Slashdot Mirror


Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennials (nymag.com)

For a fun new entry into millennials are lazy, consider this: According to new data tracked down by Richard Fry for Pew Research, just 20 percent of 25- to 35-year-olds (Old Millennials, if you will) reported having lived at a different address the previous year. From a report on NYMag: In 2000, a full 26 percent of Gen-Xers -- then at the same age range -- had reported making a move in the previous year. In 1963, members of the Silent Generation moved at a 26 percent rate, too. The census data being used here doesn't include college-dorm moves prevalent with 18- to 24-year-olds, so those young'uns are left out of the analysis. The 20 percent rate is the lowest level of young adult mobility in half a century, Fry reports, and all this with millennials getting married, owning homes, and having kids less than previous generations. Student debt and less favorable lending rates may be driving down homeownership -- imagine that -- which further reduces movement. Psychologically, this also means that young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory compared with their more mobile peers.

491 comments

  1. trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am trying to move to another area.

    I hear from employers 'no one willing/qualified to do the job'

    I also hear. "you are not local". -_-

    1. Re:trying by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I am facing a different problem: "I'm not willing to move there".

      We're not exactly in the middle of nowhere, but also we're an about 1.5 hours drive away from the next large city. Don't get it wrong, this ain't backwater nowhere, you have great internet connection and VERY affordable housing around here, and we're paying VERY well. Yet people are not willing to move those 1.5 hours away from where they're living.

      Hell, I know people that commute 1.5 hours each way every single day!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal immigrants are moving back to their respective countries. Thank you, Emperor Trump.

    3. Re:trying by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      Are there other jobs available for them if they do move and you decide you don't need them? Comparable jobs?

      Moving is a large investment. And usually a long-term one, given the cost and the hassle factor. If the conditions aren't good for long-term in your area, don't complain if you can't get folks to move there.

      --
      That is all.
    4. Re: trying by thundercattt · · Score: 1

      I'm also facing the same thing. Apply in big markets. Hear "call us when you're local". Even saying "look, give me a start date and I'll show up". No dice.

    5. Re:trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think enough millenials watched their parents fall for the "big pay to move somewhere expensive/undesirable" scam, and regret it, that they're not falling for it anymore.

    6. Re:trying by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We have a near flawless record when it comes to keeping people, unless they want to leave on their own. Sadly, our company has pretty good ties with a lot of others, and in turn, since we do mostly consulting, this means that people working here get very good connections to other companies pretty quickly. Last year we lost three people, one went on to Google, one became the CISO of a Fortune 500 company and one left for our version of the DOD.

      I can't remember a case where we actually fired a person (the hiring process usually weeds out the duds), once you're part of "the family", you usually stay 'til you decide to move on. Any turnover we have is actually due to people leaving on their own. And frankly, I cannot compete with Google...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there other jobs available for them if they do move and you decide you don't need them? Comparable jobs?

      Moving is a large investment. And usually a long-term one, given the cost and the hassle factor. If the conditions aren't good for long-term in your area, don't complain if you can't get folks to move there.

      This. Why move to another town (especially if you need to sell a house as well) if there is only one decent employer in that town, especially if they're the only employer for your industry? If they tank or lay you off or relocate their business then you're on the hook having to move again just to get work.

      This is something that employers need to consider before setting up shop anywhere, especially if they picked it largely because the land was cheap. You either set up shop where the potential employees already are or you have to pay a steep premium to get them to come out to you. If you can't get them to come then you're probably not offering as good of a salary as you think it is compared to the next city over.

      Also the housing may be affordable but how much is there really much fun things to do there when not working? Great Internet doesn't mean that a town can't be considered a backwater.

      Hell, I know people that commute 1.5 hours each way every single day!

      At 15 hours a week commuting those people are either idiots or rather desperate.

    8. Re: trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor do you need to, you already win by not being a pretentious ass.

    9. Re:trying by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Hell, I know people that commute 1.5 hours each way every single day!

      Yes, and that's wildly, ludicrously insane. I'm wondering if the "I'm not willing to move" is actually a soft "no", because you're somehow giving a bad impression during the interview. If it's really a location thing (e.g. there's bugger all to do around/family suburb with no singles etc), then the best option is probably to open a satellite office in that city.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:trying by TWX · · Score: 1

      I am facing a different problem: "I'm not willing to move there".

      We're not exactly in the middle of nowhere, but also we're an about 1.5 hours drive away from the next large city. Don't get it wrong, this ain't backwater nowhere, you have great internet connection and VERY affordable housing around here, and we're paying VERY well. Yet people are not willing to move those 1.5 hours away from where they're living.

      Hell, I know people that commute 1.5 hours each way every single day!

      It's simple. You have not found a wage/benefits combination that attracts the kinds of workers that you are looking for. It could be that those workers require or like the amenities that the city has and aren't willing to make a three hour round-trip for them. It could be that there's enough work for whatever this class of job is within the city or close to it, such that they do not have to come to you for employment.

      As to your commute-time point, a lot of commuters with commutes that long are taking rail or bus. They may be commuting, but they're not wearing themselves out driving three hours a day in addition to being at work eight and a half to nine hours a day. Also, you mention one and a half hours to the city. What does city traffic add to cross the city itself during rush hour? Another half-hour? An hour? Suddenly that commute becomes four to five hours a day, which is just not sustainable.

      My commute is fifteen minutes and ten miles. I would have to have one hell of a wage increase in order to justify a longer one.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re:trying by Copid · · Score: 2

      Moving is often an expensive and disruptive thing to do, and there are risks associated with moving to a place far away from other job options. Maybe you're a great employer, but are you the only great employer in the area? If so, it's only sensible to move to work for you if it's easy to move if you go out of business / downsize / etc. That means buying a home near you isn't a great idea, and having a spouse quit his or her job to go along with the move isn't so smart either.

      My wife and I are both professionals at about the same income tier in industries with a lot of hiring overlap. If I get a nice job offer somewhere far away, I can't just go home and tell the little lady to quit her job because we're moving somewhere for mine. And unless the offer is truly great, we can't just make the leap and assume she'll find an equally good job after we move. We pretty much have to plan this stuff out together or stay where we are, which is why we're paying more to live in a place with a lot of job opportunities in a lot of directions nearby. We can change jobs without selling our house or dragging the other person through the job hunting process.

      The days of, "drop everything and move for a new job" had more single income households that could devote all of their planning energy to optimizing for that one job. And even then, moving for work tended to be moving from a low population area with few employers to a higher population area with more employers.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    12. Re: trying by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      That's going to open up a lot of jobs picking lettuce and mopping floors. Can I send you an application?

    13. Re: trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are probably right... Commuting 3h a day is a sign of severe ideocracy.

    14. Re: trying by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      i settled in az cause i love the weather.

    15. Re:trying by samwichse · · Score: 1

      "...doesn't include college-dorm moves prevalent with 18- to 24-year-olds..."
      So it excludes what is probably the most common type of move people in this generation make. And, I mean look at the percentage of millennials who went to/are in college vs older generations. This doesn't seem particularly valid.

    16. Re: trying by CockMonster · · Score: 1

      1.5 hours to commute isn't that bad even for cities like london. What bubble do you live in

    17. Re:trying by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, let's put it that way: We're located in a smaller city, certainly more appealing if you have a family, the whole thing has more of a suburb-vibe, lots of shopping centers, great internet connectivity and WAY lower rents (600 bucks rent over 1000 sqft, less than 300k buy a house with more land than you probably want). All that with a very comparable salary means that you can usually save a lot more money than you could living downtown.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re: trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heaven forbid a business that has the overhead and minimal risk take that minimal risk on an out of town employee with a solid work history. They'd rather cry that they can't find people to fill the position (those to bend over backwards accruing risk out of desperation).

      If a company isn't willing to extend you flexibility to move then it's not a company worth working for. You'll probably be miserable in a few months even if you did get the position.

    19. Re:trying by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      I also hear. "you are not local". -_-

      Quite right, too. This is a local job, for local people! There's nothing for you here!

    20. Re:trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like your company is in Waterloo (ON). While it's a bit of a tech hub, quite frankly I wouldn't want to move there from Toronto either. Not exactly an exciting town. Granted, the cost of living is a lot better there, not much to do when work is over...

    21. Re:trying by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Hell, I know people that commute 1.5 hours each way every single day!

      I call those people idiots.

      as for moving, moving is expensive.

      its a buyers market so sellers have to pay closing costs thats easily 10-20k depending on your market.
      renters have to terminate leases, often with a penalty.

      then in the new place you need a downpayment on top of your various lending and mortgage application fees.
      or a crap load of deposits if renting.

      then more deposits to start up new services and utilities.

      plus gas, moving truck, and motels along the way.

      and all that is even is you CAN move.
      people have kids or parents to take care of.
      divorced or joint custody adds another wrinkle.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    22. Re: trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait.... are you Mexican?

    23. Re: trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Indian trying to get H1B?

      We don't take kindly to your types around here....

  2. moving all the time is dumb by known_coward_69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    sure you might make more money cash wise, but you're going to be a perpetual renter aka sharecropper with nothing to your name

    putting down roots means you can buy property at a younger age which means you will pay it off faster and have kids at a younger age. the perpetual movers will be the people having their first kid at 45 and no spare cash from having their rent increase all the time

    1. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Herkum01 · · Score: 2

      If you are moving around, you are not limited to the opportunities in the area that you are in. No opportunities, no chance to grow, you become a sharecropper. Just take a look at all those company towns that depended upon the one factory in the area for job. Once it left, they had nothing to fall back on.

    2. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I'll be moving out of the shithole Republican state I live in a few years from now. Meanwhile I'm building equity instead of just pissing my money away on rent. I'm also working a stable job instead of going from making $100k one year to zilch for three years in a row.

      So fuck you, Gen X. Fuck you "great generation." More like "spoiled rotten" generation. You had gobs more money than I ever have known, and you pissed it away. You PISSED IT AWAY MAKING LANDLORDS RICH instead of MAKING YOURSELVES RICH. So FUCK YOU.

    3. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      the perpetual movers will be the people having their first kid at 45 and no spare cash from having their rent increase all the time

      I know several people who fit that description, except they have plenty of spare cash. Perhaps you could show me your data source as my annecodal evidence shows otherwise?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " and no spare cash from having their rent increase all the time"

      As opposed to property taxes, school taxes, insurance, and upkeep, which never go up and leave plenty of spare cash in people's pockets.

      Rent increases, at least in Quebec, are controlled and can not increase randomly.

    5. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recent first-time home buyer, huh?

    6. Re:moving all the time is dumb by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Remote IT jobs for miles...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:moving all the time is dumb by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      That's only true of small towns that aren't near a decent sized urban center. Which probably doesn't describe a very significant part of the country. 80% of the population lives in "urban" areas. Evidently that doesn't distinguish between big cities, suburbs which are on paper their own townships, and small isolated towns. So I don't know how much of the population lives in real small towns like you describe.

      But I suspect that most people are able to change jobs without having to move, might be an increased commute, but not driving 3 hours through corn fields to get a new job.

    8. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Hylandr · · Score: 1, Interesting

      sure you might make more money cash wise, but you're going to be a perpetual renter aka sharecropper with nothing to your name

      putting down roots means you can buy property at a younger age which means you will pay it off faster and have kids at a younger age. the perpetual movers will be the people having their first kid at 45 and no spare cash from having their rent increase all the time

      Not true at all. You have to recall that all surveys and questionnaires are only valid for the demographic that chooses to participate in surveys or questionnaires.

      My family and I have moved for almost every job I have had in the tech sector and we have had 8 children in the last 20 years. No, we don't own a home, but we are currently working on a Bus to live in as we move between contracts.

      Our debt to income ration is damn low for a couple in their 40's. If I were to buy I would save up and pay outright. Retirement starts with a low debt to income ratio. Who the hell want's a mortgage?

      So far the list has been:
      - California,
      - Oregon,
      - California,
      - Florida,
      - The Great Nation of Texas
      - Oregon.

      Anyone have any DevOps / System Engineer roles in Texas? PM me! :)

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    9. Re:moving all the time is dumb by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      nope, on my second place and have 50% equity or more

    10. Re:moving all the time is dumb by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      i'm in NYC and unless you're in a now non-existent rent controlled apartment, the rent will go up big over time.

      some of the burbs around here do have school taxes that go up big but that is in the best school districts where it's worth it to invest in your kids instead of buying an overpriced car for yourself

    11. Re:moving all the time is dumb by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

      sharecropper has always been people who rent their land and tools and never have money to own anything. like the perpetual movers.

    12. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol.

      I've lived all over the world in my 20's. I wouldn't give that up for any stability or equity in a house. Your house is a prison as far as I'm concerned.

      But it'll be cool to retire earlier than me and go do the things I've done all over the world. Except you'll be old and tired and won't be able to do all the things I've done all over the world.

      Glad you bought into the bullshit!

      captcha: destuff - perfect. Minimalism!

    13. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      That's only true of small towns that aren't near a decent sized urban center. Which probably doesn't describe a very significant part of the country.

      I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time outside the city (not an insult)...

      Look at a map sometime, every state has hundreds of small towns with 500 or 600 people (or less) geographically distant from anything that could be considered a big or medium sized city.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    14. Re:moving all the time is dumb by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Look at a map sometime, every state has hundreds of small towns with 500 or 600 people (or less) geographically distant from anything that could be considered a big or medium sized city.

      Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that "hundreds" averages 300, and that "medium or big city" averages 1,000,000.

      So, we're talking 160K living in those small towns, compared to 1000K in the one city.

      When we further consider that small towns tend to be weighted toward an older demographic (young people do move to the "City" (more often the 'burbs than the city itself), not so much in reverse), we don't see any reason why your statement and what you're responding to can't both be true....

      Note, by the by, that I moved about a dozen times before I was 25 (being an Army brat accounted for most of those moves). And only three more times before I was 50 (and one of those was basically from one side of the city to the other). I *might* move again before I die. Maybe....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re: moving all the time is dumb by corychristison · · Score: 1

      I would buy if I could. I am 28 years old, married, with two school aged children.

      Here in Canada they keep making it more and more difficult for first time buyers. They took away 30 year mortgages, they raised interest rates, they increased the mortgage qualification bar for first time buyers.

      I'm also self employed. Apparently that looks bad on an application, because I can't "guarantee" my income will continue at the level it's at. Despite providing financial records from the past 3 years that show a steady growth. It is an absolute bullshit excuse, because no job is ever guaranteed.

      By being self employed, I have control over my future. I decide how much money I pay myself. I decide if my business continues, or if it fails in how I manage it. If I worked for someone else, my future would be in the hands of my employer. I've worked for 2 companies in the past that went under due to mismanagement. Businesses fail, whether they are mine or not.

      So now here I am paying $1200/mo in rent for a house that if I could have qualified for the mortgage (this exact house was on the market when I was trying to buy), I'd be paying less than I am currently and building up my own equity. I pay all of my own utilities (power, heat, water/sewer, garbage/recycling collection), so its not like the landlord is doing me any favours.

      We can clearly afford it, as we're not struggling in any way. The banks said no, but the guy that bought this house is a serial purchaser, turns around and rents out to make a profit and builds up his equity on my dollar.

      It's a messed up system. Because those who buy to rent out make a profit, and the young families miss out on opportunities, and are forced to pay more by renting.

      On the other hand, we already decided we're going to move across the country when the lease is up. Mostly because we've lived here most of our lives and are ready to experience somewhere new, but also because we're not tied down, and some other unrelated reasons.

    16. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Miamicoastguard · · Score: 0, Troll

      8 Children is criminal, what is wrong with you?

    17. Re:moving all the time is dumb by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Or the difference between ratio and ration.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    18. Re: moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead and 'move out' of the shithole. You know what that makes you, I trust.

    19. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only true of small towns that aren't near a decent sized urban center. Which probably doesn't describe a very significant part of the country.

      I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time outside the city (not an insult)...

      Look at a map sometime, every state has hundreds of small towns with 500 or 600 people (or less) geographically distant from anything that could be considered a big or medium sized city.

      Grandparent did not say "no one lives in small towns". He said they are not "a very significant part" of the population. They are less than 20% based on the statistics he cites.

      Suppose the unemployment rate got to 20% of the people in small towns, but was only 5% in urban areas. The unemployment rate would be:

        (20% unemployment x 20% of the population) + (5% unemployment x 80% of the population) = 8% unemployment for 100% of the population.

      The number of people outside urban areas is so small that they can be facing great-depression level unemployment rates and not move the overall rate to the point where it looks bad!

    20. Re: moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely no way that could be a typo..

    21. Re:moving all the time is dumb by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 2

      You are aware that the rent you pay needs to cover ALL of those costs (which your landlord has to bear), plus a profit. Otherwise there would be no incentive to be a landlord. Now while rent may not need to cover equity (if the landlord owns the property outright), if you're a home owner, the additional equity you pay is going into your own pocket

    22. Re:moving all the time is dumb by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I declined to buy a house when I could because renting was cheaper. In that time, I spent way less on rent than I would have on a mortgage--$725/month versus $1,400. Then I saw a house for $50,000 with 3x the space and bought it, moved 3 miles.

      As per my mortgage, I paid roughly 53% of the principle the first year in interest. That is: I paid $4,026 in P+I; of that, the balance on my mortgage reduced by $2,616, and the bank collected $1,410 in interest.

      Would that I made the regular payments, I would pay $11,402 in 15 years at 2.875% interest rate for a $49,092 loan on a $50,000 house. That's 18% of its purchase price, and doesn't count MPI or any of the things included in rent--maintenance and taxes, mainly, along with homeowner's insurance being $880/year instead of $125.

      If I were to move in 4 years, $5,033 would be paid to interest, with a balance reduction of $11,150. That makes P+I 16,183, and interest around 31%.

      It's hard not to take a loss in those conditions. My house, purchased for $50,000 in 2012 after arguing the sale price down, is now estimated at just under $53,000. It has gained a theoretical $2,764 on paper, while my interest costs have consumed over $4,000. The house is actually halfway paid off, too.

      I've also put nearly $9,000 of work into the house in insulation and remodeling thus far, and will add another $11,000 to that. This hasn't bumped the potential sale price much, and primarily serves to stabilize my finances by cutting my utility bill by 2/3. I can likely run the entire house from heat pump only (no gas furnace), which requires a $5,000+ addition of a heat pump and replacement of the furnace with an air handler; replacing the (1982) furnace with an actual furnace bumps that to nearly $11,000. In the end, I may be able to retail the house for as much as $65,000.

      I've always expected to take a loss, so it's no matter.

      Homeownership hasn't been the ticket to riches and savings over the tyranny of rent; I've sunk literally $60,000 so far into buying financial freedom, and have $50,000 more to go. Even then, I need to keep up with maintenance; and I can do that by paying an electrician $2,000 to rewire my panel for 200A and a plumber $1,800 to install a water heater, or I can run the high-voltage main line and gas piping myself for $500 and $600. Those electricians, plumbers, and professional contractors are incorporated in your rent, and spread among units--cheap insurance.

      On the other hand, renters tend to have perpetual bills (rent) but actually expend less money over time in total. The ROI being a long-term renter is great in the short- and long-term; whereas sinking a high amount of your cash flow into eliminating your mortgage in 5 years allows you to rapidly build up enough cash thereafter to coast for years without a job. Emergency funds grow quickly when you don't have any expenses--caveat, if you suddenly have $5,000 of damage, you need to make an insurance claim, outlay your deductible (which may be $5,000 anyway), and watch 10 months of savings vanish in an eye blink while your month-to-month insurance costs suddenly tick up to recuperate the damages.

      I made a decision between two options with their advantages. I made both decisions, depending on the opportunity presented. Homeownership is a better deal generally in high-interest-rate markets, but a home that costs less than your annual income when you have more than half of that income free to divert to debt management is an option. In low-interest-rate markets, homeownership is a trap.

    23. Re:moving all the time is dumb by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      So? You're in NYC; you're not a real human being. Real human beings live in places where $150,000 income isn't "poor".

      Honestly, what's with people? "It's too expensive in expensive areas! I moved here for the $200,000 salary but a 450sqft apartment costs $170,000/year!" Well, move to somewhere where you get a $75k/year salary and rent for a $650sqft 1br costs $600/month.

    24. Re:moving all the time is dumb by jemmyw · · Score: 1

      My wife and I have moved every year since we got together in 2003, 4 of those times internationally. Had our first kid when I was 25 in 2008. Yes you're correct, we'd be wealthier and could have afforded our own home by now had we settled. I don't think it's a swap I'd want to make though, money isn't the end goal.

      Looking at my peers now, some have managed to purchase places, others not. Usually the determining factor is having had help from their parents, which was never coming our way. We've now scraped together enough to consider buying or building a house in a rural location. But I couldn't say if we'll be settling, my wife is already talking about getting friends to live there to care for our animals while we take off again. It's far easier to move your kids than your cats, although we managed and must have had the most well travelled domestic cat, 1.5 times around the world and 17 US states.

    25. Re:moving all the time is dumb by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I come from the corporate world, so poignantly documented by Scott Adams, and the "yuppies," or "upwardly mobile," young folks and their kids would buy a house, occupy it for a year or three, get promoted to a better place with a higher salary, selling their current home for a small profit.

      That was in the late '80s, early '90s.

      My corporation topped out in revenues; sold off all non-core ventures and "right-sized," to a position where they could be sold.

      It was the "Mobil Oil" part of ExxonMobil.

      This study says it's not like that any more.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    26. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      How would they ever own a 75,000 dollar car though? That's the flip side of moving where the salaries are lower, major ticket items are priced for those expensive regions and can easily go over your year income. Cars in particular. Making 'good money' in my area is less than the cost of all, but the cheapest new cars. It's why 'used cars' dominate my region. Other goods though that are like that: PCs, electronics in general, clothes, etc. They just don't usually go above the average salary in cost, instead they can be a big chunk of a salary.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    27. Re: moving all the time is dumb by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Lol, yea I do my best editing after I hit 'Send'.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    28. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      The concept that anyone would consider a full, loving family criminal is mind boggling. We support, love and nourish them without any negative impact to yourself. Why would you hate on kids?

      Why is society so toxic towards children in general?!

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    29. Re: moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame the guy providing a place for you to rent. Blame the government who put the regulations on the banks, that won't let them give you a loan.
      PS this is precisely why I'm a landlord, the government is forcing people to rent.

    30. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Miamicoastguard · · Score: 0

      Well for one, there's this massive issue of overpopulation which is causing all our problems. Any more than 2 children is highly irresponsible.

    31. Re:moving all the time is dumb by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Your youth featured stable, long-term employment as the norm. That is no longer the case.

      "Putting down roots" is a massive risk when you can expect no job to last more than 3 years. Much less the money pit called "children".

    32. Re:moving all the time is dumb by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      At least here in the US, most mortgage interest, and property taxes is deductible from your Federal taxes.

      Rent sure as fuck isn't.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    33. Re:moving all the time is dumb by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      There are actually some situations where taking a loss on the rental can be advantageous, because of the way tax laws work, and differentials in cost of living between geographic areas.

      In 2010, I moved across the country because I took a new job. They were paying my moving expenses, but I would have been selling my house at a loss at the time. So I kept it and hired a property management company to rent it and take care of all the marketing and administrivia associated with that, for 7% of the rent. What came back to me was not enough to cover the mortgage, taxes, insurance... but it covered the new rent I was paying in the place I moved to, plus about $200 a month. And, since the mortgage interest and property taxes became "expenses" now rather than deductions, they subtracted directly from my taxable income rather than being a deduction, lowering the tax bracket that I fell into.

      I was actually keeping $200/mo more than I was before, with less tax liability to boot. Even though I was "taking a loss" on the rental home that I still own. Then, I bought a house here too, so now I get the deductions for my personal home too. All the while building assets and keeping that second income which for the first time in 2016 resulted in a "profit" - the rent income paid more than the mortgage interest, property management fees, and property taxes paid out. I owed that state a whole $20 in taxes.

      Now that I am "making a profit" it's time for the rent to go up, I guess. My current tenants are well below market rates, so I doubt they'll complain - they've been living there since 2010 without an increase, because it didn't make financial sense for me to raise it until now.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    34. Re:moving all the time is dumb by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You know, there is some gray area between your two extremes.

      It's perfectly plausible to establish a career and household, and then once you are making a good salary with decent benefits, you travel.

      I'm in my 30s, own two houses (one is a rental) and my girlfriend and I are going to Thailand for three weeks this fall, and it's already paid for. Because we both have careers where we are working for stable companies, have job security, and make over $100K a year. And we are hardly "old and tired".

      Sometimes it's about being smarter and looking a little further down the road than the next two months.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    35. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Moving is also a truly horrible experience. Endless packing and heavy lifting, things getting broken and lost. Then there's the pain of actually finding a new place at an OK price, finding movers who won't trash your stuff, finding new shops/restaurants/cafes/friends/doctors etc. All the silly crap you have to learn at the new place (things like what minor repairs need doing etc). It's just a big PITA - unless you absolutely positively must move why the hell would you?

      (actually I should just ask my parents: they specifically and consciously chose to move from town to town every 2-3 years when I was growing up - even to the point of choosing careers that allowed them to - which is a terrible thing to do to a child in my experience, and may well partly explain why the idea of moving fills me with such dread)

    36. Re: moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead and move to a Democrat run utopia with high taxes to pay for all those from the greatest generation and gen X who will enjoy pension bailouts from your hard work. I'm sure you will be a greatly appreciated contributor to the welfare state. Thank you for your hard work and dedication so lack of planning and personal responsibility will actually pay off and encourage others to do the same.

    37. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Overpopulation is a complete myth. All of the Earth's population can fit in the state of Texas. Engineering for high density population would be a challenge, but not impossible.

      Available Infrastructure was China's problem at one point. Not so much now.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    38. Re: moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. Cost of living and cost of playing are two different things. The cost of playing hits the price point of the highest income areas, and the rest just pay it and either drive up personal debt or demand higher salaries to equalize. The problem I see is that it just drives need for quantitative email easing to increase the monetary supply and make savings more worthless. Work your whole life to retire only to find your purchasing power neutralized.

    39. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Miamicoastguard · · Score: 0

      Well some of us like yards.

    40. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Placing a non-sustainable patch of grass over the continuance of the species or at least the right of an individual to raise children could be argued to be extremely selfish, and certainly not a valid argument to 'the world is over-populated'.

      To each his own though, you enjoy your lawn, and I will enjoy raising my children and watching them play and grow into adults to find their own mark on life.

      Hopefully they remember me at Holidays and say kind things about me at my funeral.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    41. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Miamicoastguard · · Score: 0

      Yeah now I can see your problem/s... You have one of those imaginary friends, poor bugger.

    42. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that criminal? Between all the selfish hipsters not having kids, and other ones aborting them in record numbers, having 8 kids doesn't even come close to balancing things out, let alone cause an imbalance.

    43. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Lol what?

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    44. Re:moving all the time is dumb by Rande · · Score: 1

      I'm quite happy with owning my home.
      It's pretty hard to start with though - I did without for several years to pay off more on the Principal, but it also meant I paid off my mortgage in 15 years, which is nice as I now have money to start updating some things.

      Renters here (UK) tend to pay more than home owners as usually if you aren't paying your own mortgage, you're paying someone elses. Plus you're only guaranteed 6 months tenancy, so potentially having to move every 6 months is quite an expense. Maintenance is included into the rent, and you don't have the option of DIY which makes that more expensive.

    45. Re:moving all the time is dumb by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's true, although it's kind of moot when you have a $150k salary, spend most of it on cost-of-living, and have the remains of a normal salary to spend on a car. Cars are a bad model, though, because most car sales are used cars, and used cars are purchased as a financial strategy: a lot of people don't want to pay the depreciation premium.

      Someone earlier was complaining that Americans making $80,000 couldn't afford a $30,000 car; I'm making $77,000 and I can afford a $30,000 car from zero starting with 6 months of savings for a down payment on a 2-year loan.

  3. Psychologically, this also means that young adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Psychologically, this also means that young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory compared with their more mobile peers.

    Practically, this means that the writer of this article is a psychobabbling fool.

  4. Ladder pulled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Set there quietly and subsist on your draw.

  5. Moving is expensive. by lq_x_pl · · Score: 1

    If the running zeitgeist includes pessimism about one's economic outlook, these sorts of things shouldn't come as a surprise.

    --
    An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
  6. Bubble by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're waiting for the bubble to burst again. Hopefully this time they don't bail out the banks and and the idiots who bought mcmansions. The bailouts (including "Keep Your Home California") prevented me, a responsible, financially stable adult, from owning a home. Prices are over double what they should be in my area.
    People don't have roommates, they have roomfamilies.

    1. Re:Bubble by known_coward_69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      keep dreaming. there is no bubble this time cause i don't hear about short term loans being used to buy homes with no money down like 10 years ago

    2. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It'll happen all over again when Trump and his congressional cronies gut Dodd-Frank.

      Banks already got the golden egg and consumers over a barrel.

      What is prime rate today? 3.75%? Yet they don't pay shit for savings interest and ass-rape you on your loans and credit line. Then they nickel and dime you with ATM and check fees.

    3. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generation slowflake are hoping to get by on their parents' death. So few are looking to create their own wealthy. 30+ year olds are living at home all over the western world, surrounding themselves with dweeby liberals/leftie PC celebrity worshipping peers. They are not driven to succeed, they're blood-suckers, leeches and the epitome of me-me-me self-indulgent losers. What they fail to realise is that they have had life on a plate and their parents will not be leaving them anything upon their deaths - they'll be selling their homes and investments to pay for extended are in later life. Generation dweebsters aren't interested in caring for their elderly folk, it may interrupt their selfie worship, twatter/FB fake lives.

      Let's hope the next generation have some gumption.

    4. Re:Bubble by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      the last bubble took almost 10 years to happen and only started with clinton era policies when the current NY State governor was Secretary of HUD

    5. Re:Bubble by gtall · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You do realize that if the banks and the financial system had seized up, no one would be buying anything for a long, long time, yes?

      Many bank shareholders lost plenty. The systemic risk was enabled by weak federal oversight and did not only involve the banks. The developers, the real estate agents, the local pols, dear sainted Americans who (flipped houses and/or bought stupidly and/or double mortgaged), etc. The list is of perps is long.

      And what lesson did the pols learn? Screw all the banks equally, even the small-town banks that were not part of the problem. And now the goal is to remove as many constraints as possible, without fixing any of the underlying reasons the perps were able to walk away with the loot.

      It may take a bit of time, but there will be another bubble, and the rules will be such that the fed. gov. won't be able to make the financial sector liquid again very easily. When that happens, watch out.

    6. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bubble is buy-and-rent-out... so first time owners are disappearing.

      The business aspect isn't necessarily a bad thing, but frankly the folks who run this buy-and-rent-out as a business shouldn't have the same protections as folks buying stuff for the first time---for a house they're living in---when a business owner defaults, they *should* lose the houses, not have the nation bail them out on their five rental properties.

    7. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UK: average home price is 6x salary, with artificially low interest rates (to prevent the massive foreclosures it will cause). Massive immigration for unskilled, uneducated former easter bloc residents looking for a better life. EU rules the UK has to home them, provide education and health, and homes - even if that means putting them up on 4* hotels for years. Due to their lack of skills these people eventually get sub-minimum wage jobs, thus are not paying taxes or NI. Their sole purpose is to force up house prices for the high income people that are riding the crest of the "buy to let" scam. Like all artificially created procrastinated policies, it will return to normal, and millions will lose their homes.

      And yes, as a first time buyer in the UK, you can get a loan over 6x your salary for a house that you will never be able to afford, and maintain, with almost nothing down. Just not in London or any nice area in the south east.

    8. Re:Bubble by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bubble? What bubble, my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago. There is no bubble, and that's why people aren't moving. They owe too much on their house from last time the bubble burst. If selling your house means you have to pay the bank money to close out the mortgage, you're probably not going to move.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    9. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there won't be any bail out's on the next bubble, there will be bail in's. they will just start taking money from your accounts.

      oh and there is a bubble. this is the last bubble though, no where to kick this can.

    10. Re:Bubble by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that that is basically the only sensible option they have. Generation snowflake is also generation intern, a generation that moves from one intern position to the next until they're too old and the next batch of interns is available, baited with the same promise that you may get a fixed position if you test out ok, only to eventually learn that this is a false promise. All that happens is that you get replaced by the next intern.

      I do not challenge that there are a lot of people without any marketable skill, qualification or degree. And their number is rising rapidly. Or, in the eternal words of a CEO that I better leave unnamed here, "No, we don't have a Diversity Officer, the people we hire have to do productive work". But that shouldn't distract from the real problem at hand, that we're looking at a generation that has no chance to EVER regain their college loans, even if they were smart enough to study something where there is a market for it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would they pay you interest for your money, when they can get so much more from the Fed for free?

    12. Re:Bubble by Nunya666 · · Score: 2

      Bubble? What bubble, my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago. There is no bubble, and that's why people aren't moving. They owe too much on their house from last time the bubble burst. If selling your house means you have to pay the bank money to close out the mortgage, you're probably not going to move.

      Same here. I live in the U.S. Midwest, and my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago.

      Unless I win the lottery, this is the last home I'll ever own. (I'm 50, BTW.)

    13. Re:Bubble by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone use a big bank in this day & age.

      Local credit union gives 1.5% interest on a checking account if you have direct deposit & use debit 10x a month. Hell, that's about the same as a CD rate, so why lock your money away in one?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    14. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you blaming other people for your inadequacies instead of taking responsibility for your life?

    15. Re:Bubble by NatasRevol · · Score: 0

      Ditto. I sold my house (owned for 10 years, rented for 6 of them) for 25% less than what I initially paid for it. There were some local issues that made it lower than avg, but still that's a lot.

      On the plus side, that loss negated all my income this year, so I get all my taxes back. Just like trump.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re:Bubble by TWX · · Score: 1

      Actually a short-sale is a thing and if paying whatever costs are necessary for the short-sale is far cheaper than paying the upside-down cost on the mortgage, then the short-sale approach probably makes more sense.

      It's not like if you paid $200,000 for a house and you can sell only for $150,000 that you have to pay the bank $50,000. You might have to pay tax against that $50,000, and you might have to be careful about what state you move to as short-sale laws are not consistent across all states, but generally if you short-sell you don't have to pay what the bank loses on the deal, if they lose any due to mortgage insurance.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    17. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moved from MD (DC Area) to CA (East Bay area) in the summer of 2016 for work.

      Condo in MD sat on the market for five months and we sold for 1.4% more than we paid for it in 2007. Value dropped by over 15% after the 2008 bubble bursting and is just now coming back.

      Looking for a house in the East Bay now where values bounced back much sooner and are well above 2007 levels at present. And this is with a construction boom going on as well.

      Then again, my parents' home in OKC, OK may never be worth what it once was. And I probably should have looked at something like Columbus, OH myself. ;)

    18. Re:Bubble by nine-times · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hopefully this time they don't bail out the banks and and the idiots who bought mcmansions.

      And how do you imagine that would work out? If everyone's bank accounts suddenly evaporate, your savings will be gone. And your employer's bank accounts will disappear. And your employer's customers' bank accounts will disappear. And then you have riots in the streets.

      I suppose the houses that escape the fires will be cheaper, assuming anyone has money to buy them. You won't be able to get a loan because the banks will be gone, and you'll have no savings, so it's not clear where that money will come from.. And it's not clear what currency anyone will be accepting.

    19. Re:Bubble by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1

      Not advocating a minimalist lifestyle, but you can read a lot about it from James Altucher who has done it. Most of us can probably do with a lot less stuff. One of the things Altucher advises against is over-leveraging yourself, especially when it comes to housing and education.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    20. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone use a big bank in this day & age.

      Local credit union gives 1.5% interest on a checking account if you have direct deposit & use debit 10x a month. Hell, that's about the same as a CD rate, so why lock your money away in one?

      Can I use this credit union? Which one is it? I use Ally bank for the 1%.

    21. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a member of the Baby Boomers / Generation X group (depending on your definition), and I see what is happening to millennials and I think you are full of shit. I graduated from college with a BS, $25,000 in debt, and $30,000 starting salary. Millennials would pull teeth to get that deal (just double both numbers to adjust for inflation). College in my day was around $12,000 a year for a top-tier engineering school. I had cooperative-education-assignments, not internships, and they PAID MONEY to have me there. None of this work for free bullshit. Most of my peers found work out of college -immediately-. Face it, my generation has given the next generation a fairly raw deal.

    22. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This!

    23. Re:Bubble by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      https://firsttechfed.secure.fo...

      First Tech federal credit union.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    24. Re:Bubble by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      And yes, as a first time buyer in the UK, you can get a loan over 6x your salary for a house that you will never be able to afford

      I live in Belfast, a capital city that has everything that is in the UK. You can find two bedroom house is 50,000GBP. Entirely affordable. You can get pretty large houses outside of Belfast that are six bedroom for around 100,000GBP.

      The mortgage you pay on those is less than if you're renting here (400GBP/month for renting the two bedroom house, council tax included). Council tax even includes unmetered water, bin collection etc.

      There are places you can move to in the UK and own that are easily affordable (I even have two fiber internet connections at home, no lack of utilities here).

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    25. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they nickel and dime you with ATM and check fees.

      Do your grandchildren use cash and checks too?

    26. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Minneapolis, Mine has more than doubled. 190 to 415

    27. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have to get the bank to agree to the short sale? What if they don't?

    28. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesnt work like that in the US. Banks will typically lend you 3 times your income, if you want more than that, you need the difference in cash.

      The only thing that makes the 6x un-repayable loan work is the assumption that when you retire and sell it, you'll cash out some equity and market gains.

    29. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. I've got a 350sq ft shithole that I pay a whopping $900/month for, and I have rent control (7 years now). New tenants pay over $1000 for the same shithole. If I give up my glorious shithole, I'll have to pay almost double to move to a better apartment, if not more. The "market rate" apartment around the corner start at $2500 for a 1br and ones going in across the street start at $3k. I make 6 figures and there's no way in hell I will get either of those because what's the point of making all that money if you spend it all on rent? Same thing for buying a house. Once I figured out $1500 was the floor of the apartment range I wanted (3 years ago.. now it's more), that sounds like a mortgage payment, so I started looking for houses. Bid $220k on a 450 square foot house; wasn't even close to the top bid (sold for $270k, flipped for $370k 15 months later).

      I don't know what the fuck people do for a living that make $2500/month 1br apartments "normal", but apparently software development isn't it.

    30. Re: Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My nephew builds websites from out in the middle of nowhere in southern Minnesota. Has managed to buy 3 houses in his moving around. Has 4 kids. Big SUV to cart them around in and pull the travel trailer. He is of the millineal generation, but he isn't a lazy big baby.

    31. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its time for you to take your meds and have a nap.

    32. Re:Bubble by jez9999 · · Score: 0

      (I even have two fiber internet connections at home, no lack of utilities here).

      Yes, and also a band of loonies who want to reunite with EU-loving Catholic Ireland. Nice to be living in fear of that.

    33. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I'm talking about. I used to have a Money Market checking account with NetBank that paid 5.5% interest.

      Look at CD rates over the last 30 years.

      Now see the prime rate during the same period.

    34. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever heard of Cash?

    35. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Minneapolis, Mine has more than doubled. 190 to 415

      Demand is going up in town as people are abandoning the suburbs to the Somalis.

    36. Re:Bubble by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I'm a member of the Baby Boomers / Generation X group (depending on your definition), and I see what is happening to millennials and I think you are full of shit. I graduated from college with a BS, $25,000 in debt, and $30,000 starting salary. Millennials would pull teeth to get that deal (just double both numbers to adjust for inflation).

      I'm a borderline millennial (turned 30 late last year). When I graduated from grad school, my numbers were reversed from yours. Roughly 35k in debt, starting salary around 27k. And it wasn't even a salary, it was hourly at about $13 per hour with shift differential. This was about a year after I graduated, and I only managed to get the job because I had started working part time there summer of my freshman year of college and had enough seniority (barely) to transition to a full time position. A year and a half after that I moved to a true salaried position at the same company and my salary roughly doubled. Just finished 2 years in my current position with 10 years total at the company. I'm married, own a home, and me and my wife made in the low 90k combined last year.

      My sister on the other hand is 26, lives at home, has at least double the student loans I do, and just got offered her first real job out of college last week that will pay about 19k a year. I am fully aware that as a millennial I am in a very good situation compared to many others.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    37. Re:Bubble by Kergan · · Score: 0

      The debt is still around, the bubble just didn't deflate because of the bailouts - it got shifted around like hot potatoes, with the tax payer holding a big one. It's only a matter of time before the next round of crashes.

      Would love to think we'll see some handcuffs this time, but, well, Trump.

    38. Re:Bubble by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Bubble? What bubble, my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago. There is no bubble, and that's why people aren't moving. They owe too much on their house from last time the bubble burst. If selling your house means you have to pay the bank money to close out the mortgage, you're probably not going to move.

      That, and the fact that the homes that are for sale or currently being built are all ridiculously overpriced. We bought our house about a year and a half ago. It's about 15 years old, 2k square feet and 3bd/2.5bath and we paid just under 200k for it. There is a ton of new construction here now and it all starts at 300-350K for townhomes and 400k+ for single family homes. And we are on the very outer edges of the metro area. If we hadn't gotten this house when we did we would still be renting, and stuck paying just as much in rent (if not more) than we are currently paying for mortgage. Even if millennials want to move, in many cases there simply isn't a house they can afford.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    39. Re:Bubble by slew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hopefully this time they don't bail out the banks and and the idiots who bought mcmansions.

      And how do you imagine that would work out? If everyone's bank accounts suddenly evaporate, your savings will be gone. And your employer's bank accounts will disappear. And your employer's customers' bank accounts will disappear. And then you have riots in the streets.

      I suppose the houses that escape the fires will be cheaper, assuming anyone has money to buy them. You won't be able to get a loan because the banks will be gone, and you'll have no savings, so it's not clear where that money will come from.. And it's not clear what currency anyone will be accepting.

      Cyprus set the template for the bail-in. Basically, they can freeze all "cash-equivalent" assets for weeks and when unfrozen, everything above the FDIC** insurance limit takes a haircut (40% in the case of Cyprus)... This event basically put everyone on notice to have a contingency plan for this. If your employer doesn't have a contingency for this, they are stupid. If you are carrying cash-equivalent assets above the FDIC/SIPC limit, you are either too rich to care, or have stupidly invested your money.

      The theory of the bail-in, is that it forces "rich" folks to take appropriate risks with their money and not burden the state with being the backstop for deposit insurance to those that should be able to manage the risk. Some people don't seem to understand that in order to work at all, it requires the *pause* (frozen-assets), otherwise these events just precipitates a bank run.

      Historically, in order to avoid major FDIC insurance impact of liquidation, the FDIC has shopped the bank assets to other banks (so-called purchase and assumption agreements), but has needed to kick in a sweetener to cover the over FDIC limit deposits. Now the FDIC can simply convert over-limit FDIC deposits into bank-shares which eliminates the need for them to kick in the sweetener. Unfortunately, the rules are ambiguous an allow them to convert *any deposits* into bank-shares if it is deemed necessary if it "mitigates the potential for serious adverse effects to the financial system.”

      **of course in Cyprus, the insurance limit was defined by the EU...

    40. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local credit union gives 1.5% interest on a checking account ...
      Hell, that's about the same as a CD rate, so why lock your money away in one?

      Hell, at 1.5% why not keep it in your mattress instead?

    41. Re:Bubble by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing that, but I also keep seeing healthy job sectors and people who have student loans and are well on their way to paying them off. I avoided student loan debt, so I can't much comment; besides, my fiscal position is far-superior to my peers. Last year, I put $18,000 into my 401(k); and I paid my mortgage down 50% in the first 4 years. I intend to finish it in 2018 or 2019; it was going to be a 3-year mortgage, but I changed my financial priorities ($18k into 401(k) plus $3,500 in HSA in one year, and $15k into accounts before that... there's enough money shoved into savings at this point that I could pay off my mortgage).

      I make $77k now. Just got a pay increase, 1.99%.

      I'm starting to wonder how many things are giving voice to a minority, how many are manipulations of statistics (student loan debt will grow with inflation and population, even if the loans are regularly getting paid off), and how many are things we just repeat again and again until we forget they're not true. I know the middle-class and lower-class income arguments are that last category (although minimum wage does constantly lose buying power--inflation does that, but inflation can only happen if working-class incomes increase faster than inflation).

    42. Re:Bubble by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I'm an old guy. My very first CD, back in the mid to late 80's paid a whopping 8%!! Now, they make something like 0.0007%. :(

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    43. Re:Bubble by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let me know where you can get a checking account that gives you that much.

      Ignoramus.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    44. Re:Bubble by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Local credit union gives 1.5% interest on a checking account ...
      Hell, that's about the same as a CD rate, so why lock your money away in one?

      Hell, at 1.5% why not keep it in your mattress instead?

      His mattress isn't FDIC insured.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    45. Re:Bubble by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's still over-valued I'm afraid. The only way to solve the housing problems, the fact that young people can't afford a home any me, is to stop treating them like investments and instead think of them as depreciating assets.

      If a 50 year old house is worthless, the price of houses is determined mostly by new build cost. People won't play silly money for them because they aren't an investment that will increase in value.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    46. Re:Bubble by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Did you live in a 2 bedroom apartment with 4 other people, cook your own food, not own a car an work two jobs also?

    47. Re:Bubble by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Nope, but me and my girlfriend shared a 1 bedroom apartment on basically my hourly wage alone for about a year. We also had 2 fully paid off cars and yes, I did cook my own food. Then we moved into a rental house with her newly divorced mother who in turn moved into our house when we bought it then moved out about 6 months later when she remarried.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    48. Re:Bubble by sexconker · · Score: 1

      In what way am I full of shit? Please read what I wrote again.

    49. Re:Bubble by sexconker · · Score: 1

      My mistake - I though that was a direct reply to me.

    50. Re:Bubble by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You bought at the peak of a massive bubble, and only a decade later we're at 80% of that bubble (using your anecdote) and you're claiming there's no bubble now.

    51. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point your missing is that a large portion of the population has *NOTHING* to lose in such a case. That population is growing. Pretending they are just entitled lazy millennials is a great way to get a date with the peoples razor sooner rather than later.

    52. Re:Bubble by shadowp157 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you live, but I'm in the northwest, and houses here are being sold at nearly the same, or more than they were between 06-08. Sometimes drastically so (sold 2008 for 425k sold last week for 700k.), but the majority are within a few thousand. (sold 2007 245, on the market now for 250). I realize that list price is different than what its worth, but these are still very similar to prices at the height of the bubble.

    53. Re:Bubble by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Evolution is powered not by time, but by death.

      Forests NEED fires to stay healthy. Preventing forest fires only means that eventually the fire that comes will be catastrophic and unsurvivable by anything.

      Capitalism is based on a NEED for some businesses (including banks) that make stupid choices to fail. Preventing them from failing *incentivizes* continued stupid choices.

      If the "too big to fails" had actually failed in 2007, the financial road would have been rocky. Many peoples' lives would have been destroyed because they made poor choices (or, by a lasseiz-faire approach to their investments and 401ks, allowed others to make poor choices), but the end result would have been much LOWER market prices as businesses desperate to survive cut prices to stay in business.

      --
      -Styopa
    54. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So which one is it? Houses are overpriced, or prices haven't come back to where they were when the parent bought his home? Just goes to show that making absolute statements about the housing market is pointless. too much geographic variation. My house is easily worth 25% more than when I bought it in 2007. that doesn't make Oswald McWeany's situation any less valid.

    55. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I read this, I thought "wow -- who would really need a six bedroom house?" Then I noticed "Belfast" and thought "Irish Twins" and now I feel like I should take a course on unintentional stereotyping again.

      I suppose you might need two fiber connections with that many kids in the house?

    56. Re:Bubble by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Just because you are not listening, it doesn't mean it's not happening. This time it is the hedge funds though, not individual home owners but companies that are buying properties by the hundreds and then either just holding them or renting them out.

      What is even more stupid is that Freddie and Fannie are guaranteeing these as well, though the idea behind them was to promote individual home ownership (not that such a thing needs to be promoted by any government)...

    57. Re:Bubble by TWX · · Score: 1

      Generally the borrower is going to be done with the property whether the bank cooperates with the borrower's attempt to short-sale or not. If the property goes into foreclosure then the bank has to spend all of the money required on the foreclosure process and then go through more steps; if the bank is lucky then the borrower remains living in the home doing upkeep until they're given eviction notice when the house goes on the open market again. If the bank is unlucky then either the borrower damages the home prior to losing it, or else the borrower moves out and cuts all ties as soon as possible such that the vacant property isn't being maintained and may even be actively vandalized.

      In the first foreclosure scenario the bank manages to sell it for ... wait for it ... market value, aka, basically the price it would have gone for if it short-sold.

      In the second foreclosure scenario the bank has to sell it below market value as the property is now in below average condition for the market that it's in. And good luck trying to get the former borrower to pay for anything. Plus, if the home is sufficiently damaged then they may have to either sell as-is with known faults, which means cash buyers only (and thus really low price) or else they have to spend money to fix it so that another lender will be willing to lend against it.

      In short, if the borrower contacts the bank about short-selling a property, it's pretty much always in the bank's interest to entertain the idea.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    58. Re:Bubble by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Its not the shareholders, its the bank management as well as the traders (and the ratings agencies)

    59. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Yeah, let me know where you can get a checking account that gives you that much. Ignoramus.

      http://www.bankrate.com/finance/checking/high-yield-credit-unions.aspx

    60. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how to ask you this, but have you counted your chromosomes? because you might be retarded.

    61. Re:Bubble by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Yes, and also a band of loonies who want to reunite with EU-loving Catholic Ireland. Nice to be living in fear of that.

      Honestly, I'm not afraid of that in Ulster at all.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    62. Re:Bubble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      they can freeze all "cash-equivalent" assets for weeks and when unfrozen, everything above the FDIC** insurance limit takes a haircut (40% in the case of Cyprus)... in order to avoid major FDIC insurance impact of liquidation, the FDIC has shopped the bank assets to other banks

      Admittedly, I'm not a major financial expert, but if you're talking about FDIC, you're basically talking about the government seizing control of the bank, still bailing them out, figuring out what to do with the assets, which may be selling them to other banks. In the case of the 2008 crisis, it would have basically meant taking control of all the banks and the government would then have a nationalized banking system. Even if you don't have a problem with the nationalized banking system, that's a lot for the government to take on all at once. And basically all the banks were screwed, so there weren't really a bunch of other banks to sell the assets to.

      Am I wrong? I don't know all about Cyprus, but it seems like freezing all assets for all the banks for a few weeks might also cause some chaos all by itself.

      If your employer doesn't have a contingency for this, they are stupid.

      If people didn't do stupid things, then the banking crisis wouldn't have happened in the first place.

    63. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not be in CA. CA isn't a bubble, it's a chronic housing shortage. Been this way for decades. If you have capital, it makes being a land baron especially profitable with no real downside risk since there are 50k+ fewer houses than people needing to reside in them. Rents are a permanent uptick all other things being equal.

