OT: Millennial employment

[biazza38]

^On line courses are awful. You learn nothing. That would be the worst.
I like lecture halls. I learned a lot of fun and interesting stuff in my intro courses while at Rutgers.

 

[Upstream]

Not sure how old you are, but even if you are my age, and I'm a millenial, college costs have risen tremendously even at state schools like RU since I graduated. Boomers in NYC and CA (at least) had free college.

Also, college degrees these days are basically the equivalent of high school for boomers. You NEED a college degree for most good paid positions, at a minimum. And every study shows a growing wage gap between college and non-college grads. This is another big difference.

And I'm not saying that they need to pay and promote more as a result- but then don't turn around and say we can't afford salary increases for underlings while older employees are getting them. Most millenial anger at the boomers arises from the fact that we are shouldering this way worse than the boomers. While millenials in some spots can't afford starter homes, boomers are cashing in and able to retire. The government is taking 7-8% interest on student loan debt- essentially profiting- while claiming our generation won't have SS. There is simply no will to share the burden for some of the older folks in power.

Sure, the wage gap between college and non-college educated adults is widening. But let's put some real data behind this:

The wage gap has grown from about 1.55 to about 1.67 since 1975. That means if the average high school grad was earning the equivalent of $50K in 1975, then the average college grad with a Bachelor's degree was earning the equivalent of $77.5K in 1975. That has grown to $83.8K today. Yeah, it is $6300 more, but let's not pretend that this is a huge paradigm shift in the value of a college education.

That is not to say that a college education is not valuable, because it is. College graduates earn more, have lower unemployment rates, and are less impacted by economic cycles. But this is not new with Millennials. It was also true 40 years ago.

I get it. It is hard for someone in their 20s, growing up with a certain standard of living, doing all the right things to get an education to maintain or increase their standard of living, and then find that when they get their first job their standard of living has dramatically decreased because their income is too low to maintain the standard of living they were used to.

I absolutely get it, because the same thing happened to me and everyone I know when we were in our 20s. It is not a new phenomenon.

And as much as I'd like to say that things will get better as Millennials get older, I also know that is probably not universally true today, just like it wasn't universally true decades ago. Some people will end up being very successful, some marginally successful, and some unsuccessful. Just like always.

 

[j22889]

Oh good lord. You act as if this is something new. My first job out of college was a low paying job and I struggled to pay my rent and expenses. (I didn't have student loan debt because I went to school on a scholarship, but most of my friends had significant student loan debt.)

I'm definitely not claiming that all experiences of millenials are unique to their generation, but its disingenuous of you to compare relative wages/living expenses/costs of education post-college today to what they were 30 years ago

 

[retired711]

I have been teaching law students for over thirty years. Today's students are not that different from the ones I taught in 1984. I would say the work ethic has slipped, but elderly professors always think that. The quality of the writing on the exams has stayed about the same. Of course, law students have been far more successful in their prior academic careers than the general run of students, but perhaps my experience shows that students near the top haven't really changed.

 

[Upstream]

I'm definitely not claiming that all experiences of millenials are unique to their generation, but its disingenuous of you to compare relative wages/living expenses/costs of education post-college today to what they were 30 years ago

Yes college costs are comparatively higher today, but as I noted in the Talia Jane thread several months ago, you are not talking about a difference that is a paradigm shift:

To some extent, college education was comparatively cheaper 20 or 30 years ago. In 1984, tuition and fees at NJ public universities cost approximately 7.8% of the median NJ household income (data from Census Bureau and US Dept of Education). In 1994, that had increased to 8.9% and by the 2013-14 school year it was 19.8%. That's a big difference. It means the comparative cost of college education has essentially tripled in 30 years.

But since the average NJ public university tuition and fees is now approximately $12,000 ($14K at Rutgers, less at other public universities), that means you are paying comparatively $8000 more today than 30 years ago. That's a lot of money, but in a state with a median family income over $61K, it is not making or breaking anyone. Plus there are a whole host of financial aid options today that just did not exist 30 years ago.

As far as income goes, Millennials aged 25-34 are earning comparatively more than young adults from previous generations. In 1970, adults aged 25-34 had median earnings of about 31% of adults in their prime earning years. That has increased to about 52% today. So as far as earnings, Millennials are much better off than previous generations.

Relatively, in terms of wages, Millennials have it much easier.

 

[rutgersdave]

I have been teaching law students for over thirty years. Today's students are not that different from the ones I taught in 1984. I would say the work ethic has slipped, but elderly professors always think that. The quality of the writing on the exams has stayed about the same. Of course, law students have been far more successful in their prior academic careers than the general run of students, but perhaps my experience shows that students near the top haven't really changed.

The top 5-15% of the class will always have a better chance of success and the current economy doesn't affect them so much.

 

[FanuSanu52]

Yes college costs are comparatively higher today, but as I noted in the Talia Jane thread several months ago, you are not talking about a difference that is a paradigm shift:



As far as income goes, Millennials aged 25-34 are earning comparatively more than young adults from previous generations. In 1970, adults aged 25-34 had median earnings of about 31% of adults in their prime earning years. That has increased to about 52% today. So as far as earnings, Millennials are much better off than previous generations.

Relatively, in terms of wages, Millennials have it much easier.

One important factor you're omitting is much shorter careers. The average career was much longer back in the 1970s than today. You went to that low-paying first job with the idea that you'd work up the company ladder. The Company Man was still a thing.

Millennial have watched wave after wave of layoffs and outsourcing and heard guys like those in this thread who worked hard and became unemployable for no other reason than being too old and expensive. Is it any wonder the old paradigm of taking a shit entry level job, working hard and getting recognized/promoted is becoming a nonstarter?

Maybe they make the same or a little more, as you say, but future prospects are much more of a question mark. Couple that with college debt, higher costs of living and question marks in the future of pretty much everything (Healthcare, social security, banks, ...) and I don't blame them for wanting to get paid now, not later.

 

[FanuSanu52]

To clarify, I mean shorter stints at jobs/companies, not full careers.

 

[Upstream]

One important factor you're omitting is much shorter careers. The average career was much longer back in the 1970s than today. You went to that low-paying first job with the idea that you'd work up the company ladder. The Company Man was still a thing.

Millennial have watched wave after wave of layoffs and outsourcing and heard guys like those in this thread who worked hard and became unemployable for no other reason than being too old and expensive. Is it any wonder the old paradigm of taking a shit entry level job, working hard and getting recognized/promoted is becoming a nonstarter?

Maybe they make the same or a little more, as you say, but future prospects are much more of a question mark. Couple that with college debt, higher costs of living and question marks in the future of pretty much everything (Healthcare, social security, banks, ...) and I don't blame them for wanting to get paid now, not later.

OK. The "company man" model pretty much doesn't exist anymore. But in some respects, that plays into the Millennials favor. It is much easier to jump around from company to company today, expanding your experience and taking salary increases along the way. It also helps prevent the Millennial from becoming "obsolete" because he only knows one company's way of doing things. During the course of my career, I moved around quite a bit and I think I am better off versus some of my friends who got "golden handcuff" jobs out of school tying them to companies that either don't exist or have significantly changed over the years.

I'm also not blaming anyone for wanting to be paid more. I wanted to be paid more when I was in my 20's. That held true throughout my career, and I still want to be paid more today.

Having worked for different companies, I have also seen different compensation philosophies. I worked for a company that deliberately underpaid, with the expectation that it is cheaper to replace a worker after a few year instead of giving promotions and raises. But the employees recognized what was going on, and therefore anyone who was good got a little experience and quickly moved on. The people who stayed were mostly those who couldn't get better jobs. And the owner of the company was constantly complaining that none of his workers had loyalty. Of course not. His HR philosophy ensured there was no loyalty.

 

[FanuSanu52]

OK. The "company man" model pretty much doesn't exist anymore. But in some respects, that plays into the Millennials favor. It is much easier to jump around from company to company today, expanding your experience and taking salary increases along the way. It also helps prevent the Millennial from becoming "obsolete" because he only knows one company's way of doing things. During the course of my career, I moved around quite a bit and I think I am better off versus some of my friends who got "golden handcuff" jobs out of school tying them to companies that either don't exist or have significantly changed over the years.

I'm also not blaming anyone for wanting to be paid more. I wanted to be paid more when I was in my 20's. That held true throughout my career, and I still want to be paid more today.

