Mike and Morley

Since the Republic was conceived, communication technologies have rapidly evolved to reduce the time and distance that separate Congress from the public. But as the most recent poll results show, at least in this case, familiarity breeds contempt.

Too many of Congress’s procedures and practices have remained trapped in a time warp. To reverse the slide in its credibility, Congress needs to create a new connection between citizens and their representatives. It should start that process by adopting some of the millennial generation’s (born 1982-2003) favorite technologies, especially social media, to build a more transparent, open and participatory legislative process.

Congress needs to make a brand new connection with the American electorate, one that uses these new tools to fully involve the public in the legislative decision-making process - not just to tweet the latest press release. The new bargain would require Congress to increase public participation in the legislative process rather than relying on the current trade of access and constituency services in return for campaign contributions. For any of this to happen, Congress will have to throw off its generational blinders and begin to fully use a new technology that opens it to the ideas and collaborative behavior of a new generation.

What will American families be like in the Millennial era? 

Millennials (young Americans born from 1982-2003) are now beginning to marry and form their own families—or at least thinking about it. What will American families be like in the Millennial era? If history and generational theory provide any guide, Millennial families will be very different from the Baby Boomer and Generation X-parented families of the past four or five decades.

Social scientists define a generation as the aggregate of all people born over about a twenty-year period in a demographic group.  Together those who comprise a generation share a common location in history, and, according to survey research, common beliefs, behaviors, and perceived membership in their generation. Today, another new generation—the Millennial Generation —is emerging into young adulthood.

Similar to other generational cohorts before them, Millennials were shaped by both the distinctive pattern of child rearing and the societal events they experienced during maturation. In their case, child rearing emphasized sheltered and supportive treatment, coupled with pressure to achieve and follow well-defined rules. Like their GI or Greatest Generation great grandparents of the 1930s and 1940s, Millennials emerged into a social environment that featured both a sharp economic decline and major international threats that tested their confidence and optimism. All of this is in sharp contrast to the “hands-off” approach that the parents of Generation X (born 1965-1981) took with their offspring or the “permissive, find your own values” methods that the parents of Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) employed with their children.  As a result of what Millennials experienced as they matured, we can already identify some characteristics of the Millennial families that are just beginning to emerge.  

·         Millennial families will be increasingly diverse in their ethnicity, religious affiliation and practices, and the sexual orientation and lifestyles of partners and those raising children. In fact, Millennial era families will be so varied that it will almost not be meaningful to refer to a “typical” American family. At 95 million, the Millennial Generation is the largest in American history. It is also the most ethnically and religiously diverse. Forty-percent of all Millennials, and about half of those still in high school and middle school, are non-white.  Only two-thirds (68%) are Christian, compared with about 80 percent of older Americans, and fewer than half (43%) are Protestant, in contrast to 53 percent of all older generations. About a quarter of Millennials are unaffiliated with any particular religious denomination. The generation’s attitudes on matters relating to family and marriage clearly indicate that Millennial families will reflect their ethnic and religious diversity. Only a scant five percent of Millennials disapprove of interracial marriage and fewer than one in four believe it is important to marry within one’s denomination.  Moreover,   less than a quarter of Millennials disapprove of couples living together without marriage (22%) or of mothers of young children working outside the home (23%). Even on the the currently most controversial matter, two-thirds of Millennials (64%) believe that gay marriage should be legal, while only a third (32%) disapproves of gay couples raising children.  These diverse family arrangements are already reflected on TV sitcoms like Modern Family and Parenthood. In the decades ahead they will be equally common across all of American society.

·         Millennials will marry at a later age than previous generations. Today, the median age for a first marriage among men is 27.7 and among women, 26. This is about five years older than it was in the 1950s and 1960s for Silent Generation and Boomer men (22.8) and women (20.3). To some degree, this reflects a long-term societal trend of elongating the passage of American youth into adulthood. As far back as the early twentieth century, psychologist G. Stanley Hall coined the term “adolescence” to describe this new life phase. Present-day psychologist, Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, suggests the presence of an additional extension of youth into the early twenties which he labels, “young adulthood.” But, later marriages also are a characteristic of “civic generations,” the archetype of both Millennials and the GI Generation. In part this occurs because of the stressful times in which civic generations emerge into adulthood and in part because of the cautious upbringing they received from their parents. Regardless of the reasons, most Millennials will not be bothered by charges or complaints about their generation’s “failure to launch.” They will simply do what comes naturally to a civic generation in an era of societal and economic trauma by taking the time to get marriage and childrearing right.

·         Sex role differentiation will be minimal, if not nonexistent, and the distinctions between career and family activities blurred in most Millennial families. The Cosby Show and Family Ties, the 1980s TV sitcoms that were the first to depict the rearing of Millennial children, were also among the first in the genre to show families in which the roles of the father and mother were blurred. Unlike the Boomer era sitcoms in which dad went to the office and mom stayed at home to cook and take care of the kids, both parents in the Huxtable and Keaton families were busy and highly successful professionals away from the house and equally successful, busy, hands-on parents within it. The Millennial Generation is the most gender neutral in American history. A Pew survey indicates that 84 percent of Millennials disagree that women should return to their traditional roles in society. One example of how these beliefs translate into significant shifts in society is the ratio of women to men in higher education. By 2016 women are projected to earn 64 percent of Associate’s Degrees, 60 percent of Bachelor’s Degrees, 63 percent of Master’s Degrees, and 56% of Doctorates awarded in the United States. With both parents in most households being equally involved in their careers and families, employers who want to attract capable Millennial workers will have to accommodate  the generation’s demand for jobs that offer the possibility of telecommuting, flexible hours, child care, and round-the-clock access to technology, something that will provide a seamless blend between working and raising a family regardless of where an employee may be at any particular time.

The 2012 election will present the United States with a stark choice between two radically different visions of the country’s future. Which of these competing visions becomes the nation’s future is likely to be determined by the strength and effectiveness of the Millennial Generation’s participation in next year’s election.

Whatever is said at this week’s debate, the Republican Party is sure to nominate a candidate committed to the vision of its Tea Party base, with even Mitt Romney now tacking in that direction. The mantra of smaller government, lower taxes and an unwillingness to engage in collective effort to solve national challenges has been embraced by every one of its candidates, most notably the current favorite, Texas governor Rick Perry, who has promised to “make Washington DC as inconsequential as possible.By contrast, President Barack Obama has continued to articulate the vision of “shared sacrifice and shared opportunities” that will be at the heart of his campaign message.”

In 2008, Millennials provided Obama with roughly 7 million, or 80 percent, of his 8.5 million popular vote margin.(www.millennialmomentum.com)  However, only forty-one percent of all Millennials, (born 1982- 2003) were eligible to vote that year. In 2012, about sixty percent of the generation will be eligible to vote, representing a potential voting block of one out of every four adult Americans. In addition to the sheer size of the generation, its philosophical unity makes it an especially powerful force.

By a 54 percent to 39 percent margin, Millennials favor a bigger government with more services, over a smaller government with fewer services, almost the reverse of the  attitudes of older generations.While older generations are split on the question, Millennials by a clear 51% to 43% margin believe government needs to regulate business to protect the public interest rather than accepting the GOP argument that such regulation usually does more harm than good. On another issue that divides partisans, Millennials, by 62% to 34%, favor the Supreme Court basing its decisions on what the Constitution currently means rather than how it was originally written.   

Millennials are equally unified against GOP conservatism on most of the current hot button social issues.  By 64% to 31%, Millennials favor gay marriage; only 40% of older voters agree with them on that issue. By an overwhelming 82% to 16% margin, Millennials also favor a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The Millennials’ belief in sharing and inclusion extends to foreign policy, with 64% of them believing that the United States must take into account the interests of its international allies, even if this involves compromise.

While it is almost inevitable that attitudes like these will form the core of the nation’s civic ethos by the end of this decade, when Millennials will represent more than one out of every three adult Americans, the choice of which path to choose will be before the country in a much clearer and more immediate way in 2012.

