According to the Wall Street Journal, the percentage of Americans in the 18 to 34-year-old age bracket that are currently living with their parents hasn’t been this high in 75 years
DECEMBER 22, 2016
Have we failed this generation of young adults by not equipping them to be able to handle the harsh realities of the real world?
According to the Wall Street Journal, the percentage of Americans in the 18 to 34-year-old age bracket that are currently living with their parents hasn’t been this high in 75 years. At this point nearly 40 percent of our young adults in that age range are living at home, and many are concerned that this could have some alarming implications for the future of our nation.
In the United States today, more than 60 million people live in multi-generational households, and it is a good thing to have a tight family. But at some point young adults need to learn how to live their own independent lives, and in millions of cases this independence is being delayed or is never happening at all.
There are many factors involved in this trend. First of all, there is truly a lack of good jobs despite what we are being told about an “economic recovery”. Millions of young adults are graduating from college only to discover that there is a very limited number of good jobs available for our college graduates. So some college graduates are able to secure the types of jobs that they were hoping for, but millions of others are not.
Normally when a recession ends, the percentage of young adults living with their parents starts to go back down. But this has not happened this time around. Instead, the percentage of young adults that live at home has just continued to rise…
The trend runs counter to that of previous economic cycles, when after a recession-related spike, the number of younger Americans living with relatives declined as the economy improved.
The result is that there is far less demand for housing than would be expected for the millennial generation, now the largest in U.S. history. The number of adults under age 30 has increased by 5 million over the last decade, but the number of households for that age group grew by just 200,000 over the same period, according to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.
Another major factor in all of this is the fact that Americans are getting married later in life than ever before and they are having fewer kids than previous generations.
In the old days, people got married young and they set up their own households even if they were dirt poor. But these days we have hordes of single young adults that are perfectly content to sit at home and sponge off of Mommy and Daddy.
There seems to be a real lack of toughness to this generation of young adults, and many that have perceived this lack of toughness have resorted to referring to them as “Generation Snowflake”. Over the past 12 months this term has become so common that the Guardian has dubbed it “the defining insult of 2016″…
Until very recently, to call someone a snowflake would have involved the word “generation”, too, as it was typically used to describe, or insult, a person in their late teens or early 20s. At the start of November, the Collins English Dictionary added “snowflake generation” to its words of the year list, where it sits alongside other vogue-ish new additions such as “Brexit” and “hygge”. The Collins definition is as follows: “The young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations”. Depending on what you read, being part of the “snowflake generation” may be as benign as taking selfies or talking about feelings too much, or it may infer a sense of entitlement, an untamed narcissism, or a form of identity politics that is resistant to free speech.
The phrase came to prominence in the UK at the beginning of 2016, after Claire Fox, director of the thinktank Institute of Ideas, used it in her book I Find That Offensive to address a generation of young people whom she calls “easily offended and thin-skinned”.
Of course there are exceptions. I have some close friends that are young adults in this age range, and they are extraordinary people.
But overall, we seem to have dramatically failed this generation. Maybe it is because we tend to baby our children from a very early age, and we want to protect them from danger so much that we never allow them to be exposed to the challenges that they need to face in order to toughen up and mature.
And it certainly doesn’t help that many of our young adults enter “the real world” already drowning in tens of thousands of dollars of debt. According to CNN, about 70 percent of all college graduates in the U.S. will leave school with student loan debt, and the average loan balance for those college graduates is approximately $28,950. Paying off student loan debt can be extremely painful, and it can be financially crippling for young people that are just trying to start their new lives.
When our high school kids are looking toward the future, we very much encourage them to go to the very best schools that they can possibly get into, and we tell them to not even worry about the cost. We promise them that there will be plenty of good jobs once they graduate, and we push them into these loans without even warning them to consider the future implications.
According to a stunning article in the Wall Street Journal, many Baby Boomers are actually having money taken out of their Social Security checks because of unpaid student loans. So when you go into student loan debt, it can literally haunt you for the rest of your life…
The government has collected about $1.1 billion from Social Security recipients of all ages to go toward unpaid student loans since 2001, including $171 million last year, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday. Most affected recipients in fiscal year 2015—114,000—were age 50 or older and receiving disability benefits, with the typical borrower losing about $140 a month. About 38,000 were above age 64.
The report highlights the sharp growth in baby boomers entering retirement with student debt, most of it borrowed years ago to cover their own educations but some used to pay for their children’s schooling. Overall, about seven million Americans age 50 and older owed about $205 billion in federal student debt last year. About 1 in 3 were in default, raising the likelihood that garnishments will increase as more boomers retire.
