Millennials, also known as Generation Y, are an interesting group of people. The term typically refers to those born between the early 1980s and 2000. The general perception of this generation is mixed. Some articles portray them as selfish, lazy and entitled. Others report they have a community spirit.
A study published in 2012 in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" co-authored by Jean M. Twenge, W. Keith Campbell and Elise C. Freeman found that millennials are “more civically and politically disengaged, more focused on materialistic values, and less concerned about helping the larger community” than previous generations.
On the positive side, the study concluded that millennials are more inclined to volunteer and less prejudiced on race, gender and sexual orientation.
Read the rest of the article at US News.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released its annual “Cost of Raising a Child” report. The news from it is really no news at all to us parents—kids are stinking expensive and growing even more so. However, if you read between the lines, there are three extremely important points that don’t show up in the executive summary:
1) Parents still have a choice. The USDA estimates that households with less than $61,530 in income will spend a total of $176,550 per child. Meanwhile, “middle-income parents” making between $61,530 and $106,540 each year can anticipate spending $245,340 per kid. Those blessed with household income over $106,540 should expect to spend $407,820.
Here’s how I read these numbers: It likely costs approximately $175,000 to care for a child’s needs in today’s dollars. Beyond that, it’s our choice as parents if and how we spend additional money on our progeny. When your household income jumps from $106,000 to $107,000, the USDA isn’t holding a gun to your head and demanding that you spend an additional $162,480 per child.
Read the rest of the article on Forbes.
The combination of the S&P 500 Index losing about 1 percent per year during the decade from 2000-2009 and a rising tide of obligations caused a “perfect storm” for public workers’ pension funds across the country.
These funds increasingly began turning to riskier alternative investments in private equity and hedge funds in an effort to boost returns and close the gaps created by underfunding. Unfortunately, taking more risk with such investments hasn’t generally produced the hoped-for results.
In fact, it seems such efforts have only worsened the situation. The only winners are the purveyors of such alternative investment vehicles, who earn much higher fees than those charged by passively managed funds—for example, index mutual funds and ETFs—invested in publicly available securities.
Read the rest of the article on ETF.com.