Meet the Downsized Generation: Millennials Who Are Rewriting the Rules for Success | Reader's Digest

Meet the Downsized Generation: Millennials Who Are Rewriting the Rules for Success

They graduated as the economy tanked, forcing twentysomethings to rethink their (and the country's) future.

By Barbara Kantrowitz for Reader's Digest Magazine | July 2013
ElizabethBrian Finke

As she starts her new life as an independent adult, 21-year-old Elizabeth Kurtz can lay claim 
to a $455-a-month one-bedroom apartment in Montgomery, 
Alabama; a mismatched menagerie of hand-me-down furniture, including a folding “coffee table” exactly big and round enough to hold a single pizza; $30,000 in college-loan debt; a used car 
with 62,000-plus miles on it; an old-school flip phone that her smartphone-owning friends make fun of; a netbook computer so 
little it doesn’t have a CD drive; and a salary so small—$12,000 a year—that she gets food stamps to supplement her paycheck and 
to keep her from having to ask her financially stressed parents for money.

“I don’t have any dreams of a big house,” says Elizabeth. “I don’t have any dreams of a big family or a fancy car.” What she does dream of is a life filled with meaning and purpose, which is why she went to work for the federally funded community service group AmeriCorps for a year after graduating in December from the State University of New York at Potsdam with a degree in political science. AmeriCorps assigned her to Rebuilding Together, an organization that provides free home repairs for low-income families in Montgomery. In addition to her salary, she will receive $5,500 to help pay down her loans. But for Elizabeth, the job has benefits that can’t be tallied on a spreadsheet. “We need to refocus our goals, be a little less selfish, and really think about the bigger picture at hand,” she says. She wants to join the Peace Corps when her year at AmeriCorps ends. “My dream is to be a good person who treats people as good people.”

Elizabeth’s altruism comes, in part, from watching her parents struggle in the past few years. Her mother, an Episcopal priest, and her father, an unemployed IT manager, live in Glendora, California, where Elizabeth grew up with two older brothers and a younger sister. In the last decade, her father, now in his 60s, lost two jobs after the companies he worked for were sold to bigger corporations. “It has made me really fearful of getting stuck in a corporate trap, just trying to earn money,” she says.

Elizabeth graduated in three and a half years instead of four to save tuition. In her final semester, she was working 20 hours a week in the school library and at a research institute. Along with her degree, Elizabeth’s efforts earned her valuable perspective and insight. “Each generation has gotten luckier and luckier,” she says. “I am not sure how much luckier we need to get. How much faster do our iPhones really need to be?”

GRADS: CHALLENGED

The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression has left no American unchanged. This includes the group that holds the country’s future in its hands—the millions of young people who have graduated from college since the recession 
began in December 2007.

They have sometimes been portrayed as lazy, self-absorbed, and 
immature, content to live in Mom and Dad’s basement and drive their car. More than 40 percent of recent graduates have moved back home, but it’s unfair to call it a lifestyle choice; the unemployment rate for recent college graduates jumped six-fold between 1998 and 2011, from 1.9 to 12.6 percent.

Chronically high unemployment has plagued what should be the start of their careers; in April, four years into a weak recovery, the U.S. unemployment rate was still an ugly 7.5 percent. Only half of grads have found a full-time job, and only 40 percent are in jobs that require a college degree, according to Cliff Zukin, a professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers who studies employment patterns among young people. Their median starting salaries are around $27,000, a 10 percent decline since 2007, and they’re graduating with a median college-loan debt of about $20,000, he says. “There is now more student debt than consumer debt,” says Zukin. “It’s a trillion dollars. It’s completely frightening.”

  • Your Comments

    • Emily

      I’m fine with people living how they want, if they can afford it. If you make a million dollars, have the big house. If you want to live with no table, fine by me. Several of the people in this article are living with parents or working multiple jobs to pay off debt. This too is okay. My problem here is with the first woman, Elizabeth Kurtz. It is not okay to say you want to work for only $12,000 a year because you don’t need material things if your income is being supplemented by the US taxpayers. She’s right, she doesn’t need a huge home or luxury car, but you are not doing it by yourself when you receive food stamps. This is why some of this generation, as the article states, is sometimes “portrayed as lazy, self-absorbed, and 
immature.” It is not responsible to say, “I don’t need money, but I’ll take yours.”

      • rileymom08

        Emily, I am so with you! It seriously makes me question Reader’s Digest editorial staff for including her in this piece. Since when is it not only ok but lauded for her “downsizing” while she is taking tax payer’s money? MY money in fact! And she’s a saint for not taking her parents’ money, too? She is educated and able bodied. Seriously?

        • disappointed

          Seriously?! Yes. Think of the people that she is helping through Americorps. I guarantee you that those people are infinitely grateful that she is financially capable of devoting herself full-time to helping them. Americorps is actually a government program to begin with, so technically all of her money comes from the government, who is paying her for WORK DONE. She doesn’t necessarily WANT to work for $12,000/year. Obviously that’s not enough to get by on–but that’s what full-time work in community service is paid. Sad story.

    • Jake Robinson

      ” Her financial aid was calculated on both parents working full-time”

      Then her mother losing a job should have made it MORE likely that she would receive further financial aid. It’s not based on both parents working but parent’s annual income. Since the mother lost her job, the family received less income meaning the girl is more likely to receive financial aid. Strange.

      • Natalie Talbot

        I thought the same thing!

      • Bob Dole

        Yes, but the aid was already calculated for that year… Meaning her parents no longer have the money to contribute.

    • Greg Razzano

      It’s awesome to see these folks’ passion for life shine through.