generation limbo: 20-somethings today, debt, unemployment, the questionable value of a college education

Cal State tt faculty teach 3-3-3 loads fwiw (on quarters)

So I guess there's a difference depending on what kind of teaching-oriented position you're in. selfxp

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/esquire-magazine-writer-wanted-to-help-convert-class-war-into-generational-war-no-skills-required-pays-top-dollar

kind of lol but mostly sad

dean baker's a cool dude and there def is some hyperbole in the original piece which was very obviously not written by an economist - but the 'coup of the 1%' didn't just happen while nobody was looking - the reagan/dubya tax cuts and a large % of the piece by piece policy shifts - were sold by appealing to self-interest. boomers have been a demographic plurality during this period - as I mentioned upthread the generation before them prob doesn't get enough credit for starting a lot of these waves. but the 'americans don't deserve any responsibility because the plutocracy runs things' narrative is also misleading.

the original author does confuse wealth and income, but baker's going for hyperbole himself when he uses a harvard mba w/ $150,000 in debt as a counterexample. maybe a tiny bit not representative of the median 20-something w/ debt? the underinvestment in public higher education / lack of concern about cost inflation wasn't a conspiracy by the 1%, it's something that people watched happen and helped happen because of a cultural shift that saw education as a personal-investment and not a public-investment.

basically baker's point is 'look at the boomers, they're not so well off either' - which is true, but its true for the same reason, which is that the country - primarily under the political and technical control of the boomers and the previous gen - stopped making long-term social investments and started focusing on short-term personal consumption. there was nothing secret about the coup of the 1%, it happened because people wanted bigger tvs, cars and houses more than they wanted equitable tax policies, universal health care / higher ed.

and 'people' isn't limited to boomers, but they were the demographic plurality during this period and were the technocrats in charge during the 90s/00s.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-17/

this is interesting I think - the boomers who grew up under nixon (56 to 61 year olds) remained scarred by the experience and leaned dem over the years. it's the gen before them + (esp) the younger boomers and the older half of gen x who have been consistently right-wing. there's actually a substantial margin between 50-55 year olds and 56-61 year olds and it's all thanks to nixon.

but what that chart really says is 'let's blame 37 to 84 year olds'

a friend of mine wrote this on facebook in response to that riposte:

‎"The calculation the n subtracts liabilities: mortgage debt..."
...
"This means that if we add up the home equity of the typical household over age 65, their 401(k) and all other savings, the value of their car and any other possessions they might have, it comes to just over $170,000. This is a bit more than the price of the median home.

In other words, if the typical household over age 65 took all of their wealth, they would have enough money to pay off their mortgage. "

The article notes that 65+ has wealth over 170k, but rather deceptively frames it like that would barely cover their debts, which is not true at all. On average, they have that much in assets left over after all debts are accounted for. The article is being blatantly dishonest with those statements.

But I digress, it's framing in such a way as to miss the entire point. Younger people generally depend more on wages, whereas older people generally get more income from investments, pensions and social security--- the tax structure is heavily in favor of the people getting money from the latter. Not counted among the "assets" of the elderly are the value of Medicare, Rx drug benefits and Social Security. The article is also wrong in saying that they "paid" for any of these benefits with the possible exception of Social Security.

Esquire is right on pointing out the disparity between how much we spend on Medicare and on health programs for youth, especially when (a cursory glance at a US population pyramid suggests) the 0-18 population is radically larger than the Medicare eligible population, not to mention they are getting huge government benefits despite sitting on significant wealth.

The article is right in saying we shouldn't lose track of the fact that we are being royally screwed by the rich. And old people SHOULD have security and health care in their old age. And I think it's good to suspect that intergenerational conflict could be fostered to divert attention from legitimate class inequities. So when someone rightfully points out that the last generation had access to affordable education, now students have to get crippling loans and do internships, the appropriate response is not to stick it to the elderly, but to work on getting affordable education back. We wouldn't be agonizing about whether Medicare was unfair to young people if we had universal health care in this country, like a real civilization. Esquire could have also pointed out the astronomical growth in military spending, or the war on drugs. Etc. I'm rambling now

medicare is part of the reason we don't have universal health care in this country tho

OK, if people are getting tenure and associate prof salaries strictly for teaching 3 undergrad courses/semester that they've already taught before, their workload very well may be a little light.

yes

Clearly, I need to find one of those jobs.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167142/colleges-withhold-transcripts-grads-loan-default

“It’s worse than indentured servitude,”

SMDH

NYU Professor

actually he seems like a decent dude, nyu is really a terrible institution tho

colonial homeland!

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/stop-smiling-parents-sold-article-1.1057524

http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_63/us-bank-student-lending-cfpb-1048016-1.html

withholding transcripts is nothing new! a lot of state schools in the western US will withhold information abt. any completed credits/coursework if students are in any way non-compliant/not current with their bills. a friend of mine basically ~ completed ~ a degree to which she has no access b/c she cannot pay for some back credits, and the university "sold" them to a collection agency that settled w/ a family member of hers.

