Median income for Millennials across the U.S. - this may surprise you

Millennials are defined by the generation born between 1981 and 1997.
That would make them 21 to 37 years old.

The following map shows the median income for Millennials across the U.S. by state




Median means half of them are earning less than that and half of them are earning more than that, and is a good measure of what most are earning.

This generation is going to be the future. These are the people the older generation is going to be relying on to pay into social security and pay the National Debt.

Looking at this map, it's no wonder Millennials are having trouble affording housing.

 

Unionize for higher wages and better benefits and you'll see better standards of living for most people.

 

You won't get very far with that unless you understand why unions lost their bargaining leverage in the U.S. in the first place.
It wasn't simply because workers just decided to deunionize.

I'm willing to have a discussion about this in another thread if you want.

 

Start one up and I'll be more then happy to engage you.

 

You do have to go further. While you need labour rights which encourage collective bargaining, you also need a genuine alternative to wage employment. Encouraging self employment is key. Unfortunately market concentration fails in that regard, instead ensuring skewed result in favour of big business.

 

More than half of Millennials have less than $1000 in savings

 

That's because they are caught within an Age Change.

As I keep underlining, the Information Age requires a different set of skills than the Industrial Age (as did the Industrial Age that replaced the Agricultural Age that had come before).

And we have not been prepared for that Age Change that has been evident since the Internet was invented in the early 1990s - meaning almost two-decades ago!

Which means what?

It means we need to get America into gear and start pumping-out more and more people with a better/higher set of credentials that only postsecondary education can offer them. Today, less than 50% of American students go on to a post-secondary certificate level education.

It became VERY,VERY evident at the end of the Agricultural Age that the Industrial Age would require a better set of basic skills, which is why America woke up and made secondary-schooling free, gratis and for nothing before and during the turn of the 19th century.

We MUST do the same for Tertiary-level Education today! We are not producing enough people with higher level educational diplomas. From the NCES here:



Wakey, wakey! We need to shift more of those 90Percenters into a Tertiary-level Degree Program. And given the high cost of tertiary-level education in the US that is not going to be easy:


Moreover, the EU-countries - though having a total population twice as large as the US - aldo has a very low post-secondary education as seen above.

 

I need to address this to those pushing higher education not everyone is suited to do that level of work and the higher the education level and demands of the degree sought for example STEM areas the less suited the average American will fit in. They typical IQ is 100 and to go to college generally you need an IQ of 115 for the bachelors and to do well in sciences you likely need to raise that. Since you generally then are looking at someone going for a graduate degree or professional medical degree so say and IQ of 125+. Associates degrees and certificates and apprenticeships lower that bar some. But still half the people will fall under the average IQ and 15% very much below to the point any job training might be pointless at an IQ of 85. So the shift in work is going to leave a lot of people struggling to compete I mean there are jobs for average IQ working at McDonalds now is that challenging of one is critical about it, police officers in uniform tend to have average IQ's and many trades the average range is good enough. But these are not always good paying they do okay a police officer out of an academy can get decent pay and once experienced with raises and time in benefits can support a family if areas where affordability is there well enough. But you work at a Starbucks or serving food or as a cook your not going to be earning the Middle Class wages very likely and union work can be undercut by illegal labor willing to work cheaper or outsourcing if that is possible.

So this is a more complex issue than send everyone on to college since people will be left behind and its not a small number.

 

A lot of them aren't getting those skills in college either. The underemployment rate for college grads is pretty high.

It's worse than just the picture the IQ distribution paints. A lot of people with 120 IQ still may not be college material. There all sorts of learning disabilities and mental concentration disorders that can still make it extremely difficult for a person with high IQ to be able to succeed academically. Some might simply not have the study habits or be emotionally/personally ready to devote themselves to intensive studying for 4 years.

 

You exaggerate issues such as IQ. Evidence shows that the biggest issues are social capital and cultural capital. Its not about 'pushing higher education', its about realising that education is used to maintain social immobility.

 

Yes, well, that's why I keep pestering in this forum for free Tertiary Education.

It will be one helluva lot cheaper than the major unemployment problem that is awaiting a lot of Yanks today presently working! We have just embarked upon the Information Age and already Google's boss is trying to impress the world with what that company is going to do with Artificial Intelligence.

(Frankly, I think Google could use some "real intelligence". Like the bit that goes: I am a company far too big for my britches!

And Zuckerberg is on his show-horse around Europe - today presenting to the EU's parliament. Because he is scared shatless that he might have to go to jail after having assisted in the hijacking of personal and confidential information!)

I disagree with the bit in "red" above. It smacks of being an excuse.

And it reminds me of common-thought in America more than a hundred-years ago (when the Agricultural Age was replaced by the Industrial Age). In the debate regarding the necessity of a high-school diploma your thinking quoted above was similar - which is why it took decades upon decades before secondary-schooling became mandatory in most states.