          A few Republicans realize the danger this constituency represents to their cause. Some young Republicans, like Margaret Hoover, great granddaughter of the President and Meghan  McCain ,  daughter of the GOP’s last presidential candidate, supported by analysts like pollster Kristen Soltis, have warned their party that it must change some of their policies, particularly on social issues, if it is to make  inroads among Millennials. Other, more cynical Republicans have orchestrated campaigns in state after state to restrict voter turnout among Millennials, particularly college students.

 The challenge for Millennials is to overcome these obstacles and stay engaged in the process of change they initiated in 2008. Twice before in America’s history, a generation committed, as  Millennials are, to institutional change and a rebirth of civic purpose, guided the country through traumatic times and put it on a path to greatness.

From 1773, the year of the Boston Tea Party, until the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1789, Americans fought and argued about the type of government that would be true to the ideals of equality and inalienable rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but would also be strong enough to meet the needs of a new and growing nation. The Constitution, whose adoption finally resolved this issue, was devised by members of the Republican Generation (the Millennials of their day) such as James Madison. Their vision prevailed over the attitudes of older leaders like Patrick Henry, whose words Tea Partiers are fond of quoting. Henry  opposed the new Constitution as vigorously as he had supported the Revolution because of his fear of a more powerful federal government. .

About a century and a half later, from 1929 until 1941, the country argued over the wisdom of giving that very same federal government a central role in guiding the economy and providing opportunity and social justice for all Americans.  Thanks to the enthusiastic support of young members of  the  GI Generation, FDR’s New Deal for the forgotten man became so ingrained in the nation’s political consensus that not even  World War II hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower, challenged its basic premises when he became the first Republican president to be elected after the Great Depression. 

Now it is the Millennials’ turn to provide the same spirit and commitment to generating a new civic ethos for the United States in the 21^st century.  Whenever the country has torn itself apart arguing over the size and scope or purpose of government, the responsibility for resolving the dispute and preserving American democracy has fallen to its youngest adult generation.

 Which path the United States eventually chooses will be determined by the willingness of Millennials to engage in a vast civic endeavor to remake America and its institutions and the willingness of the rest of the country to follow their lead. The 2012 election provides Millennials with the opportunity to take control of this debate, pick up where they left off in 2008, and place the country firmly on a path aligned with their own liberal, Democratic beliefs.   If they become as involved in this presidential election as they were in the last one, their optimistic, problem-solving attitudes will eventually triumph over the doomsayers and doubters of America’s future and place a stamp upon the country’s civic ethos as enduring and positive as those of our Founding Fathers and the GI Generation. 

 

Millennial Driven Entertainment

America is about to enter a presidential campaign that promises to be filled with divisive rhetoric and sharp differences over which direction the nominees want to take the country. This will be the fourth time in American history that the country has been sharply divided over the question of what the size and scope of government should be. Each time the issue was propelled by vast differences in beliefs between generations that caused the country to experience long periods of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), before ultimately resolving the issue in accord with the ideas and beliefs of a new generation.

Every eighty years America engages in this rancorous, sometimes violent, debate about our civic ethos.

The first occurred during and after the Revolutionary War and resulted in the most fundamental documents of our democracy: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

The second took place during the Civil War. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments codified the outcome of that debate —- this time in favor of the federal government asserting its power over state laws when it came to fundamental questions of personal liberty and civil rights.  It took the Civil War and a massive increase in Washington’s power to accomplish the end of slavery, although it would be another century until the rights of freedom and equality were fully extended to African-Americans.

And in the 1930s, the economic deprivations experienced by most Americans from the excesses of the Industrial Revolution, and the collapse of corporate capitalism, led to support for a “New Deal” for the forgotten man that placed the responsibility for economic growth and opportunity squarely on the federal government. The government demanded by the GI Generation (born 1901-1924) greatly surpassed the conventional views of earlier generations.

In each case, the resolution of these debates depended on the emergence of a rising, young civic-oriented generation that thought the nation’s dominant political belief system   should contain a strong role for government, overturning the more conservative and limited-government views of the older generations then in power.

