"I was careful to say you "need a plan" for the real world when it comes to college."
The problem is that we've been told all of our lives to "follow our dreams," because "being happy with what you're doing is more important than financial gain."
It's a nice sentiment, but when you're 18, you've never lived in the real world and you simply cannot appreciate the trade-off you're making. This is to say nothing of student loans.
This is to say nothing of people who picked an industry that just blew up. Nobody entering college in in the early aughts knew the economy would wither in 8 years.
"You can get from pretty much anywhere in the US to anywhere else for under $500. What's that? You want your stuff? Ok, that's the real problem."
Before you can sign a lease, very often you need two months' rent and a security deposit. This amount will vary wildly, but in the above case, call it $1K altogether. Maybe you can find a roommate but uh now you have nproblems++.
You also need to find the right financial trade-off between living somewhere where a car is necessary vs. not. Maybe NYC is the exception to the rule, but cheaper places also trend towards less safe and less convenient.
You still need to pay for food, utilities, and continue to pay rent while looking for a job. Tack on a car payment and gas mileage if the only place you can afford is far or public transportation sucks. If you went to college, tack on a student loan payment or two.
The fact is that you must save up a non-trivial amount of money to go... somewhere... for some as yet undefined quality of living and no guarantee whatsoever that you'll find a job. Oh, and you won't have any friends or family, either. Maybe you guys are all people who make friends easily, but I am emphatically not. I'm highly sympathetic to people's unwillingness to leave behind their support networks.
Remember, what provoked this was an article shaming these kids for not moving. In response, they're voicing perfectly reasonable objections. They made the rational economic decision not to move because it's a lot of work and money for uncertain gain.
If we want to shame them for making sensible financial decisions instead of living up to baby boomer standards (or whoever's), I don't think the problem is on their end.
> Before you can sign a lease, very often you need two months' rent and a security deposit.
And why exactly do you need a whole house/apartment? Sublet. Find a room on craigslist. These options require far fewer upfront costs and are far more flexible (you tend to be able to leave with notice from a few days to a few weeks).
> Maybe NYC is the exception to the rule
I would say that for American cities it is. You can live many decent places around NYC without a car for not much money at all. Sure you'll have a 1.5 hour train ride into the city but you can move... when you can afford it.
Car payments, maintenance and insurance are expensive. That alone in many places when added to your rent will allow you to move to a substantially better place.
> You still need to pay for food, utilities, and continue to pay rent while looking for a job.
These you need to do anyway.
> ... no guarantee whatsoever ...
What, precisely, other than death has a guarantee?
If you want to see if you can live with your parents into your 40s being a bum or live off welfare, OK. If you want to get on your own two feet, it's probably going to require you to take some risks and make some sacrifices.
That means getting rid of the car, cable, cell phone, etc, buying cheap clothes and feeding yourself inexpensively.
this is my overall problem with the complaints in the article: the subtext of entitlement. "No jobs in my field", "I've spent hundreds of dollars on drinking glasses alone", etc.
There's what you need and what you want and it's important to separate the two.
> In response, they're voicing perfectly reasonable objections.
But they're not reasonable. It's tantamount to "I can't move without giving up stuff".
But what gives them a "moral obligation" to move? If moving is economically rational, let them move. If it's not, I see no reason they should be under obligation to move.
I've never done anything but have just a single room to myself, with up to 4 roommates sharing the apartment/house together. I've always had to sign a lease and have a deposit. What are these rooms with roommates you're talking about that have no deposits?
The problem is that we've been told all of our lives to "follow our dreams," because "being happy with what you're doing is more important than financial gain."
It's a nice sentiment, but when you're 18, you've never lived in the real world and you simply cannot appreciate the trade-off you're making. This is to say nothing of student loans.
This is to say nothing of people who picked an industry that just blew up. Nobody entering college in in the early aughts knew the economy would wither in 8 years.
"You can get from pretty much anywhere in the US to anywhere else for under $500. What's that? You want your stuff? Ok, that's the real problem."
Before you can sign a lease, very often you need two months' rent and a security deposit. This amount will vary wildly, but in the above case, call it $1K altogether. Maybe you can find a roommate but uh now you have nproblems++.
You also need to find the right financial trade-off between living somewhere where a car is necessary vs. not. Maybe NYC is the exception to the rule, but cheaper places also trend towards less safe and less convenient.
You still need to pay for food, utilities, and continue to pay rent while looking for a job. Tack on a car payment and gas mileage if the only place you can afford is far or public transportation sucks. If you went to college, tack on a student loan payment or two.
The fact is that you must save up a non-trivial amount of money to go... somewhere... for some as yet undefined quality of living and no guarantee whatsoever that you'll find a job. Oh, and you won't have any friends or family, either. Maybe you guys are all people who make friends easily, but I am emphatically not. I'm highly sympathetic to people's unwillingness to leave behind their support networks.
Remember, what provoked this was an article shaming these kids for not moving. In response, they're voicing perfectly reasonable objections. They made the rational economic decision not to move because it's a lot of work and money for uncertain gain.
If we want to shame them for making sensible financial decisions instead of living up to baby boomer standards (or whoever's), I don't think the problem is on their end.