Japan is about 20 years ahead of current US/EU monetary policy. This is coming to America and it's not an accident and it's not people getting lazy and stupid. Things have gotten more expensive, more unequal and more competitive. And at least Japan has strong safety nets, America doesn't.
I never said people were lazy or stupid nor did I imply it. However to claim as some are, that people don't have choices in life is just plain wrong. You might not like the choices you have available but you've got them. And you're free to choose your path from among them.
Don't get me wrong and conflate what I'm saying with some kind political ideology. All I'm saying is that people are faced with personal choices and need to own their choices and the consequences of their choices.
Not the OP, but do they expect to go to college? Do you plan to cover their college costs?
If the answers are yes and no, they will come away with anywhere from $20,000 to $200,000 in student loan debts. I'm not sure how it could be more crippling...
You may have set the expectation that they will go out and live on their own, but were one of them to come to the point of becoming homeless (whatever the cause), would you let that happen to them? If one developed a crippling disease which didn't let them work a full time job, but also didn't kill them outright, what would you do then?
Intentions are great, but reality tends to kick intentions to the curb.
Having a manageable student debt is undoubtedly more important than the "college experience" IMO. College is really really important for the education; if you make the most of it and obtain the skills to make money, you ensure a much more sustainable and enjoyable quality of life.
With respect to disease and circumstances truly beyond their control then we will do whatever is necessary at that time. However they are exceptional circumstances.
With respect to homelessness my response will be measured against their attempts to exit those circumstances (irrespective of how they got there). So if they are addicted to a substance (for example) then if they are actively trying to shake that addiction (or showing a true willingness to) then I will help them do so.
My view of parenting is that our goal should always be to try and raise resilient, independent kids. It is not to provide an infinite bank for those that aren't interested in owning their own lives.
The problem is that easy student loans has made it so people who should have never gone to college are now going and flunking out after a few semesters of partying and now have 10s of thousands in debt with nothing to show for it.
Combine easy money with indoctrination telling kids that they will be losers if they don't go and you have the current situation
Most people won't have scholorships, or at least not enough scholorships to cover their entire tuition.
> telling kids that they will be losers if they don't go
It's worse than "mere" peer pressure. A 4 year college education is all-but-required for entry level white collar jobs anymore. A college degree is this century's High School Diploma.
Meanwhile there are tons of trade jobs that don't get filled because there's a stigma against it.
And they frequently paid really low wages, since they're expected to be filled by immigrants, both legal and illegal. $10 an hour seasonally to pick onions? $15 an hour for a professional welder? Those are near-poverty level wages.
Have you met any 20-somethings in stable employment? Unless your daughters are supermodels or have PHDs in biotech they are in for at least a decade of contract work and constant job-hunting. Even those at their dream jobs know they stand on the knife's edge. And the property ladder, the average home price in my area is over 500k and closer to 1m if you want to be in driving distance of any "stable" job. Even with the 20% down payment only top earners even qualify for a loan. I hope you are ready to co-sign their mortgages.
Most of my friends in a major field of engineering or computer science are just fine as well (IT-degrees and almost comp sci degrees don't fair as well).
The world is not as dismal as it may seem for millenials. It's just that demand for STEM +CS continues to grow while the demand for other fields is stagnant, relying on people leaving the workforce to create new openings.
That means you weren't around for the dot-com bust in 2001 or so. Yes, things are good right now but the situation can go south very suddenly and with very little warning and stay bad for several years.
EDIT: In hindsight, I see the irony of that statement. But I also know we don't get involved with the sort of schenanigans that hurt firms in the last crisis.
Even if your present employer is stable, it seems likely that tens of thousands of us will be competing with you for your next job, and bidding down its wages.
In making high-dollar salaries, we're doing better than most, but don't confuse $150k Senior Engineer positions for 25-year-olds at 5-year-old companies with long-term stability.
I also took out a sizable chunk of student loan debt for my degree, and have paid it off already, so now I'm debt-free and employed. Nearly every one of my friends and peers are in a similar boat. No apocalypse here, yet.
I also grew up in a non-nuclear family with a single mother and 2 siblings.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crea-march-figures-1.4073540
For a 400k loan, with 100k down, a Canadian bank will want to see an income of at least 80k/year before taxes. That number (80k) puts one in the top 10% of earners. So to buy the average house (500k) one must be in the top 10% of earners. To buy the average house in a city you better earn closer to 180k, putting you well into the top 1% of earners. So for the vast majority of young people home ownership isn't a reasonable option even in the long term.
Anyone can play around with the numbers here: https://tools.td.com/mortgage-affordability-calculator/
The example I always return to is the military. An officer in a nation's military should be able to buy a house and have a family in a degree of comfort. That was my grandfather. Today, officers rent apartments in full knowledge that home ownership will never happen so long as they remain officers. An RCAF pilot, an elite officer in any military, earns between 75 and 100k. With a young family and perhaps a student loan, that fighter pilot won't ever own a house. It is worse for naval officers, who generally need to live near cities/ports.
Toronto’s Housing Boom Refills Empty Nests, Driving Prices Even Higher | March 12, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/12/world/canada/torontos-hou...
Granted, we're smart folks, who could finish a bachelors in four years, and got degrees in subjects that lead to well-paying careers. We also chose to live in a part of the country that isn't stupid expensive.
If you're a first-time home owner, you can get an FHA mortgage, which has a low down payment and low interest rates.
Real estate inflation is a problem, but if you live outside of the ridiculous areas, that million dollar house is only 100k-250k. Which is entirely feasible on an engineer or developer salary in those same areas.
I don't make half of what I could make in SV or NY, in gross terms, but for where I am, I'm very comfortable.
Median tenure is falling I believe. And employees in their mid-twenties and thirties have way lower tenure than those in their fifties. I think it's about 3 years as opposed to 10 years. Job-hunting is much more prevalent.
With respect to jobs, I totally agree that the definition of "stable" has changed from my parents' era to my children's. And we are lucky we don't live in the US. Our social services, while not what they were, are still ahead of your. But if you can start life without a huge debt, then that is the best way we can help them, and in those circumstances "stability" can be defined more flexibly.
But that doesn't mean that the population of unemployed and unmatched people can shrink. Only that it can churn.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by my idea being based on prejudice. Prejudice against what, who?
"I got used to living in an unstable situation and figured somehow it would work out"
That last bit is illusory thinking.
Also, I'd beg to differ on your suggestion that these people aren't choosing their life every single day. I'd suggest the opposite is true for most of us (leaving aside those who through incapacity have diminished options). Every single day you don't make an effort to look for work, don't volunteer for something, don't organise an activity, don't spend some time learning something, don't go somewhere to meet people, don't go on a date - you are making a choice. Living with your parents and (more importantly) living off your parents well into your fifties is not an accident. You can't accidentally do that. That is directly the result of daily choices and illusory thinking.
And while we can agreee that the term "parasite" is pejorative, I find it is deserved- at least from the perspective of the parent (who in this case is probably as much to blame for this situation).
My daughters are 20 and 18 and the expectation has long been set in our family that they will be moving out once they're in stable employment (and by that I mean any job that can pay their bills, not their dream job). When both kids are out of the house, we'll downsize and share some of the cashed out equity to help them get started on the property ladder. Then they're on their own. In our family we refer to this as "The Plan". They've been hearing about the Plan (and been onboard) since their early teens.