Now, as previously, the highly charged ideological arguments on both sides of the issue generate great agitation and anger among older generations, especially Baby Boomers, who have driven our political life towards ever wider polarization. As a result, the resolution of today’s debate over the nation’s civic ethos is not likely to come from older Americans who seem incapable of and unwilling to compromise their deeply held values and beliefs.

This time around, the largest generation in American history, Millennials, (born 1982- 2003), that  will comprise more than one in three adult Americans by the end of this decade, are destined to play a decisive role in finding a consensus answer to this critical question.   If the United States is to emerge from this most recent period of FUD, it will have to look to the newest civic-oriented generation, Millennials, for both the behavior and the ideas that will bridge the current ideological divide and spur the country into making the changes necessary to succeed in the future.

Millennials believe that collective action, most often at the local level, is the best way to solve national problems. Using social media, Millennials are organizing groups like the Roosevelt Institute’s Campus Network, to present a very different vision of America’s future. In this Millennialist future, the idea of top down solutions developed by experts in closed discussions will give way to bottom up, action-oriented movements. This will topple institutions as dramatically as Napster upended the recording industry, or the Arab Spring changed the Middle East.  Just as their parents set the rules within which Millennials were free to exercise their creative energies when they were growing up, the new generation will continue to look to the federal government to set national goals or guidelines, as has long been the view of Boomer progressives.   However, the way in which these guidelines are implemented will not be determined in remote and opaque bureaucracies, but by individuals in local communities across the country. In this way, Millennials will embrace progressive values, but with approaches that may be welcomed by many conservatives.

In the midst of the country’s current period of FUD, it is easy to despair that the nation will be unable to resolve its divisions and come to consensus about a new civic ethos. But throughout its history, when America has been equally fearful of the future, a new civic generation has risen to foster the necessary transition. In the end, this emerging generation served both itself and the country well. Now it is the Millennial Generation’s turn to serve the nation and move America to a less fearful and less divided future.

President Barack Obama has told his supporters that the 2012 presidential election will be about two contrasting visions of the nation’s future. In his vision, “everyone pays their fair share,” so that there is “shared sacrifice and shared opportunities” and the government plays a big part in helping the private sector prosper.

By contrast, the newest Republican candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, pledged to those listening to his announcement speech to free the nation from “the grips of central planners who would control our healthcare, who would spend our treasure, who downgrade our future and micromanage our lives” and to “make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential as possible.”

These starkly different messages make it clear that America is now engaged in the fourth debate in its history about the size and scope of government and doing it with all the rancor and heated rhetoric that have characterized each of the previous debates.

The issue was at the heart of the debate over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution when newspaper printing presses were destroyed by those who disagreed with editorials on the issue. Eighty years later, it caused the nation to be torn apart during the Civil War. And 80 years after that, the Supreme Court declared minimum wage laws unconstitutional until a political consensus was framed around FDR’s New Deal that not even the court could resist.

Each time the issue of what the nation’s civic ethos should be has exposed vast differences in beliefs between generations. And, each time the country experienced a long period of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt before the debate was resolved in favor of a new generation’s ideas and beliefs. This historical pattern suggests that the best way to predict the outcome of today’s debate is to examine the beliefs and attitudes of America’s newest generation of young adults, millennials, born 1982-2003.

In 2012, one out of every four eligible voters will be members of this generation. More than 40 percent of millennials are nonwhite, creating the greatest racial and ethnic diversity in the nation’s history. Twenty-five percent of them have an immigrant parent.

The generation was raised on messages of inclusion and equity and has translated those teachings into their political beliefs. A majority of millennials (54 percent) favor bigger government with more services, over a smaller government with fewer services (39 percent), almost the exact opposite of older generations’ opinions on that choice. Sixty-nine percent of the generation is accepting of homosexuality and believe that a growing number of immigrants strengthen American society, in stark contrast to the beliefs of their elders.

While older generations are split on the question of government regulation of business, millennials come down squarely on the side of regulation by 51 percent to 43 percent.

While these attitudes suggest which way the debate over the country’s civic ethos will ultimately turn out, it is the millennial generation’s belief in consensus decision-making and pragmatic solutions to problems that hold out the most hope that the tone of today’s political rhetoric will also change.

