205
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Fewer young adults are achieving economic and family milestones typically associated with adulthood, according to a recent working paper from the U.S. Census Bureau.

According to the working paper, "Changes in Milestones of Adulthood," almost half of all young adults in 1975 had reached four milestones associated with adulthood: moving out of one's parents' home, getting a job, getting married and having a child.

Five decades on, that progression has changed dramatically. The share of young adults that have followed the traditional pathway to adulthood has dropped to less than a quarter, according to the paper.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

Multi-generational homes are in vogue again! There, positive spin.

[-] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

Honestly, it might be the only way to build wealth over the next 20 years.

[-] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 3 points 13 hours ago

I wonder why? Is it the rise of fascism?

[-] Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 19 hours ago

parents' home, getting a job, getting married and having a child.

Grouping those stats is pretty much clickbait as they're completely different. This is the data from the paper:

In 2005, living away from parents was the most commonly experienced milestone, with about 84% of 25-34 year olds living independently. By 2023, this percentage declined to 81%. Labor force participation became the most common marker of adulthood, with about 86% of young adults reporting being in the labor force in 2023. The share of young adults who completed their education by attaining a high school or college degree increased by 9 percentage points between 2005 to 2023, from 74% to 83%. Family formation milestones, on the other hand, were experienced less often. In 2005, about 62% of young adults had ever married, a share that declined by 18 percentage points to 44% by 2023. Similarly, the proportion of young adults who lived with a child in the household decreased by 16 percentage points from 55% to 39% over this 18-year period.

Which shows that: yeah, most young adults have a job and most young adults move out of their parents' home. It's really only the family formation milestones that are down. (Who can blame us though, in this economy)

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 15 hours ago

Moving out is such a western country thing too.

[-] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 6 points 23 hours ago

Hm, so staying in all day and wanking isn't on the list?

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 23 hours ago

four milestones associated with adulthood: moving out of one's parents' home, getting a job, getting married and having a child.

My 20-something kids haven't reached any of those, unless by "job" you count 4 hour shifts 3-4 days a week at minimum wage...

[-] halfeatenpotato@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago

As someone who's always struggled to find ambition, that's wild to me.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago

It's not for lack of trying, on their part.

The job market is just that bad.

Annoying that everything is written in clikcbait style these days. Why does it say "these 5" and then only list 4? was college the fifth, the one that's still happening? (thank god)

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

If you have to ask what the 5th one is, you cant afford it.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I'm assuming that it's "buying a home." It's sort of redundant with "moving out of your parents' home", though you could accomplish the latter without the former.

[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago

CBS sold out to Mango, their “news” is no longer to be trusted.

[-] jaykrown@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Getting married and having a child is not a milestone of adulthood. Being in a healthy relationship is though. You don't need to be married and have a child to be in a long term healthy relationship.

[-] hansolo@lemmy.today 155 points 2 days ago

"Boomers brag that standards set in 1960 unreachable by anyone today because Boomers ruined everything after they got theirs."

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Which generation gets the blame for the utter failure to address climate change and the rise of global fascism? Oh and theres this stuff too: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/20/microplastics-human-testicles-study-sperm-counts

[-] flandish@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

Every generation after Adam Smith has had a hand in the destruction of the next. Every generation after Marx and Engels has had both hands in that destruction.

[-] hansolo@lemmy.today 8 points 1 day ago

They get the blame because they caused this. If anyone also deserves blame, Millennials do as well. We're just Boomers II: Electric Boogalo, setting up entire ecosystems and telling everyone that everything is great now, not realizing or accepting responsibility for the adverse effects, just moving on the next grift.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 15 hours ago

Why are millennials getting blamed for what boomers has caused? They suffered a lot after boomers and gen xers pulled the the rug from under them. We did not benefit at all from the fruits of labor from the last 2 gen.

[-] hansolo@lemmy.today 1 points 13 hours ago

We deserve blame for gladly accepting the Boomer mindset, and applying it to the tech industry once we came of age. Gen X honestly has been caught in the middle in a weirder way than we were, and because of how the timing of media development went, they never had a boom era that really applied to them in the same way. Many of them were raised in the economic downturn of the 70's and the 80's cultural and (dubiously calling this positive) economic boom and bust and 90's boom and bust was either too early or too late for most of them. For Boomers it lined up perfectly with regular generational cycles to get kids that grew up in a similar culturally monolithic era.

Millennials have every bit the same sense of entitlement to cultural similarity, expecting everyone to know about and like the same 80's and 90's cartoons, movies, and video games - just like how the Boomers demand everyone just assume that the 60's were the peak of human civilization - when Boomers were still kids or just graduating high school. This was facilitated by the Boomer themselves. We grew up scarfing their hubris and art and media and asking for seconds. We just did stuff that was stupid without thinking about it, or thinking through long-term repercussions, just like how Boomers put all our food in plastic. We didn't learn that was bad and stop doing it. We just invented different BS scams to sell more crap made of plastic that is health snake oil. We pushed social media acceptance and use and abuse. Boomers and Millennials don't do well with counter-culture until it becomes mainstream enough to be cool. Gen X especially and Y to some degree embrace it because the Boomer/Millennial cycles were out of sync for them age-wise. So the reaction to why do these people like this weird, brightly colored shit is to go the other direction.

The the Boomer hubris is to tell us for 20 years that we're idiots for not owning a home by age 21, but messing up the housing market over and over again. And we just sort of brushed it off, like "oh, well, it's fine, I'll get around to it. Mom and Dad say it'll be OK." We didn't think for ourselves until it was too late. We didn't think. We didn't protect harm to Gen Y. We didn't see the lessons and learn from them because we were too jacked up on pixie sticks and Jolt cola to see what was happening.

There are some positive parallels - for example, we grew up at a time when computers were new and so many of us are comfortable using them and fixing things and getting under the hood metaphorically. Boomers grew up as cars became widely available and affordable as status symbols, which is why many of them spent their lives comfortable with changing the oil themselves or replacing the spark plugs. But it still just confirms the connection between the generations.

[-] DancingBear@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago

Well, if the fucking silent generation would retire from congress already, god damn it

[-] heyWhatsay@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 day ago

Yeah, well most young adults wouldn't make the mistake of cancelling the Late Show with Colbert Colbert.

[-] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 14 points 1 day ago

Well, guess I'm never gonna be an adult seeing as I had a vasectomy nearly a decade ago now. I did finally buy a house in my early 40s (well, I'm paying for it for the next 19 more years, but still).

[-] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 63 points 2 days ago
  1. Having a child

Oh fuck off, I have very consciously decided NOT to have a child. In my own lifetime, I will see the agrinomic sector completely fail due to runaway climate change. I will see actual resource wars. Why the fuck would I have a kid

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Why the fuck would I have a kid

To help pay for your retirement.

I know that was a rhetorical question, but regardless, here's the answer. Eventually people get old, and it's generally good if there are enough younger folks to pick up the slack when older folks really can't anymore.

Our society is essentially a house of cards. If there suddenly aren't enough supports remaining at the base, those higher levels might start to collapse, and that tends to take the rest of the structure down too.

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

retirement

That is the most selfish and hateful reason to have a child. Your children are their own person, not your retirement insurance. If this is the typical breeder line of thought, no wonder there are so many abandoned elderly folk.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 points 22 hours ago

It's also outright counterproductive if we see large increases in unemployment due to automation (including, but not limited to AI).

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Ok, so first off, I was really talking about social security here, (though it really doesn't matter either way). You can call it hateful or selfish, but it's really just a mathematical issue, morality doesn't factor in. The fact is for Social Security to work at a national level, you need people paying into it for people to be drawing out of it, that's the whole system, that's all it is.

You may have heard that people are growing increasingly worried about social security, as birth rates are down and there's a growing fear that we could end up without enough people paying into it for the system to remain viable. So what's the solution to the problem? How do you balance that equation? You have more babies, that's the entire solution; it's not rocket science, it's arithmetic.

But hey, besides social security, there's the personal angle too. This is probably what you were thinking about. Some people might expect their kids to help support them in their old age. Is this line of thought immoral and selfish? [Spoiler] Of course it fucking isn't! Caring for each other is just what a loving family does. You do realize that the whole "help support me in my old age" request is a request, right? Your children are much more likely to do that if they feel that they've been loved and cared for and supported over the course of their lives. Just to say this again, this plan relies on caring for someone for an entire lifetime, not a small commitment, that's a necessary condition for your kids to care for you in your old age. Meaning, nobody is trapping children into being their retirement plan, this isn't like "one simple trick to guarantee an early retirement". Honestly though, having children is an excellent way to acquire reliable insurance, as the best insurance a person can have is having other people who love you who can help you, after all, that's the only reason any of us survived childhood in the first place.

TLDR: If you want retirement insurance, have a kid. It's the loving thing to do and it can support others as well as yourself.

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Yeah, so. Here's the thing. I lived through a social security collapse in a country (not the US, obvs) with a youth boom. Trust me, having lots of bodies around did not help when the oligarchs horded all the wealth to escape hyperinflation and there was no work to go around.

It is of no use to have over half of the population in productive ages (19 - 45) if more than half of them are unemployed. And guess what, it didn't help the elder either as they were the first casualties of a collapsed healthcare system. We had an abandoned elders crisis, along with several other crises, admittedly.