I don't think you appreciate sufficiently how our present world is in EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION migrating from the Industrial Age to the Information Age*.

*And for those too lazy to follow that link:

 

Why not just implement a eugenics program then? You might as well.​

With ever exacting standards to be able to survive or live a decent life in the advancing economy.

You sound remarkably like a Conservative here.

 

IQ is not a barrier to post-secondary education (if that is what you meant). I think you are misrepresenting the "challenge". Post-secondary education starts wherever secondary-schooling stops. And that is very different from state-to-state.

Forty-five percent of American high-school graduates today may try but will fail at obtaining ANY POST-SECONDARY TRAINING OR EDUCATION. It's not because they are "stupid". But more than likely because when they fail, they don't understand there is a "fall-back" to a lower level but still valuable diploma/certification.

Also, yes, it's often a question of "the money" for the poorest people:
*Let's presume that you are earning an average income of just above the poverty-threshold, say, $30K a year.
*Would that family income be sufficient to live on AND send a kid to a state-university that costs on average in the US $10/15K a year?

Bernie had the best idea - and he got it from Europe. Tertiary-education should be free, gratis and for nothing (or damn-close to nothing) for all. Hillary accepted that idea from Bernie but added an Income Barrier below which it was applicable.

Bernie's was the better idea. Junk the present system, and start anew with post-secondary education that is just like secondary-education. That is, available at state-schools for children of parents who pay state-taxes - and funded by the federal government. Hillary's proposition was slightly different - see it here.

Moreover, let's also think beyond just jobs. If high-school isn't doing it, then kids need tertiary-education to have their eyes-opened to a world of thought and information that will form their capacity just to "think" rather than become obsessional about the most recent fad shown on TV* ...

*Commercial TV in most of the world is just an enticement vehicle to get people to buy something.

I could not agree more.

But I also think the higher you are in "qualified education", the easier it will be to get a good job. It is the diploma that get's in the door, and the smarts that keep you in the chair behind the desk ...

PS: Having "smarts" and being "intelligent" are magnitudes apart.

 

I think our differences are one of "perspective". Mine is from the European Union where getting a post-secondary degree is the personification of simplicity. Because, wherever you may want to specialize, there's schooling for it. From vocational to 2-year Associate's Degree to 4-year Bachelor's degree up to the Doctorate. And the maximum-tuition fee at the bottom is anywhere further is from free to $500 to $1000 per year. At the upper-levels (beyond a Bachelor-level degree) one can easily work for the university to compensate for their own degree-cost plus cost-of-living.

 

Then do what most countries do track children into Technical Secondary Programs as in use High School to teach technical skills I would do this if a subject was taught from K through 8 such as American History or general science don't teach those in High School where its a Technical focus. Work on practical skills and applied use in the workplace of English, Mathematics and Science principles. No fluff. If you teach Spanish it should focus on the workplace in the long run. If you have a class on literacy apply literacy and use of language in the workplace. And the build of classes should lead to certifications, professional credentials and memberships and to be employable in an industry right out of High School. And tie these into the armed forces they should be able to leave High School and after basic plug into a military specialty right away if done right. Since this is the level of education its virtually free for the families and young people and eliminates the crippling debt issue without giving free more education above that which is an elective choice. Taxpayers are paying in enough with free pretty much K through 12 education.

 

The high-school I went to had a "print-shop", where they actually taught print-techniques (to all comers).

We, the kids, found it strange. Ok, today it is because printing-technology has changed.

But, I must agree with you - those that wont "go on" should get preliminary training in high-school that permits them to finish it upon graduation in some state-run trade-school.

A lesson we have to learn: The Great Recession marked an end to "whatever came before". Our little world is changing fundamentally and we must change with it. Everybody who needs a further education should be able to get one.

Free, gratis and for nothing. And they should not have to risk their lives at the DoD in order to obtain it ("if they make it back"). There is nothing more ridiculous* than having to risk-your-life in order to get a post-secondary education paid by the Federal government ...

*Based upon an ill-considered thinking that the "US must protect itself around the world from those who might want to do it harm". Not with a DoD-cost that consumes half the total Discretionary Budget! (See here.)

 

Which was kinda-sorta stoopid.

Unions are like insurance for a "rainy day" - one should keep paying because they never know when they might need it ...

 

even if a person has an average IQ if they can graduate from a secondary school then they have the ability to get through a Tertiary education...the only difference being the workload is heavier in at a Tertiary level than Secondary...good study habits, being able to focus on the task and prioritize their time effectively...

it should surprise no one average wage is reflected in the educational level attained...when trump promises he's going bring back jobs to those that lost them to overseas countries it's a fantasy, those jobs had low skill requirements that can be met by third world countries...if the middle class wants jobs they need to acquire a higher level of education, high school just doesn't cut it now a days...