Millennials believe that collective action at the local level is the best way to solve national problems. Just as their parents set the rules within which millennials were free to exercise their creative energies, millennials look to the federal government to set national goals, even to establish mandates for required behavior. However, in the millennial era, the choice of how to comply with these requirements will not be determined in remote bureaucracies, but by individuals in local communities throughout the country.

In the middle of the vitriol of the current debate, it is easy to lose sight of the possibility of the dispute being resolved in favor of some larger and different national consensus. The millennial generation offers the country that hope. If America is to emerge from its current period of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, it will have to look to its newest generation, for both the behavior and the ideas that can bring the debate to a conclusion that the country can support.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/08/29/3321721/winograd-and-hais-millennials.html#ixzz1WXGQCmkH

The recent release of survey data by the Pew Research Center indicating that the party identification of Millennials had narrowed from 60% Democratic vs. 32% Republican in 2008 to 52% Democratic vs. 39% Republican in 2011 produced a flurry of articles by political observers.

USA Today maintained that “in 2012, youth voters may prove elusive for Obama.” Michael Barone posting in the conservative Washington Examinerunder a misleading headline that “Under Obama, Millennials move into the GOP column,” could barely contain his excitement at the news that a majority of white Millennials identify as Republicans (52% vs. 41% Democratic). A careful examination of the Pew data indicates that even in 2008 a larger percentage of white Millennials identified outright as Republicans than Democrats. Most of the movement that has occurred since then was among those who leaned to the Democratic Party and had weaker ties to it to begin with.

Nevertheless, given the importance of the Millennial Generation to President Obama’s victories, beginning with the Iowa caucuses all the way through the general election, the data certainly highlighted a source of potential danger to his re-election and to Democratic hopes for regaining their position as the majority party in American politics. Such speculation however ignores some other hard facts about Millennials and why they are likely to continue to be a key part of the Democratic coalition.

Millennials are the most ethnically and religiously diverse generation in U.S. history. Forty percent of all Millennials are “nonwhite” i.e., African-American, Asian, and, especially, Hispanic. These groups will represent an even greater percentage of those Millennials turning 18 in the next decade. Virtually all of the Millennials’ movement away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans in the Pew research has occurred among white Millennials, who, in spite of their increasing Republican proclivities, still more strongly identify as Democrats to a narrow but statistically greater extent than older whites. Nonwhite Millennials continue to overwhelmingly identify as Democrats over Republicans (71% to 17%).

Millennials are also half as likely as older generations to be white Evangelicals or Catholics and a quarter less likely to be white Mainline Protestants, groups that in recent years have trended toward the GOP. While the “Teavangelicals” gathering this weekend in Texas at the invitation of Rick Perry, its governor and possible GOP presidential candidate, may represent an important part of the Republican activist base, they don’t represent Millennials. Members of America’s young adult generation are twice as likely to be Hispanic Catholics or unaffiliated with any faith and a third more likely to be non-Christians — Jews and increasingly Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists — groups that tilt toward the Democratic Party. Any political movement that attempts to use Christian doctrine as the core of its appeal is sure to turn away most Millennial voters.

There are a range of other factors that seem likely to limit a wholesale movement of Millennials to the Republican Party, so long as it adheres to its current belief system. For one thing, Millennials clearly endorse an economically activist government. A March 2011 Pew survey indicated that by 54% to 39% Millennials favored a bigger government that provides more services rather than a smaller government that provides fewer services. Moreover, most Millennials are confident that governmental activism is useful in ameliorating societal problems. A majority of them (52%) believe that government often does a better job than people give it credit for. These beliefs suggest that for many Millennials the major complaint about President Obama and his party is not that they favor “big government,” but that they haven’t used government as often and effectively as Millennials would like.

In addition, one in five Millennials has an immigrant parent. Not surprisingly then, large majorities of Millennials believe that immigrants strengthen the country (69%) and support a legal pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (82%).

Most Millennials (including white members of the cohort) are also strikingly tolerant on social issues. About two-thirds believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society (69%) and support the legalization of gay marriage (64%).

Such attitudes make most Millennials uncomfortable with the anti-immigrant and religiously conservative views that so many Republicans, particularly Tea Partiers, espouse. As a result, some young Republicans such as Meghan McCain, the Senator’s daughter, and Margaret Hoover, the 31st president’s great granddaughter, have called on their party to moderate its stance on social issues in order to attract Millennial voters.

Finally, most Millennials do not approve of the GOP’s current highly ideological approach to politics. The Millennial Generation is made up of pragmatic idealists who search for win-win solutions to the problems facing the nation.

As a result, in a Pew survey conducted during the recent dispute over raising the nation’s debt ceiling, a large majority of Millennials (71% to 57% for older generations) preferred a balanced approach that would have combined spending cuts and tax increases to deal with the federal deficit. Two-thirds of the generation (65%) called on Washington politicians to compromise with those holding different views in order to prevent federal government default rather than sticking with their principles (28%). Not surprisingly, after viewing the summer’s events in the Capitol, a large majority of Millennials (60% vs. 27%) believed that the Republican rather than the Democratic Party was most likely to take “extreme” positions on issues.

For all of these reasons, most Millennials simply don’t like the Republican Party very much. In March, Pew research indicated that a majority of all Millennials (56%) held unfavorable attitudes toward the GOP and favorable attitudes toward the Democratic Party (57%).

Of course, none of this is etched in stone. The Democratic Party still has to convince Millennials that it can effectively use government to solve the problems confronting their generation and the nation if it is to retain the cohort’s loyalty. But the GOP is in the much more difficult position of having to change almost its entire imagery and approach to politics and government in order to win over skeptical members of the Millennial Generation. GOP attacks on Pell Grant funding andattempts to restrict student’s ability to vote suggest many Republican office holders haven’t gotten the message about the importance of this new generation of voters. The big question for Republicans is whether their ideological Boomer leadership will ever be willing to alter their ideological principles to accommodate Millennial attitudes and beliefs. 

As we point out in our book, Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation is Remaking America(to be published in September), Millennials will comprise a quarter of the voting age population in 2012 and more than one out of every three adult Americans by 2020. In politics, as with just about everything else, which way Millennials decide to go, will determine the country’s future. Right now, that future is up for grabs.

During his Twitter-fed Town Hall, President Obama admitted that the housing market has proven one of the “most stubborn” pieces of the economic recovery puzzle to try and fix.The President —- as well the Congress and the building industry —- should consider a new path to a solution for housing by tapping the potential of the very generation whose votes brought Barack Obama into the White House in the first place. 

The Millennial Generation (born 1982-2003) represents not just the largest generation in American history but the largest potential market for both existing and new housing in the United States. There are over 95 million Millennials and over the next five years the first quarter of this cohort will enter their thirties, an age when people are most likely to buy their first home.

Despite what is often written about this generation, it is very much interested in owning a home. Sixty-four percent of Millennials say it is very important for them to have an opportunity to own their own home; twenty percent named it as one of their most important priorities in life, right behind being a good parent and having a successful marriage. 

And, contrary to the usual claims of “new urbanists” (themselves largely members of the older X and Boomer Generations) most Millennials want to live in the suburbs where the current housing crisis is most acute. According to a study by Frank N. Magid Associates, 43 percent of Millennials describe suburbs as their “ideal place to live,” compared to just 31 percent of older generations, most of whom still yearn for the smaller towns and rural settings of an earlier America. 

Most Millennials already live in suburbs and enjoyed growing up in suburban settings surrounded by family and friends that supported them. A certain portion, of course, enjoy living an urban life while young, but most tell researchers that they want to raise the families many are about to start in the same suburban settings they grew up in. 

Furthermore, Americans between the ages of 25 and 34, both Millennials and those on the “cusp” of the generational change from X to Millennial, represent a greater proportion of the overall populationin the South and West than elsewhere. These are the very regions that suffered the most from the collapse of housing prices that stemmed from the mortgage financing scandals of the last few years. Unleashing this potential demand for suburban housing in these hard-hit areas would bring two huge benefits. It would stabilize prices for existing homes while at the same time boosting the prospects for new housing construction. 

