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

[Ritterin Sophia]

And? After I got out I lived with my mother for 8 months while transitioning between military and civilian. I had already planned to stay for no more than a year(some of the dudes in the MESS will know what I'm talking about). It wasn't some nebulous "I'll move out when I'm in a better financial situation" that everyone is talking about here.

You say that like I was actually trying to argue with you or that I actually give a fuck about your opinion. All I said was, "Yeah, I'm living in my mom's house with her and my sister and we all collectively share the responsibility of the bills." So you can kindly fuck off, dickwad.

[Cairber]

I am not sold on the idea that you save more money by living in the communal home; it's gotta depend a lot on circumstance because we could definitely be saving over 10,000$ a year just by downsizing our house from 4 to 2 bedrooms in the same neighborhood (we have 3 kids, so I am figuring here what it would cost me to have 2 of them at home as adults). The adult child is going to cost just as much in food and transportation living with me or by him/herself, as there would be no possible way I would be taxi driver. I just don't see any perceived savings where I am. How are people figuring that it would cost less on the family as a unit to live together unless the adult child is making a sizable contribution to offset the necessity of needing a larger house.

[Cairber]

Why would you expect the kids to be contributing equally to the household? Does your wife contribute equally to the household? Does the average wife? What about proportionally? If not, then why would you expect the kids to do so?

What do you mean by "the average wife"? If she's a stay-at-home mom then she's contributing quite a bit when you figure in cost of childcare, transportation, cleaning, cooking, etc. If she is working, then she is bringing home a salary that undoubtedly gets put into the household unlike the adult child who would also be working to get out of the household/contributing to his own future.

As a stay-at-home mom and part time worker, I expect certain things of myself. The children need to be taken care of, they need to be occupied and taught, the house needs to be cleaned, the laundry done, meals made, etc. But I also need to financially contribute.

If an adult child was living with us, I would expect them to do the same...all adults in this house contribute.

[Big Phil]

No argument that it's more economical. However, just because five people live together under the same roof doesn't mean that they're all contributing equally (or even proportionally to their income) to the maintenance of the household. I don't believe for one second that the examples in the OP are contributing equitably to their parents' household expenses; in my personal (anecdotal) experience, people I know who live at home might pay for their own food, but usually don't pay the mortgage, taxes, utilities, etc., and that's why I'm asking for non-anecdotal evidence that adults living with their parents are actually contributing equally (or proportionally) to the household... if they're not, they're just mooching, cultural differences aside.

Why would you expect the kids to be contributing equally to the household? Does your wife contribute equally to the household? Does the average wife? What about proportionally? If not, then why would you expect the kids to do so?

Dude, pay some fucking attention to the thread, would you? Oni, Ray, AniThyng, and ArmorPierce (among others) are insisting that "people living under the same roof is far more economical than spreading out and the costs of doing such does not increase so much," and that "It definitely is more economical if you view the family as a unit rather than an assortment of individuals. I do, my family does. Not everyone does.If someone that sees a family as an assortment of individuals and split up costs such as that, then they would indeed be saving money."

If they're not defending mooching off their parents, then they're arguing that everyone contributes equally. If they're not contributing equally, they're mooching, and as cairber correctly points out, perhaps costing their parents more to maintain a larger household.

[aerius]

If they're not defending mooching off their parents, then they're arguing that everyone contributes equally. If they're not contributing equally, they're mooching, and as cairber correctly points out, perhaps costing their parents more to maintain a larger household.

To be honest I don't know if there's any way to settle the argument either way. What you define as leeching, another family might feel is doing what's expected to get their kids off to a good start. The kids might be living with their parents for next to no cost, but if the parents view it as helping their kids get a solid footing, then is it still mooching? We'll help you get through school, then once you get your finances in order (3-6 months living expenses saved up) or X amount of time, whichever comes first, you're outta here and we'll help you move your stuff to your new place.

One thing that's interesting is the pattern I've noted among my friends & co-workers. Most people whose families have been here for a few generations are out of the house as soon as they finish college, or maybe a year or so after that. Children of more recent immigrants usually stick around home a fair bit longer, usually until they get a solid long-term relationship going and move in with the partner or get engaged & move in. This seems to happen around the mid to late 20's and 30 is generally seen as the "get the fuck out daddy's house" age.

[Big Phil]

If they're not defending mooching off their parents, then they're arguing that everyone contributes equally. If they're not contributing equally, they're mooching, and as cairber correctly points out, perhaps costing their parents more to maintain a larger household.

To be honest I don't know if there's any way to settle the argument either way. What you define as leeching, another family might feel is doing what's expected to get their kids off to a good start. The kids might be living with their parents for next to no cost, but if the parents view it as helping their kids get a solid footing, then is it still mooching? We'll help you get through school, then once you get your finances in order (3-6 months living expenses saved up) or X amount of time, whichever comes first, you're outta here and we'll help you move your stuff to your new place.

One thing that's interesting is the pattern I've noted among my friends & co-workers. Most people whose families have been here for a few generations are out of the house as soon as they finish college, or maybe a year or so after that. Children of more recent immigrants usually stick around home a fair bit longer, usually until they get a solid long-term relationship going and move in with the partner or get engaged & move in. This seems to happen around the mid to late 20's and 30 is generally seen as the "get the fuck out daddy's house" age.

Because of cultural differences, you're absolutely right, there is not absolute way to answer this. In North America, however, a 28/32/35 year old living at home and not contributing significantly to the finances is generally defined as mooching and not viewed in a positive light (typical exceptions being recently laid off, divorced, or in some other fashion in need of (temporary) help).

[une]

Because of cultural differences, you're absolutely right, there is not absolute way to answer this. In North America, however, a 28/32/35 year old living at home and not contributing significantly to the finances is generally defined as mooching and not viewed in a positive light (typical exceptions being recently laid off, divorced, or in some other fashion in need of (temporary) help).

What would you define as contributing significantly to the finances?

[Knife]

lol, that evidence has not been shown, except in anecdotal means from *gasp* college kids living with their parents.

Since Oni explicitly mentioned "the rest of the world", in East Asia it is not considered unusual for someone in his 20's and working to be staying with their parents. It's not by all means universal, and people do move out for whatever reason (marriage, desire for freedom, job out of town, etc.). The logic that it makes more financial sense to pool resources rather then duplicating them, and doing so with family rather then strangers is still sound. The major difference I suppose is that while in NA this is something only fat jobless nerds do, in Asia it's something a broad segment of people do, not just the fat jobless nerds, which obviously still exist.

Now here is something that actually was addressed earlier in the thread. If you get to say 'our culture' for your position, then logically we get to say 'our culture' on the other side. In which case, we get no where and the argument is moot.

As for pooling resources, besides restating it repeatedly, no one has addressed whether or not the parents NEED those resources and/or if they are equal contributions or if they are just feel good contributions that amount to jack and shit. If a person is indeed paying their fair share (say 1/3 of the house hold expenses, two parents and a kid) then what is the difference of that and three roommates? If they are not paying their fair share, then they are not pooling their resources at all in an efficient way and ARE relying on the generosity of their parents.

[Dark Hellion]

Okay, while I understand what Cairber is saying in some ways, I would like someone on the adult children are mooching side to explain their mathematical contradiction to what I seem to think Ray and Co are saying.

1) All of the expenses of an adult child are present earlier. Car payment (if being made for childs car), house payments for home, property taxes, etc.

2) Generally, groceries are cheaper per unit when bought in bulk. For example, half a gallon of milk is often only 15-20 percent cheaper than a whole gallon. Depending on consumption rates many couples cannot properly use large amounts of perishable items, whereas the cost for buying for 4-6 people is not much more (especially if you avoid having large portion of meat with each meal) and definetly not the 100-200 percent increase that would be implied by the greater number of people.

If the family is split into multiple parties many expenses actually enter play.

1) Rent or house payments for the former dependents. Now, if these payments are less than the increase in mortgage and property taxes for owning a larger home then money is saves collectively, but this depends upon the parents being willing to downsize their home and/or move to an area of lower property taxes. If they cannot or will not, then the net cost on the family unit as a whole is simply straight up increased. Now the children to bear the entire burden themselves, but as has been pointed out most 20 somethings do not have the work experience and credentials to get jobs that support living in a single apartment (or even splitting a one bedroom in some cities) that have the living standards that are expected in every other western society besides the U.S. as minimal.

2) Individually buying food. As explained above, buying in bulk is most often of extremely higher efficiency than buying for individuals. Many individuals will not use a dozen eggs before they perish, but a family of four can quite efficiently and at many markets a dozen eggs is far less than twice the price of a half dozen.

3) Individual utilities. It costs less to have cable or internet in one home than two, a doubling of people does not imply a doubling of electrical or water expenses as heavily as having two houses does.

Basically, It seems to me that the conclusion that it saves money (most especially potential money) by living in a communal setting is mathematically valid. All of the costs of adult children are incurred previous to the children being legally adult, if the parents where financially capable of supporting them before there is no increase in cost, and even after leaving there would only be a negligible decrease in utilities and groceries and no decrease in housing cost for the parents unless they are willing to change residency.

Now, adult children are generally capable of purchasing restaurant meals and entertainment for themselves, which is a net decrease in the cost upon the parents. Most are capable of handling their own bills (such as college loan payments, car payments if applicable) and paying for their own fuel and maintenance. Now if they are incapable of doing this, they are mooching. However, if they are capable of these things I do not understand how not wanting to spend more of their money to live on their own at a presumably lower standard of living is actually considered mooching. In all likelyhood it mathematically costs no more than the parents spent the previous 18 years of the child's life and very easily could mathematically save the parents money and remove the necessity for the parents to move.

Perhaps I am missing something in here, but the above is the reasoning that seems implied in Ray's and Armourpierce's posts and seems logically and mathematically sound to me on first impression.

Secondly, I find it an interesting moral argument that there is a necessity for adult children to move out (now, myself I moved out when I was 18 to go to school, after school I moved back in for approximately one year before moving out again for grad school. I moved back in because I was financially incapable of paying my rent and loans at the same time, thus I have spent 6 out of the last 7 years living on my own so the your a mooch ad hominum isn't going to fly). The first ideal that the law is derived from morality is a very laughable assertion. Legality is informed by morality but it is also informed by societal necessity. This is easily demonstrated by speed limits. Driving above the speed limit is rarely morally wrong since many roads can be safely driven on at speeds above the posted limit. Now, on some roads going above the limit does cause a decrease in personal safety which could be considered a morally suberogatory action, but many flat state highway system roads could be driven upon at 60mph which no adverse effect making them a morally neutral action. So, the legal age of adulthood has no moral connection, but is a societally drawn line, similar to age of consent. When one could be said to be an adult is arbitrary just as when it is said that one can vote, drink, smoke, or have sex.

Furthermore, even in American society there is not a real sense that parental responsibility ends when the children become adults. Many peoples grandparents still give their children advice (read orders when using their parent role). Now adult children are far more capable of ignoring these, but mostly because of their financial status. 20 somethings with their far lower financial security are given the choice of losing their standard of living and the financial security of having their parents to fall back on for some minor Independence (some of which is very constrained because they have fewer choices given their economic situation). Even if their children are legally adults, unless parents are fully willing to give up their parent role (which what parent is going to fully give up the major responsibility of wanting their children to live a better life?) then they are going to maintain some level of parental responsibility as well. I cannot see a reason why parental responsibility ends at some arbitrary age unless the parent is willing to give up their parent role completely. Frankly, some compromise must be made between the parent role assumed by the parents and their adult children.

Perhaps I am not reading the posts of Lonestar, Sanchez etc. correctly, but the primary rebuttals I think I am seeing are:

1) American Society doesn't work that way. Which is a non-argument. Well, more appropriately and Appeal to Tradition.

2) It makes no financial sense, which I think I have contradicted above.

3) Parents aren't responsible for their childen after legal adulthood, again I believe I have contradicted for some cases above.

Perhaps the argument is more complex than that, but I think the two sides need to represent their argumentation, because content is becoming lost in the bickering.

P.S. an addendum. Personally, I believe that children should spend some time independently after reaching a point in their life when they can assume an adult role. Usually when the child no longer expects to attend school. Undergrad is a very good time as well, as dorms allow the child to maintain a higher standard of living for the money while still forcing many aspects of adult financial responsibility upon them. Children should want to do this so they can assume a new role in interacting with their parents instead of the Parent/dependent interaction that they experience the first 17 or so years of their life. However, I believe that the idea of "throwing your children to the wolves" that some adults (usually not parents) advocate is simply a selfish attempt to abdicate responsibility and thus hopefully achieve financial betterment. Parents bare certain lifelong responsibilities to their children. I have witnessed this myself as my grandparents still give my parents advice (orders) on rare occasions because quite simply they have those addition decades of experience and still personally accept enough responsibility for my parents to want to utilize that experience for their betterment.

Now, I don't believe that children should be given the boot at any specific age, but at some point in your mid-20's if you cannot begin proportional contribution to the familial finances you are mooching and need to learn responsibility the hard way.

[Big Phil]

Okay, while I understand what Cairber is saying in some ways, I would like someone on the adult children are mooching side to explain their mathematical contradiction to what I seem to think Ray and Co are saying.

1) All of the expenses of an adult child are present earlier. Car payment (if being made for childs car), house payments for home, property taxes, etc.

How many adult children living at home are actually paying rent or helping out with the mortgage or property taxes?

2) Generally, groceries are cheaper per unit when bought in bulk. For example, half a gallon of milk is often only 15-20 percent cheaper than a whole gallon. Depending on consumption rates many couples cannot properly use large amounts of perishable items, whereas the cost for buying for 4-6 people is not much more (especially if you avoid having large portion of meat with each meal) and definetly not the 100-200 percent increase that would be implied by the greater number of people.

It's not a cost savings unless all three people are splitting the bills evenly. If the parents are buying all the grocers, than even though they're "only" spending $200 per week for three people instead of $150 for two people, they're still spending more money.

1) Rent or house payments for the former dependents. Now, if these payments are less than the increase in mortgage and property taxes for owning a larger home then money is saves collectively, but this depends upon the parents being willing to downsize their home and/or move to an area of lower property taxes. If they cannot or will not, then the net cost on the family unit as a whole is simply straight up increased. Now the children to bear the entire burden themselves, but as has been pointed out most 20 somethings do not have the work experience and credentials to get jobs that support living in a single apartment (or even splitting a one bedroom in some cities) that have the living standards that are expected in every other western society besides the U.S. as minimal.

Live with roommates...

2) Individually buying food. As explained above, buying in bulk is most often of extremely higher efficiency than buying for individuals. Many individuals will not use a dozen eggs before they perish, but a family of four can quite efficiently and at many markets a dozen eggs is far less than twice the price of a half dozen.

Again, absolute cost is still greater for four people, and if only the parents are paying for the food, then it's not really fair for them.

3) Individual utilities. It costs less to have cable or internet in one home than two, a doubling of people does not imply a doubling of electrical or water expenses as heavily as having two houses does.

And who's paying for those utilities? Is the cost being shared, or is it again falling on the parents?

Basically, It seems to me that the conclusion that it saves money (most especially potential money) by living in a communal setting is mathematically valid. All of the costs of adult children are incurred previous to the children being legally adult, if the parents where financially capable of supporting them before there is no increase in cost, and even after leaving there would only be a negligible decrease in utilities and groceries and no decrease in housing cost for the parents unless they are willing to change residency.

No one is saying that it's not more efficient to buy in bulk or share expenses you fucking douchebag. The question has been asked, and not answered, whether adult children are actually contributing to household expenses or just living for free with their parents. For Christs sake...

Now, adult children are generally capable of purchasing restaurant meals and entertainment for themselves, which is a net decrease in the cost upon the parents. Most are capable of handling their own bills (such as college loan payments, car payments if applicable) and paying for their own fuel and maintenance. Now if they are incapable of doing this, they are mooching. However, if they are capable of these things I do not understand how not wanting to spend more of their money to live on their own at a presumably lower standard of living is actually considered mooching. In all likelyhood it mathematically costs no more than the parents spent the previous 18 years of the child's life and very easily could mathematically save the parents money and remove the necessity for the parents to move.

Hey mom and dad, have I got a deal for you! I'll live with you, eat your food, sleep under your roof, use your water and electricity, and maybe throw a few bucks your way now and then... but guess what! IT'S MORE EFFICIENT! Sure, you're still supporting my lazy 29 year old ass, but think of the EFFICIENCIES!

Of course, the only one really benefiting here is me, but that's beside the point...

Perhaps I am missing something in here, but the above is the reasoning that seems implied in Ray's and Armourpierce's posts and seems logically and mathematically sound to me on first impression.

Any completely unproven...

Secondly, I find it an interesting moral argument that there is a necessity for adult children to move out (now, myself I moved out when I was 18 to go to school, after school I moved back in for approximately one year before moving out again for grad school. I moved back in because I was financially incapable of paying my rent and loans at the same time, thus I have spent 6 out of the last 7 years living on my own so the your a mooch ad hominum isn't going to fly). The first ideal that the law is derived from morality is a very laughable assertion. Legality is informed by morality but it is also informed by societal necessity. This is easily demonstrated by speed limits. Driving above the speed limit is rarely morally wrong since many roads can be safely driven on at speeds above the posted limit. Now, on some roads going above the limit does cause a decrease in personal safety which could be considered a morally suberogatory action, but many flat state highway system roads could be driven upon at 60mph which no adverse effect making them a morally neutral action. So, the legal age of adulthood has no moral connection, but is a societally drawn line, similar to age of consent. When one could be said to be an adult is arbitrary just as when it is said that one can vote, drink, smoke, or have sex.

Holy Jesus...

Furthermore, even in American society there is not a real sense that parental responsibility ends when the children become adults. Many peoples grandparents still give their children advice (read orders when using their parent role). Now adult children are far more capable of ignoring these, but mostly because of their financial status. 20 somethings with their far lower financial security are given the choice of losing their standard of living and the financial security of having their parents to fall back on for some minor Independence (some of which is very constrained because they have fewer choices given their economic situation). Even if their children are legally adults, unless parents are fully willing to give up their parent role (which what parent is going to fully give up the major responsibility of wanting their children to live a better life?) then they are going to maintain some level of parental responsibility as well. I cannot see a reason why parental responsibility ends at some arbitrary age unless the parent is willing to give up their parent role completely. Frankly, some compromise must be made between the parent role assumed by the parents and their adult children.

Right, because people are seriously arguing booting kids to the curb on their 18th birthday... Christ, no wonder you're a permanent noob...

Perhaps I am not reading the posts of Lonestar, Sanchez etc. correctly, but the primary rebuttals I think I am seeing are:

You're right, for a change... you're not reading our posts correctly... but I can't say I'm surprised at that, especially coming from you

1) American Society doesn't work that way. Which is a non-argument. Well, more appropriately and Appeal to Tradition.

What the fuck are you talking about?

2) It makes no financial sense, which I think I have contradicted above.

You haven't used a single number, just vague allusions and generic "cost savings" arguments. If a parent has to pay $3,000 to support a household of three people, instead of $2,000 to support two people, they're not saving money. And if the kid isn't actually paying their "share" of the expenses, it's a lousy deal for the parents.

3) Parents aren't responsible for their childen after legal adulthood, again I believe I have contradicted for some cases above.

Yay, you created and knocked down a strawman... who's the big winner today? It's Dark Hellion!

P.S. an addendum. Personally, I believe that children should spend some time independently after reaching a point in their life when they can assume an adult role. Usually when the child no longer expects to attend school. Undergrad is a very good time as well, as dorms allow the child to maintain a higher standard of living for the money while still forcing many aspects of adult financial responsibility upon them. Children should want to do this so they can assume a new role in interacting with their parents instead of the Parent/dependent interaction that they experience the first 17 or so years of their life. However, I believe that the idea of "throwing your children to the wolves" that some adults (usually not parents) advocate is simply a selfish attempt to abdicate responsibility and thus hopefully achieve financial betterment. Parents bare certain lifelong responsibilities to their children. I have witnessed this myself as my grandparents still give my parents advice (orders) on rare occasions because quite simply they have those addition decades of experience and still personally accept enough responsibility for my parents to want to utilize that experience for their betterment.

"Kids should grow up someday!" Really going out on a limb there, aren't you?

Now, I don't believe that children should be given the boot at any specific age, but at some point in your mid-20's if you cannot begin proportional contribution to the familial finances you are mooching and need to learn responsibility the hard way.

You wrote all that bullshit above, only to completely agree with what I (and presumably Knife, Lonestar, etc.) are saying? What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Broomstick]

Okay, while I understand what Cairber is saying in some ways, I would like someone on the adult children are mooching side to explain their mathematical contradiction to what I seem to think Ray and Co are saying.

1) All of the expenses of an adult child are present earlier. Car payment (if being made for childs car), house payments for home, property taxes, etc.

How many adult children living at home are actually paying rent or helping out with the mortgage or property taxes?

That is going to vary, of course.

There is also the possibility of providing services - an unemployed/underemployed adult child might, for example, do household chores such as laundry, grocery shopping, trash removal, home repairs, etc. which, while not adding money to the household does certainly reduce burdens on the parents. This is comparable to my father who, when he moved in with my sister, started cooking some of the meals, started a garden this summer and grew some food for the household, walks the dogs, etc. in addition to paying some of the household expenses. (In his case he is not paying 1/3 of mortgage, etc. as his income is substantially smaller than my sister's, nonetheless, he is contributing some, mostly towards the food bill as there is now an additional person eating in the home). This has the effect of giving the parents time. If the parents are well off they might value someone doing chores more than an even split on expenses.

There is also some merit to allowing a child to live rent free for the purpose of paying off bills and debt such as student loans. This would have to include the adult child having a job of some sort, but it might be agreeable to all concerned that the child pay their wages towards getting out of debt and building up a nest egg rather than contributing to rent or mortgage.

If a parent or parents are having financial difficulties themselves, though, they might desire an adult child with a job to stay at home if that child is able to make a significant contribution towards household expenses. In which case the parents are actually somewhat or frankly dependent on the child or children who remain at home.

Clearly, some of these scenarios are contingent upon the goals of the parties involved and their overall economic situation. It is unfortunate, in many ways, that many Americans' first reaction to over-20-and-still-at-home is negative but a mention of extenuating circumstances does a great deal to mitigate that reaction.

[Junghalli]

How are people figuring that it would cost less on the family as a unit to live together unless the adult child is making a sizable contribution to offset the necessity of needing a larger house.

That assumes that the parents are, in fact, forced to hang on to a larger house to accomodate having the adult child at home. If you have a small family or aren't wealthy enough to have been able to afford a large house in the first place that isn't the case. As you say, it depends heavily on circumstances. For instance, in my case between my mother and myself we'd undoubtedly be paying more than double in rent if I moved out, we're already in pretty much the smallest cheapest place possible (disclaimer: I do plan to move out when I'm in grad school or out of college entirely, depending on how my financial situation works out).

[Stark]

Where does this false dilemna between 'pay nothing' and 'pay exactly equal' come from? If you live with your partner, and they don't spend as much on food as you do, are they 'mooching'? I pay for the entirety of the broadband at my house. Am I surrounded by 'moochers'? Am I 'mooching' the cable I don't pay for? If you pay a small amount of the rent for a small room, are you 'mooching'? Do parents even split the expenses evenly between themselves? Why should they? Is marriage 'mooching' unless both partners work and pay equal amounts of everything? How does the value of a day's housework figure into this?

Is it supporting 'mooching' to charge your kids an amount of rent NOT exactly equal share, but enough to force them to get a job and support themselves? Is it required for children living with their parents to maintain individual supplies of food, like students sharing a flat?

[ray245]

You wrote all that bullshit above, only to completely agree with what I (and presumably Knife, Lonestar, etc.) are saying? What the fuck is wrong with you?

God, what wrong with you people? We are talking about it being reasonable for people in their early twenties to stay with their parents. By the time they are in their mid-twenties and beyond, then it is becoming unreasonable for them to continue to stay with the parents.

[Dahak]

Given that my boyfriend earns less than me, we split the bills so I pay two thirds and he one third, and it never crossed my mind to demand equal payment.
When I lived at my mum's, I didn't pay anything apart from the child support I got from my father because my mother was more interested in me spending more time learning and going to university than get some more money from me and lessening the time I had available for university. She made the conscious choice that the additional money was not worth it for her in the long run.

[Dark Hellion]

I really wish that Sanchez was actually able to read, it would help him a lot in this whole debate thing.

Lets see, yes my financial argument is based on allusions. However, none of the allusions are beyond simple common sense.

1) If you are the parent of a 16 year old you are already providing everything that the parent of a 20 year old would be providing. Unless you literally lived on debt for the 2-3 years between your child getting their learners permit and turning 18, them being 18+ represents no increase in expenses. Thus, if the child can provide any finances that represents a net decrease in burden on the parents from the pre-18 days.

MOOOCH!

2) Buying in bulk is a well known to save money. This is easily experienced by going grocery shopping with the family when pre-18 and then shopping when you live on your own. If the adult child can contribute some proportion to this, again they represent a net savings over what they provided before they were 18. More especially many could provide another source of savings because they should pay for their own meals at restaurants and the like.

Again... MOOOOCH!

3) Utilities. It costs approximately twice as much to have cable or internet in two residencies than it does in one. If an adult child can contribute in any way to this (such as paying the overage of a high-speed cable from what regular cable costs or paying for premium channels).

Apparently though, in Whalerworld, adult children living with their parents either cannot provide money or services at all and thus only represent a drain or must split the bills equally (despite parents not doing so). The idea that net expenses do not increase magically when a child becomes an adult and thus any contribution is a net savings for the parent eludes him.

And of course his rebuttal is based on dismissing common sense allusions and then making up numbers.

[Cairber]

That assumes that the parents are, in fact, forced to hang on to a larger house to accomodate having the adult child at home. If you have a small family or aren't wealthy enough to have been able to afford a large house in the first place that isn't the case. As you say, it depends heavily on circumstances. For instance, in my case between my mother and myself we'd undoubtedly be paying more than double in rent if I moved out, we're already in pretty much the smallest cheapest place possible (disclaimer: I do plan to move out when I'm in grad school or out of college entirely, depending on how my financial situation works out).

Yeah that's what I mean by the part where I said "it has to depend on the circumstances." I know our plan is to downsize and move to an area that would be interesting and fun for us to live in once the kids are outta here. So I guess I agree with everyone here who is saying this just ends up being a battle of anecdotes.

[Cairber]

3) Utilities. It costs approximately twice as much to have cable or internet in two residencies than it does in one. If an adult child can contribute in any way to this (such as paying the overage of a high-speed cable from what regular cable costs or paying for premium channels).

Most apartments around here cover everything but electricity and some even include that. I know our utility costs skyrocketed when we moved into a house-- and add on garbage collection (if I didn't have kids I could do 1 pickup but we need two), recycling (same), sewer, yard waste collection, heat, all maintenance costs....

So, again, depends on the circumstances...

[Lonestar]

You say that like I was actually trying to argue with you or that I actually give a fuck about your opinion. All I said was, "Yeah, I'm living in my mom's house with her and my sister and we all collectively share the responsibility of the bills." So you can kindly fuck off, dickwad.

So....why'd you interject that into the thread then? You must have been wanting some kind of response.

[Lonestar]

That was your one line response to my assertion that there is a moral responsibility from the parents to the kids past the age of 18. Under current laws if you don't got insurance and can't pay for treatment, you're fucked, you don't get treatment until it's an emergency. Running with that logic, the law is perfectly moral because laws are derived from our morals.

Hmmm. The difference, of course, being that there is no law that puts sole responsibility for a person's health on that person, whereas when you become 18 you(as a rule) become legally responsible for the consequences of your most of your actionsd.

Firstly, what is the difference between MEN or women staying home in their 20s?

If you are above the age of 18, you aren't a kid, which is why I've taken to putting "men" in all caps when people talk abotu "kids staying at home until their 20s".

Your caveats seems to exclude: being poor, trying to become financially stable, it being the social norm and perfectly acceptable in your culture. From your posts in response to my living situation, your beliefs on living your parents is basically "Don't want to move out because you're poor? Then you are just a lazy over-privileged failure of a human being. Being barely able to afford to pay rent, food, loans, etc or not extenuating circumstances."

Nonsense. None of my caveats are blanket exclusions of those things. But if you are poor and not going the distance to make yourself marketable, then yeah, my loser-o-meter jumps up quite a bit.

People from different cultures than your own where it is a social norm to live with your parents into your adulthood are failures of human beings? I explained that my parent's are from such a culture and their culture and beliefs have been partially instilled onto me. So other people's cultural beliefs are bad and the wrong way to do things but yours is the right and good way of doing things despite you being unable to prove to me that Americans living in this sort of culture is so much better off than their equivalents from other countries?

Except, you aren't in the country of your parents origins. And you've been bleating about "being poor" as a primary motivator for you staying home, not "cultural circumstances", which leads me to adopt a healthy amount of skepticism on the claim you are making with this sentence.

Here again you confirming that "saving money" is not a good reason to live home. Show me why.

You are maintaining a parasitic relationship with your parents who have already dump staggering amounts of resources into you for the first 18 years. That you aren't even disputing that you probably aren't paying signifigantly into the household leads me to conclude you are engaged in a parasitic relationship.

Show me the evidence that majority of people staying home are being taught that they can just stooge off their parents forever.

Are you seriously saying I cannot look at "1/3 under 35 staying at home", the progeny of one of the most financially successful generations in this country, and make a reasonable inference that the reason why they are staying at home is because they want to maintain the huge amounts of disposable income that they had before?

You do realize that having several people living under the same roof is far more economical than spreading out and the costs of doing such does not increase so much, right?

You do realize you can do the same without living with your parents? It's called "roommates".

Alright here you go making a bunch of assumptions. I worked 25 hours during the school year and full time during the summer while taking upwards of 21 credits in order to graduate as soon as possible with paying as little money as possible. How else would I be able to pay for school and expenseson my own when I'm from a poor family dumb ass? Why else do I have loans?

So JOIN THE FUCKING MILITARY, you'll be largely covered, and you'll get (1)Job experience (2)have enough cash to help out your family. People do it all the time. It is an easy fix to a situation that dire.

I am saving up money in order to take the review classes and the exams that for my field and am planning on pursuing a grad degree even though it is not necessary (or even affects your marketability at all) in the field that I am interested in pursuing.

Military would pay for that too.

You don't care that things are rougher for college graduates than it ever was before, believe me, I get it.

I'm rockign 12 credits a semester and working over 40 hours. Probably about 30% I'm traveling because of work.

So cry me a fucking river about how hard life is.

I have barely seen any of this huge pressure to move out as soon as possible and only have encountered one girl who actually have a problem with this. Maybe it's a cultural difference due to me having immigrant parents and hanging out with people who are not typical Americans (or American at all).

So you acknowledge that the pressure DOES exist? Has it occurred to you that your parents are being quiet about it because you are their child, and harboring resentment?

You are either a liar or stupid.

(1)I have SPECIFICALY EXCLUDED college as a reason to throw people in their 20s out of the house
(2)Your repeated use of the past tense in describing college and the difficulties of finding job with just a college degree led me to read that as "I am not currently doing anything to increase my marketability."

That's between the parents and the kids isn't it? I am planning on paying them back by taking care of them in the future, again, as I have stated previously.

If the situation is really as dire as you are making it out to be, then you should join the military and send cash home.

No you didn't, you just stated that the kids were failure of human beings and your caveats if you go by how you called me out seems to be about non-existent. Go ahead and back pedal if you want

Point out where I said there is zero reason for someone between 18-35 to be living at hom with their parents.

No you didn't, you suggested that kids moving out of their house magically instilled some knowledge that is better than the knowledge that they may gain at home when this is demonstrably not true

I've suggested that when people have to take personal responsibility for their finances, they tend to become mroe frugal, yes.

So your argument is "Some people exploit their parents by staying home, hence they are all losers and should all move out. Doing otherwise makes you a failure of a human being."

So, you aren't disputing the actual inference I made. Gotcha.

Congratualtions, you got me

Sorry, you suddenly ranting about baby boomers at me made me assume I was the target.

[Broomstick]

Your caveats seems to exclude: being poor, trying to become financially stable, it being the social norm and perfectly acceptable in your culture. From your posts in response to my living situation, your beliefs on living your parents is basically "Don't want to move out because you're poor? Then you are just a lazy over-privileged failure of a human being. Being barely able to afford to pay rent, food, loans, etc or not extenuating circumstances."

Nonsense. None of my caveats are blanket exclusions of those things. But if you are poor and not going the distance to make yourself marketable, then yeah, my loser-o-meter jumps up quite a bit.

Define this "going the distance to make yourself marketable", please. I don't ever recall an employer inquiring if I am still living with my parents or not.

Show me the evidence that majority of people staying home are being taught that they can just stooge off their parents forever.

Are you seriously saying I cannot look at "1/3 under 35 staying at home", the progeny of one of the most financially successful generations in this country, and make a reasonable inference that the reason why they are staying at home is because they want to maintain the huge amounts of disposable income that they had before?

You can look at it that way. Other people look at it as an indication that young people are having trouble setting up independent households on their own for reasons that go beyond mere greed, as you are implying. The parents generation maybe "one of the most financially successful" generations, that doesn't mean their children's generation will automatically be so.

You do realize that having several people living under the same roof is far more economical than spreading out and the costs of doing such does not increase so much, right?

You do realize you can do the same without living with your parents? It's called "roommates".

So why is living with strangers inherently better than living with family? Would you have similar objections to, say, a young adult living with an aunt and uncle? (an arrangement that almost occurred with my family when one of my nephews expressed some interest in going to school in the Chicago area). With cousins? A sibling? Or must people live with strangers or alone to be actually adult in your eye?

Alright here you go making a bunch of assumptions. I worked 25 hours during the school year and full time during the summer while taking upwards of 21 credits in order to graduate as soon as possible with paying as little money as possible. How else would I be able to pay for school and expenseson my own when I'm from a poor family dumb ass? Why else do I have loans?

So JOIN THE FUCKING MILITARY, you'll be largely covered, and you'll get (1)Job experience (2)have enough cash to help out your family. People do it all the time. It is an easy fix to a situation that dire.

Except not everyone can join the military, nor is everyone suited to it. Yes, it's an excellent suggestion and a possible solution but it is not the cure-all you're implying it is.

I am saving up money in order to take the review classes and the exams that for my field and am planning on pursuing a grad degree even though it is not necessary (or even affects your marketability at all) in the field that I am interested in pursuing.

Military would pay for that too.

The military might pay for it - if they have need of someone in that specialty and the military decides to pick him for that. There is no guarantee when you join up that you will wind up where you want to be.

You don't care that things are rougher for college graduates than it ever was before, believe me, I get it.

I'm rockign 12 credits a semester and working over 40 hours. Probably about 30% I'm traveling because of work.

So cry me a fucking river about how hard life is.

Stop one-upping the hardship comparisons. It doesn't advance the argument.

I have barely seen any of this huge pressure to move out as soon as possible and only have encountered one girl who actually have a problem with this. Maybe it's a cultural difference due to me having immigrant parents and hanging out with people who are not typical Americans (or American at all).

So you acknowledge that the pressure DOES exist? Has it occurred to you that your parents are being quiet about it because you are their child, and harboring resentment?

Newsflash: Not all parents want their kids to move out early, and some may have mixed feelings about it. It is entirely possible that his parents aren't resentful at all. You don't know and can't know how his parents feel.

(2)Your repeated use of the past tense in describing college and the difficulties of finding job with just a college degree led me to read that as "I am not currently doing anything to increase my marketability."

I have a college degree and 25+ years of work experience and I have a hell of a hard time finding work these days - it really is that bad a job market. I don't care how fucking "marketable" you are, it's damn hard to get any job these days, much less one that pays a living wage. Here I am in my mid-40's dreading that I may be forced to move back in with family due to financial reasons, I have no trouble believing that a young-20's person is electing to stay with their parents and a financial safety net. And right now that may be the most logical and responsible decision to make.

That's between the parents and the kids isn't it? I am planning on paying them back by taking care of them in the future, again, as I have stated previously.

If the situation is really as dire as you are making it out to be, then you should join the military and send cash home.

Again - the military won't take everyone, it isn't for everyone, and it's not some magic solution to all financial ills. Again, it's a good suggestion but not some sort of cure-all.

No you didn't, you suggested that kids moving out of their house magically instilled some knowledge that is better than the knowledge that they may gain at home when this is demonstrably not true

I've suggested that when people have to take personal responsibility for their finances, they tend to become mroe frugal, yes.

Demonstrate that moving out is the only possible way to learn financial responsibility.

[Lonestar]

Define this "going the distance to make yourself marketable", please. I don't ever recall an employer inquiring if I am still living with my parents or not.

People in this thread are whining about how hard it is to get a job even with a college degree. NO ONE has said "yup, I did a -Corps tour of duty, joined the military, am currently a poor grad student". In otherwords, not exhausting every possible option to increase marketability.

You can look at it that way. Other people look at it as an indication that young people are having trouble setting up independent households on their own for reasons that go beyond mere greed, as you are implying. The parents generation maybe "one of the most financially successful" generations, that doesn't mean their children's generation will automatically be so.

Believe it or not, I never said so. But a lot of those parents started off in shitty apartments too.

So why is living with strangers inherently better than living with family? Would you have similar objections to, say, a young adult living with an aunt and uncle? (an arrangement that almost occurred with my family when one of my nephews expressed some interest in going to school in the Chicago area). With cousins? A sibling? Or must people live with strangers or alone to be actually adult in your eye?

(1) Roommates ≠ strangers!
(2)I have specifically excluded school as a good reason to kick people out. This seems to be a point that EVERYONE IN THE FUCKING THREAD makes every effort to ignore.

Except not everyone can join the military, nor is everyone suited to it. Yes, it's an excellent suggestion and a possible solution but it is not the cure-all you're implying it is.

Amorpierce appears to be a healthy young man in his 20s. He mentioned being "sick", but that isn't nessecarily a show stopper for joining the military. While there are exceptions to the rule, by and large ANYONE can adjust to military life. I did.

The military might pay for it - if they have need of someone in that specialty and the military decides to pick him for that. There is no guarantee when you join up that you will wind up where you want to be.

If he enlists the military will pay(free of charge) for higher education/certifications that he might take while he's in the service. He can also pay into this magical thing called the GI Bill, which he can use when he leaves active duty. As an enlisted person in every service(EXCEPT the USCG), he will be able to pick a job before he signs for whatever his initial training is(pending ASVAB scores, etc. which reduces the ypes of jobs that are open to him)

If he seeks a comission as an officer...guess what? He could very well get his graduate degree payed for by the military, while active duty. If he does very well in OCS, he will be able to be one of the first new officers to pick billets and career tracks.

Stop one-upping the hardship comparisons. It doesn't advance the argument.

Neither does whining about how hard life is, which he started with.

Newsflash: Not all parents want their kids to move out early, and some may have mixed feelings about it. It is entirely possible that his parents aren't resentful at all. You don't know and can't know how his parents feel.

NEWSFLASH: He acknowledged that there is some existing pressure. This lends more support to my theory than yours.

I have a college degree and 25+ years of work experience and I have a hell of a hard time finding work these days - it really is that bad a job market. I don't care how fucking "marketable" you are, it's damn hard to get any job these days, much less one that pays a living wage. Here I am in my mid-40's dreading that I may be forced to move back in with family due to financial reasons, I have no trouble believing that a young-20's person is electing to stay with their parents and a financial safety net. And right now that may be the most logical and responsible decision to make.

Broomstick, no offense, but weren't those 25+ years mostly secretarial work? You've talked about how the job was well-paying enough in the past that you could afford an expensive hobby. Meanwhile I'm using my own "fat times" to further myself professionally, because if you get comfortable in your position and assume you'll always have it you'll get screwed when bad times do come. And it didn't even take me to middle age to figure it out.

By the way, incredibly enough, I've indicated that immediate economic problems is a reasonable excuse to move back in.

Again - the military won't take everyone, it isn't for everyone, and it's not some magic solution to all financial ills. Again, it's a good suggestion but not some sort of cure-all.

(1)A lot of people who wring their hands about being too pretty to join the military can, in fact, do it.
(2)If in fact he CAN'T handle the military, he would likely be screened out during Boot.
(3)It isn't a cure all, obviously, but if someone states he has a problem, I typically interpet that as "he is seeking suggestions for his problem". And while you will never become rich in the military, you will never starve and lack a roof over your head. That is all taken care of. In fact, you'll have some disposable income.

Demonstrate that moving out is the only possible way to learn financial responsibility.

I love how you inserted that "only" in there as if I said it was.

[Broomstick]

Define this "going the distance to make yourself marketable", please. I don't ever recall an employer inquiring if I am still living with my parents or not.

People in this thread are whining about how hard it is to get a job even with a college degree. NO ONE has said "yup, I did a -Corps tour of duty, joined the military, am currently a poor grad student". In otherwords, not exhausting every possible option to increase marketability.

I'm not sure it's possible to do all that by one's "early 20's".

You can look at it that way. Other people look at it as an indication that young people are having trouble setting up independent households on their own for reasons that go beyond mere greed, as you are implying. The parents generation maybe "one of the most financially successful" generations, that doesn't mean their children's generation will automatically be so.

Believe it or not, I never said so. But a lot of those parents started off in shitty apartments too.

I'm not sure how "living in a shitty apartment" should be an essential part of the maturation process. If he can avoid that particular hardship why not? Or are you in the camp that thinks a bout with grinding poverty somehow teaches valuable lessons or builds character? Poverty sucks, OK? There's nothing wrong with avoiding it.

Except not everyone can join the military, nor is everyone suited to it. Yes, it's an excellent suggestion and a possible solution but it is not the cure-all you're implying it is.

Amorpierce appears to be a healthy young man in his 20s. He mentioned being "sick", but that isn't nessecarily a show stopper for joining the military. While there are exceptions to the rule, by and large ANYONE can adjust to military life. I did.

It's not always a matter of "adjusting" - a surprising number of conditions that the civilian world considers trivial can bar you from military service, meaning someone who appears healthy may not be able to get into any branch of the military. I get tired of "join the military" being thrown out as the solution to all economic ills for young adults.

Stop one-upping the hardship comparisons. It doesn't advance the argument.

Neither does whining about how hard life is, which he started with.

I get the feeling that you consider any mention of difficulty to be "whining". Stating that life is difficult is not necessarily whining. I certainly didn't get that from him.

Newsflash: Not all parents want their kids to move out early, and some may have mixed feelings about it. It is entirely possible that his parents aren't resentful at all. You don't know and can't know how his parents feel.

NEWSFLASH: He acknowledged that there is some existing pressure. This lends more support to my theory than yours.

He also stated that there was hardly any pressure. That doesn't sound like the parents are a seething kettle of resentment.

I have a college degree and 25+ years of work experience and I have a hell of a hard time finding work these days - it really is that bad a job market. I don't care how fucking "marketable" you are, it's damn hard to get any job these days, much less one that pays a living wage. Here I am in my mid-40's dreading that I may be forced to move back in with family due to financial reasons, I have no trouble believing that a young-20's person is electing to stay with their parents and a financial safety net. And right now that may be the most logical and responsible decision to make.

Broomstick, no offense, but weren't those 25+ years mostly secretarial work?

So fucking what? What the hell difference does the type of work make? Or do you feel that secretarial work is only one step above toilet scrubber? For several generations secretarial work was a viable long-term career option for women. Thank you for sneering at how I've managed to support myself and my family for the quarter century, asshole.

Yeah, I am offended at your dismissive attitude. I didn't take the career path to get rich, I took it because at the time it appeared to offer a stable means of income. There was no way, that long ago, I could have foreseen how the world would change. Hell, when I started desktop PC's were unheard of in businesses, and I was doing double-entry bookkeeping with a pencil, paper, and mechanical adding machine as spreadsheet software hadn't been invented yet.

You've talked about how the job was well-paying enough in the past that you could afford an expensive hobby.

Right. Something I had wanted to do all my life and finally had the opportunity to do. It would have been nice if I could have, for example, joined the Air Force to get my wings but they wouldn't take me - remember I mentioned conditions that civilian world considers trivial that the military doesn't accept? I have two of them. Sucks to be me, I guess, military service has never been an option for me, no matter how good my health.

So yes, absolutely, I took advantage of an opportunity to do something I felt was worthwhile. I did it without costing anyone else any money, paid my bills, and even saved up a nest egg while doing it.

Meanwhile I'm using my own "fat times" to further myself professionally, because if you get comfortable in your position and assume you'll always have it you'll get screwed when bad times do come.

Oh, please - I never got "comfortable" in that sense, I was always aware that I could be laid off. Hell, I've been laid off before, this isn't the first time. I had continued to improve myself professionally over time, that's why every time before now I was never out of work long enough to collect unemployment before. That's right - every other time I've lost a job I was re-employed within 1-2 weeks. I'm sorry it fucks with your concept of reality but this recession really is different that prior ones. Or did you think I never updated my skills from manual typewriters and pen-and-pencil bookkeeping? I've never heard of a graduate degree program in secretarial science, advanced degrees are not always the only or best way to advance a career.

YOU just don't want to deal with the fact that sometimes shit happens no matter what you do - probably because it frightens you to think you might wind up poor through no fault of your own.

Again - the military won't take everyone, it isn't for everyone, and it's not some magic solution to all financial ills. Again, it's a good suggestion but not some sort of cure-all.

(1)A lot of people who wring their hands about being too pretty to join the military can, in fact, do it.

In my case pretty had nothing to do with it - I was eliminated to due to not being able to pass the physical requirements. Despite being healthy by any measure you care to name.

(2)If in fact he CAN'T handle the military, he would likely be screened out during Boot.

He might even be eliminated before that.

(3)It isn't a cure all, obviously, but if someone states he has a problem, I typically interpet that as "he is seeking suggestions for his problem". And while you will never become rich in the military, you will never starve and lack a roof over your head. That is all taken care of. In fact, you'll have some disposable income.

Yeah, let's just ignore the possibility of being sent to a war zone and shot, being left maimed for life or killed. I'm so glad your experience in the military was beneficial, but the military is not a social welfare program, it's military. Not everyone wants to risk getting shot to further their career goals.

[Ace Pace]

Question to Americans, what about other large scale job programs such as the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps etc.? These programs probably don't provide a wage, but are a very nice way to add to the Resume and can provide job opportunities later on.

Yeah, let's just ignore the possibility of being sent to a war zone and shot, being left maimed for life or killed. I'm so glad your experience in the military was beneficial, but the military is not a social welfare program, it's military. Not everyone wants to risk getting shot to further their career goals.

You do realize that most people in the military never get shot at, or see the field in any form past training?

[Knife]

So why is living with strangers inherently better than living with family? Would you have similar objections to, say, a young adult living with an aunt and uncle? (an arrangement that almost occurred with my family when one of my nephews expressed some interest in going to school in the Chicago area). With cousins? A sibling? Or must people live with strangers or alone to be actually adult in your eye?

Come on? Seriously? We're asking these questions as if the answer isn't obvious? Equal footing? Lets face it, being someones kid gives you great leverage in the relationship. Where your parent would/should put up with a lot more negative behavior that a roommate ever would. A parent would/could forgive late payments for rent a lot easier than just a roommate. A parent will be less lenient (or should) on all this bullshit 'share resources' talk that's rampant in the thread.

Living with roommates creates, at least in the beginning, an equal relationship between all parties instead of a seriously slanted biased relationship that already exists between a child and a set of parents.