had kids. That means that I'll be taking on some caregiver role earlier than the Boomers did for their parents. This effect will be compounded too for Generations X and Y, because Baby Boomers are in poorer health than the Silent Generation.
This has been a lot of birth rate trend discussion to get to my point, which is this: going forward, it is imperative that policy support younger generations in taking care of the aging Boomers. Family policy cannot have a singular focus on babies and children. It needs to support Generations X, Y, and Z by also implementing a much more expansive (and humane) eldercare system.
Younger generations will need more support than previous generations for family policy, because the care structure is shifting. Instead of relying on grandparents for support in their children's formative years, more parents will be juggling the care of their toddlers and their parents.
Anne-Marie Slaughter is correct; women face structural discrimination that prevents them from achieving the mythical work-family balance. However, her policy suggestions miss the greatest challenge for generations moving forward, dual care-giving.
This just in! Apple and Facebook now pay to freeze their employees' eggs. Women of Apple and Facebook, now you can have it all!
I recently saw this 2012 Atlantic cover story. I'm two years behind, so that means that it's had plenty of time for reading and dissecting on the internet and Anne-Marie Slaughter herself followed up with it earlier this year. I'm really wondering how I missed this the first time around (or have utterly forgotten about reading it), considering it was the most "liked" Atlantic story ever on their website.
Dr. Slaughter's thesis goes like this: In the United States, women experience a high degree of reverence and also monitoring during pregnancy, but after a baby is born, a woman's experience of motherhood goes unsupported throughout her offspring's childhood. A lack of [paid] parental leave, an arcane school schedule, inflexible work scheduling with ever-increasing hours, and the socialized (and perhaps biological) need for women to "be there" for their children all help to create a structure that makes it impossible for women to have both a successful career and successful home life. To the detriment of her family, says Dr. Slaughter, she has been ignoring the blatant truth that women can't have it all--and it took the wisdom of younger generations to point out this truth.
It's not all hopeless. A redefinition of career success, policy implementation, and demographic shifts toward female leadership in government and business can address the issue. As far as workplace and government policy goes, Dr. Slaughter makes some concrete suggestions: (1) use technology to to limit work hours and travel; (2) leave avenues open for promotion and tenure to women who take parental leave by extending windows of opportunity and evaluation; (3) enact family leave policies that provide generous money and time following the birth of a child; (4) make family-work balance the priority of men by extending these same considerations to men.
This is all fine and well. How I'm going to launch my career and my family at the same time is literally an issue that keeps me up at night. But, Dr. Slaughter failed to realize that the problem of work-life balance will absolutely be worse for the upcoming Generations X, Y, and Z. The structural solutions to this issue will be much more drastic than planning for and around children.
At age 56, Dr. Slaughter is a Baby Boomer. The Silent Generation (also called the Lucky Few or Luckiest Generation) started the Baby Boom by having babies earlier than the generation before them. At age 20, 29.4 percent of women were already mothers, and by age 29, 82.8 percent of women were mothers. I can't find on the internet the birth dates of Dr. Slaughter's parents nor the exact year of birth for her firstborn--though if he was 14 or 15 in 2011 when she resigned her position, he was born either 1996 or 1997. So, given these assumptions, I would guess that when her first child was born in the 1990s, Dr. Slaughter's parents were between the ages of 58 and 66.
Birth trends have changed drastically since the Boomers were born to the Silents. Boomers started having babies older. At age 20, 25.3 percent of Baby Boomers were mothers. By age 28, 67.2 percent of Boomer women were mothers. Baby Boomers started their families later, and then continued having babies at later ages than their parents.
So, what does this mean? Well, for Dr. Slaughter's generation, the burden of aging parents was concurrent with their children's adolescence. This has two implications. First, Boomers as a generation were able to use grandparent support (if geographically possible) for childcare needs. They could rely on the older generation to still be young enough to take care of the Boomers' young children. Second, as the Boomers' children aged and needed less direct parental supervision--tweens and teens as opposed to babies or toddlers--Boomers' could afford to allocate time to supporting their aging parents.