The challenge is how to enable the Millennial Generation to achieve its desire to own homes without reigniting the speculation and unsustainable financial leverage that triggered the Great Recession. Clearly, in the immediate future at least, the current excess of supply in the housing market should mitigate the risk of too much demand chasing too few houses. As much as they are criticized by the financial industry and its Republican allies, the recently enacted financial regulatory reforms, might also provide an additional bulwark against allowing the market to misbehave a second time. 

But the biggest factor may be the lessons learned from experience. Millennials have borne much of the brunt of the Great Recession and tend to be keenly aware about the importance of living within your means Wanting a suburban home does not mean, that Millennials want McMansions; like earlier generations, especially their GI Generation great grandparents, they are likely to be cautious and frugal home-buyers. However, this frugality and caution does not translate into a meek acceptance or desire for a future as apartment renters, as some suggest will be the case. 
In the short run, Millennials will not be able to engineer a turnaround all by themselves; most Millennials can’t afford much beyond the next month’s rent, let alone the down payment on a mortgage. Many are still living with their parents to avoid having to pay rent and the cost of a college education at the same time. 

To address this part of the challenge, the federal government needs to do what it did to revive the moribund housing market in the 1930’s. The New Deal created today’s commonly accepted 30 year mortgages with a 20 percent down payment by making them a financial instrument that the newly formed Federal Housing Administration would insure. Before that landmark legislation, home mortgages were rarely offered for more than half of the home’s value and normally had to be repaid in no more than five years. 

As a result that era’s civic generation (the GI or Greatest Generation) was able to afford single family homes with a surrounding tract of land; an offer returning World War II veterans seized with alacrity. These houses now make up much of the country’s inner suburb housing stock. Today’s housing crisis requires a similarly radical reinvention of the basic home mortgage to be offered to those buying their first home. Under this proposal the length of the mortgage could be extended up to as many as 50 years, reflecting the increased life expectancies —- and longer working careers —- that most Millennials can expect to enjoy. Since no market for such debt instruments currently exists, it would be up to the federal government to create one through the process of reinsurance, just as it did in 1934. 

To further encourage home buying by Millennials, the federal government should also provide incentives to financial institutions to swap out the principle of the Millennials’ student loan in exchange for a new loan, whose principle would be collateralized by the value of the real estate the former student would be acquiring. The student loan would be paid off as part of the mortgage, making Millennials better able to afford a home and freeing up additional discretionary spending that current worries over student debt curtail. Today’s lower housing prices today might make this package both attractive to investors and financially viable.

Many economists today argue against the whole notion of encouraging home ownership by anyone, let alone young Millennials. Some point out that when looked upon strictly as an investment choice, the value of a home rarely appreciates faster than the overall stock market. This type of analysis, which forms the basis for arguing against any federal policy that would further encourage home ownership, ignores the proven benefits to the nation that derive from home owners committed to the success of their local community. Voting participation rates among home owners, for instance, traditionally run higher than rates among renters, and neighborhoods of owners tend to be more stableplaces to raise children. ) More important still is what homeownership means to the nature of a property-owning Republic. Survey after survey shows that home ownership remains a central part of the American Dream and a central aspiration, particularly for immigrants and young people. A policy that works against this ideal presents a political risk that any politician should be wary of taking.

To restore this part of the American Dream, and to lift the worry of millions of Americans whose house is worth less than what they owe on their mortgage, the Obama administration must take bold steps to restore a vibrant residential housing market. President Obama, who built his winning margin in 2008 through an unprecedented mobilization of Millennial voters, is the ideal person to combine a plan for economic recovery efforts with meeting the aspirational goals of most Millennials to own their own home.

To save the housing market, and extend the recovery beyond the financial elites, America will need a new wave of home buyers. If the President works to tap this resource, he can begin to turn around the “stubborn problem” of the housing market and restore the middle class economy. If he does so, the whole country will soon be tweeting his success. 

Millennials are family minded

more on Millennials and Suburbia