 

Such incredible ignorance. The issue isn't simply just about workers unionizing. There are reasons why unions seen their collective bargaining power eroded over the years. Part of it is structural -- the type of jobs in the economy have changed -- but a lot of it has to do with a tip in the balance of labor supply & demand, and immigration. In the very old days in U.S. politics -- over 80 years ago -- the unions used to be against business interests making use of immigration to break up strikes and bust down wages.

You can't just magically form a union, in isolation from all other factors, and expect that to change everything.

That's not really true.

And there are additional issues beyond just IQ. Many students may have other issues that make it more challenging to take on a larger study load, or lack the organizational skills to be able to take on much more studying.

And these days, a lot of high schools in certain states are just passing students who are practically functionally illiterate. This is even more true for certain minority groups.

This is really a conversation that deserves it's own discussion. The answers are not just so simple as "more education" or "unions".​

 

You can't create capital when this type of capital is simply all about preferential access to scarce resources. Which is why more educational degrees, or trying to make everyone better connected, is unlikely to achieve much for the economy overall.

So, we're either going to have to talk about redistribution, or let's talk about things that will make the economy grow overall.

Capital on a micro scale doesn't necessarily automatically constitute capital on a macro scale, if you think about the fallacy of composition.

That's probably not going to happen anytime soon. Only 36% of the American population between the ages of 25 to 34 have a college degree, and the statistics are even lower for other age groups.

Maybe you mean to also talk about skills that don't necessarily involve a college degree? Maybe we should be expanding the type of options available to young people? Pushing them all into college is likely to fail the majority.

By the way, those middle class job requirements can also be met by Third World countries. Blue collar jobs were the first to go, but white collar jobs are not immune either. They can, and will be outsourced, to cheaper countries. (And what they can't outsource, they can insource, bringing in cheaper foreign workers to do the work, this is already happening on a massive scale with computer software programming)

 

One of the main reasons we are not producing "enough" is because there are already enough. If there really weren't enough, salaries would rise to levels that would draw more American workers into the field. There are PhDs in many fields now, supposedly "in-demand", only earning $50,000 and suffering relatively high levels of job instability/underemployment on top of that.

That pay doesn't go very far in the cities where many of these jobs are concentrated. Even a $50,000 PhD job is unlikely to attract many American applicants in the insanely high cost of living Bay Area, unless those applicants are fresh out of graduate school and think that job can give them experience to move on to another job position (either better paying or somewhere else) somewhere down the line. Tell me why we have so many native PhD grads who feel they can't make it in their field and move on to different non-math non-science career fields?


Here's just one example of the types of comments you can find:

Honestly, the market is so oversaturated with PHDs who are switching to DS I don't see how anyone can transition into it from a different role. I'm speaking for myself as well as someone with a math background, most people don't consider a math degree and 4 years of applying math models as a data engineering experience enough to be a "data scientist". They just weed out anyone without a PHD.
​

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16461810

That's coming from someone in the computer industry.

Another article about too many PhDs in the job market: The Ever-Tightening Job Market for Ph.D.s

 

Sounds like you don't understand the concepts of social capital and cultural capital. Teach yourself then get back to me. Posting incoherence isn't going to impress!

 

Tertiary education is becoming the minimum standard for a quality job with acceptable wages...when my older siblings came into the job market grade school was a minimum requirement, by the time I was old enough to work it had risen to high school level and now it's some form of Tertiary education is the best bet for a secure future..

while nearly any job can be outsourced the better educated a person is the more options they will have for a well paying career...my wife and I stressed to our kids the importance of a complete education and that high school only was never an option...my three oldest are only three to four years into their adult careers but already they each have their own homes and incomes in the $70K range, not a bad start at all for young millennials and they'll only get better...the forth begins his Tertiary education in cyber security in September...without education you've got nothing and options are bleak...

 

cool, so you're a proponent of education!! It never occurred to me.

 

And a lot of jobs are requiring Master's of PhDs that didn't used to.
When you have more people with credentials, expectations and requirements rise.

Seems like living standards are remaining the same but people need more and more education just to be able to keep pace and live how the previous generation lived.

Let me explain this with an example. There is a group of people at a table with a pizza in front of them, and there doesn't appear to be enough slices for everyone. What you're advocating is like trying to teach all the persons sitting at that table how to grab a pizza slice faster then everyone else so they'll make sure they have more slices of pizza.

What I'm concerned about, if you just push everyone into college as a supposed solution to them getting better jobs, how do we make sure that them getting a degree isn't simply just taking away a job from someone else who didn't get that degree?

How do we know how much of education is just a zero sum game?
Sure, it will benefit the individual, but will it benefit the wider society as a whole? To what extent is the rise in personal income correlated with more education actually representative of real economic gains?