Hours of minimum wage work needed to pay for four years of public college

 

Boomer: 306

 

Millennial: 4,449

So a year or two of part-time work versus about 10 years of full-time work.

The feds should cut the aggregate amount of direct student loans down significantly for a four year undergraduate degree. Plenty of colleges would find a way to offer bachelor degrees for whatever price they slashed the loan amount to. These should be cut in half, IMO:

 

 

source: https://www.edvisors.com/college-loans/terms/loan-limits/

 

Further, there should be a cap on the total number of people able to acquire these loans - for example a set percentage of the total number of high school graduates in any given year, and they should be awarded based upon high school academic performance. We could couple these cuts with free 2 year degrees/trade school programs.

No doubt that health insurance for the 10,000+ employees at the huge state universities is a major driver of increased tuition costs.  So uncoupling health care costs from employers would undoubtedly lift a huge cost from all public and private K-12 schools + universities. 

 

 

Ram23[/member] You offer some pretty good thoughts there, for sure.

 

I would go a little further. The increase in tuition cost is directly correlated with the # of administrators dramatically increasing on college campuses. Some states mandate colleges to have certain positions filled i.e. "student life advisors". I only graduated from a small liberal arts college 4.5 years ago, so I am still aware of the crippling costs associated with some private and public colleges.

 

If colleges would cut the fat in administration, and subsidize the help in Admissions, Student Life, Dining, and the like with minimum wage jobs to be staffed by students, you would be offering de facto financial aid to students while cutting down on the operational cost of the respective college.

More than anything what they need to do is stop with the facilities arms race. My alma mater constantly needs to build new buildings which cost a ton and don't do that much to add to the educational experience. The only reason they do it is to stay competitive with the other schools in the race to attract good freshmen classes. Additionally, at least at my school, they are starting to get to a kind of campus "sprawl" where all the important buildings are further out on the perimeter and there is less and less going on in the old historic core of campus.

Millennials being blamed for EVERYTHING.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/restaurants/ct-swedish-bakery-in-andersonville-closing-after-88-years-20170202-story.html

 

Swedish Bakery in Andersonville closing after 88 years

 

“Plus it’s hard to attract millennials who are looking for a food experience. We’re pretty humdrum. We’re just a bakery.”

 

What an lame and tone-deaf jab. Is ignorance now a signal of pride for older generations?

 

Millennials being blamed for EVERYTHING.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/restaurants/ct-swedish-bakery-in-andersonville-closing-after-88-years-20170202-story.html

 

Swedish Bakery in Andersonville closing after 88 years

 

 

“Plus it’s hard to attract millennials who are looking for a food experience. We’re pretty humdrum. We’re just a bakery.”

 

What an obvious jab.

 

 

LOL!

 

"If those damn kids would stop texting and pick their head up to realize that we're here."

Millennials being blamed for EVERYTHING.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/restaurants/ct-swedish-bakery-in-andersonville-closing-after-88-years-20170202-story.html

 

Swedish Bakery in Andersonville closing after 88 years

 

 

“Plus it’s hard to attract millennials who are looking for a food experience. We’re pretty humdrum. We’re just a bakery.”

 

What an obvious jab.

 

 

LOL!

 

"If those damn kids would stop texting and pick their head up to realize that we're here."

maybe they should have started serving avocado toast. Or is that already passé?

Dunkaroos FTW

Millennials are getting older—and in cities, they’re sticking around. https://t.co/VsFpPtihkP

http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-are-killing-list-2017-8/#home-improvement-stores-like-home-depot-and-lowes-18

Millennials are getting older—and in cities, they’re sticking around. https://t.co/VsFpPtihkP

 

My fiance and I will likely raise our children (at least until age 5-6) in Ohio City. Both of our families think we're insane for this.

http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-are-killing-list-2017-8/#home-improvement-stores-like-home-depot-and-lowes-18

 

Funny they used a pic of Kent State to illustrate how they're losing interest in football.

Millennials are getting older—and in cities, they’re sticking around. https://t.co/VsFpPtihkP

 

My fiance and I will likely raise our children (at least until age 5-6) in Ohio City. Both of our families think we're insane for this.

 

It's funny the article didn't really discuss kids. I'll guess you said "until age 5-6" because of schools. I'll likely be in the same boat if and when I have kids. I love where I live but the local elementary school is among the worst in the state and there's absolutely no circumstances in which I'd send my child there.

