 |
| by George Masnick Fellow |
Just as James Carville reminded
Governor Bill Clinton and his staff to stay focused in his campaign for the
Presidency with his now-famous 1992 posting of the words “The Economy, Stupid”
on the wall of Clinton’s Little Rock headquarters, it is sometimes the title of
this blog post that I need to be reminded of when dissecting household trends
impacted by the Great Recession. Aside from the economic, other longer-term
demographic trends, such as in the race/Hispanic origin composition of the
population, or in life-course transitions of young adults (such as age at
marriage, childbearing patterns, and labor force participation), often play a
significant role. Sometimes, short-term
trends that are hard-wired into the time frame under consideration, such as the
changing age composition of the population, also need to be considered. These demographic trends do not necessarily
trump the economic, but they must be considered.
A case in point is the trend in
the number and share of young adults who are still living with their parents.
While there has been much discussion of the effects of the poor economy on
preventing young adults from leaving the parental nest and forming independent
households, Figure 1 shows that this trend predates the Great Recession that
began in December 2007. Among men, there does appear to be
a slight acceleration of the trend since 2007, at least until this past year.
But for women, the upward trend that
Figure 1
Figure 1
However,
no one argues that the increase in men living at home that started in the early
2000s was due to the 2 million increase in construction jobs that
took place between 2000 and 2007. That
delay in nest-leaving is usually explained by the greater representation of
Hispanics and Asians in the young adult population (who tend to live with
parents longer), or to the need for men (and women) to stay in school longer to
qualify for the jobs that are being created by the post-industrial economy, or
to the slower pace that today’s young adults approach marriage and family
formation. But these influences
continued to operate after 2007 as well, and have likely not run their course.
Another
factor to consider when explaining post-2007 trend is the increase in the
number of young adults turning age 25 starting in 2005. Figure 2 plots the growth of the number of
persons in the civilian population between the ages of 15 and 34, by single years
of age, between 2005 and 2011. The increase
in the number of 26-31 year olds over the past six years is clearly evident.
These persons were 20-25 year olds in 2005 and were part of the growing birth
cohorts from the tail end of the Baby Bust that were further inflated by under
25 year old immigrants who arrived between 1995 and 2005. As more persons crossed the 25 age threshold
at mid-decade, the 25-34 age group became more weighted at the younger ages.
And since 25-29 year olds are ever-more likely to live at home because of the
various long-term cohort trends just mentioned, compared to 30-34 year olds who
are more likely to have fledged the nest, the overall share of 25-34 year olds
still living at home should have accelerated after 2005.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Source: Census Bureau Monthly Civilian Population Estimates for July
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/2008/2008-nat-civ.html
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/2008/2008-nat-civ.html
Also
evident in Figure 2 are the looming echo boom adults under the age of 25 in
2011 who will turn 25 in the near future.
These echo boomers, already larger than the cohort they will replace,
will be further augmented by immigration over the coming decade. These aging echo boomers will initially further skew the 25-34 age group toward the younger
ages, and buoy up the share of 25-34 year olds likely to be living with
parents, at least for the next five years, after which the oldest echo boomers
will begin to turn 30.
No comments:
Post a Comment