Category Archives: delayed adulthood

Rethinking old age

What do you think of when you hear this statement: America is a graying population?

I think, uh-oh. An older population means lower birth rates, higher medical costs, young paying for the old and then not getting their fair share, grouchier people.

That’s the “frame” most of us immediately work from. (And if you don’t think our brains are programmed to work on fast categorizations, read Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow. It’s fascinating).

But it’s the wrong frame.

I recently spent a few days in lovely Vancouver with the Network on an Aging Society, which I’ve joined as their communications person. While I’m not abandoning 20-somethings directly, I think I’ve said about all I can on the topic–at least in a fresh way. Instead, I’ll be folding their story into the story of the elderly in society because the two are integrally linked.

So what is this different framework we should be using in thinking about an aging society? Well, it begins from a point of strength. Sure, the elderly face declining health, declining productivity on the job, and sometimes greater dependence, but those things are minor compared with the positives we can tap. And tap them we must.

As one of the Network members put it, we have a scotoma when it comes to aging.  A scotoma is a small stroke in the eye that makes us blind to certain things yet we’re not aware were missing it. In this case, we’re blind to the positives that an aging society can create– but only if we fundamentally change how we do things.

To tap into the potential of an aging society, we have some serious work to do in both changing the conversation we have about the topic and changing the way we now compartmentalize the life course. If you think about it, our lives are divided into three spheres, broadly: education, work, retirement. We pack all the education in the front end, to be completed by about 25. Then we spend the next big chunk of life working, and the rhythms of the work day shape our lives in big and small ways. Finally, we quit working and rest and play–in often a role-less role.

What if, instead, we rethought those big blocks? What if we spread learning throughout life? What if we staggered work differently? What if we redesigned retirement? Rather than rigid boundaries, what if the learning-work-retirement parsing was more fluid.  So instead of retiring at age 60 or 65, what if we allowed a worker to just change jobs, even within the same company? They could scale back to a part-time position or take a job with less stress and more flexibility, but they’d stay working until, say, 75.

Changing tasks on the job regularly has been linked with a cognitive boost, so changing to a different job, something that interests you or something that is simply different, could help stem cognitive decline slightly, and make employers fret less about lost productivity among older workers.

Young adults often feel like the elderly should move on and make room for them in the workforce, claiming that the elderly are taking their jobs. But that’s a fallacy. The workforce is not a lump of labor vying for a fixed number of jobs. There’s simply no hard evidence that older workers displace younger workers on the job escalator. As Bloomberg Business recently put it:

The idea that older workers displace younger ones assumes that there’s a fixed amount of work to be done. That’s known as the lump-of-labor fallacy—and it’s at play in the anti-immigration camp as well. By and large, economies don’t work that way. Workers earn incomes and spend the money and the recipients of the money hire more people and off we go. Growth.

They’re basing their assessment on the result of a paper by economists Jonathan Gruber and Kevin Milligan.

Or in another re-imagining of how things work, what if we shifted learning from only at the front end and made it truly a life-long opportunity. The nature of our workforce today requires that we have regular tune-ups of what we thought we knew. In many respects, we have to continually reinvent our jobs if we want to stay employed and viable. But maybe there’s a better way to integrate learning and education throughout the life course, and sync it up with work and other demands more seamlessly.

There’s much to think about, and much to do in a very quick time frame. We’ve been coasting along on policies and institutional ways of doing things that are backward-looking, not forward-looking. If you imagine the country in 2035, it’s going to look amazingly different than it does today. The path into adulthood will likely remain slow and circuitous as more young people delay marriage, build and rebuild careers, and explore their options. As a result, there will be a slower accumulation of assets and financial stability. There will be more single people. There may be more intergenerational living. And there will be more elderly people –especially if scientific breakthroughs slow the aging process (and you know they’re trying: think of the profits potential!). A few hitches might alter that scenario: namely, the high rates of obesity. But nonetheless, society will look and function differently than it does today. It’s time to rethink the game plan.

Do young people have too much time to think about only themselves?

I spent the weekend in a skilled nursing center with my 95-year-old father, and I met a young person, James, who at age 26 has done more inspiring work than many of us will do in a lifetime. His story makes me wonder about a couple of things, the first of which is whether this slower path to adulthood might just be giving kids a little too much time to focus on themselves–and how we might transform this slower path into something more. Read the full post over at Psychology Today.

