Over at Alan Reifman’s blog on young adults, he raises an interesting possibility. Citing the Heartland Monitor Poll of Millennials, he wonders whether we might see a hunkering down mentality take hold, just like we saw in the 1950s.
The survey, he notes, finds that:
The ferocity of the recession has left this generation with a powerful craving for certainty. Millennials would much rather stockpile savings in a bank or pay down debt than invest in the stock market. What’s even more striking is that they clearly prefer stability with one employer to the opportunity to frequently change jobs.
Such a quest for stability, he says parallels what his colleague Jeff Arnett, a developmental psychologist, found that back in the 1950s:
Young people were eager to enter adulthood and “settle down.” Perhaps because they grew up during the upheavals of the Great Depression and World War II, achieving the stability of marriage, home, and children seemed like a great accomplishment to them.
Not to mention a safety zone. Stability is nice after a war and a depression. Frankly, I doubt we’ll see a return to early marriage and children. The trend toward delaying marriage has some deep roots already. It also has a lot more going for it than marrying early (like more successful marriages). But the shift in job attitudes is quite remarkable.
Up until recently, Millennials and to some extent GenX were not, as a whole, looking for a permanent job. They value job security–don’t get me wrong. But they were just accustomed to not expecting to be with an employer for a long time. After all, the company man as a concept is pretty much dead in this more nimble, globalized economy. It’s like New Yorkers in their teeny apartments. Sure they’d like more space, but it’s not gonna happen, so they just get comfortable with the fact. Millennialls had gotten comfortable with job hopping and the gig economy: subcontractors, freelancers, no health insurance, do-it-yourself career ladders.
But something about the recession has tested this comfort zone. Not surprising I suppose. As one young woman interviewed by the Heartland poll said, “My generation feels an incredible weight now that we understand how fleeting wealth is. Now we can’t take security for granted.”
Like a dieter deprived of ice cream, take away the security and all you want is security.
It’s going to be a tough road, though, finding that security. Jesse Rothstein, the chief economist at the Dept of Labor, expects this generation to feel the pain for at least 10 years, mainly because it’s going to take them quite awhile to land a job that offers a career pathway. They’re going to be slinging a lot of drinks and selling a lot of Gap jeans for awhile, in other words.
Men especially will have a hard time with it. Even before the recession, they were struggling to get a toehold in jobs offering a decent wage. Hourly median wages of men age 25-34 fell by about $3 an hour between 1979 and 2007. (Women’s wages grew by about $2.50 an hour). At the same time, a growing share of young men are now working in low-wage jobs–those jobs paying less than $9 an hour. (Again, women fared better–fewer are working in low-wage jobs than in 1979.)
I don’t know how you find job security in those numbers. Women may end up leading the charge here– their earnings have been climbing along with their rising education levels. They now outnumber men on campuses. That prospect–of a female main breadwinner–is a major change on the family front, and certainly a BIG change from the 1950s scene that Arnett mentions. This generation might take it all in stride. But I’m gonna guess that big shifts like that don’t happen without a hiccup.

