I am a 20 something who was hired for a salaried position shortly after graduation with a bachelors degree in math. I bought a house less than a year later (granted, with an FHA loan and less than the traditional 20% down).

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.

> I am a 20 something who was hired for a salaried position shortly after graduation with a bachelors degree in math. ... 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.

I work at a finance company so I'm not too worried.

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.

We're getting paid high dollar amounts while Silicon Valley is in boom, but the fact that they're contingent on appearing daily in Bay Area offices means the long-term stability of home ownership is off the table for us. And with booms come busts: many of us work for companies that hemorrhage investor cash.

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.

Similar situation here. I'm a 20-something with a Bachelors in MIS. I make $80,000 in the Dallas area, and consider myself stable.

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.

Just curious, did you have a stable upbringing, two parents and did you and your friends belong to the middle class?

Yes. Not sure what precisely defines middle class, we might have been at the upper end of it. Private schools, we lived overseas for a while.

Where do you live? I know 20-somethings with stable jobs. Housing is expensive, but with good credit, it isn't hard to get a pretty big mortgage, even with much less than 20% down. I'm usually sympathetic to this sort of argument - I do think it's quite a bit harder for young people to get started than it was in the fairly recent past, but your comment seems hyperbolic.

Canada - Average house price in the country just hit 550k, and that includes all the stuff in the VAST country. Within the cities, the only places for young people to find jobs, prices are closer to 1mil.

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.

As many as 78% of adults in the Toronto area are still living with their parents, a trend "driven more by high house prices and an increasingly unstable job market for young adults".

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...

Yes. Myself, my sister, her boyfriend, and my girlfriend.

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.

How long have you had your current job?

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.

Five and a half years, actually, and no plans on going anywhere. Working for a small, stable, lifestyle business does have some perks.

Where I live, our family home is currently worth about 7x the price of the cheapest one bed apartment in the same area. I expect to be able to help them out to the tune of 80% to 100% of the cheapest one bed apartment. If they want to borrow a bit more to get something nicer and they're able to do so then good for them. But that's their choice.

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.