 

So, at some point there likely will be a peak. Millennials will reach the age where their children are entering school, and they're moving out to the suburbs, and while new young people will replace them in urban centers, there won't be much more growth. Schools are probably the biggest problem urban areas will face in retaining/growing population. Meanwhile, walk-able inner suburbs will probably become some of the most expensive (if they aren't already). In Cincinnati this means places like Mariemont, Wyoming, etc.

Thing is, if 20% or even 10% of those families with choice stay in the city, it will have slow, positive effect on the schools situation. I just wouldn't expect things to get better overnight, or even necessarily in one generation.

^That's been my prediction for a long time. There's a sizeable number of people who I've seen predict that another urban collapse is imminent, but 1) there will be a few more families each generation who stick around in public schools and get involved with the PTA and stuff, and 2) there will be less pushback from parents worried about their kids moving into the "big scary city" since they themselves used to live in the city.

Thing is, if 20% or even 10% of those families with choice stay in the city, it will have slow, positive effect on the schools situation. I just wouldn't expect things to get better overnight, or even necessarily in one generation.

 

I'm guessing there will be a lot more Montessori and other private school situations popping up in places like Ohio City.

^^Yep, and don't forget private schools, charter schools, and urban magnet schools (of which there are very strong ones in the three C's) which give options to those who really want to make it work. (Cleburger just mentioned the same thing while I was typing this)

 

For those that leave, there's going to be a lot of suburban parents who will basically wish they could have stayed in the city but felt forced out. They will hold very different attitudes than suburban parents of prior generations. They might even be dying to get back into the city by the time they get their kids through school.

I have a friend at Urban Community School, a Catholic school on Lorain. She said her students are either below the poverty line, or in a $100,000+ a year household. Very few in between.

 

However, her first year was in 2013, in that year she only had one student in her class of 27 not on vouchers. This year she has 11.

I have a friend at Urban Community School, a Catholic school on Lorain. She said her students are either below the poverty line, or in a $100,000+ a year household. Very few in between.

 

However, her first year was in 2013, in that year she only had one student in her class of 27 not on vouchers. This year she has 11.

 

That's a great sign...and probably not a bad way to raise a child.  Poor kids there are probably just like the rich ones...their parents care enough to seek out a better situation without taking the easy way out (running to the burbs). 

Vox had an article today called, How the baby boomers — not millennials — screwed America.

 

"The boomers, according to Gibney, have committed 'generational plunder,' pillaging the nation’s economy, repeatedly cutting their own taxes, financing two wars with deficits, ignoring climate change, presiding over the death of America’s manufacturing core, and leaving future generations to clean up the mess they created."

30 photos show the extreme lengths millennials will go to live in cities instead of suburbs

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-millennials-live-in-san-francisco-2017-2?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=auddev-test617

If you're wondering how to identify a millennial, in a professional conversation they almost always start their sentences with "So..." and raise pitch at the end of their sentences like they're asking a question when they are just stating something.

 

I'm technically a millennial but I never do that; in fact, I think it's really annoying even though it's trivial.

Vox had an article today called, How the baby boomers — not millennials — screwed America.

 

"The boomers, according to Gibney, have committed 'generational plunder,' pillaging the nation’s economy, repeatedly cutting their own taxes, financing two wars with deficits, ignoring climate change, presiding over the death of America’s manufacturing core, and leaving future generations to clean up the mess they created."

 

America's manufacturing took the greatest plunge in the 1970s when most baby boomers were still in their 20s. It continued on their watch, however.

That isn't a generational thing, that's a regional thing. The upward inflection is especially common out west.

 

I know very few people who actually do that with the exception of those from very affluent families in New England and Californians. I think your generalization kind of fails.

30 photos show the extreme lengths millennials will go to live in cities instead of suburbs

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-millennials-live-in-san-francisco-2017-2?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=auddev-test617

 

Illegally cramming a bunch of people into a house isn't anything new.  Immigrants are often forced to do it.  But people are choosing to pursue careers -- or as often just hanging out -- in expensive housing markets when they could instead live in the 98% of the United States that is dirt-cheap and probably do just fine with income. 