She left school and is now working full time for $13,000 a year.

Um, wouldn't this be nearly impossible? She'd have to be making minimum wage in either Arkansas or Wyoming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages#State

um, that is about what i make working full time

freelance?

contract plus per diem

sucks

in any case, I think the current press narrative about the cost of college is kind of a double-edged sword. On one hand, yes, we need to make people more wary of taking on student debt. On the other hand, there's a risk of people just throwing up their hands and giving up when college education still is, at the right price, a means of economic betterment. Like it would be sad to see a young person who actually has a lower cost alternative just give up on the whole thing out of frustration.

yeah. a lot of this may have to do with fact that a four year degree is TOTAL OVERKILL for most jobs, and a two year professional/associate's degree (more practical, less expensive) is somehow devalued.

well there is overkill in the 'the skills gained in the process are not necessary to do the job well' but a 4y degree might not be overkill in a market flooded w/ 4y degrees

true. as a longer trend (if i had my druthers...) i'd see a (paid-for) two year degree return as the prerequisite to most entry-level positions, and a four year as entry to professional fields.

the problem is there's not really a way to say 'hey everyone in the country, start hiring 2-year degree people' - as long as there is no drawback to hiring someone w/ the most education possible. there is no central bank to fight credentials inflation.

no comment. http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-me/it-happened-me-i-was-rejected-food-stamps

she hasn't crossed the border of true poverty in the USA, yet. if she does, she'll be in deep, horrified shock at how poor she is.

well depending on how many student loans she has, she might in some ways be 'more poor' than a lot of 'poor' people

it happened me i was rejected food stamps

I like how the comments degenerate rapidly into a discussion of the relative merits of various iphone plans and carriers.

yeah if you want to make 'don't have a smartphone' a requirement for food stamps that is prob going to affect more people than white hipsters

xp

Her article mentions her accountant, and her savings account, and her eating food prepared outside her own kitchen. But the truth is, she should reapply at once, because one of the charming ways our government discourages poor people from seeking government handouts is to reject their applications on any pretext.

I'm not saying she's wrong to expect better, only that she is learning what poverty is like in this country, and it is not easy or pretty, or even-handed. Our safety net is designed to be mean-spirited, close-fisted, punitive and degrading. She's being put in her place for having the gall to ask for help. Soon this treatment at the hands of the government will cease to amaze her.

yeah and this would be totally lol if she were a hardcore republican or something, but I'm pretty sure she didn't need convincing that this is a shitty country for poor people?

it isn't that she needs it, but it is what she's going to get regardless

well yeah there's just no need for clover's 'I'm not saying anything but I'm secretly happy that it's hard for a white girl w/ an iphone to get govt benefits of any sort'

I didn't say that. Don't be an ass.

the way everything in that is phrased, it's not very sympathetic

seriously, i feel bad that she has very little money, and i wish her the best in improving her income and caloric intake. happy, cap'n save-a-blogger?

yeah if you want to make 'don't have a smartphone' a requirement for food stamps that is prob going to affect more people than white hipsters

― iatee, Wednesday, April 11, 2012 6:56 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

how have old people not figured out yet that plenty of homeless kids have smartphones as their only link to the world outside the underbelly of the overpass

sure that just didn't seem like your original tone dude

look these types of articles come off badly because there is some element of 'I'm poor..but I'm college educated but white, so is this okay?' when their argument should really be 'I'm poor, fin'. if she convinced some other poor person to go try and get money for vegetables than yeah, I don't think it matters if the tone of the article is a bit off.

Her article does highlight some of the ways in which people in New York city are fucking crazy though. For example, contrary to prevailing standards, $15 for brunch actually is a lot of money!

poor people make stupid decisions everywhere in america, like buying cars and houses, it doesn't matter, poor people are still poor

if you believe the government should help poor people then the discussion ends there not on how much this girl gets to spend on brunch

I mean I guess it's sort of a sick joke the universe plays on liberal arts grads that THE place to be for low-paying creative industry jobs is also a place that gives you the implied message you should be dressing and eating and living like a rich person, and that you can do so while working in exactly the field you want to work in and pursuing your passion! But still.

I dunno, that's about what I'd expect from any run of the mill place serving brunch in D/FW. So if you're saying brunch vs. no brunch, yeah, that's a lot of money. But brunch vs. brunch anywhere else, not much difference if any.

I had breakfast at Waffle House and it was $10 w/ tip this morning. Hard to get cheaper than Waffle House before you settle into drive-thru fast food territory.

if you believe the government should help poor people then the discussion ends there not on how much this girl gets to spend on brunch

― iatee, Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:49 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

In theory, sure, except you're only going to be able to define the threshold of "poor" based on ability to consume, and you can't really do that without examining the consumption.