But is that everybody under 30? Makes much more sense to measure 25 - 30. As most will start to have a real job by that age.

FWIW, given how long people take to graduate from university in Spain, 25-30 is a more accurate measure of young working people that say 18-30.

As for a real job, well, let's say that in Spain, it's complicated

Massive Caveat: I've not lived in Spain for over 20 years though I have friends and family

> FWIW, given how long people take to graduate from university in Spain, 25-30 is a more accurate measure of young working people that say 18-30.

This seems like an obvious place to look if you're looking for reasons why 25-30 year olds don't have much money.

I would track 18-30, as that catches those who are likely to be living independently.

And it lumps them in with those who are likely still in school and have no real job yet thereby making it basically impossible to draw (useful) conclusions about independent young people.

> And it lumps them in with those who are likely still in school

I won't argue that one, but where do you draw the line with

> have no real job yet

I would argue that as long as you are working, you have a real job.

Probably the best would be to track both 25-30 and 18-30 and see how it changes.

>I would argue that as long as you are working, you have a real job.

If you're working nights in a warehouse while you finish your degree that will get you into an industry with nearly six figure starting salaries then I would argue that you're not "working yet" you're just a student with income.

What does salary have to do if somethings a "real job"?

Or what about blue collar workers who aren't going to school, and are at that same warehouse? Are they not working at a real job?

Salary has nothing to do with it. Finishing one's education for the foreseeable future has everything to do with it.

I've thought about this for a while now, and for the purposes of this discussion I agree.

That being the case, I think that the study would be best off tracking those 18-30 who are living individually and are not attending school. Thoughts?

Yeah that would be ideal but that's much harder for the people doing the study than just picking an age.

60% couldn't afford a $1000 emergency in USA, in 2019. $3k? Probably a lot higher number.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/most-americans-dont-have-the...

In most countries holding cache is a net loss due to low interest rates so that's not necessarily a good argument.

There is the idea of having an emergency fund, which given its nature, should be stored in an instant access savings accounts.

This is money for when you lose your job for instance

Your appetite for risks and circumstances determine how big it should be (a good rule of thumb is six months worth of salary) but there are countless stories of people trying to be clever with their emergency funds and storing them in ETFs or riskier investments only to find that when the need comes, their fund is not enough and get in financial distress.

If you're a US citizen, "I Series Savings Bonds" are fantastic emergency fund vehicles. You can cash them out instantly after holding them only one year, mine are paying just under 2% right now.

Series I Savings Bonds are currently 1.06%.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds...

credit union savings accounts. mine pays 2.5%. you won't have penalty.

Yes it is. That 3K is the average young person's only asset and it is just getting eaten by inflation anyway.

These people struggle to pay rent each month let alone think about "investments".

?????????????????

Sure you will lose a little bit, like 2 or 3% a year. But if you have nothing saved then what will you do in case of an emergency? such as losing a job?

29.99% interest credit cards.