Fresh housing ideas could serve young adults well

Today’s New York Times takes a fresh approach to the rising numbers of young adults living at home– arguing that by doing so, they’re depriving the economy of a needed boost in spending.

Invoking the famous “paradox of thrift” of John Maynard Keynes, the story quotes the ubiquitous Mark Zandi as saying that each time a new household is not formed, the economy misses out on about $145,000 in spending on things from drywall to brooms. By staying put in their parents’ household to save money, young adults are depriving local landlords, hardware stores, and plumbers of business.

The latest Census reports find that 14.2% of young adults aged 25-34 are living with their parents (or in dorms), up from 11.8% in 2007 when the recession took hold. The number of new households formed has declined sharply since 2007, from about 1.3 million to approximately 900,000 in 2010. Much of this is straight economics: the recession has squeezed everyone. According to Zandi, there should be about 1.1 million more households today than there actually are, a good chunk of this gap is driven by young adults staying put at home.

What struck me about the young man the Times included in the interview–and what we’ve heard in our own interviews–is the notion that renting is throwing money away. AND, the degree that “saving money” is front and center for this generation. Jay Bouvier, whom the Times interviewed, makes $45,000 a year in a secure job but he’s living at home in Bristol, CT, to save up for a down payment. No ramen and roaches for him. It makes you wonder if we haven’t feathered such a nice nest for kids–and raised their expectations of what’s a necessity–that they see no reason to suffer through a three-story walk-up with a shower from 1940 and radiators that clank like the chains of Ebenezer Scrooge.

But before I descend to the “kids these days” fist-shaker, it serves to remind that Bouvier is largely the exception. The recession has hit young people particularly hard. Many are unemployed with college debt hanging over their heads, and living on their own is a non-choice. College graduates are often working in jobs that don’t require a degree, and those with less or no postsecondary education are squeezed out of those jobs as a result. Young men who relied on the construction industry for a decent paycheck are sitting on their hands waiting for the market to recover (the paradox of thrift trickles down). This group– and those without a BA are the majority–is living at home out of necessity, not because they’re saving money for a down payment on a home of their own.

This brings up an issue of housing affordability. A forward-thinking group of architects and urban planners met in New York City recently to brainstorm about housing for a future with a changed demographic. As Michael Kimmelman in Thursday’s Arts Section of the Times reports, most new homes in NYC are designed for nuclear families. Yet only 17% of dwellings in the city are home to two parents raising kids. Young adults are delaying marriage and children well into their 30s, and for all the talk about how many kids are living at home these days, the real story is how much longer people are living on their own today–at both ends of the life course.

The architects and urban planners let their creativity flow with ideas for how to transform current housing to make it more affordable and more communal. Micro-lofts was one idea. Such lofts are about 150 square feet with 14-foot ceilings and a mini-kitchen. They’re clustered around larger communal space with a garden or a big living room. (Think dorms for adults–or more glamorously, hotel living). [Here's some images]

According to “The Tiny House” blog, cities experimenting with small-size suites include “Shoebox Lofts in Portland, Ore., Cubix Yerba Buena in San Francisco, and Moda Apartments in Seattle all have units in the 250- or 300-square-foot range.” Micro-lofts in Vancouver, according to one developer, “Have a fold-down wall bed, and when that wall bed is up, it has a fold-down table. We integrated a workbench with a built-in flat screen TV so that that does not take any room and created a glassy washroom enclosure that functions as a single area — shower, and toilet and sink all in one area.” (Reminds me of the ingenious room design at the Andaz Hotel Wall Street).

Smaller, smartly designed housing that can be built cheaper but not feel cheap is good for both a city’s citizenry and the planet. Denser living leaves a smaller footprint.

All this recalls the work of architect Bertrand Goldberg and his ideas for urban living and industrial design. His Jetson-like buildings (here and here) are typically cylindrical high-rises with pods arranged around a central communal space (for his hospitals anyway). Most famous for Marina Towers in Chicago and numerous hospitals across the country, Goldberg designed for efficiency (a hub and spoke design for hospital floors) and communal living–a city within a city–for residential. At the time (in the 1950s -1970s) he was ahead of the curve. Today’s architects are just following suit and pulling us into the future.

