MONEY Small Business

Forget the Corner Office. Most Millennials Want to Own the Corner Store.

According to a new study, the majority of 20-somethings assume they'll be self employed at some point in their careers.

Faced with a lagging labor market and mounting student loan debt, millennials seem either to have found reason to be optimistic about the new economy—or to have lost faith in it completely. According to a new survey from Buzz Marketing Group and the Young Entrepreneur Council, 81% think that they’ll either own a business or be self-employed at some point in their careers.

During tough times in particular, millennials say, they would rather work for themselves. Thirty-seven percent of those surveyed said if they became unemployed, they would likely start a business or become freelancers versus 23% who said they would continue looking for a job working for someone else.

Gen Y may be already laying the groundwork for future entrepreneurship: 46% of all respondents say they’ve done freelance work in their fields.

YEC founder Scott Gerber says the results show that millennials want a different kind of career than the ones their parents had. “You’re talking about a generation that has seen what happened with their parents and Enron, and what happened in 2009 and 2010—the traditional workforce eroding before our eyes,” Gerber said. “Millennials have new ways of thinking about the future of work.”

The catch in Gen Y’s plan? Mom and dad. A majority of respondents said their parents would rather see them find “real jobs.” Gerber urges those parents to let their children try, fail, and learn from their mistakes. “Understand the reality of today versus the nostalgia of yesteryear,” Gerber said. “Instability is here to stay.”

TIME Internet

Find Out What Song Was (Probably) Playing When You Were Conceived

ab05291.jpg
Getty Images

An answer to a question you never thought you'd ask

Look, we get it: you probably don’t want to know what song was playing when you were conceived. But wouldn’t it be kind of cool and to know? Like, a tiny bit? Maybe?

Well, one ambitious Redditor has created a website called porktrack.com (yup) to help you determine what was likely playing on the radio when your parents, you know, made you. It uses a simple algorithm that takes your birthdate, subtracts 40 weeks, and then spits out whichever song was atop the Billboard Hot 100 list that particular week. (Don’t worry — it will adjust the timeframe if you indicate that you had an early or late birth.)

The site’s creator — who goes by the handle literallyelvis on Reddit and Twitter — admits that this isn’t the most accurate calculation. “I really wanted to learn how to make a website,” he writes on the site’s FAQ section. “Also it amuses me greatly to see how people react to their porktracks.”

So, what does your porktrack ultimately say about you? Let’s take a look at some famous people’s porktracks for reference:

  • Jay Z: “Everyday People” by Sly & the Family Stone
  • Blue Ivy Carter: “Born This Way” by Lady Gaga
  • Paul Ryan: “Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In (The Flesh Failures)” by The 5th Dimension
  • Chelsea Clinton: “Reunited” by Peaches & Herb
  • Barack Obama: “I Want to Be Wanted” by Brenda Lee
  • Sheryl Sandberg: “Hey Jude” by The Beatles
  • Miley Cyrus: “I’m Too Sexy” by Right Said Fred

Sadly, the site cannot determine your porktrack if you were born before 1960, so you’ll just have to take your best guess.

TIME Parenting

How Children Have Become Their Parents’ Bullies

It used to be that kids were scared of their parents. Now parents seem scared of their kids.

At a toy store, I witnessed a common but ludicrous dynamic; a 4-year-old child was emotionally bullying his mother. The helpless mom repeatedly explained to her son that he was not getting a present because it was not his birthday – they were there to buy his friend a present. It was exhausting watching her quickly lose ground. The more the mother talked and explained, the more her little boy screamed, reaching a crescendo with a full-blown kicking and earsplitting tantrum on the floor. The scene upstaged the shoppers, and I was struck by how powerless the mother looked as she was taken down by her 4 year old.

It used to be that kids were scared of their parents and now parents seem scared of their kids. The pendulum has swung from children being seen and not heard to being heard and perpetually indulged. Parents seem so uncomfortable with setting limits and taking their rightful position as captain of the family ship. Their hearts are in the right place; they want to be more attentive to their kids’ needs than their parents had been to theirs. But we have over corrected, turning into a generation of “parent pleasers,” rarely saying no for fear of hurting our children’s feelings. And as a result, putting a child to bed or leaving a toy store becomes an ordeal.