 

 

 

30 photos show the extreme lengths millennials will go to live in cities instead of suburbs

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-millennials-live-in-san-francisco-2017-2?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=auddev-test617

 

Illegally cramming a bunch of people into a house isn't anything new.  Immigrants are often forced to do it.  But people are choosing to pursue careers -- or as often just hanging out -- in expensive housing markets when they could instead live in the 98% of the United States that is dirt-cheap and probably do just fine with income. 

 

 

 

 

The challenge for places like Ohio is how to convince them to do so. 

I'm having trouble connecting with anyone in the article except maybe the tiny house guy in Austin that looks like he could be in Jackyl or Scatterbrain.

What are all these people going to do when they reach middle age and realize, "oh crap, I've spent everything I make on housing and have next to nothing in retirement savings"?

 

I always hear from people online that "yeah housing is cheap in the Midwest but you also have to take a paycut", but I'd argue that housing is actually incredibly undervalued and that while you probably would have to take a pay cut, you'd still be paying a much smaller percentage of your income as housing costs than you would if you were making more money elsewhere.

How do you know if property is undervalued? Seems like the value is what someone will and won't pay for it.

I guess I mean "undervalued" in the sense that, for a good chunk of urban professional Millennials, there really aren't huge quality-of-life differences between many American cities. From percentage standpoint, I personally feel like I get better bang-for-my-buck here in Ohio than I would in San Francisco or Denver. My dollar goes farther and I don't necessarily feel like I'm missing out on all the "cool stuff" these other highly expensive towns offer. Of course, other peoples' mileage (obviously) varies, but I think there are a lot of people who simply don't realize that there actually are things to do in the Midwest. That's what I meant by "undervalued".

Oh that makes sense. It's like the way of life in the Midwest with all its amenities are underappreciated due to consumer ignorance, which artificially lowers the demand, and thus price, of properties.

I guess I mean "undervalued" in the sense that, for a good chunk of urban professional Millennials, there really aren't huge quality-of-life differences between many American cities. From percentage standpoint, I personally feel like I get better bang-for-my-buck here in Ohio than I would in San Francisco or Denver. My dollar goes farther and I don't necessarily feel like I'm missing out on all the "cool stuff" these other highly expensive towns offer. Of course, other peoples' mileage (obviously) varies, but I think there are a lot of people who simply don't realize that there actually are things to do in the Midwest. That's what I meant by "undervalued".

 

I'll go with you on San Francisco--but Denver, that's quality of life on a next level.  Great city, embracing urban-ism and the Rocky Mountains just a quick drive away. 

Eh, I have a love-hate with Denver. They're definitely doing a lot "right" from an urbanism perspective, but the infill is next-level ugly for the most part and if you want to go somewhere other than the mountains, much less another city, you're S.O.L. It is on the "Kansas side" of Colorado after all!  :P But I do understand why it appeals to a lot of people - in fact my uncle just bought a house near City Park, which is a wonderful resource, and some of the older neighborhoods like Curtis Park compare nicely to the Victorian working class neighborhoods that dot Midwestern cities.

How do you know if property is undervalued? Seems like the value is what someone will and won't pay for it.

 

If you have a career that requires changing cities every few years, you have to keep moving into move-in-ready housing.  You are paying full retail or even more because you don't know the market you're moving to.  Someone who sticks around can save a lot of money by understanding where the good parts of a city are that cost way less than the areas realtors point transplants to. 

Trust me. I have spent the last 5 years searching US and Canadian cities for properties in neighborhoods with 24-hour stores (grocers, drug stores, restaurants, etc), with rail/BRT transit access, safe/mixed use walkable/historic areas, and decent housing conditions where I can buy a 2 bedroom condo for less than $100,000. One of the best places in the USA where I can find this is right here in my own neighborhood in Lakewood, OH. So I've stayed out.

How do you know if property is undervalued? Seems like the value is what someone will and won't pay for it.

 

If you have a career that requires changing cities every few years, you have to keep moving into move-in-ready housing.  You are paying full retail or even more because you don't know the market you're moving to.  Someone who sticks around can save a lot of money by understanding where the good parts of a city are that cost way less than the areas realtors point transplants to. 

 

This is what has made existing Columbus housing rise significantly. Little speculative single-family sprawl is being built then you add transplants and you've got a shortage.