    64. Re:Bubble by jwdb · · Score: 1

      It'll happen all over again when Trump and his congressional cronies gut Dodd-Frank.

      Maybe so. But if that's the cause, then that means we haven't even started on the bubble yet, and that when it pops again prices *still* won't be any lower than they are right now.

      The bubble that has to pop to bring prices down below what they are now is the low-density single-use-zoning don't-raise-my-taxes one.

    65. Re:Bubble by Rande · · Score: 1

      I put my house on the market in 2004 partially because I thought house prices were due for a crash as they'd hit 4x average wage and I thought "What idiot would lend more than 4x salary??"
      In hindsight I was very lucky that I couldn't go through with the sale.

    66. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which suburbs are those? We have many Chinese and Indian immigrants. Somalis are a distant third. The community is not that large.

    67. Re:Bubble by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Well, mortgage rates were 15% then too, so take your savings with a grain of salt.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    68. Re:Bubble by eepok · · Score: 1

      So very much this. I was talking with an MBA friend of mine who can't wait to get his 6-digits so he can wholly invest in property because "Every house appreciates in value!" I asked him, "Why does a house that degrades over time go up in value?"

      He was stumped, but then came to terms with the response, "Well, people need homes. People build homes where people want to live (near large employment areas, beaches, etc.) and people want to buy there. Supply & demand drives up prices for the limited number of homes."

      I respond, "So it's not that the actual value of the house or land goes up, it's that more people in the market need homes near where they work. Your goal is to buy those homes and make them pay more money than the value of the home so you can get money while not actually providing a product or improving on an existing product. Is that right?"

      "Jeez, man. You make me sound like a real dick when you put it that way..."

      And then we got back to work.

    69. Re:Bubble by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A simple way to solve the demand issue is to have a lottery for new homes. The price is fixed, everyone who wants it signs up, and a name is picked at random.

      If that's too much for you, the system in Scotland isn't bad. They take secret bids up to a cut-off date, and then the owner is free to accept any of them. Because bids are secret it stops price warring and inflation, and because accepting a bid is final it stops gazumping.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    70. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bubble is (at least) twofold:

      -First part is creative accounting by corporations other than those in energy which had their shenanigans revealed via Enron. As this is a bigger section of the economy expect more people to have retirement and investments wiped out overnight or over a couple weeks.

      -Second part is the lack of inflation has been maintained by creative price gouging to make up the loss. As soon as total cost of good or service is used (either through regulations or running out of new and creative fees / pricing methods) or padding wage values are normalized the real value of inflation will be realized and everything will go into a tailspin.

      This does not include Dodd relaxations and the probably spin up of more "creative" financial instruments which can have an independent effect or act to prolong / worsen the two bubbles proposed above.

    71. Re:Bubble by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Bubble? What bubble, my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago. There is no bubble, and that's why people aren't moving. They owe too much on their house from last time the bubble burst. If selling your house means you have to pay the bank money to close out the mortgage, you're probably not going to move.

      There is a bubble but several things are going on and it's not going on everywhere. All that money that was invested in home loans that suffered back in 2008/2009; well, the people who got their money out needed a new place to put it and it seems they are putting it into actual real estate, buying up houses. They also are targeting hot housing markets like NYC, SF, Seattle, Portland Austin, not all housing markets. These places also happen to be hot because there are lots of people moving there because their are lots of jobs. Add in the people buying and flipping houses and it drives those housing markets even more. The question is why are those spots doing well economically and driving markets while places like Cincinnati, Oklahoma City, and others are not? My current theory is that the economy has moved into a phase that instead of mass of blue collared workers, the new economy relies on large pools of degreed and even specialized workers.

    72. Re:Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every suburb I drive through, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Somali woman in a minivan...

    73. Re: Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2008, the FDIC *did* sieze banks and convinced other banks execute purchase/assumption agreements to other banks all in one day (eg Washington Mutual was "sold" to Chase overnight). But the law at the time didn't allow them to convert deposits to shares of the failed bank, so they needed to use FDIC reserves to sweeten the deal for the the banks (but not as much as it would cost to redeem insurance on all deposits which saved the FDIC money). The purpose of the overnight sale/open next day was to prevent a run on the bank, but it cost the FDIC reserves alot which needed TARP money and a big assessment to surviving banks to replenish the funds impacting the shareholders of the purchasing bank as well as the government. With the new law inspired by Cyprus' bail in, they can simply convert deposits in a failed bank to stock shares as needed to either save the bank or fascilitate a purchase/assumption agreement w/o triggering an insurance payout avoiding the need for a future FDIC bailout. Of course to save the bank (rather than sell it) they will need authority to freeze assets temporarily to prevent the inevitable run-on-the-bank if they trigger a conversion of some deposits to shares of a failing bank.

      Cypress was the template. Now most countries changed their deposit laws to allow this.

  7. Connected to jobs also by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Millenials have fewer job prospects in general and are less wealthy than their parents were at the same age. This is true by a variety of different metrics. See e.g. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/01/13/millennials-falling-behind-boomer-parents/96530338/. In the last few years, something, it isn't clear what, has been drastically reducing the resources available to young people. This is combining with cost disease http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/ in a way that is leaving many people in the young age bracket with far less effective purchasing power than their parents would have had for many things. It isn't completely the case; some goods such as computers and cell phones are far cheaper (and often weren't even available to their parents) but that's a relatively small fraction of their total goods. Some other trends are clear positive, such as the reduction in poverty in the US, and the overall trends throughout the world are mainly positive. See e.g. https://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better-than-you-think-in-10-powerful-charts/. But the US specific young people are clearly going through a bad time in general.

    1. Re:Connected to jobs also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a lot of Millenials don't have the ambition to move away from mom and dad, especially to another city or state.

    2. Re:Connected to jobs also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poverty rates have been rising in the US since the 2008 financial crisis. So how do you figure it has reduced? From this point on, with the effects of automation, poverty will keep climbing.

      The US will be getting the terrafoam system, slowly but surely. :)

    3. Re:Connected to jobs also by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      The poverty rates in question are over the long-term. The rate is much lower than it was 40 years or 60 years ago. It is true that in the last decade the trend has reversed itself, but even then the rate of increase has been small compared to the historic rate of decrease.

  8. sorry, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory "

    what?

    1. Re:sorry, what? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      This article joyfully translated from the speech of Mandarin.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  9. Nobody *and* especially. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennials

    Dear Drake Baer and NY Mag Editors, If "nobody" is moving, then there cannot be an "especially".

    Also, who cares? I'm 53 and have lived in the same house (which is paid for) since 1993 and the same city since 1980.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Nobody *and* especially. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennials

      Dear Drake Baer and NY Mag Editors, If "nobody" is moving, then there cannot be an "especially".

      Also, who cares? I'm 53 and have lived in the same house (which is paid for) since 1993 and the same city since 1980.

      I moved country in 1999. Does that count?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Nobody *and* especially. by link-error · · Score: 3, Funny

      You forgot to add... "And get off my lawn!"

      --
      -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
    3. Re:Nobody *and* especially. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! Which country did you move, and are your arms still sore?

    4. Re: Nobody *and* especially. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to get off my lawn. Just stand there and the coyotes will knaw your ankles.

  10. Elon Musk: Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a fun new entry into millennials are lazy, consider this: According to new data tracked down by Elon Musk for Elon Musk, just 20 percent of 25- to 35-year-olds (Old Millennials, if you will) reported having lived at a different address the previous year. From a report on ElonMag:

    In 2000, a full 26 percent of Gen-Xers -- then at the same age range -- had reported making a move in the previous year. In 1963, members of the Silent Generation moved at a 26 percent rate, too. The census data being used here doesn't include college-dorm moves prevalent with 18- to 24-year-olds, so those young'uns are left out of the analysis. The 20 percent rate is the lowest level of young adult mobility in half a century, Musk reports, and all this with millennials getting married, owning homes, and having kids less than previous generations. Student debt and less favorable lending rates may be driving down homeownership -- imagine that -- which further reduces movement. Psychologically, this also means that young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory compared with their more mobile peers.

    Musk went on to ask "WHAT THE FUCK DOES more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory MEAN. LIKE ITS NOT EVEN A GOOGLE TRANSLATED SENTENCE FUCK"

  11. Cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Millennials are (in general) sold on living in the big city, generally in an apartment.

    There's only a few big cities, so unsurprisingly, there isn't much movement.

    The is also why Millennials feel the cost of living is higher now, especially the cost of ownership. Owning a home in the big city has always been out of reach for most, and the cost of living is higher too. With even more people choosing that lifestyle, it won't get better.

    Personally, I hate big cities, but I'm gen X. I also prefer a detached house, which meant a smaller city too.

    Millennials are earning more than I sure did for their first job, even after CPI adjustment. Yet I own a home. So it isn't that.

    1. Re:Cities by Codeman125 · · Score: 2

      I'm technically considered a Millennial, but I feel more Gen X than anything, 34 Years Old. I hate living in Cities. I prefer the suburbs or rural areas. My problem with owning a house right now is price. I live in the South Denver area. A 1200 sq/ft. home with a tiny yard where I currently reside is going for $350,000+. I recently sold my 496 sq/ft Condo in the same area for $140,000 less than 2 hours after it hit the market. Moved back in with my parents and am saving for a down payment on a house. Real Estate is just way too expensive. I could have rented my condo out if my HOA would have approved, (a whole other issue). A rental like that is going for around $1000 a month. It's ludicrous.

    2. Re:Cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best I've been able to figure out is that a $150k house will cost you $5-600/month in mortgage. With other expenses, taxes & insurance, you're still under $1000/month. I bought my first two house with cash and am now looking into financing additional units

    3. Re:Cities by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      According to this, there is not that big of a longterm discrepancy between home ownership by age of householder and under 29 looks like they are doing better than genX, not counting 2005. It looks like 2005 was a fluke

    4. Re:Cities by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I'm technically considered a Millennial, but I feel more Gen X than anything, 34 Years Old. I hate living in Cities. I prefer the suburbs or rural areas. My problem with owning a house right now is price. I live in the South Denver area. A 1200 sq/ft. home with a tiny yard where I currently reside is going for $350,000+. I recently sold my 496 sq/ft Condo in the same area for $140,000 less than 2 hours after it hit the market. Moved back in with my parents and am saving for a down payment on a house. Real Estate is just way too expensive. I could have rented my condo out if my HOA would have approved, (a whole other issue). A rental like that is going for around $1000 a month. It's ludicrous.

      Well, one thing to consider, there *ARE* places in the US that are much cheaper than out west.

      In TX, even in very large metropolitan areas, you can get waaaaay more house than you need for $150-$200K. I also believe they do not have state tax there either.

      There are other many examples of cheaper states to live in, so, you might look into that.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Cities by Codeman125 · · Score: 2

      That is true. I also differ than most Millennials in that I have worked for the same company, a school district, since I could work. I make decent money, but what is even better, I have a pension plan and am able to retire with over 30 years at age 50. We just have too many people moving here. There are a ton from California and Texas. A lot of them are here for the weed. No lie. There is one area of town where there are 15+ pot shops in a single mile. Legalize it in the US and have everyone stay where they are. And forget about trying to go skiing on the weekends, It takes a good 3 hours to get to the closest resort because of the traffic. And that is if you leave by 5:30 or 6 am. It used to take 90 min at most. I'm rambling here. I feel like an old man "Get off my lawn, ya damn hippies!"

    6. Re:Cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as a thought from another Denverite, depending on where you work then Aurora around Fitzsimmons area is a great place to buy right now. Most of the houses in the neighborhood around there were built in the 50s are 2+ beds, 1 bath, and with the incipient finishing of the 225 light rail line, and the Fitzsimmons buildout, I expect that to be the next hot area in the Denver market. Prices are running around $150-180 depending if you look north/south of colfax and east/west of 225.

      But I feel for you. My wife and I bought out house 3 years ago for $250K. It was one of the worst houses on the street in an area where the median sale was $315K. A house as bad as ours was 3 years ago, just sold a month ago after being on the market for 24 hours for $415K. We've been thinking about selling to profit take, but where would we move? There aren't any areas within the current 15 minute commute to our work that we have that are under $450K median right now, which means we'd be paying more, for less.

    7. Re:Cities by Codeman125 · · Score: 1

      Yes. There are cheaper ones. In the area I am in, specifically Highlands Ranch, good luck finding something that isn't a condo or townhome for under $300,000. I'd prefer to stay where I am. 5 minute commute to work, good schools, good neighbors.

    8. Re:Cities by superwiz · · Score: 1

      I feel like an old man "Get off my lawn, ya damn hippies!"

      Oh, don't worry. The new hippies are actually the legalized version of the old hippies. It was funny when the tea party were the counter-hippies. But the new ones are the counter tea party hippies. So, by double negative, the new hippies are the old hippies.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    9. Re:Cities by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I recently sold my 496 sq/ft Condo in the same area for $140,000 less than 2 hours after it hit the market

      Whoops! Shoulda asked more, apparently.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Cities by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In TX, even in very large metropolitan areas, you can get waaaaay more house than you need for $150-$200K. I also believe they do not have state tax there either.

      They have much higher property taxes, however. Sales taxes punish economic activity, but property taxes punish just living and breathing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Cities by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I'm technically considered a Millennial, but I feel more Gen X than anything, 34 Years Old.

      Millennial should be anybody born in 2000 or later, not someone born in the 90s. Already, they're starting to use the term 'Gen Z' for people born today, but no new term should even start being used until 10 years from now

  12. Commitment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and if they HAD moved, other generations would undoubtedly use it as evidence of an inability to commit.

  13. More mocking by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly we need to mock and make fun of millennials more, previous disrespect has been inadequate to make them flourish just like the good ol' days.

    In a slightly more serious note, this was predicted. A fair number of reputable economists warned us of our own lost generation after the 2008 crash. The bottom of the ladder got pulled and the replacement jobs available to low experience young folk are not as relatively good as what was available for other generations. So you have low wage earners with stacks of debt from surviving (how dare they!), and from getting a college degree like they were told was the only good path thousands of times (suckers!).

    But it is easier to make fun of how they dress different, and use funny new words (like EVERY generation of young folks before them) than to fix the lack of good entry level jobs, low wages, expensive healthcare, and over priced tuition. It looks to me like society has failed a generation and they have made rational choices to live within their means to the extent possible.

    1. Re:More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wha, wha. I don't care how they dress. I don't care what words they use. I don't care if they smoke pot all day, make art, or start the next google.

      But F'ck em if they're going to shout and scream and carry on about how they know better than the rest of us and are entitled to everything we had to work for.

      Houses are expensive. You don't get to just graduate from university and start a new life running with 4 bedrooms and 3 baths and an Audi in the driveway.

      Earn your stripes millennial, or expect to be mocked and disrespected.

    2. Re:More mocking by Holi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But when you graduate from University and the only job you can land is a barista at Starbucks it's not like home ownership is the first thing on your mind. Name me one fucking new grad who expects a 4 bedroom home and audi to be given them.

      You make up this ridiculous scenario to justify your disdain, and it's sad because the fact of the matter is they won't be able to support Social Security when you become eligible. Not because they didn't try, but because circumstances forced them on a less successful path.

      Before you come back at me, understand this. I am in my late 40's, and after your rant I don't really care what you have to say.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    3. Re:More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the labor market is being flooded with illegals at the bottom and visa workers at both the bottom and mid-to-upper echelons. Millennial wages are down because the market has been flooded with workers. I'm not talking one or two foreigners working in an office of Americans, I'm talking entire offices or businesses staffed with foreigners.

      It's happened it in IT, but also pharmacies (look up H1-B pharmacy), and possibly auto-body shops (or so someone on Slashdot claims). Foreign welders have been brought in to work on construction projects.

      There's no point to training when the employers refuse to hire Americans, especially when it's the American who fronts the money/risk to learn a skill. It's so ass-backwards.

    4. Re:More mocking by lgw · · Score: 2

      But when you graduate from University and the only job you can land is a barista at Starbucks it's not like home ownership is the first thing on your mind.

      GenX faced the same problem. Even at a good school, only half or so of the people with STEM degrees got a professional job on graduation, the other half, plus almost everyone with a loser degree, worked shit jobs for a while before finding their entry job (which is also a shit job, but it's professional shit).

      Seems it's about the same now, with perhaps a longer wait for people who didn't get lucky on graduation, but that may just be a side-effect of the "great recession" which we're still climbing out of.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:More mocking by erapert · · Score: 0

      ...and from getting a college degree like they were told was the only good path thousands of times...

      Sorry, but a degree in Basket Weaving, Self-Righteous Ecology, or Women's Studies just aren't valuable for any career besides Barista.

    6. Re: More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh fuck you - when you were my age, the median cost of a house expressed as a multiple of median income was WAY lower than it is now. But we know you Boomers - you got yours, and fuck everyone to come after you. You sold out our industry to the Chinese and turned our government into a Stalinist police state. So just shut the fuck up.

    7. Re:More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you are basically one of the bunch of dicks who caused this whole situation and to add insult you are highly ignorant of it... More generally speaking you are one of those many relatively successful people who attribute all of their fortune to their own hard work and none to luck (which is actually responsible for most of it). Luck is circumstantial... you are lucky... stop being a dick and remember that the next generation will not be able to care for you when you are dying and that you will be labelled as the selfish generation in history. You are not a self made man, everything you have is built on the previous generation. Now fuck off back to your audi.

    8. Re:More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry meant to reply to one above you

    9. Re:More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earn your stripes millennial, or expect to be mocked and disrespected.

      ? Those stripes are between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude more expensive... and these are the kind of stripes most people can only afford once in their life time, I think it's time we steal your stripes because you never really earned them, you just got lucky... Be careful in your mockery, it may end up in your luck being taken back.

    10. Re:More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy with a g+ by his name, valuable for nothing except a career in sucking Google dick.

      Also, who is handing out these degrees? I'll give you a hint: it isn't anyone born in the last 35 years.

    11. Re:More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is mothballing and we happen to be the generation that is starting to really see the effects. I have a terminal degree and little job prospects. I am in STEM fyi, but the rate at which we produce PhDs is far outpacing their need. The situation is only getting worse and we can even see it in the grants given by the National Science Foundation. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/13/age-distribution-of-nih-principal-investigators-and-medical-school-faculty/

      Everything is mothballing, more and more jobs are being automated and certain costs just are not lowering. I would love to own property in the country. Not happening until my parents die or I hit the lottery, which is really hard when you don't play. I'm not stupid. I have already opened a Roth IRA and am trying to save, but I cannot. I lost all my savings in paying for heating and rent during my graduate program.

    12. Re:More mocking by lgw · · Score: 1

      Job prospects for grad student were always garbage, sorry. Getting a graduate degree dramatically lowers one's employment odds. The feeling in business is generally that someone must not have been ready for the real world if they stayed in school longer than they had to. That, coupled with the expectation that you'll need to pay them more, has always limited demand (with the exception of "professional masters" for immigrants, as that's a well-known hack for getting a greencard faster, and thus shows initiative instead of the opposite).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:More mocking by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but a degree in Basket Weaving, Self-Righteous Ecology, or Women's Studies just aren't valuable for any career besides Barista.

      How about Computer Science or Chemistry?

      There are 1.55 STEM graduates for every entry-level STEM job. It's not just the funny-sounding majors that are having a problem.

    14. Re:More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GenX faced the same problem.

      It's true! That's where the term McJobs came from. Before the internet wave and Amazon, people would complain that they have this fancy degree but have to work at Walmart or Starbucks because that's all that's hiring.

    15. Re:More mocking by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      You don't get to just graduate from university and start a new life running with 4 bedrooms and 3 baths and an Audi in the driveway.

      Unless you were a Boomer.

      Though it was a Ford or Chevy instead of an Audi.

    16. Re:More mocking by chispito · · Score: 1
      Where is the mocking? Was it this line, which makes no sense?

      Psychologically, this also means that young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory compared with their more mobile peers.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    17. Re:More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1. The more things change, the more they stay the same. This was my experience in '92.

    18. Re:More mocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know the most frustrating thing?
      ALL of the major criticisms thrown at millennials used to be associated with BAD PARENTS!

      Self centered kids with no attention span or self control, unable to deal with the real world and happy to leach off (enabling) parents for as long as possible to avoid responsibilities.

      10 years ago, people would call out the parents but apparently its all too hard these days...

      Do you know what all of my independent, motivated, successful friends and I have in common?
      We were raised by active, accountable parents who engaged with our schoolwork and outside interests,
      who provided guidance and support as we matured,
      who set clear boundaries based on the morals and values they wanted to pass on, and enforced them consistently and fairly.

      But that couldn't possibly be it, the Greatest Generation were _obviously_ the greatest parents...

    19. Re:More mocking by OrigamiMarie · · Score: 1

      It's much more difficult these days to get out of college without a very large debt burden. Tuition has been outpacing inflation for quite a while now, while young people are still told that they need to take on the debt in order to have any future.

      It's not a matter of just taking part-time work while you go to school. Part-time work might pay for housing near school or part of the tuition (if you're living with parents still), but it won't come close to covering everything -- even if you penny-pinch about the stuff you control, seriously the tuition will get you. Full-time work while in college is not an option, because in many colleges, the only good way to get the useful/good classes is to take a full-time student load (if you don't take a full-time load or you back down to a load that's compatible with working full or nearly full time, you lose your slot in the degree program, and then all you can take is fluff classes).

      And then the young adults go out with their STEM degrees to try to pay back some of that debt, and what do they get? Job offers with wages that won't come close to paying off the debt, and blamed for taking the route they were told was the best (only!) way to go.

    20. Re:More mocking by lgw · · Score: 2

      First jobs are usually shit, is the thing. My first coding job paid $18k, FFS. Don't turn your nose up at that first shit job - it gets you into the industry, and it's much easier to find an OK job with 2 years of experience.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    21. Re:More mocking by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      But F'ck em if they're going to shout and scream and carry on about how they know better than the rest of us and are entitled to everything we had to work for.

      No, they just want to get the same things you had to work for in exchange for the same amount of work. Nobody has had a worse deal than the millenials since we got out of the last great depression.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:More mocking by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      First jobs are usually shit, is the thing. My first coding job paid $18k, FFS. Don't turn your nose up at that first shit job - it gets you into the industry, and it's much easier to find an OK job with 2 years of experience.

      From my millennial friends, this is pretty much what is going on with many tech companies. Get a job and Amazon, get overworked and then take your newly padded resume to get a better job someplace else before you get laid off. Average time at Amazon is 18 months. Repeat several more times till you actually get a job doing what you want, where you want, that can be a career. Pretty much what happened to me also during the .com boom, but certainly not what my parents or university was telling to expect.

  14. Meh... Kids these days... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

    I've been living in my 475-sft studio apartment in Silicon Valley for nearly 12 years. Thanks to rent control, I'm paying $300 per month less than market rate. If everything works out, I'll be moving to Sacramento Valley this summer.

    1. Re:Meh... Kids these days... by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      I have had a 270 sqft apartment for most of my life. Why would I want more? I have a bed, I have a computer, I have a kitchen (ok... a place where I can cook) and I have a bathroom (sorta). People keep asking me why I don't move to something more "my speed", but frankly, why would I need more?

      I never really got why apartments have to be larger than they really have to be. I guess it's the same reason cars need to have bigger engines than what's necessary to get from A to B.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Meh... Kids these days... by tquasar · · Score: 0

      Berkeley. My brother has lived in the same rent controlled apartment since he graduated from UCB with a Doctorate in math. Since around 1972.

    3. Re:Meh... Kids these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have had a 270 sqft apartment for most of my life. Why would I want more?

      Why? Because it would be 'MERRICAN, that's why.

      The American economy depends on people spending money to buy crap. A house is a big piece of spending, and it is also an enabler of buying more crap, as home ownership also means paying for maintenance, renovations, etc. Having a bigger house also means you have more room to store the other crap you buy.

      Both liberals and conservatives wants people to keep spending money and keep money moving in the economy. They just disagree on how to best get people to do so.

    4. Re:Meh... Kids these days... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Why would I want more?

      Because you want to get laid?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:Meh... Kids these days... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have had a 270 sqft apartment for most of my life.

      I came across a YouTube video of a 82sft apartment in Tokyo.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYVJbupG3Xg

      I never really got why apartments have to be larger than they really have to be.

      After my father passed away and 99.9% of what he owned got tossed out, I started tossing out the clutter in my life. That was five years ago. I could probably move into a smaller studio apartment (200-sft or less).

    6. Re:Meh... Kids these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have had a 270 sqft apartment for most of my life. Why would I want more? I have a bed, I have a computer, I have a kitchen (ok... a place where I can cook) and I have a bathroom (sorta). People keep asking me why I don't move to something more "my speed", but frankly, why would I need more?

      I never really got why apartments have to be larger than they really have to be. I guess it's the same reason cars need to have bigger engines than what's necessary to get from A to B.

      Because most people want more space, just like how many want a bigger engine and a 0-60 time that's measured in single seconds rather than tens of seconds.

      It's a little something called human nature and different humans want different things. If you're happy living in a shoebox then good but don't whine about how you can't understand why most other people don't want to live like you.

    7. Re:Meh... Kids these days... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Netflix has an interesting video that has a blurb about small homes.

      Minimalism: A Documentary About the Important Things

      The movie is more then just eliminating clutter

      Minimalists don't focus on having less, less, less; rather, we focus on making room for more: more time, more passion, more experiences, more growth, more contribution, more contentment. More freedom. Clearing the clutter from life's path helps us make that room.