But I guess my point is, not even at a macroeconomic scale is having children any form of insurance. I know myself, as the cousin who have had to provide end of life care for more than one elder relative. Whom, I should point out, had way more children than my mom and dad, yet I was the only one with enough compassion left to care for distant relatives when their own children wouldn't even shell out spare change to pay for food.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

having lots of bodies around did not help when the oligarchs horded all the wealth to escape hyperinflation and there was no work to go around.

Ok, but corruption is a different issue. I don't disagree that corruption and hyperinflation can make a social security system collapse. But simply not having enough money will also do that. So, either of these conditions would be enough to break the system, which means you do need both of these things under control to make it work. And it seems that we agree that letting that system collapse is a bad thing. With that in mind, I maintain that having kids is still a necessary condition to make the system work.

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Of course, the orphan crushing machine needs more children to keep working.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 26 minutes ago

Nevermind, you're a moron.

[-] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 95 points 2 days ago

In 1960 the US minimum wage was $1.00/hour and the price of a home averaged $11,000.00

Two kids could graduate high school and move into their own home the next day, and have the place paid off in less than a decade.

[-] thedruid@lemmy.world 90 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

To put it In Perspective, in 1968. A person made about 6 grand a year houses were 12k. So twice the income. Now? Mean houses prices are around 400k. Income is around 66k.

There is no comparison. Today's kids are financially MUCH worse off than we genxers

[-] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 48 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Effectively, someone would have to be earning over a million dollars a year in literal wages (which virtually no one is) in order to have the equivalent buying power that someone earning a couple bucks an hour did in the 50s/60s. And that level of buying power was considered an appropriate wage for literal child workers…

And yet old folks complain “no one wants to work anymore”. Yeah, maybe thats because were grown adults with a tiny fraction of the buying power you had when you were 12 and bread cost a nickel

[-] thedruid@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago

Old folks don't complain and say that.

Conservatives do

Back when I was a wee lad growing uo in the mean fields of rural new england, the conservatives in power were loud and powerful. And older. Boomers and the their parents.

But they were also richer, and like any other rich powerful elitists, they blamed the poor people for their greed and unwillingness to pay

So of course old people were demonized for saying it was the kids not wanting to work. Wasn't. It was the elite.

There's more to it. Including the pretty standard past fact that people usually become more conservative as they age ( though i see that shifting as I age),

Buts its not old people its the musk and trump and Zuckerberg, etc..

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

That's why these people need distractions, culture wars , so they don't realize it's class warfare

[-] EldritchFeminity 5 points 1 day ago

There's more to it. Including the pretty standard past fact that people usually become more conservative as they age ( though i see that shifting as I age)

This one is absolutely bullshit tied to the accrual of wealth. People don't become more conservative as they get older, they become more conservative as they start to benefit more and more from the system, as was the norm up until about Gen X. People being worse off than their parents were at the same age absolutely has shifted the political leanings of generations (there's also the fact that each successive generation leans more leftist than the previous due to simple exposure to people and ideas that are different from you, but that's another topic).

I'm reminded of the wonderful video that the beautiful talking skull Shaun did about Harry Potter and JK Rowling a few years back. Specifically, the part about how you can watch her political stance change practically in real time as the books go on. The books start out raging against the machine, but as she began to gain wealth and benefit from that machine, it shifts towards supporting the machine until at the end Harry becomes a magic cop defending all the issues that were criticized in the early books and nothing fundamentally changes in society.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 48 points 2 days ago

Why are we calling these “milestones?” These are economic choices that were once expectations. Expectations that are no longer realistic, and can no longer be expected. These are NOT indicators of someone’s “success” at life.

[-] crank0271@lemmy.world 62 points 2 days ago

This article is not particularly well written, but the four milestones they mention are: 1) moving out of one's parents' home, 2) getting a job, 3) getting married and 4) having a child. The fifth one seems to be the completion of education.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

They dont mention the 5th milestone but I imagine its buying a home.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

It's finishing Elden Ring actually.

[-] CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

5th milestone is purchasing nbc, Viacom etc. and shutting down programs trump hates… duh.

[-] Hobo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Completing education is the 5th. From the census study linked in the article

...reaching five milestones of adulthood: living away from their parents, completing their education, labor force participation, marrying, and living with a child.

They also mention it later in the article:

The completion of education, another marker of adulthood, has overshadowed other milestones over the years as an increasing number of young adults enroll in college, according to the paper.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

ah good catch.

[-] notarobot@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

I imagine it's buying a home, buying a car, having kids, getting a job (99% of people are actually getting this one, but it's among the milestones I consider)#

[-] ramble81@lemmy.zip 42 points 2 days ago

No children here with how fucked up things are. Only downside is no clue who will take care of us when we get too old. Maybe Winchester or Smith and Wesson…

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] garretble@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

Instead of having kids I have decided to go on good vacations every year.

AND I don’t have a bunch of grey hair. It’s great!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
205 points (100.0% liked)

News

31674 readers
1753 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS