As made clear in this article in the NY Times, the millennial generation, those between the ages of 18 and 34, are on track to endure less prosperity and more insecurity in their lives than preceding generations.
As the writer points out, despite being better educated, more socially connected, and just as energetic as previous generations, millennials have lower earnings, higher debt, higher unemployment, and fewer career opportunities.
As the article states, this generation is "faced with a slow economy, high unemployment, stagnant wages and student loans that constrict their ability both to maintain a reasonable lifestyle and save for the future." The days of paying for college with part-time jobs and summer work that many in my baby boomer population were able to depend on are long over. Also, jobs out of college pay less on an inflation-adjusted basis compared to prior generations.
So what can be done? First, the economy needs real growth, which isn't happening now. There must be more investment--in infrastructure, education, and research--all of which could lead to jobs, and higher paying jobs--especially for this generation. And with interest rates as low as they are, there's never been a better time to spend.
What the article gets wrong is its focus on the national debt "problem," which is not really a problem. The solutions mentioned above will help grow the economy and will pay for themselves through a broadened tax base, especially from better-employed millennials.
But taxes will have to go up (mostly on the wealthy) given the level of government participation needed to jumpstart the economy. As it is, Americans pay much less per capita than other first world countries, despite what the Grover Norquists of the world say, and much less than what we paid during the glory years of President Reagan.
And, once again, there is no need to make cuts in Social Security and Medicare, which are on reasonably sound financial footing (except for SSI disability) and require only minor tweaks over the next 15 years to remain so for the next 50 years. The article's author, of course, is a Wall Street guy and Wall Street guys just hate so-called entitlement programs--especially those like Social Security and Medicare, which are self-funding.
I have two kids in the millennial generation, and like any dad, I want to see my kids to better than me, at least from a financial standpoint. The situation they face today is unfair and not of their doing. But there are clear-cut answers at hand.
As the writer points out, despite being better educated, more socially connected, and just as energetic as previous generations, millennials have lower earnings, higher debt, higher unemployment, and fewer career opportunities.
As the article states, this generation is "faced with a slow economy, high unemployment, stagnant wages and student loans that constrict their ability both to maintain a reasonable lifestyle and save for the future." The days of paying for college with part-time jobs and summer work that many in my baby boomer population were able to depend on are long over. Also, jobs out of college pay less on an inflation-adjusted basis compared to prior generations.
So what can be done? First, the economy needs real growth, which isn't happening now. There must be more investment--in infrastructure, education, and research--all of which could lead to jobs, and higher paying jobs--especially for this generation. And with interest rates as low as they are, there's never been a better time to spend.
What the article gets wrong is its focus on the national debt "problem," which is not really a problem. The solutions mentioned above will help grow the economy and will pay for themselves through a broadened tax base, especially from better-employed millennials.
But taxes will have to go up (mostly on the wealthy) given the level of government participation needed to jumpstart the economy. As it is, Americans pay much less per capita than other first world countries, despite what the Grover Norquists of the world say, and much less than what we paid during the glory years of President Reagan.
And, once again, there is no need to make cuts in Social Security and Medicare, which are on reasonably sound financial footing (except for SSI disability) and require only minor tweaks over the next 15 years to remain so for the next 50 years. The article's author, of course, is a Wall Street guy and Wall Street guys just hate so-called entitlement programs--especially those like Social Security and Medicare, which are self-funding.
I have two kids in the millennial generation, and like any dad, I want to see my kids to better than me, at least from a financial standpoint. The situation they face today is unfair and not of their doing. But there are clear-cut answers at hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment