Lost Decade: 1/3 of young people under 35 live with parents

[Big Phil]

Umm, Marina kinda can't have her own kids, but plans to adopt when she can. The kids are already born, but this way they have a better chance of being productive people in life, instead of the next generation of baby-ovens.

Ahh... missed that part among the various replies and counter-replies

[ray245]

(2)AT NO POINT in this thread have we been proposing that kids "kicked out" should go off and buy gi-normous McMansions they can't afford. A few of us have even noted that we lived in shitty apartments in our early 20s(in my case, shitty barracks and open bay berthing on a ship), and bummer. Sometimes we can't all sit around praying for that magical 6-figure income to drop in our laps while freeloading off of mom.

No one is talking about freeloading off the parents. We are simply saying the idea that we should live in shitty apartment in our early 20s is stupid.

[AniThyng]

No one is talking about freeloading off the parents. We are simply saying the idea that we should live in shitty apartment in our early 20s is stupid.

It's worth noting that yes, I do save a considerable amount of money on the principle that I don't need to purchase a lot of other things that I would otherwise need to get for myself to equip a house, e.g. a refrigerator, ovens, stoves, utensils etc., but it also underscores Lusyanka's point that if i were to move out (to a place that would be at most an hour from my parent's house, since obviously i would need to be in a reasonable distance of my workplace) they would be left with a house and furniture a tad too big for their own needs which they will still maintain. Oh yes, they can rent my room out or somesuch, while I go ahead and rent a room from some one else. Just doesn't make sense to us.

[ray245]

It's annoying when people continue to hold on to their cultural mindset and misconception of people who decides to stay with their parents in their early twenties.

[Lonestar]

No one is talking about freeloading off the parents. We are simply saying the idea that we should live in shitty apartment in our early 20s is stupid.

If you're staying with your parents for the express purpose of "saving money", that tells me that you aren't paying into the household a whole hell of a lot(and I refuse to buy that 51+% of the under-35 crowd mentioned in the OP are paying into the household). In other words, you aren't taking responsibility for yourself.

It's annoying when people continue to hold on to their cultural mindset and misconception of people who decides to stay with their parents in their early twenties.

I've been to Singapore, yeah I get that you guys are basically living on top of each other. NA is a different situation.

It's worth noting that yes, I do save a considerable amount of money on the principle that I don't need to purchase a lot of other things that I would otherwise need to get for myself to equip a house, e.g. a refrigerator, ovens, stoves, utensils etc.,

I am reminded of the Jeff Foxworthy comedy routine where he notes that "while young and single, you don't OWN anything. If you have a party and everything you own is destroyed, you're out $50." Young single people typicalloy don't have a lot of stuff, or they have second hand stuff. So?

[Lusankya]

I've been to Singapore, yeah I get that you guys are basically living on top of each other. NA is a different situation.

The attitude seems to be almost exclusively a North American cultural thing, if this thread is any indication. It's not as though Australia's running out of room, but every Australian in this thread has thought that children staying at home is not really a big issue.

I guess the big difference is that you guys think "they should leave, unless there's a good reason for them to stay" whereas most of the rest of us seem to be thinking "they can stay, unless there's a good reason for them to leave".

[AniThyng]

I've been to Singapore, yeah I get that you guys are basically living on top of each other. NA is a different situation.

Strictly speaking, it's not exactly a Singaporean thing - as pointed out earlier, Asian culture in general does not have any particular stigma against people staying with their parents in of itself. Almost every unmarried person I know who stays on their own does so because it so happens that their parents home is not where they are or not suitable for their jobs/studies whatever. I know people who literally actually <own> their own property who instead of living there rent it out and continue to live at home. People are of course generally expected to get thier own place when they marry or whatever, but even then in the interm there is no stigma against staying at a set of parent's house.

Granted, many Asian societies are crowded anyway, so...

I am reminded of the Jeff Foxworthy comedy routine where he notes that "while young and single, you don't OWN anything. If you have a party and everything you own is destroyed, you're out $50." Young single people typicalloy don't have a lot of stuff, or they have second hand stuff. So?

So...so. Yes, instead of staying in a poor apartment with 2nd hand stuff and roommates who may or may not be responsible or agreeable, I took the "easy way out" and stayed at home. As you said, you consider this a poor excuse, so, yeah. There is no escaping the fact that no matter what, at the very minimum in order to stay on my own outside I *will* be spending money purely on rent. This may be a more worthy cause then my..say, Xbox, but still.

[ray245]

No one is talking about freeloading off the parents. We are simply saying the idea that we should live in shitty apartment in our early 20s is stupid.

If you're staying with your parents for the express purpose of "saving money", that tells me that you aren't paying into the household a whole hell of a lot(and I refuse to buy that 51+% of the under-35 crowd mentioned in the OP are paying into the household). In other words, you aren't taking responsibility for yourself.

Can you even prove that this is the case? And what happens if a majority of those people do pay their parents? Hell, even then I agree with you that they aren't taking full and total responsibility for themselves, why do you think it is necessarily for them to take that amount of responsibility at such an age?

By the way, didn't Scandinavian countries also adopted this mindset where it is OK for people in their twenties to live in the parent's house?

[AniThyng]

No one is talking about freeloading off the parents. We are simply saying the idea that we should live in shitty apartment in our early 20s is stupid.

If you're staying with your parents for the express purpose of "saving money", that tells me that you aren't paying into the household a whole hell of a lot(and I refuse to buy that 51+% of the under-35 crowd mentioned in the OP are paying into the household). In other words, you aren't taking responsibility for yourself.

Can you even prove that this is the case? And what happens if a majority of those people do pay their parents? Hell, even then I agree with you that they aren't taking full and total responsibility for themselves, why do you think it is necessarily for them to take that amount of responsibility at such an age?

To be fair, from the tone of the article, it seems at least like the people highlighted by it seemed to have entered the their 20's immediately saddled with crippling debt and expenses. Also, we stole their jobs due to outsourcing. Incidentally, I wouldn't say I can't live away from my parents or take the responsibility of doing so if I wanted to, I can. It's just not *necessary* because I am young and single and am not restricted by my parents in what I choose to do with my time.


In any case:

All of those, of course, are outliers for most folks exiting the military. Too many dumbass 19 year olds get in, get paid(what to them) is a "lot of money" and end up buying a car they spend 6 years paying off.

Umm. Right. One would think it would be better if society tried to raise people to be financially prudent from the start rather then letting them learn these expensive lessons later. I understand people are entitled to make mistakes and learn from them, but like the previously quoted example about teen pregnancy and single moms, some lessons have consequences you cannot undo easily.

[Knife]

It's not as though Australia's running out of room, but every Australian in this thread has thought that children staying at home is not really a big issue.

I would like to note, all the college aged and younger kids in this thread, Australian or not, think children staying at home is not a really big deal. Perhaps due to our population, not enough people with older kids who have to seriously think about this, we don't have a sample size big enough to test the 'parents' view on this. Minus mine, that is.

[Lonestar]

Can you even prove that this is the case? And what happens if a majority of those people do pay their parents?

Why do people live at home with their parents past the legal adult age? Going ONLY with the arguments about "saving money" that people in this thread are making, it's reasonable to make an inference that the sample set is not paying signifigantly into the household.

Hell, even then I agree with you that they aren't taking full and total responsibility for themselves, why do you think it is necessarily for them to take that amount of responsibility at such an age?

Seriously? You're old enough to be in charge of a millions-dollar piece of equipment, own firearms, vote, but "can't take the responsibility" of moving out and running their own finances?

Are you high?

By the way, didn't Scandinavian countries also adopted this mindset where it is OK for people in their twenties to live in the parent's house?

(1)In case you didn't notice, this is largely a discussion about NA households
(2)I can think of one or two Scandinavians who don't think it's healthy to be living at home wiht your parents on a permanent basis, so it certainyl isn't a universal trait.
(3)The OP is under the age of 35, which suggests to me the problem is pretty bad.

[ray245]

(2)I can think of one or two Scandinavians who don't think it's healthy to be living at home wiht your parents on a permanent basis, so it certainyl isn't a universal trait.

Not another Strawman fallacy again.

No one here is ever arguing for living with parents on a permanent basis.

[General Zod]

(2)I can think of one or two Scandinavians who don't think it's healthy to be living at home wiht your parents on a permanent basis, so it certainyl isn't a universal trait.

Not another Strawman fallacy again.

No one here is ever arguing for living with parents on a permanent basis.

People keep making vague allusions about not moving out until they're financially stable, but what does that mean? People can spend years or decades trying to become financially stable, so without some kind of working definition to go by it may as well be permanent.

[General Zod]

People living together makes financial sense for everyone and makes environmental sense for the world. It is vastly more efficient to share resources as much as possible.

LOL. Did you even read that post? He's saying it's reasonable to assume that some people aren't going to be pitching in their fair share. It has nothing to do with efficiency.

[ray245]

(2)I can think of one or two Scandinavians who don't think it's healthy to be living at home wiht your parents on a permanent basis, so it certainyl isn't a universal trait.

Not another Strawman fallacy again.

No one here is ever arguing for living with parents on a permanent basis.

People keep making vague allusions about not moving out until they're financially stable, but what does that mean? People can spend years or decades trying to become financially stable, so without some kind of working definition to go by it may as well be permanent.

I thought that most people has already mentioned it a few pages ago. We are saying that it is acceptable for people who are in their early to mid twenties to continue to stay with their parents, provided that they are contributing back to the household income.

[General Zod]

I thought that most people has already mentioned it a few pages ago. We are saying that it is acceptable for people who are in their early to mid twenties to continue to stay with their parents, provided that they are contributing back to the household income.

Which. . .they can do permanently.

[ray245]

I thought that most people has already mentioned it a few pages ago. We are saying that it is acceptable for people who are in their early to mid twenties to continue to stay with their parents, provided that they are contributing back to the household income.

Which. . .they can do permanently.

And yet people in Asian societies still leave their parents house by the time they are in their late 20s. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that the majority of people who live in their parent house in the early 20s would continue to live there on a permanent basis.

[Ritterin Sophia]

After my medical discharge I moved back in with my mom, all our funds is in a communal bank account between my mom, sister, and myself.

[RedImperator]

People living together makes financial sense for everyone and makes environmental sense for the world. It is vastly more efficient to share resources as much as possible.

LOL. Did you even read that post? He's saying it's reasonable to assume that some people aren't going to be pitching in their fair share. It has nothing to do with efficiency.

No, that's not what he said.

Why do people live at home with their parents past the legal adult age? Going ONLY with the arguments about "saving money" that people in this thread are making, it's reasonable to make an inference that the sample set is not paying signifigantly into the household.

Not "some". The "sample set". Destructionator countered that it's perfectly possible to contribute one's fair share of the household expenses and save money (which should be obvious anyway, or else it wouldn't ever make sense to take on roommates), and therefore, it is not reasonable to infer that the entire sample set isn't paying its fair share. I don't know if the data exists to prove anything either way; so far, this entire tangent has been dueling anecdotes, so it certainly hasn't been presented in this thread.

[General Zod]

Not "some". The "sample set". Destructionator countered that it's perfectly possible to contribute one's fair share of the household expenses and save money (which should be obvious anyway, or else it wouldn't ever make sense to take on roommates), and therefore, it is not reasonable to infer that the entire sample set isn't paying its fair share. I don't know if the data exists to prove anything either way; so far, this entire tangent has been dueling anecdotes, so it certainly hasn't been presented in this thread.

Fair enough.

[General Zod]

And yet people in Asian societies still leave their parents house by the time they are in their late 20s. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that the majority of people who live in their parent house in the early 20s would continue to live there on a permanent basis.

And yet we're talking about western society here.

[ray245]

And yet people in Asian societies still leave their parents house by the time they are in their late 20s. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that the majority of people who live in their parent house in the early 20s would continue to live there on a permanent basis.

And yet we're talking about western society here.

So what? Just because the US is a western society doesn't mean that you can assume that it will work out differently. Hell, Australia is an western society and from what I can see, people down there still want to leave their parent's house eventually.

It's almost like you were saying the UHC cannot work for the US because it's a different society from the rest of the world.

[General Zod]

So what? Just because the US is a western society doesn't mean that you can assume that it will work out differently. Hell, Australia is an western society and from what I can see, people down there still want to leave their parent's house eventually.

Are you smoking crack or did you just say that differences in societies aren't important factors to consider?

It's almost like you were saying the UHC cannot work for the US because it's a different society from the rest of the world.

What the fuck does UHC have to do with anything? Especially when I've never said anything of the sort?

[ray245]

So what? Just because the US is a western society doesn't mean that you can assume that it will work out differently. Hell, Australia is an western society and from what I can see, people down there still want to leave their parent's house eventually.

Are you smoking crack or did you just say that differences in societies aren't important factors to consider?

Because you did nothing to prove that the majority of people who live with their parents in their early twenties would continue to do so on a permanent basis.

[General Zod]

So what? Just because the US is a western society doesn't mean that you can assume that it will work out differently. Hell, Australia is an western society and from what I can see, people down there still want to leave their parent's house eventually.

Are you smoking crack or did you just say that differences in societies aren't important factors to consider?

Because you did nothing to prove that the majority of people who live with their parents in their early twenties would continue to do so on a permanent basis.

Then you completely missed my whole fucking point, since I didn't make that claim.