Federal subsidies and a redesign of the mortgage system would be needed to see these ideas get off the ground, but it’s certainly worth the conversation.

Shocking (and growing) wealth gap between young and old

The fallout of this recession on young people just keeps coming. Jump over to Transitions2Adulthood, where I posted a blog on the stark and growing wealth gap between young adults and older Americans. It should give you pause.

What’s so disturbing is how much the gap in net worth has widened over the years. While the median net worth of a household over age 65 grew 42% since 1984, for households under age 35, net worth shrank fully 68%.  Stunning. As I wrote months ago, we must rethink our policies and support young people more as they maneuver these rocky waters.

Some of you out there who have lived through recessions before might pshaw at the prospect that young adults need support. After all, we survived past recessions without any help. Why do they need support?  But the numbers are clear. Trends underway long before the recession– rising college costs, declining wages, eroding benefits, growing inequality– have left us all on shakier ground. A recession as deep and prolonged as this is only piling on risk and hardship, most profoundly for those just starting out in the workforce.

In other words, this one is different because we’re different. Our economy is a much higher-stakes game, and young people relative to retirees have been losing ground. The question is, are the odds of catching up later, in one’s 30s and 40s, shrinking too? The college payoff is declining as wages flatten and college costs rise. Housing values are in the toilet. The things that we count on, in other words, to raise net worth are eroding. Will this gap persist as a result? Only time will tell. Can we as a country afford to wait and see how it turns out? I don’t think so.

 

Can London Happen Here?

The riots in London have made people wonder whether something like that could happen here. After all, the recession is hitting young adults hard, making life look pretty hopeless  for many at this point. The unemployment rate of 16-19 year olds was 25% in July 2011. Among 20-24 year olds, it was 14.6%. That translates into only 45% of people ages 16 to 24 with a job of any kind – lower than at any point since World War II.

While college grads are struggling to get a foot in the door more than any time in recent memory, they aren’t the worst off. It is their peers with just a high school degree or a smattering of community college credits who are hurting bad. Their prospects in the job market have been withering for years, but the recession put the final nail in the coffin for far too many.

Earlier this summer in Chicago, we had a spate of flash mobs, where packs of teens and 20-somethings would roam the city looking for a victim. They’d swarm him (it was only men) and rob him, usually of his smart phone or ipad and some cash. They’d supposedly assemble via text messages, although that’s been debated. While not the burning, looting mobs of young people we saw in London, I suspect the spark that lit both groups was the same: frustration.

Locked out of the workforce, which increasingly requires training after high school, and often marked as “unemployable” because of their history or the color of their skin—a shocking 49% of young black men ages 16 to 19 are unemployed—- this group of high school dropouts (or even those with just a high school degree) is a tinder box. They’re idle, hanging out, bored, and increasingly see their future as going no where.  Nearly half of all 16-19 year old dropouts were neither in school nor working –and that was back in 2007. Overall, some put the number of disconnected youth at about 5 million in the mid-2000s. It is no doubt only higher today.  And the longer this recession lasts, the bigger this group of disconnected youth will grow as the disillusionment inches up the education ladder.  (While I have no idea if the flash mobs in Chicago were high school dropouts, my bet is that many were unemployed.)

Even if they do manage to land a job, their wages are low. After adjusting for inflation, the earnings of young men with no high school diploma as well as the earnings of those with just a high school degree dropped 23% between 1976 and 2006.

Lest you think this is a small problem, consider this. Our high school graduation rate is only about 75%. That’s upwards of 6 million people aged 16-24 who lack a high school degree. That number includes those who go on to get a GED. It’s about 3.5 million if you subtract those with a GED.

Some have little sympathy for those who drop out of high school, especially in this era when more jobs demand higher skills.  But we must care. This is our future. Can we really be so punitive toward a 17 year old? Remember how stupid you were when you were 17, and yet thought you knew it all? In this cold-hearted era of cuts to social programs while refusing to raise taxes on the wealthy, the likelihood of supports to get these kids back on track and into productive society is pretty slim. That’s the epitome of short-sightedness. We’ll pay in the long run, in sacrificed potential and more than likely, the human costs of imprisoning a generation. We can “crack down” on youth as they rage against the machine, as they have been doing in London, but it’s like trying to kill a dandelion by plucking it off at the top. The roots go much deeper.

Solutions abound, including ensuring kids don’t get lost early on in their school careers, focusing more on employable skills and connecting that learning directly to jobs, altering how we fund public schools so the disparities by neighborhood and by city/suburb aren’t so stark, making the path from school to work clearer for everyone, offering more “second chances,” gang interventions, and, the big one: creating more jobs at livable wages. Yet we don’t seem to have the will, or even the willingness to care, to solve this problem. We’re so preoccupied with budget ceilings and grand-standing about big government while screaming “no new taxes,” that we’re essentially sealing our fates. We need to create jobs and we need to re-engage a lost generation with a way to earn a living and make it in America. The American Dream has never been about “just hanging on.” But that’s what we’re coming to, very, very quickly.

How much do parents spend on their young adult children and other pressing questions

As the recession hangs on, this graduation season will see many more young adults back in their childhood bedroom as they search for their first job. So just how much do parents spend on their young adult children? A reporter from the Dayton Daily News called recently with that question and others.

ReporterWhat percentage of parents assist their adult-age children financially, and what is the  average amount of contribution (i.e., $200 per month)?  And what kinds of help do the parents provide (money for rent, car payments, insurance)? 

Ray: Recent analysis by Patrick Wightman (University of Michigan); Bob Schoeni (University of Michigan); and Keith Robinson (University of Texas) finds that among 18-24 year olds in 2007 (pre-recession), nearly three-fourths of young adults receive assistance from parents each year. Over half receive more than $1,000 per year between ages 18 and 24. Nearly one-fourth received more than $10,000 (most likely for higher education but also for bills, help with rent if they’re living on their own, car insurance, car payments, cell phone bills, health insurance, and the (rare) down payment on a condo or home.

As for amounts, it depends on household income. The differences by parents’ income levels are sizable. Parents earning in the top income bracket give six times as much help (financially) to their kids as those in the bottom bracket–a difference of about $14,000 annually. That said, regardless of household income, parents give their young adult children about 10% of their incomes annually during ages 18-24. The greater levels of debt among young adult children, the more likely parents are to help out, and with larger amounts.

The outlays did not differ significantly by whether the child was living independently or living with parents. 73% of those living with parents received financial help while 65% of those living independently did.  Interestingly, even among young people who were working (and not also in school), 57% received some financial assistance.

The recession has driven many more young adults back home, and their difficulty finding a job and/or their underemployment (college graduates who work as waitresses or bartenders, for example) is likely to have increased the financial burden on parents.

In our new study on the effects of the recession on young adults, for example, the vast majority have moved home. They’re sending out hundreds of resumes to no avail. In the interim, they’re feeling shackled by the college loan bill that is coming due. For many, they wish they could move out, but they just can’t see how they could afford to pay rent and the loan payment (ranging from $200, to $1,000 a month). Interestingly, a sizable group thinks that paying rent is for suckers–it’s throwing money away, they say, often having heard that very refrain from their parents. We’re not sure if they’re holding out to put a down payment on something, but a sizable group mentions how remote owning a home now seems. In the meantime, parents are kicking in by helping them pay their car insurance or their cell phone bill–and sometimes the college loan as well–  and they’re stocking the refrigerator, of course. Only a handful of the 80 or so young adults we’ve interviewed were paying rent.

Reporter
For how long do parents typically support their adult children? 

Ray: The above paper by Wightman and coauthors tracked young people only until age 24, so we can’t answer this definitively, but we do know that many fewer  young adults are living at home after age 26. For example, while about 52% of young adults ages 18-24 were living with parents in 2009, that dropped to only 13% of those ages 25-34.

Reporter: Are fewer young adults financially independent at age 30 today than in the past?

Ray: Again, it’s hard to say for sure whether the trend has changed, but it istrue that more young people are living at home today than in the recent past (1990s and 2000s). However, with recessions, the trend is to see a bump in those living at home. In fact, during the last deep recession in 1983, a slightly higher share of 18-24 year olds were living at home than they were in 2009 (54.4% in 1983 vs 52.3% in 2009). But a higher share of older young adults (25-34) were living at home in 2009 than in 1983.

Q: Is the trend different for men and women?
Ray: For those living at home with their parents, a higher share of men live at home than women. In 2009, 49% of women age 18-24 were living at home versus 57% of men that same age. The pattern is similar in the older age bracket, although the shares are much lower (15% for men, 10% for women).

Reporter: What explains the trend of delayed financial independence?
Ray: A lot has to do with economics. Wages have stagnated for men with less education over the past decades, and men are less likely now than women to get a four-year college degree. In addition, for both men and women, the stigma of living at home is less: parents are closer to their kids, and as more and more live at home, it becomes more acceptable. Also, living at home can be a good launching pad and allow kids to be more strategic in their job choice–at least when there was a choice before this recession– and their future plans. With the recession, it is definitely about jobs and increasingly the amount of debt young people are carrying from college.

Reporter: Do you have an opinion on this activity? Are there certain types of financial commitments that parents should avoid making with their adult-age children? Are some kinds of support better than others?

Ray: We just know too little about the motivations and outcomes of financial support to offer any definitive answers to this question. Commonsense says that having a place to stay if you don’t have a job is a benefit. It allows you to perhaps make better decisions when you’re not under the gun financially. It allows for a little breathing room, and thus more long-term, vs. short-term thinking. But commonsense also says that sometimes young people need to learn how to budget and survive on their own so providing too comfortable of a nest is not a good idea.

We should resist the impulse to compare today’s situation with that in the past, given that a distinguishing factor for this generation is the higher amounts of college debt that many kids shoulder today. AND for the large group that did not go to college, their wages have declined (even after adjusting for inflation) just as the cost of living has been on the rise–making it very hard to keep one’s head above water. The recession only compounds the troubles, as young adults are the last hired, and first fired, and as older workers stay on the job longer.

So there you go… questions answered.

The beginnings of a DIY education movement?

Do I detect a movement underfoot? A lovely young woman named Weezie called me up–ok, skyped me (I’m verbing!)– a couple days ago to talk about alternative paths to college. As loyal readers know, I’ve been on that tear for awhile, asking why alternative paths for young people beyond four-year colleges are not more apparent. My focus has been on the large group of young people who are not the brainiacs or the kids like Weezie who have been cultivated from early on to succeed. Instead, I often focus my ramblings on the average kids, those with no burning desire to spend four more years in school.

But then Weezie called, and it made me think, hmm, maybe this argument should be expanded. After all, even the “wow” kids question how they fit, where they want to go, and how to get there.

Weezie started college in a small liberal arts school in California after a childhood of travel, exploration, and parents who, as far as I can gather, urged her (and created the opportunities for her) to think for herself and beyond herself.

When she got to college, it felt, she said, like they were babying her, that the campus was too insular–too many privileged kids roaming around in a solipsistic bubble. (I’m putting words in her mouth here, but I think she would agree.) She wanted more, but she didn’t know what that more was yet. So in a gutsy move in this world of “go to college or be prepared to fail miserably,” she resigned her library privileges and took a semester off to “figure it out.”

For Weezie, the power of people’s stories is what inspires her, so hoping to find a path through the trials and tribulations, victories and defeats of others, she began interviewing. Her site Eduventurist.org is a clearinghouse for those stories.  I feel like a total underachieving slouch reading these stories, I must say.

What struck me in a recent blog post about an amazing young man in Malawi who, unable to afford school, taught himself by renting books and ultimately built a windmill (without a how-to guide!) , was this gem:

If the system of education doesn’t work for you, or simply is not a possibility due to your circumstances, your education does not have to stop there. I think that sometimes we associate the words “schooling” and “education” as being the same things. We are always learning and getting an education, but we should be bringing that same drive and commitment to learning outside of a formal academic setting.

And with that, it struck me: Will this generation be the first to question the mad credentialing race, where a journalist now needs an MA to do a job that was once learned on the job; where an editor needs an English major from Brown; where a pipefitter needs a two-year degree from a tech school? One wonders how on earth we learned to do jobs before the “college for all” race was on??

Are young people stepping back from that arm’s race to get those ever-better, ever-more-elite degrees? This generation is leading a turn away from crass consumerisms to a do-it-yourself ethos, of brewing your own beer to butchering your own hog (gruesome fyi). They are flocking to Makers Faires to see the creations of tinkerers. They are embracing a smaller footprint and a less consumer-centric culture. AND, they have new tools.

At their fingertips are endless possibilities to learn, for free. Peer-to-peer university, for example, is up and running online, where groups self-assemble and design a curriculum on a topic they want to learn about. Essentially, it’s crowdsourcing a university.

When I sat in on a panel at the recent Digital Media and Learning conference, P2P folks explained that they rely on an open-source ethos to spark a grass-roots education movement. “You just show up and do it,” the panelist said. There’s no back room people organizing or monitoring. There’s no organization. It’s all “you.” 1200 people have since signed up for courses, from how to program Flash to the psychology of math.

I hope the little rumble of a “formal” education backlash will take shape and turn into a roar. We need to return to some kind of sanity about higher education. The question is, will the establishment recognize alternative forms of learning? My parents regularly pulled me out of classes when I was a kid to travel, believing that I could learn far more seeing the world than I could in a classroom. When did that thinking stop? Just askin’.

The betrayal of higher ed?

I’m back from four fantastic days with 20-somethings in Philadelphia, including freezing my tusch in line for an audition for MTV’s Real World, hanging with the waitresses at Winberie’s, a long talk with parents, a “guy” shopping trip (grab pants, pay for them, leave), Philly cheese steak, Rita’s water ice, and countless hours talking with Kelly (pseudonym) and David (pseudonym) about their lives, their struggles, and their futures. It was priceless. And I thank them.

I was shadowing Kelly and David for research on our new book, about how the recession is affecting this latest generation to enter to workforce. I came away from it alarmed, afraid, sometimes hopeful, and more often than not, flashing back to my own early 20s—-the confusion, the excitement, the despair, the exhilaration. I also came away from it increasingly alarmed at the betrayal of our higher education system. Just let me go on record here as saying I think we’re staring at a new bubble, and it’s called the student loan bubble.

David’s story may not be typical, but it’s telling on many levels. David lives in a working class, borderline middle-class, neighborhood of Philadelphia. He grew up in a modest two-story home next door to his grandparents, who passed away a few years ago. His aunt lives down the street. He still hangs out with his high school friends, all of whom still live at home.

David is the kid on the football team who sits on the bench and who knows a lot of arcane trivia. He’s a huge movie buff, with a floor-to-ceiling bookcase of dvds in his childhood bedroom–a dark cave of wood paneling, piles of clothes, and clutter. His mom would love nothing more than to brighten up the room, but “David doesn’t like change.”

Overweight, nails bitten to the quick, he’s struggling to find his fit, at once sure of himself and yet wondering why he doesn’t get the call-back from the job interview when some of his other friends landed a desk job. He’s a “sucker for love,” as he puts it, a romantic who suffers from bouts of depression when things get overwhelming. He wants nothing more than to get on with life, find a 9 to 5 job and move out, get married and have a “baseball team” of kids, and the “white picket fence with the tire swing.”

Yet David isn’t moving out any time soon. He has $100,000 in college debt and two part-time jobs at minimum wage. He will soon owe $1,000 a month on those loans by his estimation. He earns about that much each month he told me over coffee at Starbucks the second morning. He also told me he is pinning his hopes on a bank teller position—one of the 200 jobs he’d applied for since graduation. The job would pay about $25,000 a year, which would allow him to start paying back the student loan and maybe move out.

David was an average kid in high school. He actually hated the whole affair and just phoned it in, doing the bare minimum to not flunk out. He wasn’t in any extra curriculars, and he didn’t talk to a guidance counselor but probably twice. He watched a lot of movies and stayed out of the way of his younger brother, who was rapidly becoming a serious juvenile delinquent.

And yet, he knew he’d go to college. “Every job you think of, you need a college degree,” he said. He’d originally wanted to go to a community college to get his grades up, but his dad, a laborer who removes asbestos in refineries, wanted him to go directly to a four-year school–the American Dream. David gathered the pamphlets he’d collected at a college fair and chose two that he thought he could get into with his low grades and that were far from home. He ultimately chose a private school in upstate New York–for $24,000 a year in tuition and $13,000 a year in room and board, with no financial aid, no scholarships, nothing. He chose the bank for his student loan based on the brochure the college handed out.

Four years later, he graduated with a BA in sports management in a town that is home to Wharton Business school, one of the best b-schools in the nation. He currently delivers pizzas for Domino’s for $7.25 an hour when he’s in the store and $5.25 when he’s delivering. He gets to keep part of the delivery charge and tips, but he pays for his own gas. If he works until 4a.m., he can clear $60-70 in tips in a night. He works three nights a week. His second part-time job is a check-out cashier at Kohl’s, scrambling to get 10 emails and 3 credit card applications every day for $7.50 an hour.

The debt weighs on him. He’s hoping for another six-month grace period where he will only pay on the interest in order to just save up a little bit more money. Then he hopes to consolidate and extend the loan out a few more years so the payments will be cut in half at least.  “Something like that,” he said.

We argued in Not Quite Adults that college pays, and it does–if you’re strategic about it, and if you graduate. Two big “ifs.” Studies like those we cite in the book calculate returns to education based on medians or averages. The median wage after college, the average cost of college, and so forth. That’s of course necessary and certainly an accurate portrayal of the typical kid, or the typical return. But the average can gloss over, ironically, the average kid’s story—stories like David’s, stories that are increasingly becoming the norm.

The question I have is why did David think college was the only route? In part, the promise of college is the American Dream for working-class parents like David’s. David’s dad, a second-generation laborer, did not want his son to follow in his footsteps. He had bigger dreams.”College” was where that dream took form. Yet, the ins and outs of college were a blur. As his mom said, “we were naive. We just sighed a big sigh of relief when he got in. But we’ve wised up now.”

Middle-class high schools like David’s are complicit in this dream. The weekly school newspaper proudly prints the future plans of all its seniors, and stresses that the majority are college-bound. Granted, the high school offered “third-tier” students options like voc-tech, but it came with a whiff of loser. As David said, “the voc-tech kids  were the kids who don’t do very well and this gives them something to do, some security in life.” Ironically, while standing in line for the MTV audition with Kim later in the week, she said when asked how many of her friends had jobs, “actually the only kids who have a decent job are the kids who went to trade school or cosmetology school.”

David came out of high school assuming that a paralegal needed a law degree and a x-ray tech needed a medical degree. Granted, he didn’t make very good use of his guidance counselor who probably would have disabused him of that notion, but his sense of things shows just how deeply ingrained this “college for all” mantra really is.

Colleges are complicit as well. They take in students like David without any compunction. They don’t have to worry about whether he graduates or not, or even whether he can afford it, because the spotlight is not on their graduation rates, only their enrollment rates.

So in the meantime, David lives at home, saddled with debt, and basically, as his mom put it, is just shoveling snow in a snowstorm. His parents, no stranger to financial strain, say they are happy to have him home. “We don’t mind doing this until he can get on his feet. We raised him to be independent, but it’s just not possible yet. I worry for him with that debt. That’s the mortgage on a fixer-upper around here. How can he move out with that?”

Indeed. As we sat talking, David flipped through the mail. A letter from the bank where he’d applied for the teller position was in the batch. He didn’t need to open it. He already knew. Rejected again.

Off to Philadelphia

I’m taking off the week to go to Philadelphia and hang out with 22-year-olds for my next book on how the recession is affecting this generation. So no blogs this week (I can hear the disappointment).

To be honest, I’m worried about this generation. I know that we’ve had recessions before, but there’s rumblings out there that this recession is different–it’s not just a cyclical recession, one that will bounce back and reabsorb all those laid-off workers. Some are saying we’re experiencing a “structural” shift–which leaves much deeper scars and a more lasting change. While our interviews with young people to date have uncovered their optimistic side (“I don’t think it’s true that we won’t do better than our parents,” they say adamantly; “If we just work hard, we’ll succeed.”), I’m not so sure their optimism will hold. I leave you with these thoughts for the week.

