TIME Retirement

The Last Will and Testament of a Millennial

Portrait of woman writing letter at desk
Portrait of woman writing letter at desk, circa 1950 George Marks—Getty Images

It started with leaving my boyfriend my share of the rent — then things got complicated

I’m going to die, I reminded my boyfriend. My eventual death was something I’d been mentioning to lots of people, on Facebook and at engagement parties and at my high-school reunion.

It wasn’t that I thought death was going to come any time soon or in any special way, it’s just that, as they say on Game of Thrones, all men must die. So I was writing a will. I’d downloaded a template. I’d filled it out. I just hadn’t signed it yet, and in the mean time it had become my favorite topic of conversation: I’m going to die, we’re all going to die, I’m filling out paperwork about it, what’s new with you?

I asked my boyfriend: Is there anything else you want me to leave you? Besides my share of the rent. Besides the fish tank and the fish. Besides the coffee table, the pots and pans, the things that I call ours that are legally mine.

He said: Yes, but don’t tell me what it is. Make it something special.

That was a good answer, which wasn’t surprising. He takes deep questions seriously, and we’re well past the point where you have to act like it’s awkward to imply that your relationship will exist more than a few years in the future. So of course he had a good answer — but it was also a difficult one. What object that I owned could possibly say what I needed it to? There was, it must be said, not too much to choose from.

That’s a big part of the reason why young unmarried people with no children — that’s me: 28, legally unattached, childless — don’t usually bother with a will. Unlike a medical directive, which everyone should have, wills are something we can do without. The law of intestacy, the statutes that cover what happens when you die without said last testament, should take care of you just fine unless you’re very wealthy, whereas I fall into the It’s A Wonderful Life category: worth more dead than alive. I’m living comfortably, but my life-insurance policy is my most valuable asset.

Plus, most young people don’t need a will for an even more basic reason. Most of them don’t die.

However, even if death is a constant, life has changed. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report finding that nearly half of American women 15–44 cohabitated with a partner prior to marriage, using data from 2006–2010. That was a major increase from past studies, and by now the numbers may well be even higher. A cohabitating partner is entitled to nothing when the other dies. Marriage and children are also coming later in life, which means that people are acquiring more wealth before the laws regarding spousal inheritance kick in and before they have to choose a guardian for their child. So for people like me, without a will, there’s no way to say give this thing to my friend, give this thing to my brother, donate this thing to charity.

Hence, my will obsession. If all goes according to plan, it will be the umbrella that keeps the rain from falling, rendered obsolete within a few years. Marriage and children and my inevitable Powerball victory will change my priorities, and I’ll have to write a new one. But, as anyone who’s ever thought about a will must have realized, not everything goes according to plan.

***

Given changing social norms, estate planning ought to be a mainstay for millennial trend-watchers, except that there’s no way to know how many of us are actually out there thinking about the topic. There’s no way to know how many wills there are, period. Lawrence Friedman, a professor at Stanford Law and the author of Dead Hands: A Social History of Wills, Trusts and Inheritance Law estimates that — though there’s no way to track them — wills may be getting more common as popular awareness increases. A century ago, even counting the super-wealthy, he thinks probably half of the population gave it a thought. But, he says, the role of wills is also changing, as people live longer and are more likely to give their children money while everyone is still alive.

What’s not changing is that wills are fascinating to think about. Whether it’s the buzzy economist Thomas Piketty discussing the way inherited wealth affects society or a historian analyzing Shakespeare’s bequeathing his “second-best bed” to his wife, people who look at wills see more than what the dead person wants to do with his stuff. “I used to say to my class that what DNA is to the body this branch of law is to the social structure,” Friedman puts it.

Though it may seem obvious today that each adult has the right to leave his property to whomever he chooses, that privilege isn’t necessarily a foregone conclusion. Historically, there have been two competing theories behind inheritance law. One side holds that having a will is an inalienable right; the 17th century scholar Hugo Grotius wrote that, even though wills can be defined by law, they’re actually part of “the law of nature” that gives humans the ability to own things. John Locke agreed: if we believe property can be owned, it follows that we must believe that ownership includes the right to pass that property to whomever the owner chooses.

On the other hand, there’s just as long a tradition of the idea that wills are a right established by government and not by nature, because, not to put too fine a point on it, you can’t take it with you. If ownership ends at death, the state should get to decide how inheritance works, for example by saying that all property must always go to the eldest son, or by allowing children written out of a will to appeal to the state. Perhaps due to colonial American distaste for the trappings of aristocracy, the U.S. ended up with the former system — and Daniel Rubin, an estates lawyer and vice president of the Estate Planning Council of New York City, says it’s a right worth exercising. “For most young people, it’s not going to be relevant. But it’s a safeguard. People should appreciate the opportunity to do what they want with their stuff,” he says. “We’ve got a concept in the United States of free disposition of your wealth. You can choose to do with it whatever you want.”

Most wills written by young people won’t be read — except maybe by our future selves, nostalgic for the time when a $20 ukulele was a prized possession — and the ones that will be seen will be sad. If I die tomorrow, that will be what’s known as an unnatural order of death, the child going before the parents. Inheritance is not meant to flow upward. On that, tax law and the heart agree. It’s one area where millennials’ will-writing and older generations’ diverge: usually, estate law is a happier field than one might expect, something I’ve been trying to keep in mind. Rubin says he cannot imagine practicing any other area of law and finding it so rewarding.

“It’s never sad. Sometimes people are reluctant to deal with these issues. Perhaps they feel it brings bad luck although they rarely express it that way. It’s probably that they just don’t see the need to do it because they don’t think they’re going to die soon,” he says. “It’s almost uniform that even the most reluctant clients will sign their wills and then leave my office and feel great.”

***

Of course, it’s not as if “what if I die” is a rare thought, even for people under 30. Tom Sawyer took it to extremes; Freud thought we’re all itching to find out. People will be sad, we hope. Maybe we care about funeral arrangements, like the tragic Love, Actually character whose pallbearers march to the sound of the Bay City Rollers. Maybe we think we know what comes next; maybe we think nothing does. Maybe we’ve thought about who gets the heirlooms, the things that always carry a whiff of death about them.

What happens to the ordinary stuff that fills our homes is less likely to cross our minds. And lot of what we have, or at least what I have, is just crap on some level, mostly. That used starter-level Ikea, left behind by an old roommate who moved to California, isn’t exactly something I’d pass down. My most valuable possessions are mostly Bat Mitzvah gift jewelry. And my favorite possessions aren’t necessarily valuable. And if I did give these things away, how would they be received?

Once, I got a gift from a family friend days before she died. It was a beautiful silk scarf. The death was not unexpected, but I didn’t write a thank-you note in time. The envelope meant for that task was on my desk for years. It was hers, though she never got it, so I couldn’t send it to someone else. Nor could I bring myself throw it away. So I put it aside, indefinitely, until I moved apartments and it was lost in the shuffle, quite literally, in a box marked “stationery.” I didn’t want my crap to become that envelope, useless and painful and eventually lost. Potential candidates: an Altoids tin full of spare buttons, my half-filled journals, decade-old mix tapes; pens and pencils, giveaway tote bags, decks of cards, reference books; nice things like a painting, a laptop, that scarf; the stuff that goes unnamed in the will, under the clause that includes the words “all the rest of my estate.”

The things we leave behind can be heavy. Perhaps the most special something I could leave my boyfriend would be the freedom not to carry me with him. I was reminded of a poem that the rabbi always reads during the memorial portion of the Yom Kippur service. “When all that’s left of me / is love, / give me away,” it ends. I’d never really thought I was paying attention during that part, but it was there, in my brain, waiting for such a moment. (I looked it up; it’s called “Epitaph,” by Merrit Malloy).

That’s the other option — and, for a while, despite having spent so much time thinking about my will, I was tempted. I could write a simpler will, with only the instruction to give everything to charity, or I could follow the long-standing young person’s tradition and just scrap the whole endeavor.

Except stuff is the only language left to speak. Even Rubin, who says his work is 97% concerned with money rather than objects, knows the feeling: he has a samovar that came to America with his family when they left Eastern Europe with almost nothing. It’s worth little but referred to throughout his life by his mother as his yerushe, Yiddish for inheritance. And “leave me something special” wasn’t all that my boyfriend said. It’s sad to think about, he said, but I like the idea of being named in your will. It’s a privilege to hear someone speaking to you when you thought the chance was gone, he said. No matter what it says in the will, he said, I’ll be happy to hear your voice. He has a point. After all, the verb “bequeath” is from an Old English word meaning “to speak.”

So I decided not to give up on the will. I’ll give my junk and my money to the people I love — though I did end up adding two more clauses before I felt finished. First, I added a few sentences in my own words to the legalese of the template I’d found online: don’t feel bad if you have to get rid of something, I told my heirs. Legally enforceable? No. Worth saying? Yes. Second, I found that something special, something not too heavy.

I printed the will. I found some witnesses and we signed the paper. I folded it up and put it in an envelope and put that envelope somewhere safe. And then I went back to my life.

MONEY Millennials

The Conventional Money Wisdom That Millennials Should Ignore

millennials looking at map on road
John Burcham—Getty Images/National Geographic

Maybe a 401(k) loaded with stocks isn't the best savings tool for some young people.

If you are in your 20s or early 30s, and you ask around for retirement advice, you will hear two things:

1. Put as much as you possibly can, as soon as you can, into a 401(k) or Individual Retirement Account.

2. Put nearly all of it into equities.

There’s a lot of common sense to this. Saving early means you can take maximum advantage of the compounding of interest. And your youth makes it easier for you to bear the added risk of equities.

But life is more complicated than these simple intuitions suggest. Here’s a troubling data point: According to a Fidelity survey of 401(k) plan participants, 44% of job changers in their 20s cashed out all or part of their money, despite being hit with taxes and penalties. Switchers in their 30s were only a bit more conservative, with 38% cashing out.

You really don’t want to do this. But let’s get beyond the usual scolding. The reality that so many people are cashing out is also telling us something. Maybe a 401(k) loaded with stocks isn’t the best savings tool for some young people.

The conventional 401(k) advice—which is enshrined in the popular “target-date” mutual funds that put 90% of young savers’ portfolios in stocks—imagines twentysomethings as the ideal buy-and-hold investors, as close as individuals can get to something like the famous, swashbuckling Yale University endowment fund. Young people have very long time horizons and no need to sell holdings for current income, the thinking goes, so why not accept the possibility of some (violently) bad years in order to stretch for higher return? But on a moment’s reflection on what life is actually like in your 20s, you see that many young people are already navigating a fair amount of economic risk.

Take career risk. On the plus side, when you’re young you have more years of earnings ahead of you than behind you, and that’s a valuable asset to have. Then again, you also face a lot of uncertainty about how big those earnings will be. If you are just gaining a foothold in your career, getting laid off or fired from your current job might be a short-term paycheck interruption—or it could be the reversal that sets you on a permanently lower-earning track. You may also be financially vulnerable if you still have high-interest debts to settle, a new mortgage that hasn’t had time to build up equity, or low cash reserves to get your through a bad spell.

This is why Micheal Kitces, a financial planner at Pinnacle Advisory Group in Columbia, Md., tells me he doesn’t encourage people in their 20s to focus on building their investment portfolio. You almost never hear that kind of thing from a planner, so let me clarify that he’s not saying you should spend to your heart’s content. (Kitces is in fact a bit stern on one point: He thinks many young professionals spend too much on housing.) He’s talking about priorities. For one thing, you need to build up that boring cash cushion. Without it, you are more likely to be one of those people who has to cash out the 401(k) after a job change.

Even before that’s done, you’ll still want to aim to put enough in a 401(k) to max out the matching contributions from your employer, if that’s on the table. (Typically, that’s 6% of salary.) So maybe all or most of that goes in stocks? An attention-getting new brief from the investment strategists Research Affiliates argues “no”—that instead of putting new savers into a 90%-equities target date fund, 401(k) plans should get people going with lower-risk “starter portfolios.”

I’m not sold on all of RA’s argument, which drives toward a proposal that 401(k)s should include unusual funds like the ones RA happens to help manage. But CEO Rob Arnott and his coauthor Lilian Wu offer a lot to chew on. They make two big points about young people and risk. One’s just intuitive: If you have little experience as an investor and quickly get your hat handed to you in a bear market, you could be so scarred from the experience that you get out of stocks and never come back. At least until the next bull market makes it irresistible.

The other is that 401(k) plan designers should accept the fact—all the advice and penalties notwithstanding—that many young people do cash them out like rainy-day funds when they lose their jobs. And so the starter funds should have a bigger cushion of lower-risk assets. That’s especially important given that recessions and layoffs often come after big market drops, so the people cashing out may well be selling stocks at exactly the wrong moment, and from severely depleted portfolios.

RA thinks a portfolio for new savers should be made up of just one third “mainstream” stocks, with another third in traditional bonds and the last third in what it calls “diversifying inflation hedges.” That last bit could include inflation protected Treasuries (or TIPS), but also junk bonds, emerging markets investments, real estate, and low-volatility stocks. Whatever the virtues of those investments, it seems to me that a starter portfolio should be easy to explain to a starting investor. “Diversifying inflation hedges” doesn’t sound like that.

But the insight that new investors might not be immediately prepared for full-tilt equity-market risk is valuable. Many 401(k) plans automatically default young savers into stock-heavy target date funds, but they could just as easily start with a more-traditional balanced fund, which holds a steady 60% in stocks and 40% in bonds. Perhaps higher risk strategies should be left as a conscious choice, for people who not only have a lot of time, but also a bit more market knowledge and a stable financial picture outside of their 401(k).

The trouble is, most 401(k) plans don’t know much about an individual saver besides their age. The 401(k) is a blunt, flawed tool, and just putting different kinds of mutual funds inside of it isn’t going to solve all of the difficulties people run into when trying to save for the future. Arnott and Wu’s proposal doesn’t do anything about the fact that using a 401(k) for rainy days means paying steep penalties. And it doesn’t help people build up the cash reserves outside their retirement plans that they’d need to avoid that.

As boomers head into retirement, we’ve all become very aware of the importance of getting people to prepare for life after 65. But millennials also need better ideas to help get them safely (financially speaking) to 35.

MONEY financial advice

Schwab Readies Low-Cost Robo-Broker Service for Millennials

Within weeks, the brokerage may introduce free, automated portfolio management to lure younger investors.

Charles Schwab is weeks away from introducing an automated investing service aimed at winning business from novice investors it does not currently serve, company officials told Reuters.

The service is being developed in-house and likely will be free, giving the San Francisco-based discount brokerage pioneer a leg up on a slew of upstart firms known as robo-brokers that charge management fees of 0.15% to 0.35% of a client’s assets.

It would position Schwab as the first conventional brokerage with its own robo-broker offering. In automated investing plans, clients fill out questionnaires about investment goals and risk tolerances. Their answers automatically determine the portfolios of exchange-traded funds or other assets they buy.

Executives at some large broker-dealers, which typically charge 1% to 3% of client assets in managed account programs, have said they do not feel threatened by robo-brokers because they make money offering more sophisticated wealth-planning and investment services to wealthy clients.

But they also want to nurture younger investors to replace affluent but aging Baby Boomers, the bulk of their client base.

Schwab is betting young investors in early stages of wealth accumulation will remain in-house and use more sophisticated advisory services as they prosper or as markets become complicated, one source said. Like other brokerage firms, it receives payments from mutual funds its clients use as well as interest that accumulates on cash held in their accounts.

The automated service is expected to include features such as automatic portfolio rebalancing and tax-loss harvesting that some robo-brokers recently introduced.

Neesha Hathi, head of technology solutions for independent investment advisers who use Schwab services, told Reuters on Thursday the program would likely be introduced this month. She did not comment on details, but a person familiar with the plan said it would be introduced without fees.

In July, chief executive Walt Bettinger told investors Schwab was working on “an online advisory solution,” but declined to provide details on timing or whether it would build or buy a robo-service.

A Schwab spokeswoman said Friday she could not comment further.

Schwab currently offers almost 200 commission-free exchange-traded funds, including several managed by the company.

“Schwab definitely has a track record of entering a market by underpricing or pricing low, but I don’t think it has a proven way to dominate markets,” said Adam Nash, chief executive of Wealthfront, the largest robo-broker with more than $1.4 billion of client assets.

As of June 30, Schwab had $2.4 trillion of total client assets, including $11.5 billion of net new assets gathered in the second quarter.

Nash would not say whether Wealthfront, which charges a flat advisory fee of 0.25 percent and waives the fee on accounts with $10,000 or less, will adjust its fees to compete with Schwab.

Another robo firm, Betterment, “would not alter pricing” if Schwab introduced a free service, said a spokeswoman. “We offer an incredible value.”

Some consultants said Schwab risks antagonizing outside investment advisers who use its services and fear losing clients, but technology head Hathi disagreed.

“There’s more of an opportunity here than there is competition,” she said, noting that most turn away smaller investors and younger members of families that are clients. “What Walt talked about is that here’s a solution for advisers that’s going to allow them to serve those accounts.”

MONEY Millennials

How Millennials Stalled the Housing Market Recovery

Wrecking ball hitting brick wall
Steve Bronstein—Getty Images

Millennials already have to deal with hefty debt from college, an iffy job market, and growing up in an era where MTV no longer plays music videos, but now they’re being blamed for holding back the real estate boom. Homebuilder adviser John Burns Consulting published details from a study earlier this month concluding that student loan payments will cost the housing industry 414,000 transactions this year that would have totaled $83 billion in sales.

Ouch. The ivory tower is crumbling at the foundation.

It’s been widely assumed that mounting student debt is eating away at this otherwise buoyant housing market recovery. John Burns Consulting’s study — boiled down to a free one-pager for those that aren’t paying customers that got the more thorough report — attempts to quantify the impact.

How did the adviser arrive at $83 billion? Well, we start with the 5.9 million households under the age of 40 that are paying at least $250 in student loan debt, nearly triple the 2.2 million leveraged college grads in the same predicament back in 2005. We then get to the assumption that $250 earmarked for student loan debt every month reduces the buying power of a potential homebuyer by $44,000. That’s bad, and it’s naturally worse depending on how much more than $250 a month some of these indebted students have taken on to pay back. That’s less money they can commit to a mortgage. John Burns Consulting offers up that most households paying at least $750 a month in student loan have priced themselves out of the housing market entirely.

It gets worse

The study only looked at folks between the ages of 20-40. That’s a pretty sizable lot, especially since 35% of all households in that age bracket have at least $250 a month in student debt. However, even John Burns Consulting concedes that there’s “a big chunk of households over age 40 who have student debt” as well. It’s not likely to be as bad, naturally, but it’s all incremental at this point.

This report also happens to come at a time when the housing industry is starting to flinch after a couple of years of boom and bounce. Right now everything seems great. New home sales data released this past week showed the industry’s highest monthly growth rate in more than six years. However, the near-term outlook is starting to get hazy.

Shares of KB Home KB HOME KBH 0.9834% shed more than 5% of their value on Wednesday after reporting uninspiring quarterly results. Revenue and earnings fell short of expectations, and the same can be said about its number of closings and order growth. Earlier this month it was luxury bellwether Toll Brothers TOLL BROTHERS TOL 0.1542% setting an uneasy tone after posting a year-over-year decline in the number of contracts it signed during the period and an uptick in the cancellation rate for existing home orders.

It gets better

The student debt crisis is real, and the skyrocketing costs of obtaining a postsecondary education naturally open up the debate of its necessity. However, it’s also important to remember that university grads are earning far more than those that don’t attend college.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083), Annual Earnings of Young Adults.

The median of annual earnings for young adults in 2012 was $46,900 for those with a bachelor’s degree, $30,000 for those with just a high school degree or credential and $22,900 for those who did not complete high school. Those going on to grad school for advanced degrees — and that’s where student loans can really start to pile up — are at $59,600 a year.

In other words, most college grads, and especially grad school graduates, are typically better off than those that didn’t pursue higher education, even with the student loan albatross around their white-collared necks. The housing industry would be better off if colleges were cheaper or if student debt levels were lower, but the same can be said about purchasing power in general. At the end of the day, debt-saddled or not, the housing industry needs its college graduates.

TIME Business

Forget Millennials. Gen Xers Are the Future of Work

Susan S. LaMotte is the founder of exaqueo (ex-ACK-wee-o), which helps organizations build cultures, create employer brands and develop talent strategies using a data-driven approach.

There’s a big birthday coming up: in 2015, the first Generation Xers will turn 50 years old. Commonly cited as born between 1965 and 1980, these independent-minded, latchkey kids are now old enough to get their AARP carrying cards. But that’s not all — they’re poised for great leadership–the average age of an S&P 1500 CEO is 50. And they’re already leading the majority of growing companies: 68% of Inc. 500 CEOs are Gen Xers.

And yet we’re still ignoring them at work. Generation X may be the smallest portion of the workforce, but they’re your company’s rising and current leaders. So why do we ignore them? With the rise of Millennials (predicted to be more than 40% of the workforce by 2020), we’re obsessed with pleasing the masses and concerned about the aging Boomer workforce. But we’ve forgotten about our middle children, the silent, independent ones. And they matter much more than you might think. Here’s why:

Heads downs, thumbs up

Gen Xers play the 7-up game daily. They are known for keeping their heads down and assuming their work speaks for itself. They constantly plug along and feign satisfaction, too afraid to upset the apple cart. And that’s a productivity and engagement killer. We know Generation Xers are less engaged than their Millennial counterparts, and that makes for less motivated, energized and prepared leaders.

The burden of the work-life balance debate

As the average child-bearing age increases and life expectancy expands, Generation X is bearing the burden of raising young children while also managing aging parents more so than ever before. According to AARP, “in 2012, 42% of Generation X had a financially dependent child along with a parent over 65.” Like it or not, we can’t ignore the stress, concern and lack of sleep that follows them into the workplace and into positions of leadership. This also means Generation X is more likely to use the Family Medical and Leave Act resulting in increased absenteeism from work for months at a time.

The downward financial spiral

The generation under the most financial stress, Generation X lost 45% of its wealth–almost double that of the Baby Boomers before them. We know how financial stress affects work quality and engagement but it also means this generation may take fewer risks in the workplace for fear of losing their jobs and have a lower propensity for change and shifting jobs even when opportunity arises.

Thinning ranks

Because Generation Xers will make up only 20% of the workforce, as leadership roles are vacated by older workers, there are fewer Generation Xers available. And Millennials may not have the experience and maturity needed for such roles. Can we say war for talent? Three to five years from now experienced leaders may be impossible to recruit.

Impossible recruiting? Absent and unfocused workers? What sounds like a recipe for leadership disaster can be avoided if organizations don’t assume their middle children are doing just fine. Focusing the same attention on the generation that isn’t demanding it could be even more productive than helicoptering over your Millennials. Start by looking inward first–that’s where data comes into play–not the large sweeping global trends on generations, but a deep look inside your organization:

  • Who are your Generation Xers?
  • How are they performing?
  • What are their specific challenges?
  • How is the organization helping to address those challenges?

Then you can work on removing the roadblocks in their way–engagement, financial, personal–and develop tailored plans for those high-potentials you want and need to be ready for the top jobs. Sometimes all the middle children need are a little attention and care.

Susan S. LaMotte is the founder of exaqueo (ex-ACK-wee-o), which helps organizations build cultures, create employer brands and develop talent strategies using a data-driven approach. Susan has an MBA (Vanderbilt University), an MA in HR Development (The George Washington University) and a BA in Communications (Virginia Tech). She has also written two books: The Right Job, Right Now (St. Martin’s Press) and Vault Guide to Human Resources Careers.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME

Rock the Vote Wants Young Voters to ‘Care Like Crazy’ About the Midterms

New $250,000 ad buy in key states features snarky ads targeting the young voters they want to hit the polls

Rock the Vote launched a $250,000 ad buy Thursday in five states where tight battles for statewide and national offices are playing out, including North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

The ad grab is part of the organization’s efforts to get young voters to the polls this election season—part of its trademark mission to make doing one’s civic duty look cool. The organization has also been working to register over 1 million millennials to vote–often soliciting the help of celebrities including Miley Cyrus.

Though the ads are running in states with tight races, non-partisan organization says its less interested in the politics of the races and more keen on getting as many young people as possible to head to the polls. “We are looking at states with large populations of college students and making sure we’re getting as many young people out to vote as possible,” says Ashley Spillane, president of Rock the Vote.

The ads’ target audience is among the groups deemed least likely to vote this election cycle, but Spillane is hoping the snarky tone of the 30-second spots, scheduled to air online and on stations like Comedy Central until Election Day, captures the attention of those 18 to 25. Each ad feels a bit like a dare—challenging young people to vote by presenting characters that would make a Birkenstock-clad millennial flip their wig.

“These are not your typical political ads,” says Spillane. “Young people have tuned traditional political ads out. We’re trying to meet young people where they are and speak about the issues that they care about.”

The ads highlight issues young people care most about—including war, reproductive rights, and the environment—but do so in a way that might not resonate with a typical Midterm voter. (One ad features a reference to rapper Riff Raff—“Laws making it harder for Riff Raff to vote? Absolutely,” a polo-clad woman in a golf shop says.)

The ads are a part of a larger Rock the Vote campaign called “Care Like Crazy” set to encourage young voters to share the issues that make their blood boil and hopefully, push them to the polls come November.

MONEY Impact Investing

How to Change the World—and Make Some Money Too

Young adults flock to investments that promote social good. This was a hot topic at a big ideas festival over the weekend and is front and center with financial firms.

Social investing has come of age, driven by a new generation that is redefining the notion of acceptable returns. These new investors still want to make money, of course. But they are also insisting on measurable social good.

Millennials make up a big portion of this new breed, and their influence will only grow as they age and accumulate wealth. The total market for social investments is now around $500 billion and growing at 20% a year. As millennials’ earning power grows and they inherit $30 trillion over the next 30 years, investing for social good stands to attract trillions more.

So what began in the 1980s as a passive movement to avoid the stocks of companies that sell things like tobacco and firearms has broadened into what is known as impact investing, a proactive campaign to funnel money into green technologies and social endeavors that produce measurable good. Clean energy and climate change are popular issues. But so is, say, reducing the recidivist rate of lawbreakers leaving prison.

Impact investing was a hot topic this weekend at The Nantucket Project, an annual ideas festival that aims to change the world. Jackie VanderBrug, an analyst at U.S. Trust, noted that 79% of millennials would be willing to take higher risks with their portfolio if they knew it would drive positive social change. Based on data from Merrill Lynch, that compares to about half of boomers with a social investing screen and even fewer of the oldest generation. VanderBrug also noted that women of all ages, an increasing economic force, tend to favor these strategies.

Speaking at the conference, Randy Komisar, a partner at the venture capital powerhouse Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers and author of The Monk and the Riddle, said, “This generation is the most different of any since the 1960s.” He believes millennials are chipping away at previous generations’ affinity for growth and profits at any cost. Young people embrace the idea that you work not just for money but also for experience, satisfaction and joy.

Komisar noted the rise of B corporations like Patagonia and Ben and Jerry’s. These are for-profit enterprises that number 1,115 in 35 countries and 121 industries. Since 2007, the nonprofit B Lab has been certifying the formal mission of companies like these to place environment, community and employees on equal footing with profits. There are many more uncertified “Benefit” corporations. Since 2010, 41 states have passed or begun working on legislation giving socially conscious Benefit corporations special standing. Legally, they are held to a higher standard of community good, but they have cover from certain types of shareholder lawsuits.

Both types of B corporations acknowledge that their social mission gives them an important advantage hiring young adults, who in surveys show they place especially high value on the chance to make a social impact through work. “If your company offers something that’s more purposeful than just a job, younger generations are going to choose that every time,” Blake Jones, chief executive of Namasté Solar, a Boulder, Colo., solar-technology installer and B Corp. told The Wall Street Journal.

Industries that do not address the wider concerns of millennials will increasingly become marginalized. The financial analyst Meredith Whitney, who rose to prominence calling the subprime mortgage disaster, told the gathering in Nantucket that financial services firms have been among the slowest to consider sustainability issues—“and that’s why I think they are in trouble.”

Yet banks may be starting to come along. Bank of America clients have about $8 billion invested along sustainability lines, the bank says. And its Merrill Lynch arm has been a leading explorer of “green” bonds, which raise money for specific causes and pay investors a rate of return based on whether the funded programs hit certain measures of achievement.

Late last year, Merrill raised $13.5 million for New York State and Social Finance for a program to help formerly incarcerated individuals adjust to life outside prison. How well the bonds perform depends on employment and recidivism rates and other measures taken over five and a half years. The firm is now looking into a similar bond issue to fund programs for returning war veterans.

For now, green bonds are aimed at institutional investors, especially those charitable foundations willing to risk losses in their effort to change the world. The J.P.Morgan 2014 Impact Investor Survey found that about half of institutions investing this way are okay with below-average returns.