This will not be the case for Generations X, Y, and Z. Maternal age has continued to increase and these generations will face the challenges incurred by aging parents concurrent with their children's most time-intensive younger years. That is, Generations X, Y, and Z were likely born to parents in their late 20s, 30s, or even 40s. They are also likely to be starting their families in their late 20s, 30s, or 40s. So, this generation will have both an infant and parents entering old age. Using myself as anecdata, if I have my first child at age 35, my parents and in-laws will range from 69-73 years old.
So, my parents and in-laws will be drastically older than the Boomers' parents when they had kids. That means that I'll be taking on some caregiver role earlier than the Boomers did for their parents. This effect will be compounded too for Generations X and Y, because Baby Boomers are in poorer health than the Silent Generation.
This has been a lot of birth rate trend discussion to get to my point, which is this: going forward, it is imperative that policy support younger generations in taking care of the aging Boomers. Family policy cannot have a singular focus on babies and children. It needs to support Generations X, Y, and Z by also implementing a much more expansive (and humane) eldercare system.
Younger generations will need more support than previous generations for family policy, because the care structure is shifting. Instead of relying on grandparents for support in their children's formative years, more parents will be juggling the care of their toddlers and their parents.
Anne-Marie Slaughter is correct; women face structural discrimination that prevents them from achieving the mythical work-family balance. However, her policy suggestions miss the greatest challenge for generations moving forward, dual care-giving.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Millennials are Out, Gen Z is In
Millennials are Out, Gen Z is In
According to this Mashable post featuring an Infographic from Marketo, "Millennials are so last year." I'm reading that first line thinking, finally, we get to take a break from getting ragged on. Step up new youth and take the criticism!And boy did Mashable/Marketo let them have it!
- Gen Z is the biggest chunk of the population, pushing Millennials down to spot #2
- Gen Z is "mature, self-directed, and resourceful"
- Gen Z is full of "adept researchers"
- Gen Z is composed of "driven workers," with 76% dreaming of their hobbies becoming their full time jobs, compared to only 50% of lazy Millennials
- Gen Z are basically all "do-gooders," worrying about humanity, volunteering, and aspiring to jobs that will impact the world
- Gen Z creates, whereas Millenials simply share
- Gen Z is future-focused, whereas Millennials are present-focused
- Gen Z are realists, unlike those heads-in-the-clouds Millennial optimists
- Gen Z wants to work for success, while Millennials are still waiting to be discovered.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
"No for real - ask your grandpa - can I have his hand-me-downs?"*
This humor piece from The New Yorker presented without comment:
Grandmas Rise Up Against Millennials’ “Grandma” Lifestyle
"Many senior citizens argue that being associated with millennials is detrimental to the credibility they’ve been cultivating for, quite literally, decades. Early yesterday, seniors across the country staged protests in their retirement communities, calling the trend downright offensive. At a rally in central Florida, one man, who declined to give his exact age, held a poster that read, “A # IS A POUND SIGN.” Grandparents are speaking out, disavowing any affiliation with the millennials who take daylong naps punctuated by brief scrolls through Twitter."
*"Thrift Shop," Macklemore feat. Wanz
Grandmas Rise Up Against Millennials’ “Grandma” Lifestyle
"Many senior citizens argue that being associated with millennials is detrimental to the credibility they’ve been cultivating for, quite literally, decades. Early yesterday, seniors across the country staged protests in their retirement communities, calling the trend downright offensive. At a rally in central Florida, one man, who declined to give his exact age, held a poster that read, “A # IS A POUND SIGN.” Grandparents are speaking out, disavowing any affiliation with the millennials who take daylong naps punctuated by brief scrolls through Twitter."
*"Thrift Shop," Macklemore feat. Wanz
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Millennials in the Education Workplace
Millennial Workers Seek Reform in Education Industry
It's my personal opinion that one of the Millennial Generation's greatest strengths is its optimism that business and government can influence global change. The generation that voted for "Hope," "Change," and "Yes We Can" really does believe in innovation.Interestingly, Millennials employed in the education sector--where calls for reform are constant--consider educational institutions to be the least innovative. The Millennials in this survey say that collaborative practices are outdated in school districts, colleges, and universities, where Millennials are obstructed from sharing and implementing ideas.
