MONEY working in retirement

It’s Never Too Late For A Second Act

Baby boomer entrepreneurs in bakery
Small business owners working in bakery together. John Lund/Marc Romanelli—Getty Images/Blend Images

Do you have what it takes to be a boomer entrepreneur? Get ready: you're likely to change gears in unexpected ways.

Heading toward retirement, but you want to keep working? The best move is to find another job in your field, perhaps part-time or or as a consultant—right?

Maybe not. Sure, you’ve amassed tons of expertise in your industry after working in it for the past decade or two. But there’s a wider world out there. Many older Americans are opting for a completely different career after they leave their former jobs, according to a new Merrill Lynch survey on work and retirement.

Nearly 50% of retirees say they either have, or intend to, stay employed during their retirement, according to the survey. Not a surprise, given today’s meager 401(k) balances. But what’s striking is how many people ended up with brand new careers.Nearly 60% of working retirees are in jobs that are completely different from their pre-retirement work, with many in education and white-collar jobs, according to demographers Age Wave, who contributed to the study.

Working retirees also tend to be entrepreneurs. They are three times more likely than other workers age 50 and older to own their own business or be self-employed, according to the study, which gathered data on nearly 7,000 pre-retirees and retirees, both working and non-working. “Retirees often make for the best entrepreneurs. Many have decades of experience, business contacts and the financial means to start a successful business,” says Bill Hunter, director of personal retirement strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

While some retirees are working primarily for the income, more report doing it to stay busy and involved: 62% of working retirees say they work to stay mentally active, compared with 31% who say money is the top reason.

Busting another myth, most older entrepreneurs say age discrimination didn’t drive them to work for themselves: 82% of these “retire-preneurs” as Merrill Lynch is branding them, say they started their own business because they wanted to work on their own terms. Only 14% reported that they had to start their own company because they otherwise couldn’t find work.

“Working in retirement is often a chance to try something new or pursue a dream,” says Mary Beth Izard, a start-up consultant and author of BoomerPreneurs. If a brand-new second act appeals to you, start developing your plans now. Taking on a new career challenge in your retirement years isn’t easy, and a start-up venture can drain your nest egg fast.

Lay the groundwork in the five years before you plan to retire, says Izard. If you want to go into a new career, begin by taking classes, as well as working part-time or or as a volunteer for an organization involved in the field you are interested in. And if you go the entrepreneur route, starting researching the costs and income potential of that new business well before you start sinking money into it.

For more tips on embarking on an entreprenurial second act, click here.

 

MONEY Investing

If You Live in Vegas, You Might Want to Buy More Bonds

140527_REA_LasVegas_1
Las Vegas' more volatile home prices suggest residents should invest their portfolios more conservatively, a new report says. Glenn Pinkerton—Las Vegas News Bureau

Where you live, and how much home equity you have, should impact how you invest for retirement, argue Morningstar experts.

The collapse of housing prices five years ago made a lot of people question whether owning a home was a good investment. But you probably never connected where you live with how you invest.

That’s a mistake, says David Blanchett, head of retirement research at Morningstar. Blanchett argues in a recent paper that investors’ strategy for building retirement wealth should look beyond typical portfolio considerations — stocks versus bonds, growth versus value — and take into account the health of your real estate market.

“Real estate is the largest physical asset most households have,” Blanchett says. And it can be an important financial asset: Home equity could be tapped to help fund retirement, or a paid-off home passed along to heirs.

But, as the housing bust taught us the hard way, a downturn in home prices can wipe out equity in a flash. Especially if you own a home in a market where prices are volatile, such as Las Vegas, Miami, or Washington D.C.

In that case, you might want to adjust your investment strategy, according to Morningstar. Here are some ways your housing situation could impact your investing style:

If you live in a one-company town: Invest more conservatively. A city dominated by one industry or one company leaves you vulnerable. “If that company went out of business, or had a significant layoff, lots of people might all want to move at the same time,” Blanchett says. Even if you don’t work for the company, you’re still exposed.

If you have a lot of equity in your home: Invest more aggressively. The more equity you have in your home, the less affected you are by pricing changes. For example, if you’ve just purchased your home with 10% down, a 10% decline in home prices would completely erase the value of your investment. That same decline for someone who has paid off the mortgage would represent a much less significant loss. “You can afford to take on more risk in other parts of your portfolio,” Blanchett says.

If you rent: Increase your allocation to REITs. Stashing a 5%-10% chunk of your portfolio in real estate investment trusts is a common diversification tactic. But owning a home also exposes you to real estate. If you have a lot of home equity, or live in a riskier market, you want to stay at the low end of that allocation. If you rent, on the other hand, you could put closer to 10% of your nest egg in REITs, Blanchett says.

 

MONEY financial advisers

A 90-Year-Old Woman’s Tough Decision

Is it in someone's best interests to give up control over her own money? A financial adviser struggles with the question.

How do you ask a 90-year-old client to give up total control of her assets?

Recently I had a meeting with a long-term client (let’s call her Susan) and her out-of-state nephew in which the nephew and I asked her to resign as the trustee of her own revocable trust.

This is a tough conversation to have. In effect, we were asking her to transfer control of all of her money to her nephew. Susan agreed to do this, but only because she trusts my advice. Talk about responsibility.

Let me provide a little background. Susan hired me as her financial adviser just after the dot-com bust. She was recently widowed. Her husband had put their investments 100% in stocks. Her stocks were dropping in value a lot, she was scared, and she didn’t know what to do. She has no children and wanted most of her money to go to charity when she passed. (Susan was one of the inspirations for a book I wrote: RINKs — Retired, Independent, No Kids.)

We created charitable remainder trusts for Susan, which established annuities for her and helped diversify her portfolio tax-efficiently. We set up a revocable trust for the rest of her assets. With no children, she made one of her nephews a successor trustee for her trusts.

Susan’s investments have grown nicely over the years, and running out of money was never an issue. The issue was her declining health. She moved to a very nice assisted living residence, and we made sure most of her bills were automatically paid because she was becoming confused about money and forgetting to pay some bills. Her tax attorney had been suggesting to me and her nephew that it was time Susan stepped down and let someone else control her finances. I was resistant. I pushed back. My biggest concern: Would Susan be taken advantage of?

Yes, we financial planners go to seminars and meetings discussing estate planning and asset transfers. But nothing can actually prepare you for helping a client make such an important, irreversible decision. How can you advise a client to trust a distant relative when you don’t understand that relative’s own history or motivations about money? How can you explain this to someone, who may not really understand why this will be for her own benefit?

I think you have to rely on your best judgment of the individuals involved. You have to ask a lot of questions. And you have to respect the reasoning why the client, when originally creating the estate documents, would choose this individual over all other possible candidates to be the successor trustee. And that’s what I did in Susan’s case.

Yes, we make the big bucks managing money, and that’s what most people see. But the emotionally hard and more important work is helping clients make the really tough life decisions.

—————————————-

Raymond Mignone has been a certified financial planner and fee-only investment adviser since 1989, with offices in Boynton Beach, Fla., and Little Neck, N.Y. He is the author of the book RINKs – Retired, Independent, No Kids. His website is www.RayMignone.com.

TIME Retirement

Workers to Bosses: Take Twice as Much of My Pay

Here's the savings crisis in a nutshell: workers want to save twice as much but won't do it for themselves.

The retirement savings crisis in America can be reduced to one statistic: workers say they would like the default contribution rate in 401(k) plans with automatic enrollment to be doubled.

That is telling new research from the nonprofit Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies and global asset manager Aegon. It suggests the typical worker wants someone else to make the tough decisions for them. After all, these workers could double their contribution rate quite on their own by filling out a little paperwork at the office.

What stops them? Inertia plays a big role. The easiest thing to do is nothing. But too many workers also do not appreciate the extent of their personal savings crisis and that, through compound growth, a little more saved today would make a big difference tomorrow. They also may suffer from a chilling lack of confidence in their ability to make the right financial choices.

This isn’t just a U.S. phenomenon. Globally, workers say the appropriate default rate for contributions to a 401(k) plan with automatic enrollment should be 6% of pay. The desired figure is 7% in the U.S., where the typical default rate is 3%, Transamerica found. Perhaps the biggest problem with that low default rate is that workers may assume it is sufficient, when it clearly is not.

Most financial planners advise setting aside 10% to 15% of pay for retirement. A worker who believes their employer has set the right savings rate for them, and then does nothing more, will be sorely disappointed. Unfortunately, such workers are legion. The average 50-year-old American has saved just $44,000.

Some workers are taking action. Since 2009, seven in 10 401(k) plan participants have increased their contributions by an average of 14%, reports Principal Financial Group. With the help of a bull market account balances have roughly doubled in that span. But that just gets savers back to where they were before the recession. It’s not nearly enough to close the savings gap.

Most workers seem to understand the need to save more. Yet they continue to do little or nothing about it, which is why automatic enrollment and higher default contribution rates are so important. Globally, 63% of workers favor automatic enrollment, Transamerica found. The share is 69% in the U.S. So automatic features, which have been found to be highly effective in boosting participation rates, have broad appeal.

Retirement experts look at auto enrollment and escalating contribution rates like motherhood and apple pie. Who can argue against it? But we need to expand the features to ensure that more employees defer more of their pay—which they would do on their own if not for inertia and failing confidence.

The Principal recommends auto enrollment with a 6% employee deferral rate, and raising the deferral one percentage point each year until it reaches 10% of income. It further recommends that companies sweep all existing employees into the automatic plan—not just new hires. They could opt out, but most wouldn’t. That’s inertia working for them, not against them.

This is the approach we are left with, and there is nothing wrong with it. Given our low levels of financial understanding and the lackluster national effort to raise our financial I.Q., it is unlikely that most workers will choose to save a great deal more. That’s a shame because even a 6% deferral rate gets you only about halfway home to retirement security. At some point individuals must step up to the retirement savings challenge on their own.

 

MONEY

Closing Out Your Old 401(k)

Q: I got a check closing out my old 401(k). Can I add it to my new 401(k) without penalty? — Matt Gould, New Cumberland, Pa.

A: Yes, and act fast.

Unless you put the money in another retirement account within 60 days of receiving the check, you’ll owe taxes on the sum, plus a 10% early-withdrawal penalty if you’re not yet 59½, says John Piershale, a financial planner in Crystal Lake, III.

Related: Will you have enough to retire?

One hitch: The old plan usually withholds 20% of your account for taxes, so when you make the deposit you’ll have to use other cash to cover that 20% shortfall.

Assuming you get this done within 60 days, you’ll get the withheld money back at tax time.

If your new 401(k) plan doesn’t accept rollovers or will make you wait too long to deposit the funds, put the money in an IRA, advises Lancaster, Pa., planner Rick Rodgers. You can always move it into a 401(k) later.

TIME Photos

Barbara Walters: A Career in Pictures

It’s hard to imagine a world where Barbara Walters isn’t on television. After all, this is a woman who entered the news business (as a segment producer on NBC’s Today Show) in 1962 and has been on the air longer than many of her fans have been alive.

But, as she announced nearly a year ago, the groundbreaking journalist will retire from the small screen today after hosting one last episode of The View.

To celebrate her 50 years in television, we’ve assembled a gallery of images from her long and storied career.

 

 

TIME Retirement

We’ve Been Asking All the Wrong Questions About Retirement

Jay Myrdal—Getty Images

Merrill Lynch is making a big bet on a new retirement planning approach based on 'life priorities.'

Imagine planning a getaway for your family. You’d probably start with a few basic questions. Where will you go? What’s the best time of year? How much should you spend? These are natural considerations. They are also a terrible way to start the process.

Better to ask: What emotions do I want to experience? What’s the purpose of this trip? What feelings do I want to have when the travel is over? Once you decide that the trip is mostly about fitness, or family bonding, or culture, or just idle relaxation, you can more easily move on to the practical questions and enjoy some certainty about the outcome you desire.

Retirement planning is like that too. No longer is it purely a math game, where you choose a retirement date and an arbitrary goal like $1 million and then try to maximize returns to get there by age 65 or 67. Not quite a decade ago, author Lee Eisenberg tried to divine The Number and created a stir over how much individuals would need to save to reach financial security. But post-recession, the retirement industry is moving to a different model. Relationships and experiences come first. Financial planning, including how long to work, plays a supporting role.

This new approach is driven partly by what’s known as the new normal, an economic climate where growth, pay raises and stock market returns promise to run slow for decades. Yet the population continues to age; folks continue to retire, having hit The Number or not. It’s time to focus on what you have and how to achieve the goals that really matter.

In a sign of this thinking, Bank of America Merrill Lynch unveiled a goals-based retirement saving strategy called Merrill Lynch Clear. It will be at the center of all discussions with clients going forward, and later this year the strategy will be incorporated in Merrill-administered 401(k) plans with some $250 billion of assets. Financial advisers will begin with each client by assessing the relative importance of seven common “life priorities” that emerged during more than a year of research. Those priorities are health, home, family, finance, giving, work, and leisure. This assessment becomes the basis for a savings and investment plan.

Merrill has hired what may be Wall Street’s only a full-time gerontologist and partnered with leading experts in each life priority. Those include Marc Freedman, CEO of Encore.org, an authority on jobs and other productive engagement in later life; the luxury travel firm Virtuoso, which plans and books leisure travel around experiential goals; and Michael Liersch, an economist with a doctorate in cognitive psychology, who serves as behavioral finance director.

The basic idea of the Clear strategy is that life priorities are always shifting—your desire to start a hobby business might give way to college savings when your third grandchild arrives, or you might decide you want a ticket to go around the world three years from now. “It’s about monitoring life goals, not just account balances,” says David Tyrie, head of retirement and personal wealth solutions. As life goals shift, so should your portfolio.

That raises the troubling prospect of frequent portfolio moves, which can lead to excessive fees. But most people in or near retirement have a good idea of the direction they want to go; Tyrie says “course corrections” probably shouldn’t occur more than once or twice a year, if that. The nice thing is that they will be driven by life goals that you set and understand, not an arbitrary and potentially risky hunt for higher returns.

Merrill is making a big bet on Clear, which is part of a five-year strategic shift towards goals-based wealth management. If it works, the payoff could be huge. One of boomers’ biggest life priorities is their Gen Y offspring, now launching into careers and life in a tough climate and with little of the financial know-how they seem to crave. Helping boomers take care of what matters most to them—their kids—could help reel in the next generation of clients.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIME Saving and Spending

This Is the Easiest City in America for Saving Money

108221302
Aimin Tang—Getty Images/Vetta

Half of all households spend more than they make. Here are the easiest and hardest cities in which to turn that around.

We knew it was bad. But this bad? The typical American is saving nothing, a new analysis of government data shows. Perhaps most unsettling: this zero savings rate seems largely a spending problem—not one of too little income or unexpected hardship.

The U.S. savings rate has been in decline since the 1970s. Official readings from the Commerce Department put the current rate at 3.8%, down from more than 10% some 30 years ago—a lofty savings level that had held for decades. The downward spiral gathered momentum in the 1980s interrupted by just one significant reversal, which occurred during the Great Recession. It’s now clear that the recession-induced spike in savings was temporary.

Unofficially, things appear even worse for a nation battling an intractable retirement savings crisis. Looking at median savings—half save more, have save less—financial site Interest.com found that the typical American is saving zilch. In essence, half of America is spending more than it earns.

The higher official savings rate, which is an average, owes to the outsized savings of the wealthy. The median savings rate more closely approximates most Americans’ experience, and this finding could throw fuel on the roaring debate over rising income inequality recently furthered by Thomas Piketty, among others. After all, half of America isn’t saving a dime.

Yet researchers say the zero savings rate is at heart a discipline problem, not one of inability. Looking at data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Interest.com found that median household income exceeds the median monthly cost of running a household by $668. That amount is available for savings but is being lost to spending on all manner of goods and services beyond what is required to live a median lifestyle.

“The results suggest that many households are allowing expenses to grow, whether by moving to a bigger house or buying a more luxurious car, until their bills consume every dollar of disposable income,” Mike Sante, Interest.com managing editor, said in an email. “That’s actually encouraging. It means they aren’t caught in an unwinnable rat race, the powerless victims of economic forces beyond their control.”

The question is: can the median U.S. family, which is now saving nothing, find the resolve to live a median family lifestyle and bank the surplus? It would be easier in some places than in others. The research looked at 18 cities and suggests that the easiest city in which to save is Baltimore, where after-tax median income exceeds median household expenses (including discretionary spending on things like vacations and cars) by $2,021 a month. The toughest city in which to save: Phoenix, where income falls short of household expenses by $95 a month.

Rounding out the five easiest cities to save in are Washington, D.C, where income exceeds costs by $1,664 a month; Cleveland ($1,294); Chicago ($876); and Dallas ($772). Rounding out the five toughest cities to save in are Miami, where income exceeds costs by just $18 a month; Boston ($240); San Diego ($344); and Detroit ($349).

 

 

 

 

TIME Retirement

The Share of Retirees with a Mortgage Is Soaring

181527946
Thanasis Zovoilis—Getty Images/Flickr RF

Bad habits are coming home to roost as retirees cannot shake their biggest debt.

Retirees are carrying more debt than ever, and a rising chunk of it is the mortgage on the house they live in, new research shows. This not only threatens their retirement lifestyle but also leads to a growing percentage of elders eventually tapping out and filing for personal bankruptcy.

The financial crisis plays a big role in this new reality, having forced millions to borrow more and for longer than they expected in order to make ends meet. But also to blame are some dicey consumer practices that came into vogue before the downturn: small down payments, home equity lines of credit to fund basic expenses, and cash-out mortgage refinancing to pay for cars and vacations otherwise out of reach.

Americans past the age of 65 have the highest home ownership rate of any group; roughly 80% own their house. But while that rate has remained constant the past decade the share with a mortgage has risen dramatically, according to a report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Among homeowners 65 and older, 30% had mortgage debt in 2011, vs. just 22% with mortgage debt in 2001, the CFPB found. The trend is more extreme among those 75 or older, where 21.2% had mortgage debt in 2011, vs. just 8.4% a decade earlier. The numbers have come down only marginally since 2011. Meanwhile, the typical amount of retiree mortgage debt has soared 82% to $79,000 from $43,300.

Don’t look for the trend to ease much in the years ahead. Other research shows that pre-retirees also are carrying more debt than at any time in history. This will push them to work longer. But it’s unlikely the vast majority of the next generation of retirees will be anywhere near debt free, or even mortgage free, when they call it quits for good.

The fallout can be found in delinquency and bankruptcy data. The bankruptcy rate of those past age 65 is the fastest-growing segment, jumping from 2% in 1991 to more than 6% in 2007. Mortgage delinquency and foreclosure rates among those aged 64 to 75 jumped five-fold since the recession.

Once upon a time, most homeowners didn’t retire until their mortgage and other biggest debts were paid off. Then again, they rarely put down less than 20% or used the equity in their home like an ATM. We’ll be paying for our bad habits for years to come.

 

 

MONEY Economy

Americans Still Worried About Their Financial Future

Six out of 10 people surveyed by Money magazine own up to being worried about their family's long-term economic security.

Most Americans believe that the Great Recession is over, according to MONEY magazine's new national survey. But a Great Insecurity seems to have emerged in its wake.

Many of us are sticking to the good financial habits we adopted after the crash — a trend explored in Part 1 of this story. One reason for that: Once you look beyond the immediate future, optimism fades and it becomes clear that Americans remain deeply worried about their long-term economic prospects.

Consider: In the MONEY survey, nearly two-thirds of those earning less than $100,000 and roughly half of those making six figures said they were worried about their family’s economic security; roughly six in 10 Americans were anxious about how they would pay their health care costs.

The majority fell behind on their savings, given their stage of life, and almost three out of four were concerned that their money wouldn’t last through retirement. Other recent studies have found similar concerns: New research from the Consumer Federation of America, for instance, found that only a third of Americans feel prepared for their long-term financial future.

Why does the outlook seem so scary? Some experts think the events of the past six years have shaken the belief in our ability to accumulate wealth over the long haul.

“When the housing market fell, that really scared people,” says Michael Hurd, a senior researcher at Rand, who studied the effect of the recession on household finances. Hurd found that a decline in home values caused people to cut back on their spending more than a similar drop in the stock market.

In addition, the erosion of trust in our financial system will have a lasting effect, says Tyler Cowen, professor of economics at George Mason University.

“If you don’t believe that your environment will persist, you’re not willing to stake out plans,” Cowen notes. “For example, you won’t buy a home based on the premise that in five years you’ll be earning more money. The volatility of the stock market and the government shutdown have only made it harder.”

Speech pathologist Janel Butera, 47, is one who isn’t counting on anything. A divorced mom of two sons, ages 12 and 13, from Corona, Calif., Butera has made reducing spending and boosting savings a priority over the past five years. Out went the gym membership and vacations; packed lunches and day trips to the beach are the new norm.

“The economy as a whole — I don’t put a lot of faith in it,” she says. “I’m not counting on getting any retirement help, not even Social Security.”

Butera is proud that she’s managed to rebuild her finances after suffering the twin hits of divorce and the recession but is still anxious that she might one day become a burden to her boys. “I worry about them having to provide for me when I’m older,” she says.

Her concern is shared by many: In the MONEY poll, one in five Americans with children said they would probably need their kids’ financial support someday.

We’re living close to the edge

One reason we’re not feeling so hot: While our 401(k)s may be flush again, our emergency savings are not. Half of the respondents in the MONEY poll confessed to living paycheck to paycheck; roughly six in 10 felt they didn’t have enough money set aside for emergencies and didn’t think the family’s breadwinner would find it easy to get another job if laid off.

And almost all people, it seemed, felt like they’d need a higher income than they now earn to really be financially secure — even those who currently bring home a six-figure income. No wonder that anxiety about how we’d cope with a real financial emergency tied with concerns about outliving retirement savings as the most prevalent money worry.

In fact, money has gotten tighter for many lately. Household income, adjusted for inflation, has dipped 4.7% since the recession, economist Cowen points out.

One thing’s for sure: All this stress isn’t helping our love life. The MONEY poll found that finances are both the most frequent source of spats between couples and the cause of the most serious arguments — far ahead of the second-place finisher, household chores, and snoring, which came in third.

Edward Martinez of Tyler, Texas, is one of the many who are worried about not having an adequate cushion. Though Martinez, 44, made $140,000 working for a military contractor in Iraq after the recession, he now earns less than six figures as a technical specialist with the Smith County appraisal district.

He and his wife, Jennifer, 38, a professor at the University of Texas, have an 18-year-old daughter living at home and also help support Martinez’s 22-year-old daughter from his first marriage.

Right now the family has only about a month’s worth of savings, which could easily be wiped out by a run-of-the-mill financial emergency, Martinez acknowledges. He’s in the process of getting a pharmaceutical degree, which he hopes will boost his earning power a few years from now.

Like Martinez, many parents these days are helping grown kids, making it even harder to save. More than a third of the parents of children 22 and older in the MONEY survey are helping out at least one of their brood; of those, three in 10 are shelling out $5,000 or more a year. And that’s not likely to change anytime soon: In the survey, parents providing such support believed their adult child wouldn’t gain full independence until age 30; adult kids supported by a parent put that age at (gulp) 32.

The kids may be all right in the end after all

Such findings are in keeping with alarms many experts have sounded predicting that young adults would bear the most lasting scars from the Great Recession, just as the Depression had a lifelong impact on the way people who came of age at that time managed their money.

Certainly millennials have had a tough slog so far: The job market for this youngest generation of workers is grim (nearly half of those unemployed are under 34, a Demos study has found), and the average student-loan debt for recent college grads is $30,000.

Atlanta resident Courtney Clemons, 25, has a typical millennial story. The Georgia State University grad interned at a travel agency while in school and was hired there full-time after she got her degree. But her earnings, ranging from $25,000 to $35,000, depending on bonuses, aren’t enough for her to get by on her own. So her parents provide about $500 a month to cover her car and health insurance, cellphone bill, and some spending money. Contributing to the problem: She has $90,000 in student loans.

“The jobs you get after graduation aren’t conducive to living on your own,” she says. Morley Winograd, co-author of Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America, agrees. “Millennials are a very economically stressed generation, and that stress will last for their lifetime,” he says.

Yet MONEY’s survey, among others, shows a more mixed picture. Today’s younger folks do seem at least as value-conscious as their elders, and maybe even more so: A greater percentage of millennials say they are eating at home these days than they were in 2011, for example, while the numbers had dropped slightly for the general population. And for now at least, younger investors also seem more nervous about the stock market, keeping a greater percentage of their portfolios in cash than older people do.

When it comes to other attitudes about spending and saving, however, millennials seem to be pretty much like everyone else. They are just as likely to covet new, innovative products. And they aren’t cutting back on luxury spending or postponing vacations with any greater frequency than their elders either. Nor do they place more importance on saving; almost everyone, young and old, affluent or not, says that saving money is more important to them now than it was a few years ago. And for all the lamentation about how dim the prospects are for this generation, younger folks are surprisingly upbeat about their future: The vast majority (86%) expect to live as well as or better than their parents.

For now, though, while millennials may be having difficulty leaving the nest, no one seems particularly unhappy about it.

“Boomers created a helicopter parenting style and went out of their way to be friends with their kids,” says Winograd. “Many are delighted to have their adult children home.” The kids apparently don’t mind either. A recent Pew study found that 78% of adults ages 25 to 34 who were staying with their parents said they were satisfied with their living arrangements.

Some experts believe this turn toward family may be one recession-induced change that truly lasts. Reality is causing more people to let go of the postwar expectation that living standards will naturally just keep getting better, says Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history and family studies at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash.

Many may end up caring less about keeping up with the Joneses and more about being with the people who matter the most to them as a result. And indeed, almost 80% of the respondents to the MONEY survey say spending time with family is more important than ever to them, an increase of 10 percentage points over the past five years.

Janel Butera is one of them. The speech pathologist and mom felt her financial situation was secure enough last year to cut back her workweek from five days to four, so she went for it. “Sure, I could use the money,” she says, “but spending time with my kids is more important.”

Additional reporting by Kerri Anne Renzulli.

 

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