Young people saving for retirement and faced with a crumbling pension system can’t really afford the tradeoff, at least not on a large scale. That’s partly why they want their job or company to have a higher purpose. But ultimately some version of green bonds, perhaps with a more certain return, will be open to individuals for the simple reason that four out of five young adults want it that way.

TIME society

The Right Way to Ask Boomers to Retire

Millenials Baby Boomers retirement
Jacob Wackerhausen—Getty Images

How ‘polite’ Millennials can convince a generation of workaholics to give up their jobs

Millennials (born 1982-2003) have a problem when it comes to their path to promotions and career advancement. Unless more members of the Baby Boom generation (born 1946-1964) start stepping down soon, younger generations will find themselves blocked in their careers by people who haven’t shown any inclination to leave, especially after the Great Recession devastated many Boomers’ retirement portfolios.

It’s time for Millennials to have that tough talk about retirement with Boomers. But using logic or making appeals to intergenerational fairness aren’t likely to be successful strategies. And suggesting that it’s time for Boomers to shuffle off the stage might seem selfish or cold-hearted to most members of the remarkably well-mannered Millennial generation. Nor is any suggestion that Boomers retire likely to meet with a positive response from that generation of workaholics. Instead, the talk needs to be couched in the language of Boomers and attuned to their fundamental values.

We have written three books on the Millennial generation in which we used the theory of generational cycles, first proposed in 1991 by authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, to make our own predictions about America’s political future. Along the way, we studied volumes of research data, and created some of our own, on each of the current generations of Americans and the dynamics of their interactions with each other.

Boomers are an “Idealist generation” to use Strauss’ and Howe’s name for a generational archetype that is focused on deeply held ideological beliefs. Previous American Idealist generations—the Transcendental generation (born 1792-1821) and the Missionary generation (born 1860-1882)—had one key characteristic that is clearly evident in Boomer behavior today. All Idealist generations are driven by strong beliefs about what is right and wrong and what is good and evil. Members of this type of generation resist compromise and are determined to impose their beliefs on the rest of society—even if it means tearing down existing institutions.

By contrast, Millennials are a “civic generation” in Strauss’ and Howe’s categorization. Their historical predecessors were the GI generation that came of age during the Great Depression and World War II and the Republican generation that won the American Revolution and developed the constitutional order by which America has been governed since 1787. All of these civic generations can be characterized as “pragmatic idealists.” Today’s version, Millennials, is interested in working together to make the world better. It is this desire to find mutually agreeable solutions to problems that makes having the “talk” with their Boomer colleagues so hard for Millennials.

But there is a way to turn the discussion into the type of “win-win” outcome that Millennials favor. The key is to appeal to the very ideals that have driven Boomers’ lives ever since they first burst upon the nation’s consciousness in the 1960s. Since then, no matter on which side of the Cultural Revolution they have fought, Boomers have devoted themselves to their work. They are the source of the term “workaholic” and take pride in what they accomplish at work each day. They define their very self-worth by their work, leading them to start conversations with new acquaintances by asking, “So what do you do?” To suggest to Boomers that it might be time for them to retire is almost the equivalent of asking them to die—clearly not the way to start a productive conversation.

Instead, Millennials should begin the conversation by asking Boomers about their ideals and values. Get them to talk about what motivated them when they were young to make the life and career choices they did. Most Boomers love to talk about their youth. They think of it as the best time in their lives. So starting the conversation in this way is likely to make the opening of the “talk” both pleasant and productive.

The next step would be to pivot from the past into the future by asking Boomers what they believe they have yet to accomplish. This should be followed by a suggestion that now might be the time for the Boomer to take up the work that remains undone on their ideological bucket list before it is too late and they lose their ability to make a difference. Assure them that there are other people, maybe from Generation X, if not the even younger Millennial generation, that can pick up the work in which Boomers are now engaged and see it through to completion.

But, crucially, Millennials should also make it clear that no one but Boomers have the wisdom and experience, coupled with the ideals, to take on the challenges they have been too busy to tackle. At that point, moving out of their jobs—and on to their unfinished business—will become something Boomers think they should do, rather than something that is being forced upon them.

The history of previous Idealist generations underlines the importance of having these conversations sooner rather than later. Strauss and Howe, in their book Generations, summarize the very different outcomes that resulted from the choices made by members of Idealist generations at this crucial point in their lives: “Where the angry spiritualism of Transcendental youth (born 1792-1821) culminated in the apocalypse of the Civil War, the Missionaries (born 1860-1882) demonstrated how a youthful generation of muckrakers, evangelicals, and bomb-throwers could mature into revered and principled elders—wise old men and women capable of leading the young through grave peril to a better world beyond.” Members of this generation, such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Douglas MacArthur, and George C. Marshall successfully mobilized the civic-minded GI generation to undertake and complete the task of remaking the world according to our democratic ideals.