My favorite takeaway from this survey is that Millennials, the "Me Me Me Generation" who rank smartphones more important than deodorant, actually prefer face-to-face brainstorming in order to share ideas.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
'Middle-Aged Americans, Not Millennials, Are The Problem'
'Middle-Aged Americans, Not Millennials, Are The Problem' Finally, an honest headline from my dear friend Forbes!
You can probably imagine my glee when I read today, finally, that Millennials are not the problem!Admittedly, the entire headline reads "Housing's Non-Recovery: Middle-Aged Americans, Not Millennials, Are the Problem," so we're only off the hook for the housing market's failings. And really, it has nothing to do with us--according to this article, we're not buying fewer homes than any previous generation did at our age, adjusting for demographics.
Unfortunately, I don't think that the effect Forbes and others are reporting will be limited to Generations X and Boomers. The hard truth is that if we expect a housing rebound, we'd better look at the long term prognosis for Millennial financial health.
And it looks bleak.
Millennial workers are the most financially stressed, burdened by an average $30,000 in student loan debt (and little hope of refinancing), and twice as many college graduates were working minimum wage jobs in 2013 than in 2006. To top off the bad news, Milliennial women are lagging even further behind in an already tough economy.
It seems as though this doomsday Huffington Post article might be right about Millennials. We're not only going to miss out on home ownership, we're facing chronic homelessness!
It's not all bad, though. Millennials, I'd like to stress, are not the problem. Even though Millennials are struggling to find worthwhile employment, we are a generation of super-savers. We expect to fund our own retirement, and are even setting aside the money to provide financial support for our aging parents (which is a good thing, since the Boomers' retirement isn't looking so good). If optimism counts for something, we've got that in spades.
Our own saving and spending habits can only go so far though. Again, Millennials aren't the problem. For Boomers, spending hurt retirement plans--and it wasn't just superfluous spending that got them into trouble. Those horrible student loans hurting Millennials? Boomers are also carrying around student loan debt, in addition to the money they shelled out for our own outstanding tuition (thanks Mom and Dad!). Healthcare spending also contributed to a lion's share of spending; healthcare spending 'essentially wiped out the gains in median family income over the last 10 years.'
So where does that leave Millennials? Well, like my generational counterparts, I'm stupidly optimistic! Why? Well, to start, I'm hopeful that even though we seem convinced that Obamacare is a raw deal for Millennials, I'll benefit in the long-term from its positive effect on our nation's budget deficit. I'm also hopeful that the Affordable Care Act will keep my spending in check in case my husband or I face a catastrophic health situation, by guaranteeing me insurance even in case of a preexisting condition, and hopefully keeping me from bankruptcy in case of emergency.
I also think that the size of our birth cohort could also soon advantage us. Millennials are now first in the population contest, with more Millennials than that other large generational cohort the Boomers. As evidenced by 2008 and 2010, Millennials vote [mostly Democratic], and Millennials are more likely than older generations to support an activist government. I'm optimistic that as more Millennials reach voting age, there will be citizen demand for an actually functioning Congress, and the votes to back that up.
If we still haven't figured out how to make democracy work, though, there should at least be a shift in business. Financial benefits now are focused mostly on retirement for aging Boomers. These boomers are finally retiring, which will make jobs for Millennials, but surely will also shift how businesses offer financial benefits. The Millennial generation is large enough that when the majority of workers are no longer Boomers, businesses will have to change financial benefits to fit the needs of their Millennial workers.
Millennials aren't the problem in today's economy. We could be the problem for tomorrow's economy, however, if government and business don't start addressing our debt, suppressed wages, and lack of social benefits--both via government and business. What's sad is if Millennials are the cause of economic non-recovery, it won't be our fault. We're saving, learning, and engaging at record levels. I'm not sure what more we could do. Millennials aren't the problem.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)