What we are doing is clearly not working, but I am not particularly optimistic that this system will be fixed any time soon.
If you are a young person, you need to have a solid plan before pursuing an expensive college education. Many young people just major in anything that they want without even considering if it will lead to a good career. And instead of working hard to graduate in four years, many decide that they want to stretch the “college experience” out for five or six years so that they can party as much as possible before entering the real world.
The real world is a cold, cruel place, and if you start your new life drowning in debt that is just going to make things even more difficult for you.
On a personal note, I want to thank everyone that has supported the growth of The Most Important News. It is a central news hub where you can find all of my articles, posts by incredible guest authors and many of the key news stories from all over the globe all gathered in one place. Some technical issues have forced the site to be down for extended periods of time lately, but now it is being migrated to a much more powerful server. I will not be updating it during the migration, but I should resume a normal posting schedule again very soon.
And I would like to thank all of my readers for making 2016 an absolutely amazing year. I love you all, and I wish you all the very best as we head into what should prove to be a very “interesting” 2017.
BY AMY MORENO
Remember when Ryan and McConnell passed that insane Omnibus bill worth over $1 trillion dollars and greenlit every single thing on Obama’s wish list?
Well, now, he and Senate Majority Leader McConnell are threatening to block Trump’s spending plan.
The bill included funding for Obama’s controversial amnesty program and Obamacare.
So, now these two dopes are going to get “tough?”
In the afterglow of Donald Trump’s unexpected triumph, Republicans exulted over what they could accomplish with control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.
But behind the public show of unity, a stark difference looms. House Speaker Paul Ryan is a fiscal hawk who wants to couple tax cuts with deep spending cuts. Trump catapulted himself into the presidency talking about tax cuts too, but he also is proposing a multibillion-dollar infrastructure plan and has vowed to protect entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Such gaps went unmentioned when Trump met with Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week. But ultimately, one side will have to bend, whether Trump ends up moderating his spending and tax-cut plans, or congressional fiscal hawks relent on their opposition to new spending.
The signs of a looming clash are already there. One day after meeting with Trump, McConnell poured cold water on Trump’s spending plans, telling reporters that a government stimulus wasn’t going to help the economy.
“A government spending program is not likely to solve the fundamental problem of growth,” he said Friday.
But Trump mentioned only one policy proposal during his victory speech last week: his infrastructure plan.
“We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We’re going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none,” he said. “And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.”
Such a plan may be too much for congressional Republicans to swallow, and Ryan and McConnell haven’t backed it.
But House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California showed some softening on the issue Monday, telling reporters that an infrastructure bill can be “a priority” and “a bipartisan issue.” He said there can be ways to pay for it, though he didn’t provide specifics.
“Infrastructure in America is lagging far behind,” McCarthy said, noting that Congress passed a highway bill this year for the first time in more than a decade.
Anthony Scaramucci, an economic adviser named to Trump’s 16-member transition executive committee, cited the president-elect’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan, saying it would be financed by “historically cheap debt” and private-public partnerships.
“We can close the wealth gap in America by replacing emergency-level interest rates with fiscal stimulus,” Scaramucci, the founder of the investment firm SkyBridge Capital, wrote in an op-ed in the Financial Times last week.
Ryan and House Republicans have spent the past six years enforcing strict budget caps aimed at holding down the federal debt. Republicans even took the government to the brink of default in a battle over raising the debt limit.
“As we move from campaigning to governing, something will have to give since cutting taxes without major spending cuts will make our already unsustainable debt situation even worse,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington.
BY RICK WELLS
Rep Brian Babin (R-TX) has two bills that he’s trying to get passed through the House, an effort that has been ongoing for him for about a year and a half. Both deal with the problems of an easily exploited “refugee” programthat is designed to fail and putting Americans at great risk. Rep Babin says, “We cannot afford to be so willfully blind and wind up in the same situation that Western Europe is in.
One of the bills puts an immediate stop to the refugee program completely until Congress can reclaim the responsibility. The second version stops the program from the radical terrorist hotspots the other pauses refugees from terrorist nations.
Babin provides a lot of details but Lou Dobbs one question Rep Babin can’t provide an answer to. He asks, “What I don’t understand and what I’m asking is, why in the world won’t Ryan get behind it?” Rep Babin says he’s been acting as a surrogate speaker for President-elect Trump and once he comes into power, expects this “refugee” issue to have a pile-driver behind it.
The Congressman notes that the American people expect to have the program stopped, adding, “They do want to be safe, they expect their elected officials from the president on down to their Congress and Senators, their first duty is to national security and the health and safety of our US citizens.”
Dobbs cites the over $1.5 Billion spent on “refugee” processing and resettlement, money that is being driven by the UN, which determines the flow of terrorist interns and professionals into the United States. He points out that is a 73% increase under Hussein Obama, not including “the child welfare spending, the Social Security, the special programs there, temporary assistance for needy families.”
Mr. Dobbs says, “We have economically, financially incentivized these non-profits and some municipalities with their own resettlement programs, they’re being paid to bring in, poorly vetted if not unvetted “refugees” into their communities, are we not?”
Babin replies, “There is no question about it, Lou, it is a true Trojan horse.” He warns of ISIS exploitation and the dangers that are created by its politically correct nature.
BY SIMON BLACK
OK, this is pretty nuts.
According to data released by the Treasury Department yesterday, the US national debt has soared by a whopping $294 billion since the start of the 2017 fiscal year, just 45 days ago.
That’s an annualized increase of 13%.
So if they keep up this pace, the national debt will increase by $2.4 trillion this fiscal year, surpassing $21 trillion by next September.
It’s hard to believe how rapidly the debt is growing; debt growth is far outpacing the growth of the US economy… and there’s no way to pretend that this is good news.
That doesn’t stop leading economists from trying.
Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman says “debt is good” because the US economy has grown so much over the last 200 years despite not having been debt-free since 1835.
This kind of logic is astonishing.
Aside from a few anomalies like World War II and the American Civil War, debt levels over most of early American history were low.
100 years ago in 1916, US debt was about $3.6 billion; as a percentage of GDP (i.e. the size of the US economy), that was about 7%.
Today’s debt of $19,867,119,032,053.28 is actually bigger than the entire US economy at over 106% of GDP.
Yet in Krugman’s view, the fact that America prospered a century ago when the debt was 7% of GDP means that the nation will continue to prosper with a debt at 106% of GDP.
Amazingly enough, Krugman has been awarded our society’s most esteemed prize for intellectual achievement. It boggles the mind.
To be fair, there is such a thing as “good debt” versus “bad debt”, and it’s not difficult to distinguish between the two.
If you can borrow money at 5% in order to make a safe investment that has a 25% return, for example, that may very well qualify as “good debt”.
If you borrow money at 5%… or even 1%… and then squander the borrowed funds on useless trinkets, that’s clearly “bad debt”.
In 1803, the startup US government negotiated the Louisiana Purchase from France, a real estate acquisition that doubled the size of the US.
It was the mother of all distress sales. France was desperate for cash, and the administration of Thomas Jefferson negotiated a price that valued the land at around $15 million.
Adjusted for inflation to 2016 dollars, Thomas Jefferson paid about 40 cents per acre to acquire the land that comprises fifteen states and has generated trillions in economic activity.
Naturally the US government had to borrow money that year to conclude the Louisiana Purchase with France, so the national debt increased slightly in 1804.
But when you consider the extraordinary economic benefit of that purchase, it clearly qualifies as “good debt”.
Fast-forward to our modern era and we see that the debt is increasing by more than a trillion dollars each year.
What are the good citizens of the United States receiving in exchange for taking on so much debt?
It’s not like the government bought up half of Mexico or colonized Mars.
No, instead they wasted $2 billion on the Obamacare website, most of which went to a company whose top executive just happens to be an old friend of Michelle Obama.
Today, the US government has to borrow money just to pay interest on the money it’s already borrowed. This is almost the textbook definition of bad debt…
In fact, the government now spends nearly all of its tax revenue just on mandatory entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, plus interest on the debt.
The real kicker is that Social Security and Medicare are massively underfunded and quickly running out of cash… so they’ll both require a major bailout (i.e. MORE debt).
Interest payments, meanwhile, total hundreds of billions of dollars each year even though interest rates are at record lows.
Today the government pays less than 2% interest on its debt.
Ten years ago in 2006, the average interest rate on US debt was over 5%.
Back then 5% was considered incredibly low compared to the higher interest rates of the 1980s and 1990s.
But today, 5% would bankrupt the US government. It’s pitiful.
So unless interest rates stay at these record lows forever (or perhaps go negative), the government’s interest payments are going to explode.
Debt… particularly bad debt… is an absolute killer.
Excess debt has been responsible for bringing down some of the largest companies in the world. It bankrupts individuals.
And excess debt has caused the decline of some of the largest superpowers in the history of the world.