It is unsafe for a child to have that much power; kids today are more demanding and more anxious. When parents are skittish about asserting their parental authority, too often kids learn that “no” means “maybe.” That gives kids wiggle room to keep negotiating, throwing fits and emotionally bullying their parents. This reinforces the bad behavior and fuels the notion that the louder they whine, the more they get. Push fast forward on a child who consistently throws tantrums and gets his way. What teacher would want to teach him, what employer would hire him, and who would want to date him?

We have to be able to tolerate our children’s stormy emotions without rushing in to fix them or we are unintentionally crippling our kids. We are trying to grow resilient kids, not fragile, entitled ones. Buying another child a present teaches your child about doing for others, and that the world does not revolve around him. What great life lessons!

Let’s remind ourselves that discipline actually means to teach, not to punish or shame, and that setting loving limits will help raise a thriving child. We can acknowledge and empathize with our children’s feelings but still hold the line: “I know you want a new toy, but we are not buying you one today.” Period. And if the child continues to have a tantrum, you have to leave the store. You need to do what is right for your children, even if it means tolerating a brief drop in your popularity polls. You are the one with experience and perspective – a perspective that children just don’t have. Your job is not to please your child; your job is to parent your child. We have to be able to hold a loving space for our child’s anger or hurt feelings while staying the course.

So how did the toy store debacle end? The mom, drained and exhausted by her child’s tantrum was at the register, purchasing two toys – not realizing that the real gift would have been saying no!

Robin Berman, MD, is a mother, psychiatrist, associate professor at UCLA and author of Permission to Parent: How to Raise Your Child with Love & Limits.

TIME Holidays

100-Year-Olds Moms Share Insights On What It Means to Be a Mother

In honor of the 100th anniversary of the first Mother's Day

This Mother’s Day, why not take some advice from three women who’ve been moms for a very, very long time?

In honor of the 100th anniversary of the holiday, Mashable sat down with three centenarians to discuss what motherhood means to them. The women reflect on the great parts of being a mom along with the hardest parts — like raising children during wartime.

“When you see your kid go away, and then you see the papers with the casualties,” Sadie Adler says. “It was shattering.”

Adler also offered the following advice to today’s parents: “Listen to your children and treat them as a grown-up.”

TIME vaccines

The Anti-Vaxxers Simply Won’t Quit

Safe baby: a child in Africa receives an oral vaccine
Safe baby: a child in Africa receives an oral vaccine ranplett; Getty Images/Vetta

Even as cases of whooping cough, polio, measles and mumps soar, vaccine deniers continue to leave children and babies unprotected. Stubbornness may be part of human nature—but the price is just too high

It’s never easy to say oops. You know it if you’ve ever said something nasty during an argument and found it hard to apologize later. You know it if you’ve ever caused a fender bender on the road and been unable to say “my bad.” And you know it if you’ve ever failed to inoculate your baby against a range of disabling and deadly diseases that can be easily and harmlessly prevented with vaccines, in effect failing to perform the most basic job of parenthood, which is to keep your children safe.

What’s that? You think that under those circumstances an oops wouldn’t be hard to get out? Not so, according to a disturbing study presented Monday at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies in Vancouver. Researchers looked at vaccination rates both before and during an outbreak of whooping cough in Washington state in 2011 and 2012, and found that even as the disease was spreading and unvaccinated children were suffering, the percentage of parents who brought their 3- to 8-month olds in for their scheduled inoculations didn’t budge.

Nope, the parents effectively said, still not persuaded.

“We have always assumed that when the risk of catching a disease is high, people will accept a vaccine that is effective at preventing the disease,” said lead author Dr. Elizabeth Wolf of the University of Washington, in a statement that accompanied the release of the study. “Our results may challenge that assumption.”

That says something deeply troubling not just about the outlook for childrens’ health, but about human obtuseness, particularly as outbreaks of measles strike New York City, Orange County, Calif. and elsewhere, while mumps cases spread throughout Columbus, Ohio. Despite this real-time, real-world evidence of the damage caused by the anti-vaccine crazies—who have spent the better part of 16 years peddling the fable that vaccines are filled with never-fully-specified “toxins” that cause autism and an ever-changing pu pu platter of other imaginary ills—many parents and even some doctors continue to close their eyes.

