It looks like millennials have abandoned their big-city dreams—more people aged 20-36 are living in the suburbs than in the city.

Millennials have the reputation of not being very responsible with their money—some say that they can’t afford to buy homes because they spend their paychecks on avocado toast. But living in the suburbs? Isn’t that the American dream?

Rent or own, 38% of millennials live in the suburbs compared to 37% that live in the city. Though this is only a difference of one percentage point, it marks a turning point for this generation. Moreover, for millennial homeowners, 41% decided to stick to the suburbs rather than anywhere else, compared to 36% in 2016.

For some, the suburbs represent settling down, starting a family, and overall stability. However, at face value, suburbs are an affordable living option for those who want an easy commute to the city for other reasons. If millennials really do value things like avocado toast, good Instagram posts, and trendy brunches, moving right outside of expensive big cities might just be the smart thing to do to keep up their habits.

One thing that could be holding millennials back from affording the city lifestyle they might crave is student debt.  83% of people 22-35 who have student debt and do not own homes claim the two are correlated.

Though millennials have been buying more homes lately, around 70% of those who have regret it. One reason is the hefty down payment—a survey found that a third of them dipped into their retirement savings. Other reasons include underestimating ongoing costs and buying a home even when timing wasn’t perfect.

Given the buyer’s remorse, it makes sense why millennials are gravitating to the suburbs. A report by Zillow shows that people can spend around 26.5% of their income to own property in a city, but only 20.2% to own a similar home in the suburbs.

The move to the suburbs could mean that millennials are changing their reputation. A 2016 survey by Ernst & Young LLP and Economic Innovation Group (EIG) showed that the age group was “deeply pessimistic.” Two years later, that picture has changed. They’re getting married sooner than they thought they would, they’re graduating college and entering the workforce with stable jobs, and they think the economy is doing well. Most millennials think that sticking with one company is the best way to advance in their careers instead of hopping from place to place.

Though there are countless theories about the reason behind it, this newfound attitude is likely the result of growing up. Millennials live and learn, too.

By Roy Pankey

When I find myself the subject of dinnertime interrogation after refusing my aunt’s meatloaf, I have an artillery of arguments ready to deploy. I talk about how I am decreasing animal suffering, fighting climate change, and setting myself up to live longer than everyone else at the table.

I also talk about how I’m being economically conscious. In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, University of Oxford researcher Marco Springmann estimates (conservatively) that if the U.S. continues its current meat-consumption trend, by 2050 it could cost our country between $197 billion and $289 billion annually. The costs for the world are significantly higher.

Springmann laid out numerous dietary scenarios in the year 2050. He considered costs related to healthcare and climate change that will be incurred if we maintain our diet saturated with meat instead of adopting one that follows global dietary standards. (This would mean a great reduction in meat consumption for many parts of the country.) He also totaled cost savings for vegetarian and vegan world populations.

Costs considered include those related to healthcare (for treatment of diseases like diabetes and heart disease related to a diet heavy in meat), unpaid care (by family or friends for those affected by such diseases), and lost work days. Savings of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions related to the production of meat and other animal products were measured using the “social cost of carbon.”

Source: The Atlantic

The U.S. would save more than any other country by giving up meat. We would save $180 billion if we ate in accordance to recommended guidelines, and $250 billion if we gave up animal products altogether, due to our high healthcare costs per-capita. That’s more savings than would see China or all the countries in the European Union combined. And that’s not speaking at all of the minimum 320,000 yearly deaths associated with chronic diseases and obesity.

Overall, the study shows that the savings in healthcare-related costs are greater than the savings in environmental costs achieved when adopting a meatless diet. However, Springmann admits that the study’s numbers are “subject to significant uncertainties.” To realize these levels of savings, the world would need to decrease the amount of red meat it consumes by 56 percent and increase vegetable and fruit intake by about 25 percent. Globally, we’d also need to reduce our calorie intake by 15 percent in general.

Associating these well-known effects of a meat-free diet with a dollar amount is powerful. The numbers determined by the study can drive policy and attitude changes. Governments can now weigh the expenses related to consuming meat and other animal products against their economic needs. They can also use these numbers to drive debate about new taxes, existing subsidies, and changes to food advertising.

#ByeMeatloaf