There are a lot of people, led by their cheerleader Paul Krugman, who outright ignore this problem and pretend that the US government can continue expanding its debt forever without ever suffering a single consequence.
And I know there are a lot of people keeping their fingers crossed hoping that a new administration will steer the ship in the right direction.
Look, I’m all for hope and optimism.
But it’s important to stay rational. These problems aren’t going away.
And you won’t be worse off for having a Plan B that provides solid protection from the consequences of these obvious trends.
Do you have a Plan B?
If you live, work, bank, invest, own a business, and hold your assets all in just one country, you are putting all of your eggs in one basket.
You’re making a high-stakes bet that everything is going to be ok in that one country — forever.
All it would take is for the economy to tank, a natural disaster to hit, or the political system to go into turmoil and you could lose everything—your money, your assets, and possibly even your freedom.
Luckily, there are a number of simple, logical steps you can take to protect yourself from these obvious risks:
BY TERENCE P. JEFFREY
$221,692,000,000: Federal Taxes Set Record for October; $1,459 Per Worker; Feds Still Run Deficit of $44,192,000,000
(CNSNews.com) – Federal tax revenues set an all-time record of $221,692,000,000 for the month of October, according to the newly released Monthly Treasury Statement.
In constant 2016 dollars that is the most taxes the federal government has ever collected in October, which is the first month of the fiscal year.
The record $221,692,000,000 in taxes collected this October was up $6,718,330,000 from the $214,973,670,000 in constant 2016 dollars that the Treasury collected in October 2015.
Despite bringing in record tax revenue of $221,692,000,000 this October, the federal government ran a deficit of $44,192,000,000 during month. That is because federal spending in October was $265,884,000,000.
The record $221,692,000,000 in federal taxes for October equaled approximately $1,459 for every person who had either a full- or part-time job during the month. (According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total number of people employed in the United States in October was 151,925,000.)
The $44,192,000,000 deficit the federal government ran while collecting record tax revenue for October equaled approximately $291 for each person with a full- or part-time job.
The second highest federal tax haul in any October came in 2014, when the U.S. Treasury brought in $216,934,990,000 in tax revenue in constant 2016 dollars. The third highest was October 2015, when the Treasury brought in $214,973,670,000; and the fourth highest was October 2001, when the Treasury brought in $214,249,290,000.
Americans paid $121,576,000,000 in individual income taxes in October, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement. That accounted for the largest share of the record $221,692,000,000 in taxes the Treasury collected during the month.
Americans also paid $79,361,000,000 in Social Security and other payroll taxes during Ocotber.
The income tax on corporations brought in $2,277,000,000 during October.
Excise taxes brought in $5,707,000,000.
The Treasury also collected $3,069,000,000 in estate and gift taxes.
BY PAM ZEKMAN
CHICAGO (CBS) — Susie Sallee was buried in 1998. Yet records show she voted in Chicago 12 years later.
Victor Crosswell died in 1994, but records show he’s voted six times since then.
And then there’s Floyd Stevens. Records show he’s voted 11 times since his death in 1993.
“It’s crazy,” Sharon Stevens Anderson, Stevens’ daughter, tells CBS 2’s Pam Zekman. “I don’t see how people can be able to do something like that and get away with it.”
Those are just a few of the cases CBS 2 Investigators found by merging Chicago Board of Election voter histories with the death master file from the Social Security Administration.
In all, the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade.
Jim Allen, a city election board spokesman, says a majority of those dead voters were most likely clerical errors, involving family members with the same names and addresses.
“This is not the bad old days,” Allen says. “There are just a few instances here where a father came in for a son, or a neighbor was given the wrong ballot application and signed it.”
But in some cases, there was no clear explanation.
Take Tadeusz Ciesla. Records show he voted in 2010.
But his nephew Marek Ciesla says that’s impossible because he died in 1998.
“That’s a fraud,” he says.
Informed of the findings, Don Rose, a political consultant, says: “Some of these could be accidental or just some individual who says, ‘I really like such and such a candidate so I’m going to take advantage of this — vote until they stop me.’”
Allen says about 60,000 dead voters have been purged from the rolls over the last decade — but 2 Investigators found numerous examples of that not happening.
Earl Smith says he reported the 1997 death of his father, also named Earl Smith. But records indicate his father has voted twice after he died.
Allen says the board identifies and removes most dead voters.
“Any time you can clean up the rolls it helps reduce and eliminate the prospect of any kind of mistake or fraud,” Allen says.
Robert Sallee says he tried to do that by reporting his mother’s death multiple times.
“They’re just not taking her off the rolls,” he says.