That’s a problem not just for the unprotected kids, but for everyone. If we got smoking rates in the U.S. down to just 10% of the population, we’d celebrate that fact as a great public health victory. But as virologists and epidemiologists remind us again and again and again, when 10%—or even 5%—of parents opt out of vaccines for their kids or insist on making up their own vaccination schedule, they destroy the herd immunity effect that should protect the handful of people in any population who can’t get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. If a virus can’t find an entry point into a community, it can never make its way to the most vulnerable members. Every parent who opts out opens one more infectious avenue.

The U.S. is not alone in playing craps with vaccine-preventable diseases. The Vancouver report was issued on the same day that the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a public health emergency concerning the spread of polio from Pakistan, Syria and Cameroon, and the presence of the virus in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Nigeria. The emergency did not arise because of some new, especially tenacious strain of polio. Indeed, the disease has been at the brink of eradication for a few years now, with only 160 endemic cases in three countries—Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria—in 2013, and 257 cases in countries into which the virus was imported by carriers crossing the border. But attacks on medical field workers by militant groups in Pakistan have disrupted inoculation efforts there, and war or unrest in Syria and elsewhere have made the safe passage of vaccinators impossible.

Extremists in the Middle East and Africa are hardly motivated by the same ideas as rumor-mongers and frightened parents in the U.S. But both are committing the same moral crime, jeopardizing the health and welfare of blameless babies. It’s those babies who will pay the price—and the parents and extremists who must bear the blame.

TIME TIME 100 Gala

‘Frozen’ Songwriters Recommend Patience

Repeated singing of 'Let it Go' might be just the beginning

Robert and Kristin Anderson-Lopez, the perky creative duo behind this year’s most infectious ear worms — and two of 2014’s most influential people in the world — salute all those indulgent souls who “make the young artists and thinkers and leaders feel like they have influence as they figure out what they are going to say and how to say it.” Even if it hurts sometimes.

TIME Family

6 Insulting Terms for Adults Who Live With Their Parents

141107491
yubomojao—Getty Images/Flickr Select

More often than not, the phrases coined to describe the rising ranks of grown adults living with their parents are subtle backhanded insults. And sometimes the insults aren’t subtle at all. Here are a handful of phrases that have popped up in recent years to categorize the millions of adults who live with their parents—typically moving back home for financial reasons after living on their own for a few years, or perhaps a few decades.

“Boomerang Generation”
This is probably the most common (and also probably the least offensive) phrase for describing the legions of young Americans in their mid-20s to mid-30s who have moved back in with their parents after a stint of independent living. A 2012 Pew Research Center study focused on this increasingly large group—report title: “The Boomerang Generation”—indicated that while a majority were frustrated they didn’t have enough money to live the life they wanted, most were also happy with their living arrangements bunking with mom and dad once again.

“Boomerangers”
Members of this special breed of boomerang offspring are not only old enough to live independently, but also old enough to have adult children of their own. Essentially, they’re middle-aged Baby Boomers who have fallen on times so tough that they’ve been forced to move back in with their elderly parents, who are likely to be retired and perhaps not in the best financial condition themselves. The rise of “boomerangers” was understandably noticeable during the heyday of the Great Recession in 2009, and the unfortunate trend hasn’t gone away. Just this week the Los Angeles Times ran a story on the increase in adults in California ages 50 to 64 who have moved back home with mom and/or dad—a 68% rise from 2007 to 2012.

Earlier this year, Le Monde attempted to chronicle the rise of this trend in France, a task that proved difficult because “middle-aged people who live with their parents are often ashamed,” and few were willing to speak about their first-hand experiences.

(MORE: Being 30 and Living With Your Parents Isn’t Lame — It’s Awesome!)

It’s no coincidence that many “Boomerangers” also have another (insulting) label slapped on them: “Unemployables.” As CNN Money noted, because workers in their 50s who lost their jobs in recent years were less likely than younger people to subsequently become re-employed, a Boston College study dubbed them the “new unemployables.”

“Go-Nowhere Generation”
This phrase is largely credited to a New York Times op-ed that encouraged young Americans to move to hop on a Greyhound bus and move to a state with low unemployment, such as North Dakota. The column’s authors wrote that they expected few to follow that advice, because “young people are too happy at home checking Facebook,” among other reasons. “Generation Y has become Generation Why Bother,” the op-ed sums up.

“Growing-Ups”
A Clark University professor’s research into young adults who have no good job prospects and no clear career path—and who of course still live with their parents—refers to them as “growing-ups,” as well as the more positive “emerging adults.”

“Failed Fledglings”
Leave it to the United Kingdom to come up with this humdinger. According to a survey published last summer, some three million parents over age 50 had grown children living at home—a category the poll called “failed fledglings.” A corresponding 16-page “Parent Motivators” booklet was published in order to help parents cope with adult kids back in the nest, and the contents reportedly included “tips about how to get rid of children who you would prefer to have moved out.”

(MORE: This Is AT&T’s Plan to Smother Google Fiber)

“Parasite Single”
Masahiro Yamada, a sociology professor at Tokyo Gakugei University, came up with this lovely phrase to describe Japanese women (men too, but it’s mostly women) in their 20s and 30s who grew up in the ’80s and ’90s and had decent jobs—but were considered parasitic because they never got married, hadn’t yet had children, and lived a carefree consumerist lifestyle under their parents’ roofs. Interestingly, news outlets noted a widespread effort to marry parasite singles off in Japan via dating services and old-fashioned family matchmaking in the late ’00s—about the same time that the Great Recession was wreaking havoc across the globe, sending tens of millions of adult children boomeranging back into their parents’ homes.

TIME E-Commerce

Here’s Target’s Plan to Take on Amazon

A Target Store Ahead Of U.S. Personal Consumption Figures
Victor J. Blue / Bloomberg via Getty Images

For the sake of convenience, low prices, or both, shoppers who used to routinely pick up household items at Target have slowly taken their business over to Amazon. Target wants its customers back in a bad way.

Last fall, Target introduced a subscription service for parents, allowing customers to order diapers and other baby goods on a recurring basis—always with free shipping and often with significant discounts. The new service was widely viewed as a blatant counteroffensive against Amazon, which has a long history of targeting Target and other brick-and-mortar-based retailers by undercutting them on price, which has a very popular Subscribe and Save program that grants discounts on pre-scheduled goods purchased, and which has slowly but surely removed discounts for moms over the years.

Apparently, Target was pleased with how its parent-focused subscription played out, because on Thursday it announced a broad expansion to Target Subscriptions. The original service offered a total of 150 products, all of them essentially aimed at moms—diapers, wipes, formula, etc. The new Subscriptions service allows customers to choose from more than 1,500 products to order on a recurring basis, and the demographic being “Targeted” goes way beyond parents with young kids. Now, all sorts of household staples, from cleaning supplies to printer ink, pet treats to laundry detergent, can be purchased via Target Subscriptions.

Subscribers obviously get to save themselves a trip to the store. That’s one bonus of using the service. They also get free shipping on deliveries and returns. And they get discounts—a flat 5% off on all Subscription orders, plus another 5% off if payment is made via a Target card.

(MORE: Don’t Want to Pay $99 for Amazon Prime? Here are Five Alternatives)

Amazon might quickly point out that its Prime service comes with speedy two-day shipping on most orders, whereas Target’s free shipping might take five or more days to arrive after the time of purchase. But remember, with the Subscriptions service, we’re talking about staple household items needed on a regular basis: The big attraction of this service is that it helps you stock up on items before you run out, not when you’re in desperate need. So expedited delivery, while nice, doesn’t seem essential.

It’s also worth noting that Amazon Prime now costs $99, up from $79, while the Target Subscriptions service—and Amazon’s own Subscribe and Save program, for that matter—is free.

TIME Higher Education

Here’s How Many Students Could Save $50,000 on College—But Aren’t

The cost of not getting a college degree is rising, new study finds
The cost of not getting a college degree is rising, new study finds Getty Images

More colleges are allowing students to finish up their four-year degrees in just three years. But only a tiny percentage of students are taking advantage.

In 2012, Wesleyan University, an elite private college in Connecticut, became the highest-profile institution to actively promote an accelerated degree program, in which students could finish up college and get out into the “real world” after as little as three years of higher education. At the time, Wesleyan president Michael S. Roth wrote a guest op-ed for the Washington Post explaining that years prior, he had graduated from Wesleyan in three years, and he felt the benefits of such an option were enormous—among other things, he saved his family around $6,000, which was the cost of a year’s tuition when he was a student in the 1970s.

Because of a pricing model he described as “unsustainable,” Roth wrote that Wesleyan would immediately spread the word that the school’s current students could likewise finish up in three years, if they wanted:

The three-year option isn’t for everyone, but for those students who are prepared to develop their majors a little sooner, shorten their vacations by participating in summer sessions, and take advantage of the wealth of opportunities on campus, this more economical BA might be of genuine interest. In our case, allowing for some summer expenses, families would still save about 20 percent from the total bill for an undergraduate degree. At many private schools that would be around $50,000!