The first is from the responses to Matthew Klein’s op-ed in the New York Times last week on the plight of the young and jobless. A mother writes in response:

After spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on our children’s educations, we have little to brag about. Many of our children are feeling desperate about their futures, and we are feeling as though we have failed them. As a social worker, I often work with clients who have seemingly insurmountable obstacles to employment. They are people without hope. I often find myself wondering, is this the future for my own children and their friends?

Or this one:

Many of my friends and I are unemployed. There is no pattern to indicate who will find a job. World-class education, enviable résumés, internships, volunteer work and excellent people skills offer no guarantees. Nor do teaching English abroad and seeking even higher education. I know because I have tried both.

The op-ed, our own interviews, and these responses to the op-ed make it clear:  there is a deep underlying anxiety about the future.

Bob Herbert captures this anxiety in his final column for the Times:

Young people today are staring at a future in which they will be less well off than their elders, a reversal of fortune that should send a shudder through everyone….Instead of a land of opportunity, the U.S. is increasingly becoming a place of limited expectations. A college professor in Washington told me this week that graduates from his program were finding jobs, but they were not making very much money, certainly not enough to think about raising a family.

That future is what we will be exploring in this next book. So for now, it’s off to Philadelphia to spend some time with recent college grads and hear what they think, dream about, and hope for.

If you have your own worries or stories, add them to our book’s website at www.generation-r.org

Young adults–the new “do-gooders”? As job offers dwindle, young adults flock to the public sector

In 2009, 16% more college grads worked for the federal government than the  year before, and 11% more worked for nonprofits, according to a recent article in the New York Times. Welcome to the recession. As the competition gets fierce, nonprofit groups rub their hands together in welcoming anticipation. Americorps has seen applications triple between 2008 and 2010. Teach For America had more than 46,000 applications in 2010, a 32% increase, according to the Times.

For some, this decision is a temporary side-step, a place to cool one’s heels and gain some work experience while riding out the recession. This generation is frequently tagged as apathetic–they don’t vote, they don’t keep up with politics, they’re not politically minded, despite the Obama “youth vote.” Only about one in five youth under 30 eligible to vote did so in the midterm elections.  They may be  quick to sign on to “lifestyle” causes–buying Tom’s shoes because the company gives a percentage of profits to charities, or joining online causes. However, as many have noted, these acts require little real action. It’s easy to click “like” to a Facebook cause. It’s harder to rally for change on the Capitol steps.

On the other hand, this generation grew up with volunteering. According to a recent analysis of high school seniors nationally, by 2005, about one-third of high school seniors had volunteered in their community, up from 21% in 1990.  Most faced service requirements in high school, and many have continued that volunteering habit in college. They have been hooked into the volunteering, community-organizing system at an impressionable age, and it might make life-long volunteers out of them. Indeed, the number of educated Millennials in public-service jobs has been rising since 2000.

Yet the kids coming in the doors of the nonprofit world are largely college-educated. It is that group that is also more likely to vote and be more involved in traditional forms of political participation, such as writing their congressperson, finds Amy Syversten and colleagues in their recent study, “Thirty-Year Trends in U.S. Adolescents’ Civic Engagement: A Story of Changing Participation and Educational Differences. They are also more hopeful about the future and are more trusting of government than their peers with plans to attend a two-year school or none at all. Disaffection among those with lower educational aspirations set in around 1994 and has only begun to bounce back lately (the data only go to 2006), leaving a large voting and civic participation gap between college-goers and those planning to attend a two-year school.

In some respects, then, the surge of college grads into the public sector is a double-edged sword. If the interview pool is increasingly made up of “the best and the brightest” who were, as the Times put it, increasingly forced by the absence of private-sector jobs “into lower-paying, if psychically rewarding, jobs,” then what chance do those with fewer educational credentials have in landing a job in the public sector? Yet that outcome is likely to only widen the already wide divide between the college elite and the more than two-thirds of young adults with only a two-year degree or less.

Whatever the outcome of this recession and the surge in public-sector work, it seems an opportune time for nonprofits to reach out to Millennials of all backgrounds, many of whom are living at home with their parents, trying to save money, and hoping someone will hire them. After all, they have the two ingredients nonprofits most need: youthful passion and time on their hands.