    8. Re:Meh... Kids these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of that might be in your childhood too. I spent my childhood always crammed into small spaces with my brothers. Sometimes it was nice, but other times I wished I had breathing room. When I moved out on my own I built a house that is way bigger than I really need. I didn't build a mansion, it's 1800 sqft, but I don't HAVE to have all that space. Two bathrooms was something I wanted in case guests were over. I always wanted my own yard. I always wanted space for people to stay over if they visit. I wanted to be able to walk around my home without tripping over furniture or other people. Many of my friends from grade school had upper middle class parents with very large 4Ksqft+ houses. They're the ones who day dream of the tiny homes. To them, that's an adventure and an ideal to follow. For me, that was childhood. To each his own I suppose.

    9. Re:Meh... Kids these days... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Part of that might be in your childhood too.

      I had a personal library of 800 books by the time I turned 18. When I went off to college and moved into a five bedroom frat with 12 other guys, my roommates were horrified that I had 36 boxes on books in the basement. Took me six months to sell all but a dozen books to the used bookstore down the street. Since then my personal library has ballooned twice to 400 books. Something happens that causes me to scale back to a dozen books. I probably have 50 books now. That will get trimmed down before I move again in the near future. These days I own more ebooks than books.

  15. You all already know this, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can't afford to. House prices are rising faster than wages, one of many ways life now is just plain more expensive than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago.

    1. Re:You all already know this, but... by TWX · · Score: 2

      House prices always rise faster than wages.

      It's otherwise more expensive to live now than it used to be because people purchase so many more subscription services. Cable TV. Cable Internet. Cell Phone Plan. Netflix. Amazon Prime. People also purchase a lot of expensive toys or appliances too.

      Growing up in the eighties, we had one subscription service beyond basic utilities, and that was the telephone. No cable TV, no Internet access. We had many fewer electric-using appliances, so the electric bill was probably no worse even accounting for the inefficient appliances. My parents did most of the remodelling themselves despite his career in MIS and a decent income. Hobbies we as children were encouraged to persue used inexpensive materials and took a lot of time, like model building. Our toys were generally durable and didn't need more than occasional add-ons from time to time.

      Contrast to now where everyone in the family has the cell phone. The Internet bill and cable TV bill are steep. The toys are all electronic and all over a C-note. And people buy $5 coffees daily.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:You all already know this, but... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      A starbuck's a day is $1300/year. Internet and cable is easily over $2000/year, My family's phone bill I remember was $9, $20 2016 inflation adjusted.

    3. Re:You all already know this, but... by TWX · · Score: 1

      $2000/year for cable. $1300/year for starbucks. $1680/year for cell phone ($140/month times twelve). $1000 per year for new electronics (figuring money spent on tablets and phones).

      That's basically $3/hour dedicated to this stuff, before accounting for anything like food, lodging, medical care, car, conventional utilities, etc.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:You all already know this, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      House prices always rise faster than wages.

      Then, quite aside from all that stuff about how much coffee costs (and I for one don't do that daily Starbucks thing), that alone is an unmaintainable circumstance. Strip away all those subs and gadgets, life is still more expensive than it was... and, if you're right, it's only going to get worse.

      We will reach a point where people with lower incomes simply cannot afford somewhere to live. I'd argue we're already there, in fact, and that the line is just moving up to the point people are noticing. Something will happen to change that; it literally has to. Getting wrapped up in "some people subscribe to Netflix" (approx 85% of the US population don't, btw, and likely even less in low-income households) is a distraction.

  16. Re:Elon Musk: Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millenn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    msmash, formerly manishs, is a malfunctioning AI that has somehow gained the ability to post articles to Slashdot

  17. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone that has kids has pretty much forfeited their ticket to the good life. Why anyone would waste hundreds of thousands of dollars bringing more people into an already overcrowded world that will surely disappoint them is completely beyond me, particularly when you consider the mobility and quality of life you will be sacrificing to make this happen simply to follow a biological imperative.

  18. Why is Default Not an Option? by Malggi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So this may sound crazy, but I wonder why today's twenty-somethings don't just simply default on their loans.

    I'm a Gen Xer. I graduated college in 2000, just in time for the dot com bubble burst and 9/11 to mess with the economy. The only job I could find was as an overnight janitor at a hotel. I made $8 an hour.

    There was no way I could afford both rent and student loans, so I simply didn't pay the loans. Sure it ruined my credit, but at $8 an hour it's not like anybody would be giving me loans anyways.

    3.5 years later I got a job making $14 an hour, which allowed me to start paying the loans back again. As my career has progressed I've gotten promotions and raises and whatnot. Now I'm financially secure, the loans are all paid off and my credit score hovers around 750.

    Careless lending by the banks is a big reason the economy is in the mess it's in today. Why pay them money before taking care of yourself? Maybe if banks were feeling some pain we'd actually see some social programs to help young people out.

    1. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Federal student loans are non-dischargeable. Also, many places run your credit to get an apartment, get a job, get a security clearance, dealers run your credit to get a car loan, etc. So while totally dropping out of the "system" is an option (i.e. becoming homeless), it is hard to have much of a life withing the "system" while not paying your bills.

      If you do manage to get an apartment, find a way to commute, and get a job with blighted credit you still face having your wages garnished, or your bank accounts emptied to pay back those federal loans. No money in the bank means you then stand a good chance of not making rent, having your car repossessed, and then losing your job.

      Dandy "system" we have, don't you think?

      You can get income based repayment options, or get forbearance for a time, but you can't just walk away.

    2. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      I wonder why today's twenty-somethings don't just simply default on their loans.

      Mainly because student loans are not relieved from bankruptcy like other debt. That means they can garnish your wages, social security benefits and other government benefits. Basically, you do not have a retirement with outstanding student loan debt.

    3. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing about loans is that if you declare bankruptcy, you don't have to pay the loan back but you do forfeit assets. However, student loans are different and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 makes it virtually impossible to declare bankruptcy to clear a student loan. US students are stuck with these loans for the rest of their lives. The loans are tied to their SSN, and the IRS can and will take everything they can from you until you die or pay off the debt.

    4. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The loans are tied to their SSN, and the IRS can and will take everything they can from you until you die or pay off the debt.

      Yet despite the incredible liability these loans come with there is absolutely zero hesitation to herd all these mopes out of highschool into highschool II and put this harness on their backs. Millions upon millions of kids that have no business whatsoever attending a college or university, because they aren't actually mentally capable or motivated to leverage the tools on offer, are there right now racking up stupid amounts of debt and driving up the demand+cost. If you can fog a glass you can get in and fund it with a lifetime of debt.

    5. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay student loan with credit card, default the card.

    6. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is people doing that would face debt collectors seeking the loan repayments and then be forced to declare themselves bankrupt. You got away with it and will shortly be in the enviable position of having paid off the loans and having the late payments off your credit report (6 years history), but I'm extremely surprised you got away with it. That sounds like you slipped between the cracks so someone wasn't doing their job chasing you up. If everyone did it that absolutely wouldn't get missed.

    7. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Malggi · · Score: 1

      I never got mine discharged. I just defaulted on them until I had the income to pay them off.

      I mean, college educated people in their twenties aren't going to be making minimum wage for the next fifty years. Eventually they will have higher incomes. When their income goes up, start paying the loans, get out of default and go on with your life.

    8. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 2

      I knew a friend of a friend, a girl, who had recently left school with a useless degree. She had gone in default on her student loans, and I was trying to tell her that the whole thing was avoidable, and that there still were things she could do to deal with that, repair her credit, and avoid wage garnishment. She insisted on being hopeless, deciding that she'd join the military on some hope or prayer that it would forgive her debt.

      Though you're not able declare bankruptcy, there's still things you can do if you can't pay back your student loans. Something I use to help is called Income Based Repayment. With that alone you basically have no excuse to let things get that bad, and if you pay it consistently, your debt is forgiven in 20 years - less if you work in education.

    9. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Malggi · · Score: 2

      You can't get student loans discharged in a bankruptcy, but you can still default on them.

      What's the point of preserving a credit score to get a nice apartment if you can't afford to move out regardless? What's the point of preserving a credit score to buy a nice car if you can only afford a used beat up car to begin with?

      Garnishment isn't an issue if you have low wages either. Wages can't be garnished if you make under a certain amount of money.

      Living with poor credit is a challenge, but it's not insurmountable. Tens of millions of people do it in this country every day. Young people with college educations won't be making minimum wage for the next fifty years. Eventually opportunities will come. When they do, people can start paying the loans, exit default, repair their credit and get on with their life.

      I think people in a bad spot should really ask themselves, "What value does a high credit score really have right now?" If you don't have a high enough income to access credit, then a high credit score is worthless. I think there's a strong argument to be made that people can have a higher quality of life at low incomes by strategically defaulting on their student loans.

    10. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, you CAN walk away.
      You can just never return.

      Many folks are realizing they can rack up the Student Loan debt, then simply leave the country for another one. As long as they never return to the US, or have any US assets they give a damn about, they're pretty much in the clear.

    11. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Malggi · · Score: 1

      The IRS really can't though. If you have a low income they can't garnish your wages. If your income is low enough that you can't afford rent and service debt on a student loan, then odds are you can default on the student loan and not risk garnishment.

      Just make sure when you do finally land that good paying job you start paying the loans back again.

    12. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Ziest · · Score: 1

      This and the fact that wages, adjusted for inflation, have remained flat for almost 40 years and the cost of housing has been rising much faster than inflation means that we are creating a generation that most will never own a house. A significant percentage will not start families. You might not care about this but keep in mind that since the end of the Second World War the American economy is dependant on young people getting married, buying houses and starting families. Consumer spending represents 70% of GDP. Buying a house and starting a family causes a good amount of spending on various goods and services. Without that economic activity its going to knock a hole in the American economy.

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
    13. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holly shit, we are fucked - no seriously I'm thinking Mr Robot was not show but some advice for millennials, the baby boomers and the 0.0001% should be stripped of their wealth and the playing field levelled. Why are we being punished for shit we didn't do? and by a "system", lets change the fucking system, if it wont change lets shred it.

    14. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Though you're not able declare bankruptcy, there's still things you can do if you can't pay back your student loans. Something I use to help is called Income Based Repayment. With that alone you basically have no excuse to let things get that bad, and if you pay it consistently, your debt is forgiven in 20 years - less if you work in education.

      I did IBR too, but now I make enough that the only plan I can go on is the default 10 year repayment. As for your friend of a friend, someone should have told her that th military route only really works before you go to college. Pretty sure the GI Bill doesn't work retroactively or else there would be lines a mile long outside every single recruitment station. She would have been better off trying to teach in an inner city school for a few years. Pretty much the only way to quickly get student loan debt forgiven.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    15. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      That's why I'm telling my kids "no student loans". They can go to a state school here that's cheap enough that I can pay for it, and frankly it's a damned good university (this is Middle-Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro). It's the nitwits who go to expensive private universities and run up $100K+ in student loans that end up getting screwed. Sorry, if you have to work for 2 or 3 years just to pay back the loan you got the short end of the deal. My kids know that plumbers and electricians around here get $50K+/year without having college, so they know there are alternatives.

    16. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It just depends on if you went to school after 2005 when the rules changed. If you default on your loans the loan holder can apply very high interest rates ( I have seen as high as 30% and growing) making it effectively impossible to pay off. The payments become higher than a mortgage payment where a $10,000 original loan turns into a $100,000 non-dischargable debt. At some point, no matter how much money you throw at the loan, it will grow and it can never be gotten rid of even if you throw every penny you have at it. Many people have given up paying off their debt at huge economic uncertainty for retirement because they have no future because any wage can be garnished for life effectively.

      Yes, in the good ole days student loans were not predatory but that changed in 2005 when the loaning industry was deregulated allowing for predatory practices. Just because what you went through was fine does not mean it is the same today.

    17. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew a friend of a friend, a girl, who had recently left school with a useless degree. She had gone in default on her student loans, and I was trying to tell her that the whole thing was avoidable, and that there still were things she could do to deal with that, repair her credit, and avoid wage garnishment. She insisted on being hopeless, deciding that she'd join the military on some hope or prayer that it would forgive her debt.

      The problem is that she could struggle and scrape for several years, clear her debts and have nothing (tangible) to show for it.

      IMO, she may as well learn to live without credit. Eventually, as our economy eats itself she will find herself with a head-start on the rest of the hard-working slobs who made "good" decisions.

      Or she can wait for the credit bubble to expand to the point that she is considered an acceptable risk. Then she can run up CCs and leave all the hard-working slobs holding the bag in the way of the securitized debt and bank bailouts.

      The only advice I would give her is to avoid purchases that can be re-possessed.

    18. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this may sound crazy, but I wonder why today's twenty-somethings don't just simply default on their loans.

      I'm a Gen Xer. I graduated college in 2000, just in time for the dot com bubble burst and 9/11 to mess with the economy. The only job I could find was as an overnight janitor at a hotel. I made $8 an hour.

      Because they changed the rules after the boomers all did that so now you can't legally discharge most student loans.

    19. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US still taxes people who renounced their citizenship. For the pain of moving to another country, navigating their byzantine immigration laws, and paying taxes there, you still get to give the USA their slice of what you earn in a foreign country, under a foreign company, as a foreigner.

      The no-default student loans are just the icing on the cake. The financial system in the US shifted from sane to insane a long time ago.

    20. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Apparently unpaid student loans are so common that they don't actually disqualify you for many types of lending. I know several people who have defaulted on their student loans at whom the credit card companies can't stop throwing credit cards. I am not one of them, but that's probably because I have zero credit cards to start with, and an ID theft bought a car using my SSN and I haven't got it cleared up yet. It's not always easy being an Espinoza.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are loan repayment programs. Many medical and law school students join to take advantage of them.

    22. Re:Why is Default Not an Option? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      When you sign up you have the choice of MGIB, loan repayment, or neither. I don't know how much they'll repay for you, or what enlistment terms apply for it specifically, but yes, loan repayment is a real option.

  19. Move for jobs... by dlenmn · · Score: 1

    I don't see why there should be a positive correlation between being less wealthy and moving less. In fact, poverty is often the driving force behind moving to or within the US. Think about okies during the great depression, Irish during the potato famine, etc.

    The current resistance to moving is surprising since some areas of the US have significantly more economic opportunities than others, but fewer people are moving to take advantage of them. (That said, there is still a fair number of people who move.) I hate to blame it on "kids these days!", but there is a legitimate case that we're kind of losing our immigrant drive that brought the US success in the first place. It makes me think that we need more immigrants...

    1. Re:Move for jobs... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Moving also means a considerable expense. Even ignoring any social or personal aspects that arise from uprooting yourself and moving away, moving always entails a considerable financial investment.

      Now couple this with the general job (in)security and an insane turnover rate. Would you move across the country and spend what you might make in 3 months on it if you know that your chance to even still have the job in 3 months is really low?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Move for jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about, the "not moving" isn't some generation personality thing, it's because few people have money to buy their own house. Millenials are the people who started without houses before the market went to shit, most millennials either stay with their parents (smart move) or are stuck with overpriced house shares / room shares... regardless of whether they have a job or not.

    3. Re:Move for jobs... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Moving also means a considerable expense.

      It's a considerable expense for people who are unable to move like in the old days of money issues, where people just packed up a bag pack, case and then moved. Which is something my family and I have been doing for generations.

      Moving is only a problem for people who can't let go of their material things.

      moving always entails a considerable financial investment.

      It's cost me typically only a airplane ticket and bus or taxi. Not really considerable in my view.

      Would you move across the country and spend what you might make in 3 months on it if you know that your chance to even still have the job in 3 months is really low?

      Probably not, but I can afford to move with much less than one month's sallary

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:Move for jobs... by link-error · · Score: 1

      Poverty leading to moving only works where there is somewhere to go that isn't suffering the same problem. The parent post would imply this issue is across the entire U.S. Credit card interest, college costs, energy costs all are up reducing purchasing power overall. But, at the same time, everybody wants internet, cell phone, and cable, all luxury items, but which costs significantly more than they used to.

      --
      -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
    5. Re:Move for jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moving for work is tax deductible.

    6. Re:Move for jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you live when you get there? A homeless shelter? Or do you mean that you already secured a location previously (paid first, last and deposit on a rental for example)? If the latter, that's not exactly the same as moving for the cost of a plane ticket. And plenty of people can't scrape up that much money at once. If one month of your net salary is more than 3X your monthly rent, consider yourself lucky.

    7. Re:Move for jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like bullshit to me.

    8. Re:Move for jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that young people are becoming more risk averse, largely due to the potentially ruinous costs associated with getting sick. Moving cross-country is one of the biggest risks you can take.

    9. Re:Move for jobs... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I've done it multiple times an have lived in eight states. Absolutely everything I owned fit in my car. Once I retired I started collecting things though. While I was working, I figured that I'd always need to remain light because I followed the wok around and bought very few things. But it did take me two carloads to move from my last rental.

    10. Re:Move for jobs... by slew · · Score: 1

      Moving for work is tax deductible.

      AFAIK, the costs sustained from moving for work is technically an income adjustment. There is no need to itemize this as a deduction to receive it and can also reduce your income to a level to allow you to qualify for other deductions which may be phased out at higher income levels.

    11. Re:Move for jobs... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Tax deductible doesn't mean that you get paid for it by the IRS, it means that you get to pay no tax for the money spent on moving.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Move for jobs... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It's cost me typically only a airplane ticket and bus or taxi. Not really considerable in my view.

      And you slept in........? Showered at.....?

      Most people have to supply a deposit and first month's rent. That's not usually a trivial expense.

      And since this is a US-centric article, you can't assume the presence of transportation options beyond driving a car. We have shitty public transit and zoning that makes walking/biking not an option for the vast majority.

    13. Re:Move for jobs... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      And you slept in........? Showered at.....?

      Service apartment.

      Most people have to supply a deposit and first month's rent

      Unless you use a service apartment, which generally aren't that more expensive than a regular apartment if you barter a little.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    14. Re:Move for jobs... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Where do you live when you get there? A homeless shelter? Or do you mean that you already secured a location previously (paid first, last and deposit on a rental for example)?

      A service apartment, if you arrange in advanced and book a couple of months, you can generally barter the prices down to something close to actual regular apartment prices, no deposit. It really isn't that difficult when you've done a little research.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    15. Re:Move for jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are mixing up the cost of living with the lumpiness of the cash flow. You can move frequently and still sustain a steady-state average cost of living. I.e. every security deposit you make is offset by a previous deposit refunded. And first-month rent paid up front is offset by no rent due at the end of the final month. As long as you coordinate move-out and move-in dates, you can minimize actual expenses, i.e. don't pay rents on two places when you can only occupy one.

      If someone is living hand-to-mouth and cannot tolerate those fluctuations in cash flow, yeah, that is an obstacle to moving. But if someone has built themselves a buffer of cash savings for a rainy day, they can efficiently navigate these little turns in life without any real glitch. Having a few thousand dollars on hand to ride out these little events is just the first baby step towards having 3 or 6 months of cushion in case of job loss. Practicing the mindset puts you on track for real financial security.

  20. I wish I could move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't afford to move out of my parent's house, because i'm buried in student loans, live in California, and i was recently laid off after a year.

    1. Re:I wish I could move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you can't afford to stay.

  21. Stuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is hardly surprising news. Millennials have been stuck for awhile between getting slammed with the Great Recession while they were trying to enter the workforce to being chronically underemployed currently to increased student debt that lingers on. They can't move if they don't have the funds to do so, or the new job to move into. Things should improve for them over the next 5 years as Boomers retire, freeing up some upward mobility, but there is a lot of ground to make up. The biggest thing to help them integrate fully into the economy would be some student loan relief.

    1. Re:Stuck by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      They can't move if they don't have the funds to do so, or the new job to move into.

      As a millenial, I moved countries and homes for the price of airplane tickets. I only took what I needed in my bag pack and a suitcase.

      Things should improve for them over the next 5 years as Boomers retire, freeing up some upward mobility, but there is a lot of ground to make up.

      The people who live traditional ways by acquiring material things they can't dispose of and wish to follow traditional marriage concepts will lose out here too. It's only them who are having the issues.

      The biggest thing to help them integrate fully into the economy would be some student loan relief.

      That would reward people who made stupid decisions. I don't have student loans, yet I hold a few certifications and I am well respected in my field. Again, this is only issues for people who stick to traditional methods instead of adapting to modern day conditions.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Stuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      student loan relief

      Does that plan come with a halt to funding education with public debt? Otherwise forget it; no relief for the symptom until the disease is addressed.

    3. Re:Stuck by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Wow, it's just like evolution. Those that can adapt will do well, and those who can't die out. The horror.

    4. Re:Stuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a millennial? Did you grow up in the USA?
      You must have been quite the visionary thinker and rebellious spirit to be able to make an accurate assessment of contemporary economic conditions and set off in a completely non-traditional direction after high school.
      Most kids in the USA are repeatedly told that a college education is critical to their future success. For the vast majority of people, the only options are taking on debt or serving in the military for a few years. I don't agree with loan forgiveness, but I think it's a little harsh to blame people for the "stupid decision" of going to college when they've endured years of well-meaning propaganda telling them it's the right thing to do.

    5. Re:Stuck by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Did you grow up in the USA?

      Nope, I grew up in a few European countries though, I moved around in my childhood too.

      You must have been quite the visionary thinker and rebellious spirit to be able to make an accurate assessment of contemporary economic conditions and set off in a completely non-traditional direction after high school.

      I know you state this sarcastically, but sometimes it genuinely feels that way when I look at my colleagues, which is the sad state of affairs.

      Most kids in the USA are repeatedly told that a college education is critical to their future success.

      It really is the same thing over here in Europe. Yet, when you look at many who graduate out of university with qualifications, they can't even get work most of the time unless they some how managed to land a summer job in a related field (in which case they can sneak into the industry through claiming 'experience', which often isn't even dependant at all on their university qualfiications).

      For the vast majority of people, the only options are taking on debt or serving in the military for a few years.

      I have a friend in New York who is took the same path I did, which is to get a couple of certifications in the fields he wants to work in (that can be done in a month of intense study) in rather than spending years in university and he's been very succesful too.

      but I think it's a little harsh to blame people for the "stupid decision" of going to college when they've endured years of well-meaning propaganda telling them it's the right thing to do.

      Honestly, the typical situation I see is that people don't even know what they want to do, so they don't setup plans to work towards anything, which leads to this very problem. Universities are great, but if you say "Imma study computers", get into computer science and then get confused why you can't get a job in network administration because you've got a qualification that gives you practical knowledge for research work but are missing the science degrees to be accepted in any research institute and some how expected that it should be enough to get a network administration job with no experience or knowledge... Sorry, but, I wouldn't say these people are blameless.

      The "well-meaning propoganda" also wants you to think about what you want to do and plan ahead for it, along with doing basic research, which is something I did thanks to that propoganda (but something I find next to nobody else does in my generation). Now, of course I'm generalizing here, but, how often have you actually met students that went to the point of contacting the organisations in the fields that they want to get into when they graduate and asked what they wanted minimum and what would be a recommended to obtain as far as qualifications, certifications etc. for someone with no experience for consideration?

      Of all the companies I talked to, none of them told me to get an "computer science degree", "arts degree" nor "women's studies" (why are "women's studies" even so popular in the UK and Belgium right now?).

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    6. Re:Stuck by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      how often have you actually met students that went to the point of contacting the organisations in the fields that they want to get into when they graduate and asked what they wanted minimum and what would be a recommended to obtain as far as qualifications, certifications etc. for someone with no experience for consideration?

      I realize doesn't say what I meant. I meant to say there, was to find out what should they work towards for graduation rather than after they graduated.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  22. Support System by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    I used to think it would be fun to move around the world. However, now that I have kids, moving isn't practical. Family is a wonderful support system. Moving far away means that support system gets left behind. Unless you are incredibly wealthy, and can afford to bring parents or grandparents with, or hire a live in nanny, it's just too difficult.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Support System by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I used to think it would be fun to move around the world. However, now that I have kids

      My parents did this before I was born and after I was born.

      moving isn't practical

      Honestly, it's entirely possible, the issue is that you and/or your family isn't practical enough to do it. Generally whenever I've moved, I took a plane ticket and flew to my destination with just a bag pack and hold bag. The cost of moving for me has been generally just been the cost of the plane ticket. The rest of my family moving hasn't been much different to that.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Support System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell us again how easy it is to move with just an airplane ticket and a bag. We're not tired of it, yet.

    3. Re:Support System by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Tell us again how easy it is to move with just an airplane ticket and a bag. We're not tired of it, yet.

      Tell us again how hard it is to move. We're not tired of it, yet.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  23. Wait - what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Student debt and less favorable lending rates may be driving down homeownership -- imagine that -- which further reduces movement

    Decreased home ownership is asserted to REDUCE movement? Citation needed.

    I'd have thought the exact opposite - when I was renting, I moved every 2-3 years. Now that I own a home, I haven't moved since.

    I guess not being able to buy a house might keep current renters from moving out of their current place, but I'd expect overall a population with a higher rate of ownership would be less mobile, not more.

  24. What if they already moved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they moved before they where 25. I am not a Millennial but I moved out of my parents house and into my own house at 23. The fact that I haven't moved in 16 years doesn't make me lazy.

  25. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They evidently didn't count moves within the same house, e.g. from their childhood bedroom to the furnished basement.

  26. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Married for 12 years and no children and none in the future. Had a vasectomy at 23 and my wife had a partial hysctorectomy a little over a year ago.

    Plenty of non-virgins don't want children.

  27. IMHO, not lazy, coddled. by jageryager · · Score: 1

    I blame us Gen X'ers for coddling kids too much. I'm not sure why we think kids will want to stand on their own if they are given everything they need or want as dependents..

    --
    "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B.Franklin
    1. Re:IMHO, not lazy, coddled. by Higaran · · Score: 1

      I get that kids are coddled too much, but seriously, I don't see a lot of 25-35 year old executives of major corporations helping to make life easier for their generation. depending on what you read I was born in 1981 so I'm on the start of the millennial generation, I don't see anyone my age in any kind of real power, or trying to help make life easier, with maybe a few exceptions. Basically everyone is trying to milk everyone else form as much money as possible and no one gives a shit, and keeps blaming it on other factors or just how life is in general. IMHO it was the baby boomers are the ones that messed everything up for the generations after them. I wouldn't need to fix the world if the people before me didn't fuck it up.

    2. Re:IMHO, not lazy, coddled. by jageryager · · Score: 1

      We live in fear of things being messed up due to media. But in reality, things are extremely secure for you. The media has convinced you that you need more more more, and things are bad if you can't get it. But in fact you -already- have more than any previous generation..

      There are better social welfare programs than ever before. There' is less homelessness, less hunger, and people are living longer, which means better health. A big concern for people that live in poverty today is obesity. Too much food. Unemployment in America is low. It's very popular for all people, even young kids, to not only have a cell phone, but a smart phone. Did you know a smart phone cost per year?

      --
      "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B.Franklin
  28. Causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The market sucks because people used to be willing to pack their asses up and take a risk to make a better life for themselves and their families. It has become socially acceptable to live in your parents houses and wait for jobs to come home to you.

    Wanna know what makes H1B a great thing? It gives motivated people the opportunity to do what make America great. They takes risk and throw it all in to make a better life. Today, a bunch of idiots complain that "well I'm a coal miner. People don't want coal anymore so there's no coal mining jobs. The government has to force people to use coal because otherwise I'd have to move!"

    No shit!!! How do you think that coal town happened to begin with?

  29. It's not moves, it's jobs [Re:trying] by XXongo · · Score: 2
    Yeah, I hear you.

    Gen-X and boomers moved a lot when young because they got job offers and moved to take the job.

    If the only jobs around are fast food and retail, there's no reason to move-- there are McDongles and Arpies all over.

    1. Re:It's not moves, it's jobs [Re:trying] by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      If the only jobs around are fast food and retail, there's no reason to move-- there are McDongles and Arpies all over.

      Also...if you're living in your parent's basement, it is often difficult to convince them to move to where your next job offer comes from....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:It's not moves, it's jobs [Re:trying] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know why this is modded funny. I graduated class of 2007: I would bet 2/3rds of my graduating class still live with their parents. It's really fucking hard to justify giving up free rent, free utilities, and free food. If you're working 29 hours/week @ $12/hr giving 20% of that to Uncle Sam, that's effectively $30/hr when you're living by yourself in a City like Los Angeles.

    3. Re: It's not moves, it's jobs [Re:trying] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I graduated class of 2007: I would bet 2/3rds of my graduating class still live with their parents. It's really fucking hard to justify giving up free rent, free utilities, and free food.

      Of course, your parents are happy to clothe, feed, and house you while you 'find yourself'... Question, have your parents put enough aside for retirement to take care of you, your spouse, and your future children?

  30. Less favorable lending rates? by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most of the stuff mentioned I can agree with. But less favorable lending rates? Only a Millennial ignorant of history would think that. Mortgage interest rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years. My generation (gen-x) had to deal with mortgage interest rates double what they are today. My parents had to deal with 17% interest rates. You have to go all the way back to 1955 to see interest rates as favorable as they are today.

    With a 4% interest rate on a 30 year mortgage, 42% of your payments over the life of the loan are interest.
    With a 8% interest rate, 62% of your payments are interest.
    With a 17% interest rate, 81% of your payments are interest.

    For just about anyone alive today, there has never been a better time to get a mortgage to buy a home.

    1. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, mortgage rates are good. But that only matters if you are given a mortgage in the first place. Banks are being far, far more restrictive with their lending and throttling out prospective first-time homeowners in the process.

      (This is not sour grapes; I own my home, thanks to having married into money)

    2. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except people who are unemployed/underemployed due to, well, everything.

    3. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by TheSync · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mortgage interest rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years

      True, but inflation was higher (inflating away the principle cost to the borrower) and also real home prices were rising faster (keeping borrowers from being underwater, thus always having a re-fi or selling option).

    4. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It was determined during the late 1980's and early 1990's that an artificially lowered prime rate would spur the economy better than a "normal" or "fair" prime rate. Why?

      1) Lowered mortgage interest. People who are in debt can afford to stay in debt. Banks love this because they basically own you if you're in debt to them.
      2) Lowered savings interest. People who aren't in debt are getting screwed. Banks love this because it encourages everyone else to spend themselves into slavery to the banks.

      So now everyone just pisses away their money as fast as they can because there's no reason not to. And when shit goes wrong, there's nothing left to save anyone, not even the banks.

      Fucking genius.

    5. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Most of the stuff mentioned I can agree with. But less favorable lending rates? Only a Millennial ignorant of history would think that. Mortgage interest rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years. My generation (gen-x) had to deal with mortgage interest rates double what they are today. My parents had to deal with 17% interest rates. You have to go all the way back to 1955 to see interest rates as favorable as they are today. With a 4% interest rate on a 30 year mortgage, 42% of your payments over the life of the loan are interest. With a 8% interest rate, 62% of your payments are interest. With a 17% interest rate, 81% of your payments are interest. For just about anyone alive today, there has never been a better time to get a mortgage to buy a home.

      As a former homeowner and current renter, I completely agree. There has never been a better time to get a mortgage to buy a home.

      On the other hand, as someone who has done 4 cross-country moves in the last 10 years, and is considering a 5th, buying a home is not attractive to me- yet. I am still homing in on the place I want to live the rest of my life, and taking full advantage of the fact that a willingness to move physically translates into upwards career mobility.

      I am telling myself that a 5th move would be "the last for a while" but this may just be a lie I tell myself. Being a homeowner seems to be in conflict with either my personality or the employment environment that currently exists.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    6. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a 4% interest rate on a 30 year mortgage, 42% of your payments over the life of the loan are interest.
      With a 8% interest rate, 62% of your payments are interest.
      With a 17% interest rate, 81% of your payments are interest.
      For just about anyone alive today, there has never been a better time to get a mortgage to buy a home.

      Wrong.
      @17% you take out a $100k loan over 25 years:
      Normally you repay $1,438 per month. If you regularly overpay $200, you'd be mortgage free 13 years and 1 month earlier. Your total payment over this period would be $233,134.
      @4% you take out a $270k loan over 25 years:
      Normally you repay $1,425 per month. If you regularly overpay $200, you'd be mortgage free 4 years and 9 months earlier. Your total payment over this period would be $393,958.

      Give me high interest rates (and inflation) and low asset values anytime.

    7. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For just about anyone alive today, there has never been a better time to get a mortgage to buy a home.

      BS, Your argument is completely false, you are looking at one variable and ignoring the rest, 1% of a million is different to 1% of 100,000. First and most obvious is the total cost of houses which is massively inflated compared to gen-x-ers, second most banks require a very large down-payment due the fuck up of gen-x-ers from before... all together this makes a mortgage more expensive and very difficult for most millennials to get one.

    8. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by Kergan · · Score: 1

      At the same time, there never has been a time where housing was so overpriced either. Granted, prices dropped in the past decade after the bubble popped, but they're still way above their historical mean in terms of house price vs household income.

      We're still in bubble territory, except perhaps in places like Detroit. Where I live it's something like 10x+ household income, which is nothing short of nuts. (Historical mean is 3-4x). If you're taking a 100 mortgage for something worth 50 in the long term, possibly 25 at the low, and you end up stuck with the tab when the market will come down crashing. Low interest or not, it's a super pricy loan.

    9. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low interest rates are for suckers (of which I am one). The low rates just drive up prices so that your payment is the same as if the rates were higher. You then lose out on a what would have been a much better mortgage interest tax deduction. Also, the rates are never going to drop from my current 3.75% so I won't be able to capitalize later on a changing market by refinancing. If you buy when rates are high the cost of a house is lower so you have a smaller mortgage and then when rates drop you can just refinance and end up with a small mortgage and low interest rates.

    10. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, lending rates for home buying is low, but FEDERAL student loans when I went through college were financed at 6.5% and 7.0% for the most part (my the lowest is at 5%, the bulk around 6.5%). I can't count the number of people I know dealing with these loan rates, all with very marketable STEM degrees, still struggling to get through.

      I think this has gotten a little better in the last few years, but it's not enough. Even if home loan rates are good, the cost of buying a house in many of the STEM-job-heavy areas has gotten insane. I was just recently priced out of RENTING in my old neighborhood because I'm 28, work two jobs (PhD student in Physics and part-time scientist for a major corporation) and didn't want to share a studio apartment with another person. My neighborhood was working-class, half apartment/half single-family homes. And my story is hardly unique.

    11. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With a 17% interest rate, 81% of your payments are interest. "

      I don't have any facts/stats to challenge your assertions. But I wanted to pitch in and point out that it's more complicated than just looking at interest rates. Back in 1955 there was more earning potential and wages were higher, in terms of purchasing power. On top of that, a sense of fiscal responsibility meant that high interest rates weren't such a problem, as most would live within their means, save more, have a larger deposit, and borrow less relative to the value of the property.

    12. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Actually it's the worst time to buy. If interest rates were higher, house prices would be lower and you wouldn't have to carry as much debt and refinance when rates go down. Buying now is a kind of debt trap....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    13. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      But less favorable lending rates?

      Yes. Less favourable means that you can't plan to buy your house based on a current situation. Given the current cost of housing vs income and existing debt even with your higher rates previous generations paid of houses in a comparatively short time period. Now 30 years+ is the norm. What the interest rate is now is not going to be anything like what it will be in 10 years. It adds a very high risk to any purchase.

      For just about anyone alive today, there has never been a better time to get a mortgage to buy a home.

      I see you are looking things in isolation. It literally is a crap time to get a mortgage right now, and that has nothing to do with the lending rates.

    14. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 2

      "Only a Millennial ignorant of history would think that."

      Ask your average GenX about why the Savings and Loan crisis kneecapped normal growth, or your average Boomer why economic policy in the 70s was so destructive to domestic production, and I'm willing to bet you will get less of a response than asking an 'Ignorant Milennial' about what happened 9 years ago,, since they just lived/ are living through it. The people who turned the wheels that caused the fuck-ups don't like talking about why it broke, and because the average citizen's memory resembles a goldfish and we like confirmation bias, we put the same idiots at the wheel over and over.

      The biggest issue isn't the fantastic 'rate' itself, it's that the rate doesn't matter to an overwhelming number of people because they don't have the income required to responsibly pursue ownership. So if you have capital, the market is great (look at all these fucking flipper shows on HGTV...) but if you don't, you get squeezed under rents dictated by that market. I have friends who would be WAY better off if they could lock in cost of living with a mortgage (in many cases below 'market' rent,) but even eating ramen and killing their phone plans wouldn't make a minimum downpayment happen in a year.

      --
      Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
    15. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to find the post or do the figures (sorry!)

      What I've read and seen mathematically proven is that low interest rates don't mean squat, if the houses are _insanely expensive_ .

      When the figures are worked out with old interest rates (but old housing prices too) vs new interest rates and new housing prices, it's actually beter to have the high interest rate on a low base figure than the opposite.

      NOTE: I'm from your generation too fwiw and I didn't buy in my city due to insane prices which have continued to go,.. insane.

    16. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by LightningBolt! · · Score: 1

      You are correct of course that the article's mention of lending rates is absurd. Rates are at historical lows.

      I'd disagree with your conclusion however, that "there has never been a better time to get a mortgage to buy a home". Interest rates in 2009-2012 were about the same as today, but housing prices had not re-inflated from the financial crash. I bought a house during that period which I sold 2.5 years later (due to a cross-country move) for nearly double what I paid. The same house is now "Zestimated" at another 20% above that price in about 2.5 years.

      If incomes had grown at that rate, you wouldn't be wrong. But incomes have not grown at that rate.

      --
      Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
    17. Re:Less favorable lending rates? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was determined during the late 1980's and early 1990's that an artificially lowered prime rate would spur the economy better than a "normal" or "fair" prime rate.

      What? Rates were pretty high in the late 80s and early 90s, in 1990 the average prime rate was over 10%. (source) It's hard to pay off the mortgage on your $300,000 house when the first $30k goes to interest each year.

      1) Lowered mortgage interest. People who are in debt can afford to stay in debt. Banks love this because they basically own you if you're in debt to them.

      On the other hand, people can afford to pay off their mortgage because they aren't paying so much in interest. Banks don't own you just because you decided to take their money. Nobody forces you to take a mortgage, if you want to save up or get private loans to finance your home nobody is stopping you.

      2) Lowered savings interest. People who aren't in debt are getting screwed. Banks love this because it encourages everyone else to spend themselves into slavery to the banks.

      Spend themselves into slavery? Why would they spend themselves into slavery (and why would they be slaves to the bank if they aren't in debt?) just because fixed-income instruments aren't giving a good return? Wouldn't prudent people just reallocate their savings to other investments, like real estate or stocks?

      Look, most of the large banks are pretty evil and do some incredibly shady shit but for the most part lending money to consumers isn't on that list. If you want to rail against the banks, at least educate yourself on the more egregious shenanigans they have pulled instead of whining about having to pay back money that YOU chose to borrow or claim to be a slave to the bank because you have no debt.

      --

      Enigma

  31. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Getting married without having children is REALLY stupid. Why bother? The only reason to get married is to raise children. Otherwise just live together.

  32. Re:Psychologically, this also means that young adu by TWX · · Score: 2

    I was trying to figure out what the hell that statement actually means.

    Thinking back to when I was 18-25 I moved six times. Moving out, moving from ghetto apartment to share a house, moving because the landlord needed the house for the next generation to go to college. Moving out of the nice apartment because the landlord was tired of being a landlord in-general and wanted to sell (even offered to sell to me but it wasn't where I wanted to live permanently), moving out of the house I rented with an ex-friend (be careful living with friends), moving out of my folks house that I was caretaker of when they were away for a year, finally ending up in a rental that I had until around 27. The only truly voluntary move was leaving home when I was eighteen, the rest had some degree of forced move, albeit some like renting my parents' house from them while they were away it was expected that I would move out when the time came.

    From 25 to 35 I moved twice. Once out of the rental into my fiancee's house a couple weeks prior to getting married, and then five years later when we moved into a bigger house after the housing market crashed and we could get a whole lot of house for the money. Obviously both voluntary, but moving almost literally every five years kind of fits perfectly into that 20% of people moving every year, if everyone moved every five years. Statistically dead even on the line.

    Why would people want to move often, especially as one reaches the top of the age range? People tend to acquire more stuff. They tend to find that their friendships are cemented. For women, per the CDC, the average age of first child is 25, and moving with children isn't exactly pleasant for anyone either. For someone to want to move after they've reached a degree of pleasant stability usually means they're able to significantly improve their station (like their career is strong and they can afford to go someplace much nicer) or they're forced to move because of some negative, either problems with work or problems with the neighborhood itself. Moving just for its own sake doesn't generally make a whole lot of sense for most people.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  33. It's houses, dummy by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    RTFS. They're not just staying in one city, they're staying at one address. This means nobody is buying houses. It's another sign the Millennials are getting screwed. The evidence keeps mounting and the media keeps ignoring it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: It's houses, dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh huh... I suppose with your head stuck so far up your own ass that it's not easy to read the myriad data out there that shows millenials truly are getting the short end of the stick in this shithole country. Stick with your strawmen, but don't be surprised as fewer and fewer sane people bother to listen.

    2. Re: It's houses, dummy by PRMan · · Score: 0

      It would be great if you could post this data.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:It's houses, dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Previous generations understood this

      Really? Then who voted for all those entitlements and regulations that existed before the kids were even born?

      Did the kids travel back in time and did that too?

      The problem with blaming he kids for lacking personal responsibility is that such an argument itself is trying to deny any personal responsibility in how your kids/grandkids are raised.

    4. Re: It's houses, dummy by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Some is in TFS and TFA...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re: It's houses, dummy by scatbomb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not my experience. As a millenial, I've been working since I was 16, I've always showed up on time and worked my ass off. Today I'm a successful R&D scientist in a rapidly growing company. If millenials have anyone to blame, it is themselves and the barrage of the media telling them how and why they'll never make it.

    6. Re: It's houses, dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fucking irony is palpable, assuming you're older than millenials and how this site loves to deride my generation as wanting shit spoon-fed to them.

      How about you find it yourself, y'know, be self-sufficient yourself like you want us little supposed snowflakes to be? Firstly, there is a fair bit of data in TFA. Far more, exhaustive data is out there, from many sources, if you bother to research and read. I ain't your mommy.

    7. Re: It's houses, dummy by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Not my experience. As a millenial, I've been working since I was 16, I've always showed up on time and worked my ass off. Today I'm a successful R&D scientist in a rapidly growing company. If millenials have anyone to blame, it is themselves and the barrage of the media telling them how and why they'll never make it.

      Thank you!!

      I do hear from some, but sadly, not the majority of your generation this can do attitude and success story.

      I was working as soon as I was 16yrs too, as that I wanted to save and buy my first car. I went from there and worked at least part time ever since then through school and then worked crap jobs as an adult till I got my real jobs, and yes, those were later in life than I anticipated, but I kept trying and am doing pretty well.

      I'm so glad to hear a story like yours, and hope others of your generation will emulate you and your work ethic.

      Congrats!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re: It's houses, dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, did an R&D scientist just pass off his personal anecdote as data?

      Man, you millenials really do suck at your jobs!

    9. Re:It's houses, dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should really be yelling at the boomer parents who raised their kids on participation awards and "follow your dreams, the money will come"/"education, even in underwater basket-weaving, has value for it's own sake" style parenting, and not the kids themselves. The millenials didn't get to choose the shitbags that raised them.

    10. Re: It's houses, dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how this site loves to deride my generation

      I see mostly derision of baby boomers, though gen X hate is tarting to show up as people figure out the difference. Soon it will be your turn. In the words of the great Jimmy Buffet

      And I know it's my own damn fault

    11. Re: It's houses, dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is quite incredible, is it not? I feel like a *whoosh* doesn't even do it justice with these two, especially considering that there is already data in TFA to debunk their hilariously anecdotal reasoning.

    12. Re:It's houses, dummy by tomxor · · Score: 2

      RTFS. They're not just staying in one city, they're staying at one address. This means nobody is buying houses. It's another sign the Millennials are getting screwed.

      It means, that they're still living at Mommy and Daddy's house, waiting for the world to give them the high paying dream job they "deserve" and would enjoy doing.....and it ain't happening.

      Previous generations understood this, but apparently the snowflakes do not.

      I'll stop you right there...

      The previous generation don't understand how much of their success is built upon luck and the generation before them, they tend to be biased in attributing all of their good fortune to their own hard work - because that's human nature, when you're down it's bad luck (Gen-Y), when things are going your way it's all you (Gen-X). In truth it's a combination, but you can't have the hard work without first having a substantial amount of luck, even if that just means being born at the right time and in the right place, the concept of being completely self made is wrong... by all means try it, go out into the desert with nothing and see how far you get, YOU are dependant upon the system, the system was kind to you.

      You are either part of that generation or a lucky outlier... either way shut the fuck up or we will rob you of all your luck including any hard work built upon it and then you will finally be more humble when looking upon those without a foundation to build their life.

    13. Re: It's houses, dummy by imidan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In 1977, the median income for a 30-year-old man was about $10,000, or $41,500 adjusted for inflation [1]. Today, the median income for a 30-year-old man is about $35,000 [1]. The median home sale price in 1977 was about $49,000, or $203,000 inflation-adjusted [2]. The median home sale price today is about $325,000 [2]. In 1977, a 4-year college degree at an in-state, public institution cost less than $4,000, or about $16,000 inflation-adjusted for tuition and fees [3]. Today, that's $38,600.

      These are only a few rough indicators, but the point is this: a millennial or gen-xer today makes 84% in real terms of what his counterpart did in 1977; his education costs more than twice as much and has gone from something he could pay for completely with a summer job to more than a full year's salary; the house he's looking at has gone from 4 years' salary to nearly 10 years', and a 20% down payment has gone from about 3 months' salary to about two years'.

      These, for example, are reasons that millennials have it tougher than previous generations.

      [1] https://cps.ipums.org/cps/
      [2] https://www.census.gov/const/u...
      [3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/d...
      [4] http://www.collegedata.com/cs/...

    14. Re: It's houses, dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how people work hard, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and then pretend it's their virtue and not luck that got them there.

      Seriously. I'm one of those people. I worked my ass off 16+ hour days building a company (as a grunt with only promises, the shares were already in someone else's pockets). The company collapsed, but the work I did there made my resume shine. Now I own (not mortgage, own) my house, work a job I enjoy with people I like, and am the picture of success. And I know damn well that not everyone has the opportunities to pull themselves like I did. Plenty would given a chance, but it's the luck of the draw.

      Drive and hard work aren't enough. You also need luck and opportunity.

    15. Re: It's houses, dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not on him to prove YOUR point, you fucking dunce.

    16. Re: It's houses, dummy by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      20% down payment has gone from about 3 months' salary to about two years'.

      Back in 2005 I said that the housing market was pushing out its base market because at the time a 20% down was $50k on a small townhouse, and the base market couldn't afford to push that kind of cash down. Of course, the banks countered with Jumbo Mortgages and double loans (mortgage + secondary loan for the down payment) with variable rate interest - this in turn became a major factor in the 2008 housing bubble - which popped in part because of a 0.25 interest rate increase by the Federal Reserve, kicking in $100's of dollars extra on payments on all those variable rate loans and knocking the housing market flat on its back as a result.

      But yeah - if you haven't bought in somewhere cheaper, it's going to be very hard to buy in somewhere more expensive, and the housing capitals of the US (NYC, SF, LA, W.DC, Seattle, Chicago, etc) are also the most expensive areas to live.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    17. Re: It's houses, dummy by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

      In 1977, the median income for a 30-year-old man was about $10,000, or $41,500 adjusted for inflation. Today, the median income for a 30-year-old man is about $35,000

      What is the median years of experience for both years? In 1977, a larger percentage of the workforce did not attend college so they would have have had more years to build up experience and pay raises. Going to college will increase your overall lifetime compensation but that is weighted more heavily in the later years, your overall compensation in your 20's will often be lower than someone who went to work directly out of high school. The median age for graduating with a bachelor's degree has also gone up, so that will affect your statistics as well. If someone went to college until they were 26 then it is highly likely that they wouldn't make as much as their peers by age 30, particularly if they studied a major that isn't very marketable. Overall, wages have risen in the last 40 years, although not at the rate of productivity increases.

      The median home sale price in 1977 was about $49,000, or $203,000 inflation-adjusted. The median home sale price today is about $325,000

      I don't have numbers for 1977, but this article says that the median square footage of homes has gone up over 1000 square feet between 1973 and 2013 and with the lower median household size the living space per person has doubled. The median price per square foot has stayed pretty stable in the last 40 years. If you want the price they were paying in 1977, simply buy the size of house they were buying in 1977.

      In 1977, a 4-year college degree at an in-state, public institution cost less than $4,000, or about $16,000 inflation-adjusted for tuition and fees. Today, that's $38,600.

      This is the only expense you cited that appears to actually have changed much and it's primarily changed for 3 reasons: easier availability of money (student loans), cutbacks in budgets for state universities and greater demand. I think it's silly for an 18 year old to borrow that kind of money, but it is even more silly to loan that kind of money to 18 year olds. I think the solution to this problem is pretty clear, make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy. This would force lenders to actually evaluate the loan and the likelyhood of repayment instead of just approving anyone who says they need money. The people who are not able to get loans can go to college the old-fashioned way: grants (for the truly needy), scholarships, and work.

      Overall, millennials are not as disadvantaged as they think they are. Yes, there are some obstacles to overcome but every generation has had its obstacles.

      --

      Enigma

    18. Re:It's houses, dummy by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2

      RTFS. They're not just staying in one city, they're staying at one address. This means nobody is buying houses. It's another sign the Millennials are getting screwed.

      It means, that they're still living at Mommy and Daddy's house, waiting for the world to give them the high paying dream job they "deserve" and would enjoy doing.....and it ain't happening.

      Previous generations understood this, but apparently the snowflakes do not.

      I'll stop you right there...

      The previous generation don't understand how much of their success is built upon luck and the generation before them, they tend to be biased in attributing all of their good fortune to their own hard work - because that's human nature, when you're down it's bad luck (Gen-Y), when things are going your way it's all you (Gen-X).

      Stopping you right here...

      In truth it's a combination, but you can't have the hard work without first having a substantial amount of luck,

      Sure you can. It's called your grades in school. It's called not allowing your kids to be put on drugs to keep them in their seats because the teacher can't take them out for recess to run off the excess energy (yeah, not Gen-Y's fault on that one). It's call doing your best regardless of the circumstances around you, and having a strong work ethic.

      Sadly, BabyBoomer/Gen-Xer's didn't generally do their Gen-Y/Millennial kids any favors with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "my kid can do no wrong" and "1+1 = 3, yeah - you tried; here's a lollipop" up-bringing.

      But that doesn't leave it any less on Millennials/Gen-Y to do their best and put their head down and do the job(s) they've been given/hired to do. How you treat one employer will be picked up on your interviews in the future. So yes - it is ultimately in your hands, even if your parents didn't help you much.

      even if that just means being born at the right time and in the right place,

      Being able to do certain things, make certain kinds of advancements does have a link to being in the right place at the right time; but it also has to do with the attitude you have when you're there. If you don't have the "can do" attitude, then those around you won't offer you those prime choices, or you won't put yourself in situations where you can even be given those choices.

      You can't start a business and not advertise it, and expect money to come in from no where. You have to get out and do the hard work - get out in the business community and make your name known; find VC's and Angel Investors and convince them you have the wherewithal to "do what you say and say what you do" and make them money. And that starts by showing your boss at McD's or Arbie's or some retail shop that you can be trusted, and not goof off; that you can handle responsibility - that in turn, becomes a good reference for your *next* job wherever it may be, and that builds up over time.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    19. Re: It's houses, dummy by scatbomb · · Score: 1

      Better to be lucky than to be smart, for sure. But determination trumps both.

    20. Re: It's houses, dummy by scatbomb · · Score: 1

      Hahaha nice job ACs. Data isn't allowed on /. AND YOU KNOW IT!! ;)

      Here's a couple papers:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2009.00697.x/full

      https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-social-policy/article/div-classtitleactivation-workers-perceptions-of-their-long-term-unemployed-clients-attitudes-towards-employmentdiv/88B9C7F91AB31E63F3D003144CE71113

      ...and a couple articles about the skilled labor shortage. These are good paying jobs waiting to be filled.

      https://www.aol.com/article/2011/10/04/six-skilled-labor-jobs/20039165/

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/emsi/2013/03/07/americas-skilled-trades-dilemma-shortages-loom-as-most-in-demand-group-of-workers-ages/#5c58c19b4545

    21. Re:It's houses, dummy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Being able to do certain things, make certain kinds of advancements does have a link to being in the right place at the right time; but it also has to do with the attitude you have when you're there. If you don't have the "can do" attitude, then those around you won't offer you those prime choices, or you won't put yourself in situations where you can even be given those choices.

      Yeah, and your attitude is as much about chance as anything else. It's one thing to know that stuff intellectually, and it's another thing to have been abandoned by one parent who was a violent alcoholic anyway and to have been essentially failed by the other parent who withdrew into a cocoon and did little but provide the absolute bare minimum financial condition not to have your children taken away and who taught you nothing whatsoever about healthy interpersonal relationships.

      I grew up with few friends, was poorly socialized so I did poorly in school even when I knew the material because of the influence of the various little shitmonsters surrounding me whose parents taught them a lot more than mine did, but mostly taught them how to be selfish little fucks who liked to hurt people for amusement. Now I suffer in the networking department in multiple ways.

      If you don't have the "can do" attitude, then those around you won't offer you those prime choices, or you won't put yourself in situations where you can even be given those choices.

      I do what I can, but don't pretend it's the same for everyone. It provably is not.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:It's houses, dummy by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Being able to do certain things, make certain kinds of advancements does have a link to being in the right place at the right time; but it also has to do with the attitude you have when you're there. If you don't have the "can do" attitude, then those around you won't offer you those prime choices, or you won't put yourself in situations where you can even be given those choices.

      Yeah, and your attitude is as much about chance as anything else. It's one thing to know that stuff intellectually, and it's another thing to have been abandoned by one parent who was a violent alcoholic anyway and to have been essentially failed by the other parent who withdrew into a cocoon and did little but provide the absolute bare minimum financial condition not to have your children taken away and who taught you nothing whatsoever about healthy interpersonal relationships.

      I grew up with few friends, was poorly socialized so I did poorly in school even when I knew the material because of the influence of the various little shitmonsters surrounding me whose parents taught them a lot more than mine did, but mostly taught them how to be selfish little fucks who liked to hurt people for amusement. Now I suffer in the networking department in multiple ways.

      And yet....I grew up the target of the neighborhood bully, few friends, and chose not to be associated with people that were bad influences.

      The people you *choose* to keep as friends greatly impacts your life. They can bring you up, or bring you down; but it's your choice about whom you hang out with, and how they ultimately influence you. That responsibility is yours and yours alone.

      If you don't have the "can do" attitude, then those around you won't offer you those prime choices, or you won't put yourself in situations where you can even be given those choices.

      I do what I can, but don't pretend it's the same for everyone. It provably is not.

      Obviously you didn't do everything you could by your own account you essentially hung out with the wrong crowd - by *your* choice. Whether that's your perceived choice of "well,they were the only friends I could make" is in part to play - you had a choice to either hang with them your or not; in all likelihood the fact that you did hang with them likely limited your choices of friends as others didn't like them and didn't want to associate with you because you associated with them. So yeah...it really does come down to your choices regardless of what your parents or their parents did.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    23. Re: It's houses, dummy by werepants · · Score: 1

      I'm also a successful millennial who worked from a young age, but I don't think the economic challenges for this generation are made up - my sister and her husband have been stuck living with parents because rent prices and home prices in the area have been going up much faster than pay. That's not an imaginary problem. My wife and I have had to dig out of student loan debt that prior generations didn't have to the same degree. We had to deal with our first home depreciating 25-30% shortly after we bought it, thanks to the recession.

      I'm making good money now and consider myself really lucky to have all that I do. I've worked hard for it, but I've also been fortunate to have some great opportunities show up and to have interests and skills that happen to be in demand.

      Not everybody who works hard is successful, and not everybody who is successful worked hard for it. It's important to acknowledge the value of work ethic, but we also need to recognize systemic trends. It's a simple fact that millenials entered into the work force with a worse economy than their parents had, and with dramatically higher costs for education and home ownership.

    24. Re:It's houses, dummy by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      RTFS. They're not just staying in one city, they're staying at one address. This means nobody is buying houses. It's another sign the Millennials are getting screwed.

      It means, that they're still living at Mommy and Daddy's house, waiting for the world to give them the high paying dream job they "deserve" and would enjoy doing.....and it ain't happening.

      Previous generations understood this, but apparently the snowflakes do not.

      I'll stop you right there...

      The previous generation don't understand how much of their success is built upon luck and the generation before them, they tend to be biased in attributing all of their good fortune to their own hard work - because that's human nature, when you're down it's bad luck (Gen-Y), when things are going your way it's all you (Gen-X).

      Stopping you right here...

      In truth it's a combination, but you can't have the hard work without first having a substantial amount of luck,

      Sure you can. It's called your grades in school. It's called not allowing your kids to be put on drugs to keep them in their seats because the teacher can't take them out for recess to run off the excess energy (yeah, not Gen-Y's fault on that one). It's call doing your best regardless of the circumstances around you, and having a strong work ethic. Sadly, BabyBoomer/Gen-Xer's didn't generally do their Gen-Y/Millennial kids any favors with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "my kid can do no wrong" and "1+1 = 3, yeah - you tried; here's a lollipop" up-bringing. But that doesn't leave it any less on Millennials/Gen-Y to do their best and put their head down and do the job(s) they've been given/hired to do. How you treat one employer will be picked up on your interviews in the future. So yes - it is ultimately in your hands, even if your parents didn't help you much.

      You want the scary part? Pretty much every single bit of research in the social sciences on the upbringing basically says that you couldn't intentionally raise kids to be little narcissistic bullies better, with serious issues with society if they manage to not end up that way because it turns out that humans are not only pretty good at detecting false & empty praise, we're in general hardwired to be not very fond of it.

      This research is about as old as me, and I'm in the older segment of the Millennial generation. This should tell you all you need to know about the halflife of pseudoscience in the educational system...

    25. Re:It's houses, dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFS. They're not just staying in one city, they're staying at one address. This means nobody is buying houses. It's another sign the Millennials are getting screwed.

      It means, that they're still living at Mommy and Daddy's house, waiting for the world to give them the high paying dream job they "deserve" and would enjoy doing.....and it ain't happening.

      Previous generations understood this, but apparently the snowflakes do not.

      I'll stop you right there...

      The previous generation don't understand how much of their success is built upon luck and the generation before them, they tend to be biased in attributing all of their good fortune to their own hard work - because that's human nature, when you're down it's bad luck (Gen-Y), when things are going your way it's all you (Gen-X).

      Stopping you right here...

      In truth it's a combination, but you can't have the hard work without first having a substantial amount of luck,

      Sure you can. It's called your grades in school. It's called not allowing your kids to be put on drugs to keep them in their seats because the teacher can't take them out for recess to run off the excess energy (yeah, not Gen-Y's fault on that one). It's call doing your best regardless of the circumstances around you, and having a strong work ethic.

        Sadly, BabyBoomer/Gen-Xer's didn't generally do their Gen-Y/Millennial kids any favors with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "my kid can do no wrong" and "1+1 = 3, yeah - you tried; here's a lollipop" up-bringing.

      But that doesn't leave it any less on Millennials/Gen-Y to do their best and put their head down and do the job(s) they've been given/hired to do. How you treat one employer will be picked up on your interviews in the future. So yes - it is ultimately in your hands, even if your parents didn't help you much.

      You want the scary part? Pretty much every single bit of research in the social sciences on the upbringing basically says that you couldn't intentionally raise kids to be little narcissistic bullies better, with serious issues with society if they manage to not end up that way because it turns out that humans are not only pretty good at detecting false & empty praise, we're in general hardwired to be not very fond of it.

      This research is about as old as me, and I'm in the older segment of the Millennial generation. This should tell you all you need to know about the halflife of pseudoscience in the educational system...

      I'm younger Gen-X (actually I fall into what's deemed the "missing generation" - between Gen-X and Gen-Y, lopped one side or the other depending on who is doing the research and for what purpose)...but older generations didn't have those issues because they we're coddled for their entire upbringing. Only 1st, 2nd, and 3rd got any kind of Prize, misbehavior was punished, and if you did something wrong you were told so and expected to do it right the next time, having learned from your mistake.

      But yeah - sadly Gen-Y's and Millennials got the worse end of the stick (sorry) - as you say - the worse method of raising kids is protecting their self-esteem, etc as it makes for really bad character in the end - a lot of which we are now seeing entering into the political arena. This was a by-product of the 1960's psychologists like Dr. Spock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock), much of which has in the last 20 years or so been fully debunked as the worse way to raise kids.

    26. Re:It's houses, dummy by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I'm younger Gen-X (actually I fall into what's deemed the "missing generation" - between Gen-X and Gen-Y, lopped one side or the other depending on who is doing the research and for what purpose)...but older generations didn't have those issues because they we're coddled for their entire upbringing. Only 1st, 2nd, and 3rd got any kind of Prize, misbehavior was punished, and if you did something wrong you were told so and expected to do it right the next time, having learned from your mistake.

      But yeah - sadly Gen-Y's and Millennials got the worse end of the stick (sorry) - as you say - the worse method of raising kids is protecting their self-esteem, etc as it makes for really bad character in the end - a lot of which we are now seeing entering into the political arena. This was a by-product of the 1960's psychologists like Dr. Spock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock), much of which has in the last 20 years or so been fully debunked as the worse way to raise kids.

      I only count as a Millennial when the upper limit is set high--I'm in the border between it and Gen-Y, pretty much--but a good part of this was hitting the late Boomers on generation-wise. Bad psych and pseudoscience tends to linger badly in the educational and social services fields; I think it may well be because most get no to next to no training in psychology, so the speed at which discoveries like "Rewarding behavior always, always reenforces it" filter over from that field is dismal. (And yes, I'm quite aware that my example is something that ought to be obvious. You'd think it'd have managed to make it over long ago, but...)

    27. Re: It's houses, dummy by scatbomb · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. I worded my post too strongly after re-reading it. The important thing is that millenials work to the best of their ability and not sell themselves short. There is still opportunity out there for young people.

    28. Re: It's houses, dummy by werepants · · Score: 1

      Agreed - there's a fine line there where millenials need to recognize that there are economic problems, but realize that the recipe for success is the same as it has always been and generally still works. Challenges can be acknowledged without allowing them to become excuses.

  34. Re:having kids is dumb by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

    you aren't the first people to think that in your 20's. then the 40s hit and it's like that Picard line from Star Trek. "I've realized there are fewer days ahead than there are behind"

  35. Idiotic summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If "nobody is moving", then how can the fact that millenials aren't moving be a special case??

  36. Snake people by allo · · Score: 1

    https://chrome.google.com/webs...

    please stop the bullshit.

  37. The End of Freedom by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Freedom in America is largely defined by Economic Freedom. Without the ability to obtain a disposable income, Millennials are unable to live their life on their terms. They are effectively Wage Slaves, shackled to and controlled by Debt and most of them will prove powerless to overcome that slavery. We will see the middle class die within the next decade, and with it, the rise of chronic underemployment, and the end of the nuclear family as multi-family and multi-generational households will become the new norm

    1. Re:The End of Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how, exactly, is that any different for the generation that came before millennials?

      I didn't graduate debt free. I didn't enter into the workforce with piles of disposable income. I'm only NOW reaching a level of disposable income I'm happy with and I've maybe only got another 10 years to retirement. We aren't all born Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg.

      This is the circle of life. You start out with jack all. You work till you're too old to appreciate it, then you spend it on your kids and retirement. What makes millennials so special that they are entitled to jump to the end of the circle?

      The middle class will die and millenials will step in to fill their place. And for most of them, they'll be just as well off as we were at that time in our lives.

    2. Re:The End of Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brought to you by the Committee to Brainwash America for A Better China of Tomorrow

      PS Kill yourself

    3. Re:The End of Freedom by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      No -- what I am saying is that the Middle Class is dying, and the millennials will join the ever growing ranks of the working poor. Because that's what's going on, the destruction of the middle class, and the creation of a bi-furcated society of the Have's and the other 90% who will be the working poor

    4. Re:The End of Freedom by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Considering we have a surplus of ignorant, uneducated and useless people such as yourself, I think you are the one that should be doing the killing of oneself

    5. Re:The End of Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will see the middle class die within the next decade, and with it, the rise of chronic underemployment, and the end of the nuclear family as multi-family and multi-generational households will become the new norm

      More likely marriage and birth rates will plummet along with life-expectancy.

  38. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DINK - Dual Income No Kids

    Enjoy all those fancy vacations and new cars you can afford :-) try not to complain about everything too much.

  39. Re:having kids is dumb by Higaran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are plenty of reasons to marry and not have kids, such as saving on taxes, insurance, or even just making sure someone has the authority to make medical decisions if something should happen to you.

  40. Re:Elon Musk: Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millenn by TWX · · Score: 1

    So what I take from the precentages is that people move an average of every four to five years. Obviously some move more often and some move less, so the spread might count for something, but it's not some vast case of decades of immobility.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  41. Re:Psychologically, this also means that young adu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was trying to figure out if 'faded of memory' was an autocorrect error. Turns out it's a reference to a -single study- indicating that people cite more memorable experiences than expected by chance, from around the times in their lives when they moved. My reaction is 'so what'? Doesn't say that life is better because of those moves, or a person is better off because they have those memories. Yes, if you live in one place for many years (especially as an adult), those years start to blur together. I lived in one apartment for 5 years and to me all that time is about the same. I don't see how that relates to success, happiness, quality-of-life, or really anything of importance. Might as well say 'people who live in the middle of the country have few memories of going to the beach'.

  42. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That nice, but I'm 44 years old.

  43. Not understanding the USA culture by gwolf · · Score: 1

    I am a Mexican, grandson of immigrants from Europe. One of the things I don't understand about the USA is how easy people seem to relocate over there. It seems to be most easy to go at age 18 and study the university in a city nobody knows you. Then, you get a job at a different state. Two, three times, you move state because you got a job. Then, you settle... And having a family means it's harder to move (although by far not unheard of).

    My grandparents moved quite a bit – Out of Europe due to poverty in the late 1920s (they were all born 1903-1910). My mother's family tried luck in rural Mexico, Panama, Peru, then came back to Mexico; my father's only moved from Northern Mexico to Mexico City.

    I am married to an Argentinian woman; we met while travelling. Our only choices of where to live was, close to my family or hers. We came to Mexico, as I had a better, more stable work position. And, were we to move away, we would only consider to go near her family.

    I stand by what you said, family is a wonderful support system. Going anywhere where your family does not live is a huge cost by itself.

  44. In other news... by lactose99 · · Score: 1

    moving simply sucks

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  45. Harsh Rental Practices by eepok · · Score: 5, Informative

    My wife and I make over $100k together and we can't yet afford a 2b/2ba condo in Orange County, CA within a 30 minute commute to work. That kind of place with a garage goes for ~$500k. Thus, if you don't want PMI, you need to have $100k in cash on hand PLUS financial buffer and moving costs. So we rent. We pay ~$1,845/mo for our 1b/1ba. And there's a catch-- lease renewal increases are around $50, but the increase is lower than the ~$90/mo annual market rental increase over the last few years. So, if you want to move, you're almost guaranteed to be moving into a more expensive apartment.

    And there still isn't any inventory to buy. There are too many people buying to turn around and immediately rent out those places.

    So, despite out income and despite our savings, we're staying put.

    1. Re:Harsh Rental Practices by TheSync · · Score: 4, Informative

      And there still isn't any inventory to buy.

      Did you vote for a politician who promised to lower regulatory barriers to home building? I'm sure the Libertarian Party of Orange County would welcome you, because I can assure you that Democrats and Republicans there are both against any new home building.

      Irvine City Council candidate Courtney Santos said:

      Increase supply of housing
      Dialogue with developers and UCI to better understand barriers to building housing that they have experienced
      Ensure efficiency in the permitting process
      Be mindful that developers will pass on fees incurred during permit process to renters or buyers
      Remove legal or zoning barriers to affordable, sustainable microhousing and tiny houses
      Support zoning more high-density areas to allow modern solutions for living spaces for single professionals and students, such as micro-apartments and studios
      Deregulate duplexes - for example, why can't property owners determine for themselves how much floor space to devote to a second unit? "The floor area of a second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the floor area of the existing living area" (Zoning Ch. 3-26-3).
      Encourage dialogue about innovative housing practices like co-housing and cooperatives
      Orange County in general has a massive housing shortage (estimates vary; 40,000 to 100,000 more units may be needed countywide). Irvine is one of the cities with highest demand.

    2. Re:Harsh Rental Practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife and I make over $100k together and we can't yet afford a 2b/2ba condo in Orange County, CA within a 30 minute commute to work. That kind of place with a garage goes for ~$500k. Thus, if you don't want PMI, you need to have $100k in cash on hand PLUS financial buffer and moving costs. So we rent. We pay ~$1,845/mo for our 1b/1ba. And there's a catch-- lease renewal increases are around $50, but the increase is lower than the ~$90/mo annual market rental increase over the last few years. So, if you want to move, you're almost guaranteed to be moving into a more expensive apartment.

      And there still isn't any inventory to buy. There are too many people buying to turn around and immediately rent out those places.

      So, despite out income and despite our savings, we're staying put.

      Why don't you try to live somewhere beside Orange County California?

    3. Re:Harsh Rental Practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Missouri, in a suburb of St. Louis. I own a 2100 sq. ft. house (4 bed, 2.5 bath) in an ordinary, but nice, subdivision. I paid $11k down on just over $200k. The mortgage payment is just over $1400 (30-year) and has PMI until I either pay it down to $160k or bring the value up to around $240k (accounting for how much principal I've paid so far).

      Previously, I lived in a 1500 sq. ft. condo (3 bed, 1-full+2-half bath, no garage though) in another suburb of St. Louis. I sold it for just under $100k. My mortgage was $800/month (15-year) and had no PMI.

      So you're staying put because you want the luxury of living in California. Now, that may be because of family, or because of work, or maybe just because you like it. But stop fooling yourself into thinking that you're "stuck there". There are cheap homes and decent jobs in other parts of the country.

      And the price increases you're describing are because of you and others like you. If you (and others) would just move away, the market would evaporate and those slum-lord buyers would evaporate with it. You're in a self-perpetuating cycle of suck. To break out, you have to break the cycle. Nobody is going to do it for you. They're just going to farm you for money. So your choice is to move or to get used to being the crop.

    4. Re:Harsh Rental Practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, get the pmi and it'll pay off in the long run. you'll at least be building equity instead of flushing $22K don the toilet every year. Interest rates are insanely low and this is a good time to get in.

    5. Re:Harsh Rental Practices by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And there still isn't any inventory to buy.

      Did you vote for a politician who promised to lower regulatory barriers to home building?

      We don't need to build more homes. We have multiple vacant homes for every homeless man, woman, and child in this country, as a result of the mortgage scam bailout. When we bailed out the banks, we let them keep all those properties that they foreclosed upon! But the whole reason they needed a bailout was because they were underwriting loans that were bound for foreclosure. So they created the problem, and then we rewarded them for it. Now they are refusing to sell the properties for what the market will bear, because if they start doing that, the true value of their real estate holdings will be revealed and they will be back in financial crisis. Vacant homes wind up promoting criminal activity which devalues them as they get squatted in and stripped of their fixtures and metals by people willing to rip apart the walls to get them.

      If you want to solve the housing crisis, the answer is not building more shit-shacks that we don't even need. The answer is to take properties away from the banks.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Harsh Rental Practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those vacant homes are in places nobody wants to live. Not in central, affluent locations like Orange County.

    7. Re:Harsh Rental Practices by TheSync · · Score: 1

      We have multiple vacant homes for every homeless man, woman, and child in this country, as a result of the mortgage scam bailout.

      Most recent data on US home vacancy rates is 1.8% in 2015, down from a max of 2.8% in 2008. Current home vacancy rates are no different than they were in say 1989 or 2001. Thus, I suspect that your theory on mortgage bailouts is probably not correct.

      That said, your numbers are right - average nightly homelessness in the US is about 500,000, whereas there are probably 2.2 million vacant homes. 1.56 million people are homeless at some point in a year.

      Purchase Only House Price Index for the United States is at an all time high now, after recovering from a bottom in 2011, suggesting little slack in the housing market.

      But yes, I am sure there are some places like Detroit where you can't even give away a house. But we don't have enough housing built where people can have high-productivity jobs.

  46. SJW Planners Hate You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The SJW Planners really hate that. Nice suburb, great amenities, good pay...unacceptable!!!

    All people must be corralled in big cities where they can be watched and controlled.

    1. Re: SJW Planners Hate You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody must live in high density housing along public transit corridors.

    2. Re:SJW Planners Hate You by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dude, get professional help.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: SJW Planners Hate You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about :

      Everyone is strongly encouraged (virtually forced) to own a car, and waste time and fuel commuting, or running out for a pint of milk. Yeah, sprawling suburban life is simply grossly inefficient and the youngs get it. Save money and time by living in a city near your work, your friends and the shops. When you want to go to the country, go enjoy with all the time and money you saved.

    4. Re:SJW Planners Hate You by TWX · · Score: 1

      Why does that have anything to do with SJWs?

      It may be anecdotal, but most SJWs seem to live in the suburbs. After all, where else can they stay in their mother's basement?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re: SJW Planners Hate You by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Huh? I live in the suburbs and grocery stores are more easily accessible here than they are in the inner cities. As are parks, drug stores, banks, and pretty much everything else. Hey, if you enjoy living the concrete jungle lifestyle, good for you. But not everyone wants to live where you get to hear your neighbors flush the toilet.

      People who live in concrete jungles head out of town on the weekends while people in suburbia just fire up the grill and go swimming in their backyard pool.

      Don't get me wrong, I live both lifestyles, apt in a crowded city where I work 6 months out of the year and then back to my home in the suburbs for a relaxing 6 months of vacation. I won't be retiring to the concrete jungle.

    6. Re: SJW Planners Hate You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? How is any of this more accessible on the countryside. I live in a major NA city, within 5 to 10min walk I've got more or less everything you could wish for, including pools, parks, several playgrounds and all kinds of shopping, I highly doubt that you can drive to all of that in this time.

    7. Re: SJW Planners Hate You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the suburbs in Australia, and yes I can drive to all those in under 10mins, hell I can walk to most of those in around 10 or less. If I extend the driving time to 15 I have multiple major shopping centres.

    8. Re: SJW Planners Hate You by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      You sound like one of those people who blames all of society's problems on the group you feel most threatened by.

    9. Re: SJW Planners Hate You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SJWs DO NOT stay in their mothers basements! They are too busy attending protests about inane things like the rights of transgender sheep not to mention that they believe the parent child relationship is OPRESSION!!

    10. Re: SJW Planners Hate You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SJWs DO

      not to mention that they believe the parent child relationship is OPRESSION!!

      Please. You haven't met MY mother!

    11. Re: SJW Planners Hate You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah. You should meet my parents. They killed me once. But I got better.

    12. Re: SJW Planners Hate You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in a huge house in the suburbs. I have a public city pool behind my house by about a block. City Hall is within .5 miles, 20 minutes on the highway takes me through 2 100,000 plus population cities. While not "big" in the eyes of most city dwellers, these cities have all the luxuries anyone could need. It is quiet and comfortable in my home. Only total morons need shopping malls since everything can be found cheaper online. Best of all, I made about $80,000 on my last home because I actually build equity and don't have a shitty landlord.

  47. The Housing Supply is TOO DAMN LOW! by TheSync · · Score: 2

    The BIGGEST problem in the US is the over-regulation of residential building in the most productive cities that keeps the housing supply artificially low.

    In the study "Why Do Cities Matter? Local Growth and Aggregate Growth", the authors show that lowering regulatory constraints on housing in high productivity cities like New York, San Francisco and San Jose to the level of the median city would expand their work force and increase U.S. GDP by 9.5%. That is three or more years of current economic growth rates "for free".

    Increasing density in these cities is simple. For example, see these reasonable designs for enhanced density while maintaining green space and livability. You don't have to be like Toronto with 37 residential towers over 46 stories. You can achieve a density of 100,000 people per square mile using a mix of buildings up to 8 stories tall.

    To see how screwed-up things have become, 40% of buildings in Manhattan would be illegal to build today, because of height, too many residential units, or too much mixed-use between residential and commercial.

    More people living in the most productive cities will also increase the tax bases there, allowing for more investment in transport, education, etc. However transport needs would decline (or at least stay the same) if most new residents live inside these cities instead of the distant exurbs.

    1. Re:The Housing Supply is TOO DAMN LOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, don't live in cities. Many of us don't like them. I live in a town of 3500 and I like it like that. Plenty of jobs within a 1 hour commute. Every town around me is building up slowly, largely with apartment complexes near the major highways. Why is a city the only answer?

    2. Re:The Housing Supply is TOO DAMN LOW! by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, don't live in cities. Many of us don't like them...Why is a city the only answer?

      I don't think there is any reason to force people to live in cities. Everyone has a different set of trade-offs, that is what the free market is all about.

      However there also is no reason to have high levels of housing construction regulation to artificially reduce city populations. And these regulations specifically damage the overall economy.

      Regarding cities, three quarters of aggregate U.S. growth between 1964 and 2009 was due to growth in second-tier cities (such as Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Washington DC).

      Labor productivity and labor demand actually grew most rapidly in New York, San Francisco, and San Jose thanks to a concentration of human capital intensive industries like high tech and finance. However, these cities were not able to best turn that productivity into high levels of economic growth because tight housing supply constraints effectively limited employment growth in these cities.

    3. Re:The Housing Supply is TOO DAMN LOW! by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      no reason to have high levels of housing construction regulation to artificially reduce city populations. of course there is, the existing building owners pay vast amounts in campaing contributions to keep supply suppressed well below what it ought to be, because that's how you keep 2 bedroom apartments going for over 3 fucking thousand dollars a month.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:The Housing Supply is TOO DAMN LOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other reason the supply is kept low is to appease the current generation of owners who have been promised by a multitude of players that buying a house is an 'investment' and they promptly hitched their retirements to the sale of their house (at the expense of any and all other investment possibilities) and they will do anything/everything to make sure they get the return they were promised. Everyone in the late 80's through the current bubble were told by the realtors to 'buy more house than you can afford right now, your income WILL go up and it is a good investment'. Buying more house than you can afford guarantees you will have nothing left for savings and will lock you into the cycle of having to sell for more than you owe, removing all flexibility when it comes to relocation, and being completely dependent on third parties for your retirement.

  48. Dodd-Frank did nothing by zerofoo · · Score: 2

    with the exception of increasing the size of compliance departments at all banks.

    The reason the housing bubble occurred was a failure of two government regulatory bodies OTS and the SEC.

    OTS should have never allowed the lax loan underwriting to occur, and the SEC should have never let banks and wall street securitize the crappy loans.

    Dodd-Frank wasn't needed to prevent the disaster - competent regulators were needed.

    1. Re:Dodd-Frank did nothing by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      - competent regulators were needed.

      Which the SEC has proven to be largely void of (see: Bernie Madoff). Check out the book No One Would Listen for a pretty detailed account of the SEC's incompetence on the matter.

    2. Re:Dodd-Frank did nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dodd-Frank wasn't needed to prevent the disaster - competent regulators were needed.

      well, the new administration is certain that all the regulations and regulators to enforce them are what is holding back America's greatness.

      Maybe you can explain to them why regulators are needed even more now than ever?

    3. Re:Dodd-Frank did nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The reason the housing bubble occurred was a failure of two government regulatory bodies OTS and the SEC

      They were failed in turn by another body... a legislative body.

      > OTS should have never allowed the lax loan underwriting to occur, and the SEC should have never let banks and wall street securitize the crappy loans.

      What could they do after they'd been declawed ?

  49. "faded of memory"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does "Psychologically, this also means that young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory compared with their more mobile peers" mean?

    "tuck with their personalities"?

    "faded of memory"?

    Is this a bad translation from Russian?

  50. Re: having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure it wasn't "#1 you have the bridge, i'm going to France to grow grapes"

  51. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Aww, poor virgin.

    Aww, rich virgin.

    FTFY.

  52. Re:having kids is dumb by adolf · · Score: 1

    Being married does not save on taxes.

  53. Harder Than It Sounds by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been trying to move to CA from the Midwest for years now (my wife's family is in CA and she needs to take care of an aging parent), but it's tough since no company is willing to pay for a move unless you have a very specific skill they're looking for that they can't find locally (I'm very good at my job, but I'm nothing special as far as skills go). Trying to interview long distance is also difficult, even with things like Skype (assuming they even will do it). Our current options appear to be either A. Blow our life savings on a move across country and hope I can get a job before we go broke, or B. Find a company that is willing to hire long distance and hope they don't decide to lay me off before our finances recover from the move. As much as my wife wants to be back in CA, she won't risk our future on it.

    I've always been curious about how people are able to jump from one side of the country to the other and support themselves with no problems. Maybe it's because the people who do it are usually young with no real possessions to weigh them down? At my age (40), the risks start outweighing the benefits in many cases.

    1. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by boskone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you go ahead and couch surf, get established, and then move the family out after 6 months? Yeah it sucks.

      In fact, could you live with your inlaws for 6 months (maybe just you), while you get established in a new job, then when you feel your employment is steady (you know the politics/etc) move your family out and get your own place together?

    2. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You expect a potential employer to pay to move your lifetime's worth of shit? Ha! That's pretty funny. Get real man.

      After about forty moves in my life I asked myself, why am I carrying all this shit around, renting trucks and humping it up and down stairs over and over? Do I really need it? The answer was no, I do not. So I hired a garbage skip and turfed the lot, keeping just my guitar, laptop and backpack of clothes. Ditched the car too, what a ball and chain that was!

      Now, as a mobile professional my philosophy is, if I cannot carry it all on my back in one load, then I do not need it. This has worked very well for me, and it has been most liberating.

      You'd be surprised by the freedom that having little to no "stuff" affords you.

    3. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a plan we've actually discussed. The problem is that we'd have to rent a place to put all of our stuff as her house is small (my wife doesn't work so we'd have to sell the house before we moved) and her mom is sort of in the middle of nowhere as far as IT jobs go (Antelope Valley area) so it would be a lot of commuting if I managed to snag a job somewhere. Still, that might be our best bet if push came to shove.

      Also, to be honest, I'm approaching that age where changing jobs becomes a bit riskier. My current job is cushy and fairly safe (plus there's a pension I'm invested in), so I'm a bit scared to throw that all away for something that could crumble after a few months. Then again, we do stupid things all the time for love.

    4. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you considered option C. Move your wife's aging parent to the Midwest?

      I know that old people can be a royal pain in the ass when it comes to moving, but it doesn't seem fair to have to uproot your family and drag you into a ridiculously high cost-of-living area because the in-laws need attention. Have them sell the CA real estate & buy something near you.

    5. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      (plus there's a pension I'm invested in),

      A someone who will never see a pension and expects not to get any social security when I am eligible to retire in 35 years(assuming it doesn't go up to 70 by then) and must therefore rely solely on savings and a 401k, do not give up that pension. I would kill for a pension. Literally. Just point me at the target and they're gone.

      Ok, a little hyperbole there. But seriously, I'm even jealous even of my coworkers who are all 30 years older than me that had their pensions frozen at a couple hundred dollars a month. Even that looks good to someone like me.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      No offense, but why aren't you moving her parents to *you* instead? It doesn't make sense for you to move to CA.

    7. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      I was born and raised in the midwest too, and could never fathom doing a cross-country move with the wife and 3 kids. (Especially difficult since 2 of the kids are "special needs" and were in a good school system where we were at.)

      It turns out we live in the metro DC area now. How? Honestly, just total luck. A job offer kind of fell into my lap because of old friends who already worked for the company in question, and they needed someone with my skillset to work in their DC area office.

      I negotiated for them to cover $7,500 or so in moving expenses for us. That didn't quite cover everything, but I sold everything I could part with to scrape up the rest of what we needed to do it (including my dad's coin collection he handed down to me before he passed away).

      It was one of the harder things I've ever done, to be honest with you. So much stress and uncertainty, combined with the wife almost threatening a divorce because she didn't want to go through with a move and having to leave a job she liked. But a few years into it, it's been an overall good decision. She found a job nearby that she likes, and mine pays better than I was getting in the midwest. More stability too, because my previous jobs were generally in smaller manufacturing places where their success came and went with the trends in the marketplace. We had to move pretty far out from my job, because anything too close to DC itself is wildly unaffordable for us. But the upside is the small town we wound up in having MUCH less crime and a better environment for the kids to grow up in. People actually know who their neighbors are. If one of our kids invites other kids over, there's a good chance we know their parents and/or grandparents and can tell them directly if their kid is acting up. If we don't? We can ask someone else who does and get the "scoop" on the kid's family situation.

    8. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Quirkz · · Score: 2

      I think you exaggerate the cost of moving. I suppose if you're assuming you're going to hire movers to do it all for you, that is indeed expensive. That's also why most employers aren't offering it.

        It's much more affordable if you go for one of the options where you pack and they ship in a semi trailer (ABF U-pack is just one example; Pods may be another if they're still around) I think you could move the whole family's house full of stuff for a grand. As a single guy I moved my stuff cross-country for $400, and when married without kids we shipped a household of stuff for $600.

      That doesn't help with the interviewing side, but if you tell the company you're trying to move to their area anyway, they're usually not scared off by the prospect of flying you out for an interview.

    9. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the aging parent needs to come to you then.

    10. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by swillden · · Score: 1

      The problem is that we'd have to rent a place to put all of our stuff as her house is small

      $100 per month gets you a decent-sized storage unit most places.

      In the last few years I've done two different variants of this piecemeal moving.

      I did the long-distance thing for six months when I started my current job. We did it mostly because we wanted to let the kids finish out the school year. I found a cheap one-bedroom apartment (in a house with a bunch of college girls, actually; I was moving to a college town) for a few hundred a month and the family stayed in our old home. I actually considered just living in a tent on nearby national forest land for a while, and might have done that if it weren't deep winter for most of the time. Get creative :-). My wife worked on selling the old house while I looked for a new one (though I didn't commit to it until she'd flown out and looked over the options I'd found). We closed on the old home before school was out, so she and the kids lived with her parents for a while.

      Then three years later we needed to move back, to care for aging parents. I negotiated a remote-work deal with my employer, and we packed the Colorado house up and put it all in storage back home. When we moved back we stayed with my parents, then hers, for a while until we got a house of our own, then moved everything from storage into the house.

      These things are complicated, and painful, but it's doable. Of course, in my case I already had a job at both locations so I wasn't worried about that, but if I were in your shoes I think I'd save up two or three weeks of vacation, get a bunch of job interviews queued up, then fly out and hit the job search hard for a while, with the plan that if I found a good place who wanted me to start immediately, I'd stay. You do have the advantage that you'd have a place to stay free while you're there, assuming you don't mind living with your mother-in-law.

      Another option is to try to get your wife's mom to move to the midwest. That would probably be the easiest, logistically, but may have the disadvantage of being completely and utterly impossible.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 2

      Mainly because all of her moms friends, doctors, and places are all in CA. We're currently looking into moving her out here, but it's the last option we want to take because we don't want her to have to give up all her people. There's also the weather issue to consider as cold is harder on the body as you age. This option is easier on me because *I* don't have to give up anything (job, friends, places, etc.) but it's the hardest on her.

    12. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

      I just snuck in under the wire for being eligible for the pension. I believe they ended it the next year for new hires.

    13. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

      Driving a U-Haul across country isn't something I really want to do, but I'd do it if I had to. The wife would want to hire movers for most things, but we'd also probably get rid of a bunch of stuff that wasn't absolutely needed (sigh, goodbye classic computer collection). Still, it's going to be a pricey prospect no matter what we do.

      I wouldn't expect a potential employer to pay for the entire move, but I'd hope for some sort of moving stipend. I actually never thought of telling a company I was actively trying to move while I was interviewing, that might help. Still, how many companies are even willing to fly you out for an interview unless you're something special? Back when I got out of college in 2000, I had multiple companies fly me out for interviews. Those days are long gone I'm afraid.

    14. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Seriously, move here to Nashville - all of you. There's a job waiting for you, and the weather will be better for her. My parents moved here a few years ago to be close to us and it worked out well.

    15. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would cost less to move the aging parent closer to you, and likely cost less to take care of that parent after moving them to the mid-west.

    16. Re:Harder Than It Sounds by maitas · · Score: 1

      Another option is to try to get your wife's mom to move to the midwest. That would probably be the easiest, logistically, but may have the disadvantage of being completely and utterly impossible.

      Actually that might be the best option if possible. You have to add health care costs in both places, since that will be the bigggest issue.

      I moved between countries 4 times. With wife and kids. The las time, at first I was alone for 6 months in realy cheap and small Hotel room (the kind of Hotel where you have to take care of all your belongings... while sleeping in your room). It really sucks, but thats the sacrifice I had to do to move to a a 6x income improvement and an 1/4 violent death rate place....

  54. Re:Psychologically, this also means that young adu by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

    I was going to post this exact same thing. Just what in the actual fuck is he trying to say here...?

  55. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the more reason to be glad I don't have kids. I've been a world traveller for my entire life. I don't want to waste the time I have left on children, I want to continue adventuring until the day I die.

  56. But we made it worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, we made it worse by telling them that they should remain forever children. Hell, even the federal government says that you don't have to grow up and take care of your own health until 26. Granted, the DNC, having sold out to big banks, is not dependent on angsty, underemployed millennial "progressives" to prop up votes. Unfortuantely, they're not at all reliable and we got this disaster in the whitehouse instead of our sold out crook.

  57. Re:having kids is dumb by dj245 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being married does not save on taxes.

    Not by itself, but there are plenty of opportunities for tax savings, such as-
    Low-income + high income salary averaging out to a slightly lower tax rate overall
    Low-income partner can take more advantage of Roth retirement plans, maxxing out their plan (up to either the maximum yearly limits, or their own salary, whichever is less).
    1 tax return instead of 2, savings on filing costs and time
    Transfer of assets tax-free upon the death of one partner in 99% of cases
    Benefit shopping between 2 employers, can be used to lower taxes in some cases etc

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  58. Telecommuting by jxander · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much modern tech plays into this.

    In years past, if you took a job in the next city over, you moved. These days, more jobs have options to work from home, wherever that is.

    --
    This signature is false.
  59. Maybe people are settling down again? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    When they breathlessly proclaim that Millenials are the ultimate nomadic tribe willing to pick up and move at a moment's notice, people forget that the economy supports different types of people. Lots of people like the idea of not being a permanent transient, picking a community and trying to stay in it for an extended period. You'll find way more of these people in the ranks of parents -- unless you're moving for truly greener pastures it's a good idea to keep your kids in the same school system for at least a few years at a time if not their entire school career. I can think of a lot of reasons why moving is less attractive:

    • Moving is expensive. Even a small collection of stuff costs a lot in time and money to move from place to place constantly. You could say that Millennials don't have anything that can't fit inside an SUV, but people haven't magically reduced their piles of stuff.
    • If you own a house, moving is VERY expensive. Most people don't realize how much of a waste of money frequent real estate transactions are. Fees, various recording taxes, professional services, etc. can easily run in the double digit thousands even for a simple cash sale. Most people just roll this into a new mortgage, but if you do this every 4 years or so, its a massive waste of money that can't be recovered.
    • Jobs aren't worth moving for anymore. In the golden age of company loyalty and gold-watch retirements, it was expected that you would relocate several times during a career to work on new projects, and be rewarded with a stable job and increasing income/responsibility. For better or worse (worse IMO,) company loyalty is dead and both sides of the relationship are to blame. As a result, companies are less willing to pay to relocate you unless you're some kind of superstar.
    • It's the top of another dotcom bubble. Smart people are starting to see the 1999-2000 news articles filtering out about insane startup valuations, ill-advised IPOs, massive layoffs, VC punchbowls being taken away, etc. and might be subconsciously preparing for another crash. People might be (should be?) trying to plot out their next steps, and staying put might be one of them. An interesting statistic to monitor to confirm this might be job-hopping. In the first dotcom bubble it was common for employees to stay for 6 months at any one job and move on for massive raises.

    Personally, I think the Millenials are just growing up and realizing that there's more to life than working for some web startup cranking out JavaScript or the Googles and Apples of the world 100 hours a week. They might be settling down, getting married, having little "Millenials++" and rediscovering the value of having some stability in life. If you need to move where the jobs are, that's one thing. But if you have a stable situation with a few employers to pick from in case yours flakes out on you, I highly recommend staying somewhere, getting involved in the community and actually putting down roots. Upending your life once every few years sucks, especially if you have a family.

  60. Re:having kids is dumb by networkBoy · · Score: 2

    Being married does not save on taxes.

    It does compared to being divorced and paying extortion money via child support to an ex that refuses to work...
    heh, ask me how I know.

    And before someone says something about the CS comment, I have my kids half the time, but I bear vastly over half their expenses, even after 4 years where their other parent could have gained meaningful employment with the 6! (4x 4.0 AS, 2x 4.0 BS) degrees they have.

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  61. Alert Logic by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Check out the openings at AlertLogic.com
    Some of the positions listed as Houston may also be available in Dallas. Look real close at my nick and see if you can't guess my name. Put me down as a referral (I've read your posts).

    You'd fit in pretty well in College Station too, but there aren't a lot of high-paying jobs there. The ratio of masters and phd students to businesses is too high.

  62. How dare you use facts? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    less favorable lending rates

    The people wanting to feel sorry for themselves here don't care about your damn facts. Just let them bitch about the supposed less favorable lending rates. I see there are already several who are trying to argue with you by claiming stupid things like "we made bad student loan choices". Maybe we can help get them jobs by having them help build the wall. I suggest that we put them on the south side construction crew and the problem will solve itself when the wall is finished.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  63. Why would people move? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Look, if you own, you incur transactional costs if you move.

    If you live at home with your parents, you need to save up before you can move in with your SO.

    If you rent, moving just means ridiculous fees - first,last,clean,moving.

    Solution: don't move.

    Boomers aren't moving because they either already downsized or the kids are still at home and can't afford to move out.

    Millenials aren't moving because the low pay for all but the Elite Inheritors means they can't afford to move and pay higher rent or mortgage.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  64. Millenials don't move by naris · · Score: 1

    until their parent do!

  65. Re:Psychologically, this also means that young adu by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    I'm 31 and I have no friends; I don't want to move because moving is a pain in the ass.

    Seriously, roommates. The first thing I identified before moving out of my parents's house was that roommates are a terrible, terrible idea. You had to learn that the hard way, huh? Unfortunately I didn't identify that my parents would constantly complain I don't visit, or I would have moved farther away; maybe they won't bother asking why I didn't come by this week if I live 5,000 miles away.

  66. Re:having kids is dumb by uncqual · · Score: 1

    When you are 95 years old and no longer competent, if you don't have kids you are far more likely to end up with someone who doesn't really care about you at all hired (at your expense) by the state to make decisions for you. Kids are no guarantee of course, but they are probably your best bet (if you treat them well) to avoid this fate -- except, of course, blowing your brains all over the wall before you get to that state.

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  67. Re:having kids is dumb by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 0

    Seriously? "bringing more people into an already overcrowded world" is a joke., You most likely don't live in India or China. Instead you likely live in Europe or the US who have near neutral birth rates. Complaining about an 'overcrowded world' in places that really are not overcrowded is just stupid.

    --
    we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  68. Moving by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    To move from a place with a support structure takes a huge leap of faith, and it really helps if you trust that the company that you are moving for will keep you around for long enough to get your feet into the new place. There isn't that much trust or support out there any more.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Moving by slew · · Score: 1

      To move from a place with a support structure takes a huge leap of faith, and it really helps if you trust that the company that you are moving for will keep you around for long enough to get your feet into the new place. There isn't that much trust or support out there any more.

      This is why people really only move to places where the eco-system supports it (e.g., Silicon Valley, Austin, Beltway, etc). That way if your company bails on you, there are other options (you trust the location, not the company).

      Unfortunately these goto places have gotten so expensive that it doesn't appear to meet the cost-performance trade-off for many millennials, but I think that is mostly a problem because of fear. I'm not saying that the risk is lower (it's probably higher than average risk right at this moment, but probably not historically so), but given a long enough time horizon, the benefit is probably still there.

      My guess is that many millennials have both developed a shortened time-scale for risk-tolerance (e.g., want to "make-it" before they are 30) and simultaneously have developed more tribal instincts about unfamiliar locations (e.g., is it possible to make friends and a family with those who are locals because "they" are not "us"). I blame social networking for both of these issues. Even if we keep it local to the USA, tribalism is rampant. People used to want to discover the USA (e.g., roadtrip) and discover themselves in the process, now it's "fly-over-country" and I am defined by my peers. It's just a shame.

  69. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've lived a full life, are no longer competent and have no one to care for, then why not end your life on your own terms? What is wrong with that scenario? That seems like a more dignified end of life than depending on your children to wipe your ass.

  70. Lack of 'home ownership' should increase mobility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't have to worry about buying or selling a home & can 'just' get a 1/2 - bedroom flat/apartment I'd think this would make people MORE mobile.

    I would suggest the lack of mobility is simply yet another representation of how millenials have been coddled by their parents. They aren't being 'kicked out of the nest' to even live on their own (or with friends/roommates) as much & thus don't even have the skills necessary to live on their own (but near their parents) to take the leap to move entirely out of the same local space (e.g. a city or metropolis that may take hours to get back & forth to "Mommy's place where its nice & safe & I don't have to worry about doing everything for myself")...

    Seriously, how else do you explain the enormous amount of free time these people seem to have to go demonstrate...who the hell has that kind of time to take off & not work or study or otherwise waste day-after-day.

  71. Re:Psychologically, this also means that young adu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    roommates are a terrible, terrible idea

    Maybe that's why you have no friends.

  72. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    making sure someone has the authority to make medical decisions if something should happen to you.

    It's called medical power of attorney, and you do not need to be married to do this.

  73. Re:having kids is dumb by uncqual · · Score: 1

    That suits me fine. Of course, one has to make the call at the right time (or a bit before the right time) and not second guess because of impact it may have on others (such as a spouse who has made a different choice but is still somewhat aware).

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  74. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, I forgot that line but its a bit appropos to myself ...my personal 'biological imperative' has never been particularly strong, that is I'm not driven to ensure that my personal genetics survive (I have brothers and they've done the 'family gene pool' work) & I've never believed you should bring a child in to the world unless your 100% ready to support ALL the needs of that child above your own, ok maybe 90%. At least without EXPECTING the world to help you (e.g. free day care, paid time off for child rearing, paying for their education etc.)...

    But circumstances resulted in me taking care of a young man (16 years old at the time, now almost 20) that isn't biologically connected to me & not what you'd say would be expected from the brief 'personal' relationship I had with his mother...ultimately he was/is a good young man, his mother wasn't in a good position to continue to fully take care of him & had to go off & take care of her own dying mother...so I put him up. He's 'kept me young' so to speak so I have benefited from this relationship (and no don't go all 'pervy' on this)...THAN even more unexpected things occurred. I figured he needed his mom back in his life 'eventually' (the biological father isn't relevant...proving my point above btw) & she did come back...with a brand new baby in tow (don't ask)...so now I have a new born (relatively...almost a year)...its FUN having her around and I'm now at least able to feel confident I can help raise the little one without struggling...it's not my responsibility by any means but again she's fun, provides me enjoyment & since I can help financially it seems like a fair trade...

    Maybe other people have some magic whereby they can plan their life, find someone who they 'know' they'll be with 'forever' (cough, cough), have 100% confidence they'll always be on good terms regardless of what happens & thus somehow figure they can bring kids in to this world knowing they have it all planned out perfect..me I lost my crystal ball when I was born I guess because I fail to be able to plan at most a week in advance with some accuracy...planning for YEARS in advance seems like an utter crap shoot to me.

  75. Re:having kids is dumb by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    making sure someone has the authority to make medical decisions if something should happen to you.

    It's called medical power of attorney, and you do not need to be married to do this.

    True, but it helps if there's someone you trust to do that.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  76. its getting harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To find land farther from other people while still being close enough to get modern necessities every few weeks.

  77. Re:having kids is dumb by pipingguy · · Score: 2

    Sex? Has anyone mentioned sex yet? Oh wait, I forgot where I was for a minute...

  78. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have to strongly disagree with you. Having kids is one of the best investments that anyone can possibly make. I understand that some of your emotion is motivated by sincere concern for the way we collectively are mistreating our planet. I share and wholeheartedly agree with those concerns. I think that to say the world will surely disappoint your children is to ignore both the historical evidence and the amazing trends happening around you right now. We live in a time where we have luxuries that would have been considered magic just a couple hundred years ago. By pretty much any objective metric the world is becoming a measurably better place. For just one article on this, there are some good plots here: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-world-is-becoming-a-better-place-2014-10

    As for the environment, wind and solar power are finally approaching cost parity with fossil fuels (or better!). Many countries are investing heavily in renewable energy sources as opposed to continuing to burn fossil fuels. We as a species have a track record of striving to improve the efficiency of our use of resources to care for ourselves and our offspring. I am certainly not saying that this is easy, there are many technical challenges that our children will have to struggle through. However, we are fortunately able to make self-replicating super computers capable of adaptive problem solving for a mere $100K or so. Even the most expensive supercomputers are not capable of the level of abstract problem solving that well trained humans can achieve. If you want the future to look brighter, you need to invest resources in improving the capabilities of the young minds out there--whether they are your offspring or not. If you look at education as an investment in a society's future, it has an extremely high rate of return. If the young minds that you are investing in happen to be your own children, you are in a unique position to impart on them a sense of awe, wonder, and respect for the world we live in, and to fill them with a thirst to solve the complex problems that face our society. I doubt there is a single reader on Slashdot who does not understand the satisfaction of finally figuring out a difficult problem.

    Also, I am somewhat curious as to what you mean by "the good life"? It does not take a tremendous amount of money to find joy in life. It is also much easier to find joy and satisfaction if you are supported by a strong social network. (There are many quantitative studies on this.) Family is one of the best ways to achieve this, though there are of course many others.

    We have an opportunity to make this world a better place. I would argue that those of us financially well off enough and technically savvy enough to be posting on Slashdot are probably uniquely blessed with an ability to make a difference in the world. Let's work together to make that happen.

  79. Easy: House Price to Income Ration by QlooQl · · Score: 1

    They house price to income ratio is almost double what it was in the 80s.

    Duh, if people are making the same amount but houses cost almost twice as much, they won't buy one. If they find one they can afford, they probably won't move.

    If you think of the house price to income ratio as metric to determine the "value" you are getting for buying a home at market prices that year, value has dropped substantially. Unless, of course you think the price to income ratio can go up indefinitely.

    The Economist has some great interactive charts. http://www.economist.com/blogs...

  80. Re:having kids is dumb by guruevi · · Score: 2

    Living together (common-law marriage) grants you all the same benefits but on tax day you get to claim your individual deductibles. Additionally, lower income partners could qualify for food stamps and all sorts of government aid while if you're married your combined income usually puts you over the limits. Obviously if you have a partner without income, then you qualify for all sorts of additional tax breaks if you claim them as dependent.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  81. Re:having kids is dumb by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone that has kids has pretty much forfeited their ticket to the good life.

    I counter your assertion with the opposite: Anyone who doesn't have kids has forfeited the greatest experiences life has to offer.

    I've raised (or am still raising) four kids. The youngest is 15, the oldest 23. They're not perfect kids, by any means. Being a parent has been -- by far -- the most challenging thing I've ever done, and I think I've done some hard things. It's also simultaneously the most heartbreaking and most incredibly rewarding. There's a lot of truth in the idea that the deepest joy to be found in life comes from serving others, and there is no deeper, more thorough, more enduring or more dedicated service than that a parent gives to a child. I don't think the biological link has anything to do with it, either; raising an adopted baby to adulthood would be the same (I didn't do that, but I know several who did raise both biological and adopted children).

    What it's about is caring for another human being from the time they're completely helpless until the time they can become independent and succeed on their own, and on their own terms. It's about loving them and building a unique and very human bond. And when I say "unique", I mean that it's different for every parent and child. My relationship with each of my children is very different, because they are very different people. It's about living through their heartbreaks and joys, their failures and victories, and supporting and encouraging them through it all. It's also about teaching them the ways of the world, and about right and wrong and good and bad.

    Oh, life certainly has a lot to offer those who don't have children. I've been economically successful enough that my wife and I do a lot of the things that DINKs do and enjoy. We do have the "good life". We have hobbies, we travel and we have nice things, and all of those are good.

    But all of those experiences are... shallow. Nothing like the challenges and joys of raising children. I make enough money that I didn't really have to choose, but if I did, knowing what I do, I'd take the kids and give the "good life" a pass.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  82. Re: having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lololol. "Technically savvy enough" to post on Slashdot? How stupid can you be? It takes nothing to post here, and the typical nerd is a shitty person who has no ability at all to make any impact on the world. Make it a better place? Lol. The world is what it is, and a bunch of losers with walmart-bought compyootahs is not going to change anything. Ok, maybe we'll have a few laughs at your expense (as always) but that's it. Go back to your basement, nerd, before we stick you heads-down into a waste bin. Es claro, nerdinho?

  83. Re:having kids is dumb by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    If you really feel that having kids is "dumb", then you should do everything possible to avoid getting yourself into that situation.

    Honestly though? A whole lot of parents out there, if they were 100% honest, would admit that they had their first kid without putting a whole lot of thought into all the "pros" and "cons". They took the view about the financials of, "We'll find SOME way to make it all work out." and their partner probably helped prod them into taking the plunge (if it wasn't more of an accident or carelessness causing the pregnancy in the first place).

    And yet, once you find yourself in the situation -- you just kind of throw yourself into it, partly out of a sense of personal responsibility for your actions/decisions, and increasingly, because the whole thing becomes more comfortable. And at that point, you might decide you both want another kid too. (That starts making more sense after the first one because you can re-use a lot of the stuff you bought that the first one grew out of, AND the two kids will keep each other company so YOUR personal attention isn't demanded of them quite so much of the time.)

    There's no doubt kids are expensive and often a stressful, disappointing experience. But it's ALSO just as true that the so-called "good life" isn't all it's cracked up to be either. Sure, you might enjoy it for a while. But eventually, almost anything gets old and dull. Give yourself 20 or so years of being single or dating people with the "child free by choice!" attitude, and you might find you start asking yourself what your life's real purpose is. Are you just another consumer on this planet, doing all the things marketed to you as fun, trendy and entertaining? What will people remember you by after you're gone?

    The answer is going to be different for different people. But a majority of people I know eventually feel a need to "leave their mark" on this Earth. Sometimes, that comes in the form of building things. A buddy of mine got into furniture-making for this reason. He liked the idea that even after he's gone, people will still be using his dressers or beds or cedar chests each day. But raising another human being is kind of the ultimate "build" to leave behind. You created LIFE ... another person who can talk about you and will actually remember you after you're gone. And even though they'll do their own things (not YOUR things), they do all of it with your influence on them.

  84. They did a study over just one year? What? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Who the hell expects decent results over a 1 year scope? Most mortgages are what, 5 year minimum? They should have molded the data as such:

    Have you changed addresses in the past 5 years
    o YES
    o NO

    Do you plan on moving in the next 1-5 years?
    o YES
    o NO

  85. Re:Elon Musk: Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millenn by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    Yeah, looking at the headline, "nobody is moving" if 20% move yearly, compared to historical rates around 26%, where, presumably, "everybody is moving?" That doesn't look like all that much of a difference.

  86. Not into mocking them, but .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    I look at my own situation, growing up in Gen-X, where today's millennials insist I supposedly "had it much better than they do". I just don't see it?
    I had to live with my parents until I was in my early 20's. Couldn't afford the expensive colleges out of state, so I attended the local community college that was only a few miles from my parents' house.

    My job options ranged from telemarketing for a carpet cleaning firm to working as a bench computer tech for small "mom and pop" computer stores. (Most of which paid little more than minimum wage and always found ways to screw me into working extra hours without compensation.)

    When I did move out, I shared an apartment with a female friend. (No romantic relationship going on... just a friend who was dating one of my best friends at the time.) That ended badly when I lost my job and couldn't find another one quickly enough to cover my share of the rent on time. I got another job 2 weeks after I was kicked out and had to go back to my parents place again. THAT was a fun conversation....

    It really wasn't until I was almost 30 years old that I got a real "career job", and even that was very much a "who you know" thing. (An old friend of mine was in management there and agreed to hire me part-time, temporarily. I was then able to impress enough other employees with my work ethic so they pressured him to give me a full time job. He really didn't want to, out of fear people would accuse him of favoritism -- but eventually gave in.)

    1. Re:Not into mocking them, but .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still living with parents at 31 and have never been able to afford moving out. I could afford to live in Alabama, for about a month, but would run out of money due to the utter lack of job prospects.

      Can't afford to live in places that have jobs because the jobs make housing ridiculously expensive (as well as gas and food appreciably more expensive; but it's mostly housing).

      Can't move to places that have cheap housing because there are no jobs.

      I might live in my parents' home until they're ready to take me out to pasture (a death home). The times of independent living and life-making are over, but Millennials' parents are not socially or culturally prepared to accept children bringing their mate into the home, so we also tend to remain single.

      Not complaining, but those are the facts of life for many millions of people in my generation. I'd know because I speak to them online all the time -- it's the only outlet we have.

  87. Because our parents don't move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And like hell any of us can afford to housing.

  88. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're very likely to be disappointed in marriage if those are the reasons you choose to get married.

  89. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who are you to decide what the good life is? I'm pretty happy raising a child. In fact, I am attempting to make her a halfway decent human being so she can do her part to save the rest of us.

  90. Re:having kids is dumb by quicks0rt · · Score: 1

    Uh huh, and who's going to support the society when you're retired and bring no economic value? Maybe we should have a system of mandatory death sentence for idiots like you. You see, you're the same type of morons who block immigrants and support the status quo (because you know, you're going to die anyway), and generally bring net harm to the human specie and its future. Don't want to have kids? Fine, shut the fuck up and get out of the way, so the rest of us can plan a meaningful future.

  91. Re:having kids is dumb by sl3xd · · Score: 1

    Have you ever expected less than stupid from an AC?

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  92. Re: having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather long post to say you're a cuckold.

  93. Re:having kids is dumb by chispito · · Score: 0

    Anyone that has kids has pretty much forfeited their ticket to the good life. Why anyone would waste hundreds of thousands of dollars bringing more people into an already overcrowded world that will surely disappoint them is completely beyond me, particularly when you consider the mobility and quality of life you will be sacrificing to make this happen simply to follow a biological imperative.

    You sound like a kid that doesn't want to share his toys. Thankfully, it sounds like you won't be raising another version of yourself, AC.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  94. Re:Psychologically, this also means that young adu by TWX · · Score: 1

    Not all roommates are terrible. Some roommates are terrible. Others are fine.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  95. to clarify by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Are they talking about moving from one residence to another or moving away from a computer? I stopped preferring typing over talking 2 decades ago when I realized that it takes at least 5 minutes to type what you can say within 1 minute. It's worse with phones. Texting is even worse than emails. Millennials are not zombified without a reason. They are just communicating less efficiently. So it takes more of their time to say what genX-ers still knew how to do: simply talk.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  96. Arrows in your Quiver by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    My kids are my best friends... adventure buddies. And now grandkids oh boy!

  97. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean... coitus?

  98. Less favorable lending rates? by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

    I'd check again, interest rates for home loans are a lot lower than they were 17 years ago.

    http://www.bankrate.com/financ...

  99. Re: having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saying cuck in 2017. The Great Meme War is over. You're the /b/ equivalent of that guy still sharing Gangnam Style on Facebook.

  100. Gives landlords excuse to hike rent by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    I'll be damned if I'm moving, I'm in Australia so landlords can and will increase the rent but /generally/ don't do it as much if you've been there a while, just small little increases.

    Had I left my place and shopped around, I have ZERO doubt my place would be 20 to 40% more expensive.

    The landlords are loving fucking the rental class, fuck that.

  101. Re:having kids is dumb by psinet · · Score: 0

    Congratulations. You have removed yourself from the gene pool using your intellect.

  102. Re:having kids is dumb by psinet · · Score: 0

    That little evolutionary thing that requires reproduction is also a decent reason for having children. I am sure nature will cope with having all the genes of people who didn't want to have children for selfish reasons removed from the gene pool.

  103. Re: having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless they're ghetto kids? You, sir, are a racist. Black lives matter. More black lives matter more.

  104. Re: having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A thousand times YES!

  105. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Congrats, you're the exception. All of my friends that had kids said don't. Then again they are lower income. Everything is easy when you're rich.

  106. Market distortions. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Thanks to rent control, I'm paying $300 per month less than market rate.

    Market distortions can make it financially disastrous to move, as compared to staying in the same place.

    Rent control is one.

    Another is, for homeowners, is Proposition 13 in California (and similar laws in some other states). Think of it as "rent control on taxes", designed to keep the skyrocketing housing prices from driving people out of their homes:
      - Stay at the old place - get taxed on the price of the house when it was bought (or Prop 13 went into effect) plus a small inflation adjustment.
      - Sell it and buy a new house in CA (or the same state etc.) - get taxed on the new house's CURRENT price, plus a small inflation adjustment - forever forward. Then there's being taxed on the hyperinflated price of the house you sold as if it were a lump sum of income, unless you take the once-in-a-lifetime exemption or one of the other income tax rules for switching houses without being bankrupted. And the new mortgage is at the current rates, too, and on a much pricier home.

    Moving used to be much less of a financial hit than it is now.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  107. That's easy for you to say by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Troll

    because of this: "I make enough money that I didn't really have to choose".

    Most folks don't really get to choose. A substantial percentage of the populace has no or restricted access to birth control and well, it's a biological imperative for a reason. Hell, until recently getting knocked up at 30 was a death sentence (Voltaire's mistress wrote of getting her papers in order when she found out she was pregnant because she didn't expect to live).

    As someone who never had the shit kicked out of them in life it's easy to see the good in raising a child. For the rest of us (at least 60% if statistics on people with more than $500 in the bank are to be believed) if we're at all reasonable then it seems bat-shit crazy. A horrible thing for both you and the child who will undoubtedly be miserable as poverty inevitably crushes them down like it did their parents...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's easy for you to say by swillden · · Score: 1

      because of this: "I make enough money that I didn't really have to choose".

      Meh. Irrelevant.

      I have a lot of family members who have always struggled financially, and they completely agree that kids are incredibly rewarding. For that matter, we were pretty low-income when my first two children arrived, and didn't really get comfortable until about ten years ago. I'm still not rich, and never will be, though I do make enough that we're comfortable and have some disposable income on a single salary.

      I think it's a question of perspective and priorities, not income.

      Most folks don't really get to choose. A substantial percentage of the populace has no or restricted access to birth control and well, it's a biological imperative for a reason.

      This argument is a complete red herring.

      I suppose that's true if you're talking about the worldwide population, but I highly doubt that the readership of /. is even remotely in that position. In the industrialized world birth control is readily and cheaply available even to people in the lowest income categories.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:That's easy for you to say by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      You do realize we're already looking at problems with the social safety net because the fundamental assumption of its financing is that the population is going to increase forever and ever amen? One of the few things keeping this from hitting hard quite a few countries already is the importing of population from countries which are just starting to have their birth rates drop--last I knew, there's practically nowhere which isn't getting people offering free birth control because they're freaked out by the idea of overpopulation and figure the best solution is less brown people.

      I'm not even going to touch on the major reason why 'getting knocked up at 30 was a death sentence' in the past, since I really am not sure how to explain without being incredibly insulting that such medical innovations as 'washing hands between patients' happened after the point you're talking about. (Antibiotics cut down on a lot, but no, seriously, most of modern medicine is at best only a bit over a century old)

  108. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It certainly does if one of you is a high earner. Tax brackets for couples are higher than for singles.

  109. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    27 year old here. This isn't about the vintage of the wine 30 years ago. It's the vintage of the wine now. I happy you lived a good life. I wish your children the best of success.

  110. nothing had, nothing lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool story bro. Its easy to get rid of your material things when you just have your clothes and a laptop. You don't mention anything about a car, hope the places you go all have good public transit.

    Tools for your profession? What's that! Oh right, you don't create anything of value, at least nothing tangible.

    1. Re:nothing had, nothing lost by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      You don't mention anything about a car, hope the places you go all have good public transit.

      I don't own one and only live and work in places that have acceptable public transport (not really hard to plan for honestly), yes. I am going to be acquiring one this year.

      Tools for your profession?

      Even when I was doing hands on work, those tools were provided by the company. Unless you're a contractor, it's not likely you're going need those?

      What's that! Oh right, you don't create anything of value, at least nothing tangible.

      I sell stuff I can do without when I move. However, in my family where we typically move a lot, I know some of them move with a few more things than I do, typically using the postal system posting a pallet of things to keep costs low. Just make adjustments to the method that fits your circumstances.

      Then again, you're probably not that interested in this life style, are you?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  111. pishaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So lets compare this to the 80s then.

    no internet = no television or radio, not cable just the devices
    no cell phone = no landline

    So if you lived back then in an empty house with sticks to play with you could be onto something. I mean its so simple, if everyone would just stop spending $50 a month on their phone that 1800/mo rent would be NOTHING.

    Get a bike, eat from the trash, live in abandoned buildings! If you're having trouble getting a job you can always sell your body. /s

    You can't seriously think everyone is just living it up and never thought of this before. People are doing everything you mention and more and still coming up short. Complaining that the economic situation is due to perceived luxuries is either ignorance or gas-lighting.

  112. Boomers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... . you're saying houses are harder to buy now?

  113. Re: having kids is dumb by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    You clearly know nothing of "the good life".

  114. Re: having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The physical act of love?

  115. Re:having kids is dumb by swillden · · Score: 1

    27 year old here. This isn't about the vintage of the wine 30 years ago. It's the vintage of the wine now. I happy you lived a good life. I wish your children the best of success.

    The trick is the same as it was 20 years ago when I was your age: Get an education in an in-demand field, without debt, be willing to work crap jobs to work your way through school and build up experience, be willing to relocate as needed to where the jobs are, and be willing to work hard to get ahead in whatever job you have. Whatever your income is, save 20% of it, adjusting your standard of living if needed. If that means buying your clothes and furniture from Goodwill, driving an old beater that you repair yourself, never eating out, not having nice phones, etc., etc., so be it. Avoid debt, except for buying a home -- and don't buy more house than you can afford, even if that means all you can get is a tiny fixer-upper.

    Granted that the economic conditions you face are worse than what I did... but they're not so much worse that it can't be done. In fact they're far better than what my grandfather's generation faced, and probably better than my dad's.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  116. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've raised (or am still raising) four kids. The youngest is 15, the oldest 23.

    That tells us you're not the millennials, but your kids are. The real question is, will your kids do the same?

  117. I only need to bring my Xbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    20%!?! That's a lot of Millennials moving from one divorced parent's basement to their other divorced parent's basement in just one year.

  118. Re:having kids is dumb by Evtim · · Score: 1

    But does it have to be like that? A few years ago I was bitching to my colleagues that the government raised the fees for cigarettes again! I went to a proper site where you can calculate your individual inflation. To my amazement if you have kids the inflation is higher even compared to a heavy smoker living in rented place! The prices of day-care are ridiculous; for someone who grew up in communism where my mom got the 2 yrs full paid maternity leave and then went to continue career and brought more money home than dad all this sounds insane! In a society where everyone has 2 cars and who knows how many laptops, TV's, tablets and phones we cannot spare enough time for for our kids and are struggling to pay the bills! That's like the most massive WTF in the world!

    I agree about the overpopulation thing but it seems that even that point is not as clear as I though it was....apparently certain economic prosperity naturally curbs the birth rate....but then the market and government make sure that no matter how many kids you have [including none] you will spend all your money [no use to save them anyway - they made that unprofitable too didn't they?]. The inflation calculator showed clearly that the raise of prices was the highest for things we either cannot go without - housing, energy, fuel, medicare, education or are addictive like smoking and drinking. Whea, what more can I say....that's fucked up!

  119. Re:having kids is dumb by Evtim · · Score: 1

    Until you get divorced that is....trust me with an income larger than 80% of the population of one of the most prosperous countries in the world I am counting every penny due to my father [drank the family money; left only debts] and my ex-wife. And I'll have to pay to keep my income and the one of my ex equal for the next decade [new law against the dirty men who make more money that the oppressed women]. In fact they have prevented me to ever have a relationship until I am too old to care....Cheers!

  120. Re:having kids is dumb by Rande · · Score: 1

    Plastic bag full of Nitrogen over the head for me.
    It's far less messy for the poor sod who has to deal with my decomposing corpse.

    Assuming of course, that by that time, the State hasn't decided that all these old people are too much of a burden and offer the Soylent Green way out.

  121. Re:Psychologically, this also means that young adu by Rande · · Score: 1

    Yes, roommates suck. I've had to do it quite a lot when travelling for work as a contractor.
    And I moved to the other side of the planet. I only see my mum every few _years_.

  122. Re:Psychologically, this also means that young adu by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    All roommates are terrible because having to interact with anyone continuously for an extended period is terrible. Dogs are the best roommates; cats if you have to leave it alone all day.

  123. Born in 1977 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have lived in the same apartment for 9 years. There are 2 reasons for this. First, I can't afford to move due to a lack of full-time employment that is needed to save enough to cover first/last rent + moving expenses. My only backup plan is to cash out a paycheck and split in the middle of the night to drive back (cross-country) to move in with my parents again. Second, I really like where I live. Thanks to the Internet, I did considerable research over a period of 3 weeks before selecting which apartment complex to move into. I hit a grand slam for location, security, and amenities.

    Bonus excuse 3: I don't want to move unless it is to someplace with affordable FTTP Internet service.
    Bonus excuse 4: I can't fit all my crap in my car like I could when I originally moved. The curse of buying furniture.

    As for Millennials, I have 2 cousins that are in that age group, one just finishing college and the other just starting. The one that finished college did so half-way across the county to get away from his parents. The other cousin is doing the same. Neither of them have any desire to live at home and want to live their own lives how they please. It doesn't help that my Uncle and his wife were the stereotypical helicopter parents that controlled their lives leaving them little freedom to grow up and experience the real world. They grew up with deep resentment that is helping push them away. Good for them!

  124. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are a sad man.

  125. Re:having kids is dumb by nephilimsd · · Score: 2

    There are only 7 states that recongize common law marriage (http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx). If you don't live in:
    Colorado
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Montana
    New Hampshire
    South Carolina
    Texas
    Utah
    then you might want to have a contract in place if you plan to take advantage of the benefits of marriage, and there are quite a few. Even if you do live in those states, many of them only recognize common law marriage if you actively advertise your relationship status as married.

  126. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for the most thoughtful, tender, meaningful post I've seen on Slashdot in many years.
    No doubt your children will be fine people.

  127. Re:Psychologically, this also means that young adu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it means young adults are less able to enhance their personalities through diverse experiences and have less vivid memories due to the inability to experience new things . . . it doesn't make sense at all, however.

  128. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they have

    You have a gender-neutral ex?

  129. New England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crazy real estate market that has been growing and growing, with demand outstripping supply in areas of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

  130. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What crappy country do you live in where parents can still leave debts to their kids? We did away with that 200 years ago ...

  131. Well obviously, because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basements are really hard to move.

  132. Re:having kids is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wondered why they didn't use phlebotomy as a method of execution.

    People give blood all the time. Just make it a mandatory donation of 5 pints...

  133. Re:having kids is dumb by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    That trick doesn't work even as well as it did 20 years ago.

    Get an education in an in-demand field? I've seen people do that and come out of school to a terrible job market, because they had to commit years in advance and lots of other people graduated in that field. Get an education in a field that you're interested in with at least reasonable job prospects. Long-term, it's a better choice, and likely in the short term also.

    Without debt? Have you noticed what tuition has been doing? It's harder to get through without debt. We're well off, so my son graduated with no debt, but not all students are that lucky.

    Work crap jobs to go through school? The big problem here with crap jobs is that they pay minimum wage, and that isn't what it used to be. Taking in less money and paying out more doesn't necessarily work. Moreover, if you delay graduation a couple of years to be without debt, that's an extra two years you've worked crap jobs for crap pay. Student loans can be economical in comparison.

    It's nice to save 20% of your income, and if you're not married you can probably get away with it, but when you have a family the pressure to spend more can get very large. You do NOT want to save on housing to the point your kids go to crap schools. Living by yourself with a low standard of living can be depressing, and that can be dangerous.

    Unless you're about my age, your grandfather lived in a period with more accessible jobs, lower tuition, higher minimum wage, and lower housing prices (in constant dollars, of coure). (My grandfathers were raising kids during the Great Depression.)

    Your plan is reasonable when it works, but it simply isn't going to work for everyone.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  134. Most people aren't reading /. by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    And no, birth control is not readily available and cheap in most of America. It's easy to get short sighted and focus on the far West & East ( California and upstate NY) and ignore the mid-west, the south, and even Florida. Hell, my 18 year old kid's birth control pills are $60/mo without insurance. I've got an above average job that covers them but it also costs $500/mo in premiums. Not exactly what I'd call affordable.

    As for available, again, try getting it down south. There's an entire religion that thinks it's a sin and works hard to keep it out of folks hands. In a lot of places they're winning.

    Step out of your shell and you'll find the world at large is a much, much worse place than you think it is...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Most people aren't reading /. by swillden · · Score: 1

      Condoms are cheap, and available anywhere in the industrialized world.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  135. Re:having kids is dumb by guruevi · · Score: 1

    It's called "common law" because it predates US law and it is often argued and recognized via Article 4 of the Constitution. In some states, you merely have to have visited a state where common law marriage is recognized for it to be upheld as such.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  136. Moving millennials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure if I fall in the category of millennial, but I have moved about 4 times in the past year. Only one time did my company pay for it, but that was for the most expensive move so I am certainly thankful for that. I feel like moving around is the only way to have opportunities in this messy economic situation, and because when I lost my last job I was willing to move my company was prepared to help me. Everyone had bought houses thinking the job was going to be good for the long term, and were proven wrong when the bubble they were in popped rather abruptly.

  137. Oh Statistics! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I love how everyone is using these to blame jobs etc...

    Consider.

    It is the first generation (I being in the one previous to that) that has never been more connected VIA the internet and various other pieces of technology than ever before. So people are surprised in a 6% change in physical movement? There is much less need for movement so there is less.

    Second, is that the trend for sometime has been more and more urbanization. If you already live in an urban center there is also much less need for movement.

    Anyway I am sure jobs, and economy factors into it as well, but it is far from the whole story.

  138. Thanks to Abuvia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was really missing my wife when she left me because i cheated on her. I couldn't take care of some situations and i let her slip my arms. I had to talk to my partner at the office who recently reunite with her husband. She told me to get in touch with Abuvia who helped her get her husband back with a love spell. I was very sure of this because Abuvia has helped my partner get her husband back. So I email Abuvia and told him I lost my lover and wanted her back. He encouraged me and told me to be happy. He did the spell and told me my wife will be back after 3 days. I waited for that time and my wife called me and told me that she has forgiven me and ready to take me back in her life. Since then, my wife and I have been enjoying our marriage with our kids. I am very grateful to Abuvia for what he has done for me. I'd advice anyone to ask him for help if you have any relationship problem and some other aspects of life. His email is prophet.abuvia@gmail.com or visit his website http://prophetabuviasolutiontemple.webs.com/