(MORE: After PBR: Will the Next Great Hipster Beer Please Stand Up?)

Over the weekend, the Boston Globe published a story about three-year degree options at Wesleyan and other schools. Roth is still a big fan of the idea, agreeing with the words of a previous Wesleyan president, who told students, “If you look back at your years at Wesleyan and say those were the best four years of your life, we failed you.”

Roth told the Globe that students who are ready to move on after three years of college should do so. “You shouldn’t stay here because this is your time to screw around and have a great time and then it’s going to be bad,” he said. “These should be the years that launch you into the world in a better way.”

The idea makes sense to many students who are seeking the most bang for their buck, and who are terrified with taking on crippling levels of college loans. So it’s understandable that the concept of a three-year degree is increasingly mentioned as a money-saving tactic for college students and their families. And yet very few students are actually graduating three years after starting college.

The Globe pointed to a Wesleyan dean’s estimate, forecasting that only a half-dozen or so of its students will earn their degrees via the three-year route next spring. Why so few? And why aren’t more students around the country jumping on what appears to be a quick, straightforward strategy for trimming college costs?

First off, it’s not necessarily easy to compile enough credits to graduate in three years. For majors such as nursing and engineering, which typically require extensive labs or clinical hours, earning a degree in three years is virtually impossible and often isn’t even allowed. Degrees in seemingly less intensive majors sometimes can’t be earned in three years either. “In majors like the performing arts, those skills can’t be rushed into a three-year format,” said a dean at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, explaining why it wasn’t possible for students in that major to finish in three years, per a Bankrate.com post on the pros and cons of accelerated programs.

(MORE: Student Loans Are Ruining Your Life. Now They’re Ruining the Economy Too)

Generally speaking, students in other majors must use AP credits earned in high school, and/or take summer sessions, and/or sign up for classes above and beyond the usual semester’s workload to try to finish up in three years. Not all students are up for the challenge. Heck, nationwide, less than half of students are able to earn enough credits to graduate in four years, let alone three.

What’s more, the majority of American colleges simply do not offer students the opportunity to graduate in three years. According to data cited in the Globe story, since 2009 only 19 private, nonprofit colleges have introduced three-year degree programs. More colleges are expected to get on board with the concept in the future, but the institutional embrace of the three-year degree will proceed slowly, and may not ever happen on a widespread level for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it obviously trims tuition and fees collected by colleges.

Colleges say that students should be extremely cautious in their pursuit of an accelerated degree. By speeding along through college, students increase the chances that they could pick the wrong major because they’re so hell-bent on graduating. They could also be shortchanged, the argument goes, on developing all-important life skills students are supposed to hone in college, such as critical thinking, teamwork, and problem solving.

Certainly, another factor holding back the three-year degree from becoming a larger trend is some level of disinterest among students. Not all that many students are eager to kill themselves by overloading on courses each semester. They may rather prefer to squeeze every moment of fun they can out of college—to, in fact, “screw around and have a great time” with their friends, as Wesleyan’s Roth put it. Making oneself miserable by rushing through college makes particularly little sense when you’ll graduate into a fairly lackluster jobs market.

(MORE: Student Loans Are Becoming a Drag on the U.S. Economy)

Perhaps most telling, by some account students’ parents, rather than students themselves, seem more interested in the idea of saving money via a three-year degree. “I’ve had parents ask me about the three-year degree with the sort of energy that sometimes the students don’t possess themselves,” Mary Coleman, a dean at Lesley University, in Cambridge, Mass., said to the Globe.

TIME technology

Man Builds Awesome Star Ceiling for His Unborn Son

Coolest dad ever.

When you’re expecting your first child, there are, we’d imagine, several things you’d have to do to get ready. Like, say, buying a crib, or figuring out ways to make sure you don’t turn your kid into a weirdo. But one future dad, expecting his first son in June, decided to spend his pre-parenthood days installing a fiber optic star ceiling in the nursery he’s building.

The future father estimated that the tedious project took him about 40 hours. He used 600 fiber optic strands, but broke four in the process, ending up with 596 stars. Here’s the final product:

Here are photos of the entire process, along with descriptions of each step:

 

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