A lot of what I have speculated about on Urban Ohio over the past 10 years (especially the impotence of Millennial music and its vague counter-cultures) is summed up in this piece:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/opinion/roseanne-baby-boomers.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

 

This is what has made existing Columbus housing rise significantly. Little speculative single-family sprawl is being built then you add transplants and you've got a shortage.

 

From about 1970 onward, nearly all new housing in America has been single-family homes (all at least 1500 sq feet) and apartment and condo complexes of 100 units or more. 

 

Virtually zero small homes or row homes like they still build in England.  Virtually zero duplexes and four-families.  The only time new 2-4 unit buildings appear in Ohio are historic renovations in places like Over-the-Rhine. 

 

Here is a new one near UC, but it's literally the only one I know of in Cincinnati that has been built since 1970:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1344665,-84.5213122,3a,75y,340.76h,92.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNLoM8hHbEVysm7GiaI-WSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

The banks and the cities team up to make these sorts of buildings virtually impossible to build.  That keeps the money going to detached single-family homes and big plexes. 

 

 

 

 

 

That first couple of blocks off of Clifton suck on that street.

Millennials Are Happiest in Cities

Older Americans prefer smaller and more rural places, but Millennials are happiest in cities, according to a new study.

https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/06/millennials-are-happiest-in-cities/563999/

I remember when old people yelled at young people for being lazy, watching too much TV, staring at their cell phones all the time, etc.

 

Now old people are yelling at young people for ... going to national parks.

"Get off my national park you damned kids!"

On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 9:59 AM, taestell said:

I remember when old people yelled at young people for being lazy, watching too much TV, staring at their cell phones all the time, etc.

 

Now old people are yelling at young people for ... going to national parks.

 

Millennials: *Exist*

 

Boomers: WHAT ARE YOU KIDS DOING??!

It is a real thing that National Parks are seeing increased tourism. On my visits to several parks over the last few years, I have noticed NPS trying to promote the use of their shuttle systems to try to deal with the traffic on their roads and congestion in their parking lots. But somehow, instead of viewing this as a good problem to have and a justification to invest more into our national parks, somehow this narrative has taken over that, "Young people don't really care about nature, they're just coming to national parks to get their selfies! They need to leave so the parks can be enjoyed by people who truly understand and appreciate nature!" It's really bizarre and unfortunate.

It's sort of like Metal. When it's not popular metalheads complain that nobody else likes it. But when everyone likes it they get called posers then you get D-grade hair bands and nu-metal.

There's definitely a point where it can become a safety hazard (as a more extreme example, look at everyone dying on Everest this year), and too many tourists can cause irreprable ecological damage from littering, accidental trail widening, and exhaust. But I agree that this could be solved at least in part by investing more in park facilities, implementing more shuttle systems like they did at Zion (and I think Yosemite), and providing people with better education about why these places are reserved in the first place. 

5 minutes ago, taestell said:

It is a real thing that National Parks are seeing increased tourism. On my visits to several parks over the last few years, I have noticed NPS trying to promote the use of their shuttle systems to try to deal with the traffic on their roads and congestion in their parking lots. But somehow, instead of viewing this as a good problem to have and a justification to invest more into our national parks, somehow this narrative has taken over that, "Young people don't really care about nature, they're just coming to national parks to get their selfies! They need to leave so the parks can be enjoyed by people who truly understand and appreciate nature!" It's really bizarre and unfortunate.

 

This extends to state parks too. Hocking Hills is PACKED these days. 

1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said:

There's definitely a point where it can become a safety hazard (as a more extreme example, look at everyone dying on Everest this year), and too many tourists can cause irreprable ecological damage from littering, accidental trail widening, and exhaust. But I agree that this could be solved at least in part by investing more in park facilities, implementing more shuttle systems like they did at Zion (and I think Yosemite), and providing people with better education about why these places are reserved in the first place. 

 

Yeah, I think the best way to deal with this "problem" is by adding shuttles in the parks that don't already have them, raising the vehicle entry fee significantly but keeping the per-person entry fee very low if you park on the perimeter and take the shuttle in. I definitely don't think we should be widening roads or building more parking lots inside the parks. There was a funny article that went around a few years ago with screenshots of 1-star Yelp reviews of great national parks (like Yosemite) where people had said, "ugh, there's too much traffic and there's nowhere to park!"