Having worked for different companies, I have also seen different compensation philosophies. I worked for a company that deliberately underpaid, with the expectation that it is cheaper to replace a worker after a few year instead of giving promotions and raises. But the employees recognized what was going on, and therefore anyone who was good got a little experience and quickly moved on. The people who stayed were mostly those who couldn't get better jobs. And the owner of the company was constantly complaining that none of his workers had loyalty. Of course not. His HR philosophy ensured there was no loyalty.

What you suggested is that things are essentially the same as they've always been. But they're not.

Sure, job-hopping might work out well in the long run, but if I'm coming out of school with $40K in student loans, looking at the high cost of living today (vs in the 1970s), and wondering if my company, let alone my job, will be around in a couple years, I'm not really thinking that "busting my ass at a crappy entry level job (the only kind that a lot of graduates are going to get) that may lead nowhere while barely making enough to live" is sound advice. Maybe in the 70s. Not today. Looking for better pay and a better job out of the gate isn't entirely entitlement or lack of work ethic, it's survival.

I'm not sure why so many people here think, "I did it this way, so that's how it should be done." It's been 40 years; things have changed a lot. Your way isn't the only way.

 

[RUskoolie]

What you suggested is that things are essentially the same as they've always been. But they're not.

Sure, job-hopping might work out well in the long run, but if I'm coming out of school with $40K in student loans, looking at the high cost of living today (vs in the 1970s), and wondering if my company, let alone my job, will be around in a couple years, I'm not really thinking that "busting my ass at a crappy entry level job (the only kind that a lot of graduates are going to get) that may lead nowhere while barely making enough to live" is sound advice. Maybe in the 70s. Not today. Looking for better pay and a better job out of the gate isn't entirely entitlement or lack of work ethic, it's survival.

I'm not sure why so many people here think, "I did it this way, so that's how it should be done." It's been 40 years; things have changed a lot. Your way isn't the only way.

+1 I learned at my first job a company doesn't care about you. It's all about the dollar. I just jumped ship this past year because our managers were out to lunch on what my market value was. They gave me a promotion in title and a 10% raise and thought it was a big deal. I left a month later for a 35% raise. Be loyal to the dollar, not a company.

 

[Upstream]

What you suggested is that things are essentially the same as they've always been. But they're not.

Sure, job-hopping might work out well in the long run, but if I'm coming out of school with $40K in student loans, looking at the high cost of living today (vs in the 1970s), and wondering if my company, let alone my job, will be around in a couple years, I'm not really thinking that "busting my ass at a crappy entry level job (the only kind that a lot of graduates are going to get) that may lead nowhere while barely making enough to live" is sound advice. Maybe in the 70s. Not today. Looking for better pay and a better job out of the gate isn't entirely entitlement or lack of work ethic, it's survival.

You misunderstand me. I don't begrudge anyone looking for a better job or better pay. And if someone is offered a better job with better pay, I certainly would encourage them to take it. They'd be nuts to stay in an inferior job with worse pay.

What I am saying is that if your option is an entry level job with lower pay (which is pretty much what the options have been for most young adults for generations), then you should do your job well so that you can gain experience and move on. What is the choice? Quit and have no job?

 

[eceres]

You misunderstand me. I don't begrudge anyone looking for a better job or better pay. And if someone is offered a better job with better pay, I certainly would encourage them to take it. They'd be nuts to stay in an inferior job with worse pay.

What I am saying is that if your option is an entry level job with lower pay (which is pretty much what the options have been for most young adults for generations), then you should do your job well so that you can gain experience and move on. What is the choice? Quit and have no job?

From a purely logical point of view... if your not looking to get promoted, but instead get bullet points to tell the next interview it may affect your work level.

Any job that appears dead end is hard to get stelar output based on human psychology. If working harder is perceived to get people more pay or experience for next job then they may work their hardest.

Now this is different from my career personally. I have been lucky to get jobs that have given good raises and move pretty laterally when I switched jobs.

 

[FanuSanu52]

You misunderstand me. I don't begrudge anyone looking for a better job or better pay. And if someone is offered a better job with better pay, I certainly would encourage them to take it. They'd be nuts to stay in an inferior job with worse pay.

What I am saying is that if your option is an entry level job with lower pay (which is pretty much what the options have been for most young adults for generations), then you should do your job well so that you can gain experience and move on. What is the choice? Quit and have no job?

Not take the job at all and do some of the things that millennials actually do and aspire to do:

Be choosy about what job they take and look for the right fit

Create a startup or pursue some other entrepreneurial avenue

Donate time to a cause or charity, which may not bring in money, but will give invaluable life experience

Think outside the box in ways that I'm too old or tired to imagine right now : )

 

[Upstream]

@eceres & @FanuSanu52 , now you're both pretty much agreeing with the points I made earlier in this thread.

Where we disagree is where you claim that Millennials have it much worse and harder than previous generations. All the data I've seen indicates that is untrue. Some things are marginally more difficult, some things are marginally easier, and some things are just different without necessarily being easier or more difficult.

 

[retired711]

@eceres & @FanuSanu52 , now you're both pretty much agreeing with the points I made earlier in this thread.

Where we disagree is where you claim that Millennials have it much worse and harder than previous generations. All the data I've seen indicates that is untrue. Some things are marginally more difficult, some things are marginally easier, and some things are just different without necessarily being easier or more difficult.

Upstream, doesn't the fantastic cost of college (even Rutgers) make things far harder for millenials than for previous generations of college graduates?

 

[eceres]

@eceres & @FanuSanu52 , now you're both pretty much agreeing with the points I made earlier in this thread.

Where we disagree is where you claim that Millennials have it much worse and harder than previous generations. All the data I've seen indicates that is untrue. Some things are marginally more difficult, some things are marginally easier, and some things are just different without necessarily being easier or more difficult.

I largely agree with your earlier comparison. It's not much worse than it was in the past, but marginally worse for a lot of people. People exaggerate the difference.

As many said including you, there will be good employees and bad... There will be successful people and non successful. It's the same.

 

[eceres]

Upstream, doesn't the fantastic cost of college (even Rutgers) make things far harder for millenials than for previous generations of college graduates?

Have salaries increased enough to cover that extra student loan? A 40k student loan is probably under 300 a month (maybe I'm wrong if people really have 7% student loans). Well worth the higher pay for a college graduate.

 

[FanuSanu52]

You're using an incomplete data set. Cost of living increases have far outpaced income increases. Couple that with higher college costs/more student debt and that modest wage increase means nothing and "marginally worse" becomes "much worse."

 

[retired711]

Have salaries increased enough to cover that extra student loan? A 40k student loan is probably under 300 a month (maybe I'm wrong if people really have 7% student loans). Well worth the higher pay for a college graduate.

Yes, college or graduate/professional school is worth it. But when I left law school, I had $2000 in debt. Indebtedness is much higher now (for law students, often in the high fives, or even six figures) and it seems to me this must create a lot of pressure to earn big dollars right away. Unfortunately, there aren't that many jobs like that, and, at least in the law, there are fewer than there used to be. Lawyers' clients are no longer willing to pay to train young lawyers in the big firms.

 

[RUevolution36]

http://www.vice.com/read/why-your-first-job-out-of-college-always-sucks

 

[yesrutgers01]

Even back in the 90's when IO was Director in a staffing company where I had 13 staffs and 200 employees reporting directly to me. I would also tell my best people that 2-3 years is the most you can give to a company before you price yourself out. Now, that is considering if you are only getting base yearly increases and not bonuses and or promotions.
Back prior to the 90's and the downsizing of the IBM's of the world, the goal was to get a job at one of these mega corporations, put in 30-40 years, take you basic raises and promotions, put your money into their stocks and retire with a great pension and good enough savings to allow you to live comfortably to the ripe old age of 70 or so. So, of course wages did not fluctuate as much as they do now.
Example of what a few have been saying in the last few posts. My kids are millennials...the new course of a career is take a low paying first job and use it for experience. Work it hard and have some success. Stay for 1-2 years and then move to the next, rinse and repeat. My oldest started his post college year at X dollars and 3 years and 3 jobs later he is 2.5x his original base...And has new companies and recruiters coming at him all the time.
As a manager, I have stopped asking why someone has changed jobs so frequently. And even myself- in an interview, someone mentioned that I have a 5 year stay at a company and was impressed for the length of time.

 

[jerseyjustin]

Me in this thread.

 

[NotInRHouse]

The debt is really the issue here. I don't think millenials are expecting to make big bucks on graduating college, but their debt to income ratio is killer, and COL where the best jobs are (NYC, DC, SF, LA) is killer.

And the reality is you're going to need a grad degree for a lot of the best jobs. Just huge debt pile.

 

[rutgersdave]

The debt is really the issue here. I don't think millenials are expecting to make big bucks on graduating college, but their debt to income ratio is killer, and COL where the best jobs are (NYC, DC, SF, LA) is killer.

And the reality is you're going to need a grad degree for a lot of the best jobs. Just huge debt pile.

I don't feel sorry for any of them. If their family couldn't help with the bill or the kid didn't save enough from working to keep his debt reasonable to $25-35k. They should have gone to community college or commuted to school. It's their choice and I see at least many Millennials are smart enough to move back home with the parent for a few years which can easily help eliminate a $30k loan. Another choice is to be a top student and get a good job that in 5-8 years will make six figures. Plenty of good options but there are a lot of graduates that want to cry to mommy because they made bad decisions and thought college was suppose to be fun. It's fun if you can afford it.

 

[vkj91]

One important factor you're omitting is much shorter careers. The average career was much longer back in the 1970s than today. You went to that low-paying first job with the idea that you'd work up the company ladder. The Company Man was still a thing.

Millennial have watched wave after wave of layoffs and outsourcing and heard guys like those in this thread who worked hard and became unemployable for no other reason than being too old and expensive. Is it any wonder the old paradigm of taking a shit entry level job, working hard and getting recognized/promoted is becoming a nonstarter?

Maybe they make the same or a little more, as you say, but future prospects are much more of a question mark. Couple that with college debt, higher costs of living and question marks in the future of pretty much everything (Healthcare, social security, banks, ...) and I don't blame them for wanting to get paid now, not later.

We have no idea what the next trend will be. Maybe they will keep jobs longer and seniority will be valued. Complaining about something that might happen in 30 years is a bit silly.

 

[FanuSanu52]

We have no idea what the next trend will be. Maybe they will keep jobs longer and seniority will be valued. Complaining about something that might happen in 30 years is a bit silly.

Yeah, maybe! And maybe I'll start shtting gold bullion and diamonds and quit work.

You're right, we should ignore all current indicators and focus on what could, might, maybe, theoretically, long shot oughta happen!

 

[Upstream]

Upstream, doesn't the fantastic cost of college (even Rutgers) make things far harder for millenials than for previous generations of college graduates?

I don't think the data leads to that conclusion.

As I noted earlier (where I quoted the Talia Jane thread), the cost of tuition and fees at 4-year public universities in NJ has increased from 7.8% of the median NJ household income in 1984 to 19.8% in 2013. That means an NJ public university student is paying comparatively $8000 more today. As I noted, that is a lot more money, but in a state with a median family income over $61K, it is not making or breaking anyone. Plus there are a whole host of financial aid options today that just did not exist 30 years ago.

But let's make the assumption that the increased tuition burden is borne exclusively by the millennial student without any assistance from his parents, and let's assume that student loans are the only form of financial aid used to offset that increased burden. So the millennial student is assuming approximately $8K additional debt for every year he is in college.

But as also noted by me and others in this thread, the wage gap between college-educated and non-college-educated has also widened. The millennial student can also expect to earn comparatively $6300 more per year today than a generation ago.

So the millennial, if he chooses to go to college, is paying comparatively $8000 per year more over 4 years, and then gets $6300 a year more in earnings. At a student loan interest rate of 8%, the millennial can use that extra earning to pay off 4 years of student loans in less than 5 years, and still have some of his extra income to spend on other things.

 

[jtung230]

I don't feel sorry for any of them. If their family couldn't help with the bill or the kid didn't save enough from working to keep his debt reasonable to $25-35k. They should have gone to community college or commuted to school. It's their choice and I see at least many Millennials are smart enough to move back home with the parent for a few years which can easily help eliminate a $30k loan. Another choice is to be a top student and get a good job that in 5-8 years will make six figures. Plenty of good options but there are a lot of graduates that want to cry to mommy because they made bad decisions and thought college was suppose to be fun. It's fun if you can afford it.

Think you missed the point. College kids make bad decisions all the time. The difference is that mistake is a lot more expensive than BB or gen x.

 

[vkj91]

Upstream, doesn't the fantastic cost of college (even Rutgers) make things far harder for millenials than for previous generations of college graduates?

I'm 40. Even 20 years ago the cost of my Liberal Arts college was still more than Rutgers is today. This is debt we all chose to accumulate. For some reason, some seem to make believe it's only them. Also, a good portion of these people chose to go to wildly expensive schools that aren't any better than state schools. That is also on them and their decision making....long before they choose to major in Piano while at NYU. Yes, I saw a girl on the news complaining she has all this debt and can't find a job after majoring in Piano. The debt concern isn't new yet how many choose to go to community college first? Take summer classes are cheaper schools to lessen the burden?

 

[jtung230]

I'm 40. Even 20 years ago the cost of my Liberal Arts college was still more than Rutgers is today. This is debt we all chose to accumulate. For some reason, some seem to make believe it's only them. Also, a good portion of these people chose to go to wildly expensive schools that aren't any better than state schools. That is also on them and their decision making....long before they choose to major in Piano while at NYU. Yes, I saw a girl on the news complaining she has all this debt and can't find a job after majoring in Piano. The debt concern isn't new yet how many choose to go to community college first? Take summer classes are cheaper schools to lessen the burden?

Your degree was much more valuable 20 years ago than it would be today. your return on that investment made sense compare to a college degree today. I agree with you on the diminishing returns but don't agree on community college.

 

[Upstream]

Your degree was much more valuable 20 years ago than it would be today.

The wage gap data discussed earlier in this thread would seem to indicate that a college degree is more valuable today.

But, if a college degree is actually less valuable, as you claim, then it is pretty stupid that a higher percentage of young adults are looking to earn less valuable college degrees today.

 

[MoobyCow]

The wage gap data discussed earlier in this thread would seem to indicate that a college degree is more valuable today.

But, if a college degree is actually less valuable, as you claim, then it is pretty stupid that a higher percentage of young adults are looking to earn less valuable college degrees today.

I'm not willing to do the work, but I wonder how it looks when you consider the increased expense of a college degree now vs 20 years ago. In any case, good deal or bad deal, there's not a heck of a lot of choice if you want to have a decent shot of getting a well paying job.

 

[retired711]

I'm 40. Even 20 years ago the cost of my Liberal Arts college was still more than Rutgers is today. This is debt we all chose to accumulate. For some reason, some seem to make believe it's only them. Also, a good portion of these people chose to go to wildly expensive schools that aren't any better than state schools. That is also on them and their decision making....long before they choose to major in Piano while at NYU. Yes, I saw a girl on the news complaining she has all this debt and can't find a job after majoring in Piano. The debt concern isn't new yet how many choose to go to community college first? Take summer classes are cheaper schools to lessen the burden?

The difference between then and now is that you had the option of attending a public college or university at low cost. They don't, considering how expensive Rutgers is today. Going to community college is a possibility, but I think you would agree that a community college education is not nearly as good as being a lower classman at a university like Rutgers. And today's students want to be away at school, rather than live at home and commute to college. My impression also is that the problems extend way beyond those who chose to pursue an esoteric major.

 

[retired711]

I don't think the data leads to that conclusion.

As I noted earlier (where I quoted the Talia Jane thread), the cost of tuition and fees at 4-year public universities in NJ has increased from 7.8% of the median NJ household income in 1984 to 19.8% in 2013. That means an NJ public university student is paying comparatively $8000 more today. As I noted, that is a lot more money, but in a state with a median family income over $61K, it is not making or breaking anyone. Plus there are a whole host of financial aid options today that just did not exist 30 years ago.

But let's make the assumption that the increased tuition burden is borne exclusively by the millennial student without any assistance from his parents, and let's assume that student loans are the only form of financial aid used to offset that increased burden. So the millennial student is assuming approximately $8K additional debt for every year he is in college.

But as also noted by me and others in this thread, the wage gap between college-educated and non-college-educated has also widened. The millennial student can also expect to earn comparatively $6300 more per year today than a generation ago.

So the millennial, if he chooses to go to college, is paying comparatively $8000 per year more over 4 years, and then gets $6300 a year more in earnings. At a student loan interest rate of 8%, the millennial can use that extra earning to pay off 4 years of student loans in less than 5 years, and still have some of his extra income to spend on other things.

I don't think of $61,000 as a huge family income in a state as expensive to live in as New Jersey. And remember there are by definition 50% of families below that level. Even at $61,000, I think Rutgers tuition would be quite a strain. I agree that college remains a sound investment, even if one has to borrow money at 8% interest. But that doesn't change the fact that the millennials are taking on a burden that today's middle-aged and elderly didn't have to, and so millennials are understandably upset by that.

 

[vkj91]

I'm not willing to do the work, but I wonder how it looks when you consider the increased expense of a college degree now vs 20 years ago. In any case, good deal or bad deal, there's not a heck of a lot of choice if you want to have a decent shot of getting a well paying job.

While I'm all for college and what it does for your future I know lots of carpenters, electricians, HVAC guys etc who are making a killing. Add in the fact they have no debt and they are even better off.

 

[vkj91]

The difference between then and now is that you had the option of attending a public college or university at low cost. They don't, considering how expensive Rutgers is today. Going to community college is a possibility, but I think you would agree that a community college education is not nearly as good as being a lower classman at a university like Rutgers. And today's students want to be away at school, rather than live at home and commute to college. My impression also is that the problems extend way beyond those who chose to pursue an esoteric major.

Yes, I could have gone to Rutgers for less but my argument is they aren't the first generation to have student loan debt. I think you can get an excellent education at a community college if you want to. Let's be honest, a good portion of your first two years are throw away credits anyway. I was a double major in college and with football there was zero chance I could take enough credits in season and graduate in 4 years. My scholarship wouldn't cover summer courses because it was capped at a certain number of credits a year. As a result, I took art history, creative writing, and communication type courses at Ocean community. Why spend three times the money when you don't need to? Also, I get "today's students want to be away at school" but again that's their choice. Don't bitch about debt when there are cheaper options. Same goes for complaining about rent when you choose to live in Hoboken or Jersey City. I had a kid apply for a job at my office just last week for a position with a starting salary of around 55k. He looked at me with a straight face and told me he can't live on a salary less than 79k. Really? When I finished grad school and started my company I moved back in with my parents, drove the same crap car I had in school, and sure as hell wasn't taking vacations. We all have choices........

 

[MoobyCow]

While I'm all for college and what it does for your future I know lots of carpenters, electricians, HVAC guys etc who are making a killing. Add in the fact they have no debt and they are even better off.

Oh me too, but I also know a lot of them who are not doing all that well. Just like anything else, there are winners and losers at each level of education, it's just the percentages shift around a lot.

 

[vkj91]

Oh me too, but I also know a lot of them who are not doing all that well. Just like anything else, there are winners and losers at each level of education, it's just the percentages shift around a lot.

Of course there are and winners tend to win regardless of the route they choose. Would you rather be a plumber not doing well with zero debt or a kid with an English degree and 240k in debt? worlds always gonna need more toilets than poets.

 

[MoobyCow]

Of course there are and winners tend to win regardless of the route they choose. Would you rather be a plumber not doing well with zero debt or a kid with an English degree and 240k in debt? worlds always gonna need more toilets than poets.

As always it depends and the kid. Obviously, when you quote an extreme example of 240k debt it makes it an easier calc, and as school gets more and more expensive the cut-off for who should go shifts. As you've mentioned in other posts, there are pretty good ways to go about getting your degree without racking up $240k. There is a very, very limited set of circumstances where that would be the right call.

One of the things that people tend to not think of when it comes to more manual jobs, is that your shelf life in the job might be shorter. My brother has done fairly well for himself doing a lot of different types of physical labor over the years, but now he's getting towards 50 and he's simply breaking down. The chances of him making it to 'retirement age' doing what he is doing is virtually non-existent.

He still has some choices, but it will be difficult for him to stay on the job. Of course, every class of workers starts to hit a new set of problems as they get older.

As for me, I'm thinking that sending the kid over to Germany for a free university education sounds like a pretty good idea.