By analogy, suggesting that it’s time for the current generation of Idealists, Boomers, to lead this increasingly dangerous world to a better place by putting aside their current work and taking on their last and most important challenge is the best way for Millennials to convince Boomers it’s time to move on. The current state of affairs makes it clear that it is way past time for Millennials to start this difficult conversation. Our advice to Millennials: Don’t wait another minute to have the “talk” with a Boomer you know.

Mike Hais and Morley Winograd of Mike & Morley, LLC are business partners whose combined careers include entertainment and media market research (Frank N. Magid Associates), a stint in the White House (Clinton-Gore second term), technology and communications (AT&T), and academia (USC’s Marshall School of Business and the University of Detroit). Based in Los Angeles, Mike & Morley speak, write and consult on the role of Millennials in remaking America. They are the co-authors of Millennial Makeover (2008), Millennial Momentum (2011), and Millennial Majority (2013).

This article originally appeared on Zócalo Public Square.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

MONEY Food & Drink

7 Reasons Our Coffee Habit Is Costing More These Days

dollar sign made out of coffee beans
Andrew Unangst—Getty Images

In a relatively short period of time, the American coffee habit has gotten a lot more expensive.

Monday, September 29, is National Coffee Day, when restaurant and coffee chains around the country are giving out free (or extremely cheap) cups of Joe to the masses. The day is quite the exception, however, given how as a nation we are spending more and more on coffee.

Here are 7 reasons why:

We’re drinking coffee earlier in life. A study published this year by S&D Coffee & Tea shows that on average, younger millennials start drinking coffee at age 15, while older millennials picked up the habit at 17. Typical members of Gen X, meanwhile, started drinking coffee at 19.

More of us drink coffee regularly. U.S. coffee consumption rose 5% in 2013, according to a National Coffee Association survey, meaning that today 83% of the adult population drinks coffee; 75% have coffee at least once a week.

And we’re drinking higher-priced coffee at that. Data from 2014 shows that 34% of Americans drink gourmet coffee daily, an increase of 3% over last year. Young people in particular are willing to pay higher prices for coffee: In a new PayPal poll, 18% of people age 18 to 34 said they are willing to pay more than $3 per cup, compared with just 8% of those age 50 to 64.

We eat breakfast outside the home more often. Our fast-moving, on-the-go culture has been blamed as a reason for declining sales of cereal and milk, as more Americans are skipping the traditional breakfast at home and opting for foods that can be eaten on the run, like Pop Tarts and fast food via the drive-thru. In fact, breakfast has become enormously important to quick-serve restaurants because it’s the one mealtime experiencing strong growth lately. Coffee purchased at a restaurant or on the go at a convenience store or café is always more expensive than coffee brewed and drunk at home.

One word: Keurig. “In 2002, the average price of a coffee maker was about $35,” a recent post at the Northwestern Kellogg School of Management blog stated. “By 2013, that number had risen to around $90.” Truth be told, it’s still easy to find a coffee maker for $35 or even less, it’s just that the type of machine—the traditional kind that brews ground coffee by the pot—is no longer typical. It’s been replaced by the pricier single-cup brewer that came into the mainstream over the last decade thanks to the Keurig company. For many consumers, the speed and convenience of such machines outweighs the premium one must pay beyond the plain old-fashioned coffee maker. Some 1.7 million single-cup Keurig brewers were sold in the second quarter of 2014, an increase of 200,000 over the same period a year before.

Plus, K-Cups themselves are pricier. It’s not just the single-cup machines that cost more—the cups themselves do too. The price per single-serve K-Cup pod varies widely depending on the style of roast, whether you’re buying a small pack or stocking up in bulk, and how strategically you shop for deals. But no matter how good you are at snagging deals, you’ll almost always pay more for coffee pods than you will for old-fashioned ground or whole bean coffee. One price-comparison study conducted a couple of years ago indicated that K-Cup coffee cost more than $50 per pound, roughly four times the cost of a bag of Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts beans. What’s more, K-Cups are subject to a 9% across-the-board price hike in early November. (Side note: Mother Jones and others have pointed out that single-use K-Cups cost more and are worse for the environment than recyclable pod filters, though Keurig Green Mountain has plans to make all K-Cup pods fully recyclable by 2020.)

All coffee is simply getting more expensive. A long-lasting drought in Brazil (the world’s biggest producer of coffee beans) has pushed global coffee prices to near-record highs, and the market may be affected for years to come. Already this year, java junkies have faced price hikes from coffee brands such as Starbucks, Folgers, Maxwell House, and Dunkin’ Donuts. Interestingly, even as coffee has gotten more expensive and economic growth hasn’t exactly been sizzling in recent years, Starbucks sales have outpaced lower-priced competitors Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s. What does that show us? For the most part, coffee lovers are passionate about their caffeinated beverages and aren’t going to trade down to what they view as an inferior cup of Joe, even if doing so would save a couple of bucks here and there.

MONEY buying a home

The Surprising Feature Millennials Insist on When Buying a Home

Century 21 CEO Richard Davidson explains what young, single home buyers value in a new house.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser