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

[Aaron]

So JOIN THE MILITARY and parlay that x years experience into a position. That's what I did.

I'm hearing a lot of "I could take the all possible steps to make me marketable, but I don't want to" in this thread.

EDIT: Yes yes, I understand that some people "can't join the military" for whatever reason, but the majority of the people on this board in the age group mentioned in the OP certainly could pull it off. I did.

Indeed, someone with a degree (the dude with a BA in films will do nicely) should be able to sign up and get bars on his shoulder. Many of the officer trades don't require a degree in the relevant field, just a degree. For the guy with a BA in film, that screams PAFO.

[weemadando]

For my wife and I we're having to seriously consider moving cities to be closer to family (read parents who might have time to do free childcare) as well as cut our rent. And we both have secure public service jobs which pay well.

The simple fact is, that in Australia at least (and Melbourne especially), the property bubble seems to have forgotten to burst. Rent on 2br properties within an hour of our work STARTS at 250. And that's for a complete fucking slum. For anything that someone who's not a heroin addict would be willing to live in, you're looking at 300+. Per week. Which is sneaking towards 1/4 of gross income. Yes. Gross.

As for buying? You better fucking forget it unless you have a cool 500k lying around to pick up that ground floor 2br apartment you've always dreamed about having that's bordered by a major highway on two sides.

[Broomstick]

So JOIN THE MILITARY and parlay that x years experience into a position. That's what I did.

I'm hearing a lot of "I could take the all possible steps to make me marketable, but I don't want to" in this thread.

EDIT: Yes yes, I understand that some people "can't join the military" for whatever reason, but the majority of the people on this board in the age group mentioned in the OP certainly could pull it off. I did.

Indeed, someone with a degree (the dude with a BA in films will do nicely) should be able to sign up and get bars on his shoulder. Many of the officer trades don't require a degree in the relevant field, just a degree. For the guy with a BA in film, that screams PAFO.

Hell, you might even be able to put a film studies degree to work in the military - can you say "training film"? Or you might get stuck working on camera systems, but hey, it's a job. "Military" involves more than just guns.

[Aaron]

Pretty sure "combat cameraman" is now a trade.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Pretty sure "combat cameraman" is now a trade.

Grumble mumble "Connections or connections needed to get a job as an IDF cameraman" mumble grumble.

[JME2]

...or has the magic words "at least x years experience" ....

Yeah, that's been pissing myself and my friends off, too. As recent graduates, it makes us feel screwed and that we just wasted the last 5 years in college.

So JOIN THE MILITARY and parlay that x years experience into a position. That's what I did.

I'm hearing a lot of "I could take the all possible steps to make me marketable, but I don't want to" in this thread.

EDIT: Yes yes, I understand that some people "can't join the military" for whatever reason, but the majority of the people on this board in the age group mentioned in the OP certainly could pull it off. I did.

I'm actually somewhat tempted to do that; the decision will hinge upon developments in the next few months.

And Nickolay? Does us all a favor and shut the fuck up.

[Knife]

While I agree there are some serious social and economical issues going on; it seems to me a majority of the people in this thread saying 'no shit you have to live with mom' are college kids. We've had discussions in the past about similar things like this, where people find it easier to live in mom and pop's McMansion because they can't afford their own McMansion nor want to live in a shitty appartment. So, while I sympathize with the economy part of it (I myself have put my self back into school on my dime) some of the social parts simply blow my mind.

Personally, and without some damn good reasons (not wanting to live in a small crappy apartment doesn't count) my kids are not living with me in their twenties.

[ray245]

While I agree there are some serious social and economical issues going on; it seems to me a majority of the people in this thread saying 'no shit you have to live with mom' are college kids. We've had discussions in the past about similar things like this, where people find it easier to live in mom and pop's McMansion because they can't afford their own McMansion nor want to live in a shitty appartment. So, while I sympathize with the economy part of it (I myself have put my self back into school on my dime) some of the social parts simply blow my mind.

Personally, and without some damn good reasons (not wanting to live in a small crappy apartment doesn't count) my kids are not living with me in their twenties.

Why do kids have to leave the house by the time they are in their twenties?

[Aaron]

Why do kids have to leave the house by the time they are in their twenties?

Part of it is wanting some time to yourself after having them around for 20 years. And part of it is it being a downward spiral, each year they stay past adulthood increase the chance that they stay longer (and not grow up) because "Mom and Dad" will take care of me. That's exactly how my uncle wound up 35 living with Oma.

My wife and I have an agreement, the kids can stay provided they stay in school and when it comes time for them to leave they have to have the means to support themselves. It won't be "ok your 19, the Army will take you" *boot*.

[Big Phil]

Why do kids have to leave the house by the time they are in their twenties?

Is "because I want them out after 20 years" a good enough answer?

I have to agree with Knife, a lot of the people complaining about expenses are awfully young, have never known what it was like to live in a shitty apartment with barely enough to eat, and seem terrified of the thought. My parents frequently hammered home that when they were both going to college and just married, they occasionally ran out of food toward the end of each month, lived in a crappy apartment with no furniture, didn't go to movies or out to dinner or spent money blithely, and were just barely scraping by. In other words, being 24 and unable to afford anything isn't a new phenomenon.

That being said, there is a significant dearth of good, paying blue collar jobs, and many of the white collar jobs in existence historically were done by people with minimal education (i.e., they don't really require a college degree). What you're seeing happening today is increasing stratification, where jobs are either really, really shitty (and low paying) or require extensive and/or highly technical education (and are commensurately high paying), and an increasing absence of middle class jobs with decent salaries (many of those jobs having been shipped to cheaper labor in Mexico, China, India or SE Asia).

EDIT: does anyone really think a secretary or receptionist position requires a college degree? And yet I frequently see these minimum requirements banded about for such (relatively) menial jobs.

[ray245]

Why do kids have to leave the house by the time they are in their twenties?

Part of it is wanting some time to yourself after having them around for 20 years. And part of it is it being a downward spiral, each year they stay past adulthood increase the chance that they stay longer (and not grow up) because "Mom and Dad" will take care of me. That's exactly how my uncle wound up 35 living with Oma.

My wife and I have an agreement, the kids can stay provided they stay in school and when it comes time for them to leave they have to have the means to support themselves. It won't be "ok your 19, the Army will take you" *boot*.

Different cultural mindset then. A large amount of people down here still lived with their parents until they got married and buy a house for themselves.

This is mainly due to the fact that you can only buy Government built apartments if you are married. Singles would have an extremely hard time getting a house or private apartment at an affordable price.

[Aaron]

Different cultural mindset then. A large amount of people down here still lived with their parents until they got married and buy a house for themselves.

This is mainly due to the fact that you can only buy Government built apartments if you are married. Singles would have an extremely hard time getting a house or private apartment at an affordable price.

You live in Singapore right? I gather it's quite crowded there, here there is so much space that the only reason today for continuing to live with your folks is financial, there isn't any shortage of land or housing. But in NA there is a large cultural exception that when you reach adulthood it's time to get out.

[Prannon]

Why do kids have to leave the house by the time they are in their twenties?

Ray, Generic Western Culture isn't quite as family oriented as the Generic Eastern Culture. I realize that in Singapore family connections are likely to be strong and younger people don't feel the need to leave their family so early in their lives. That's certainly the way it works in Korea or China, to my knowledge. However, in the West, and in the US in particular, younger people are heavily encouraged to go out and make a success of themselves without their parents' help. It's part of their transition from childhood to adulthood, and as mentioned by others, having to live with other family members induces emotional and material burdens that individuals don't want to have to take care of.

For the parents, they want the kids out so that they don't have to support them anymore. More money and time for whatever they want to do. For the children, they want away from their parents overbearing rules and pricks and prods.

[General Zod]

EDIT: does anyone really think a secretary or receptionist position requires a college degree? And yet I frequently see these minimum requirements banded about for such (relatively) menial jobs.

I think it's been mentioned before, but it's pretty much a weeding process. The work is incredibly easy, but with so much competition out there for so few jobs they have to cut down the number of applicants somehow. The job I'm working at right now could reasonably be done with someone with a high-school diploma, for example, but after I was finally hired I'd been told that they had several hundred resumes to sift through before they settled on me. So it's understandable that they don't want to sort through so much crap.

[Knife]

I would answer, but I think it got covered well enough.

Ah hell, why not.

Indeed, your culture and even your explanation revolve around lack of space and familiar ties. In this culture, there isn't such a problem with adequate housing or space so that's not an issue. As far as family ties, I see no reason why you can't have strong family ties and not have to live with each other. The reason I live in the shit hole that is Utah, is most of my wife's family is here and all of mine is. They all live within, perhaps, twenty minutes of where I live. Easy enough distance to see them quite regularly. No need to live with them for that.

Also, there is self interest and interest in the child there as well. I want my children to move out when they are adults for the same reason I took the training wheels off their bikes when they were ready. Sure, riding without the training wheels scared the shit out of them, they did not have the immediate psychological benefits of them right there helping them, but they were ready to ride the damn bike by themselves. There comes a time when a child needs to go on his/her own. Sure, they'll make mistakes, that's part of life. Our western culture has or is, getting to the point of not wanting our children to make mistakes, to glide into adulthood with ease. Doesn't happen, might as well let them get some practical experience in the world when they are ready for it.

And self interest. By that point, I would have defined myself as 'a father' for 20 plus years. I'm at the point I'd like to explore who I am besides being a father.

[ray245]

Why do kids have to leave the house by the time they are in their twenties?

Ray, Generic Western Culture isn't quite as family oriented as the Generic Eastern Culture. I realize that in Singapore family connections are likely to be strong and younger people don't feel the need to leave their family so early in their lives. That's certainly the way it works in Korea or China, to my knowledge. However, in the West, and in the US in particular, younger people are heavily encouraged to go out and make a success of themselves without their parents' help. It's part of their transition from childhood to adulthood, and as mentioned by others, having to live with other family members induces emotional and material burdens that individuals don't want to have to take care of.

What I'm trying to say is, cultural reason aside, I still think that kids don't need to leave their parents at such an early age. That's given the fact that a parent can simply ask the child to pay the parents for continuing to live in their house and all that, and make it clear that they cannot stay in the parents house for free.

To a certain extend, this is what is happening down here as well, where children are expected to give a sizeable portion of income to their parents.

The child and the parents can live a separate life even though they are still living in the same house. I don't see letting the idea child stay in your house even when they are in their twenties as you providing for your child even when they are adults, but simply provide them with some level of help, such as a cheaper place to live in if they need it until they are well off enough to buy their own house.

More money and time for whatever they want to do. For the children, they want away from their parents overbearing rules and pricks and prods.

What makes you think that this is something that is exclusive to a generic western culture? Young adults down here at the least holds the same idea, where they couldn't wait to get enough money to buy their own house and all that.

A person living in an Asian society would have similar motivation to move out, just that they know that they could not afford to do so at such an early age. Parents down here would also expects a child to move out sooner or later, except for the fact that they are more willingly to tolerate their kids living in their homes for a longer period of time.

There isn't really a need to expect them to leave the house just because you are afraid that they might be over reliant on you. Even in most Asian societies, people who are single and continue to live with their parents are shunned as well for being over reliant on their parents, and those people are in a rather small minority as opposed to the majority.

I really find that the idea of letting kids stay in your house even when they are in their twenties will cause them to live in your house and rely on you to provide for them to be nothing more than a myth.

Also, there is self interest and interest in the child there as well. I want my children to move out when they are adults for the same reason I took the training wheels off their bikes when they were ready. Sure, riding without the training wheels scared the shit out of them, they did not have the immediate psychological benefits of them right there helping them, but they were ready to ride the damn bike by themselves. There comes a time when a child needs to go on his/her own. Sure, they'll make mistakes, that's part of life. Our western culture has or is, getting to the point of not wanting our children to make mistakes, to glide into adulthood with ease. Doesn't happen, might as well let them get some practical experience in the world when they are ready for it.

I'm not arguing against the fact that kids leave their parents sooner or later. Just that there is no need to make it so early.

[ray245]

Just one more point to note, even if some people are married and still lives with their parents, it can be seen as the children providing for their parents and taking care of them as opposed to the parents taking care of the kids.

[Knife]

I'm not arguing against the fact that kids leave their parents sooner or later. Just that there is no need to make it so early.

And the only reason you really give is A) culture; where if you say that it is totally logical for me to say our culture is the opposite. B) no where to go for the young ones; where as I'm sure most people would let their kids stay with them if there were literally nowhere for them to go. Not a problem here. Plenty of places for them to go.

Also, I don't see why being in their twenties is at all 'EARLY'. Why are people in their TWENTIES considered kids? You've made no justification as to why twenty is early instead of late or just right. After twenty years of instruction and carefully watching them letting them do their thing with my advice, I think they are more than ready for me to take of the training wheels and let them ride their own damn bike.

[Knife]

Just one more point to note, even if some people are married and still lives with their parents, it can be seen as the children providing for their parents and taking care of them as opposed to the parents taking care of the kids.

When it gets to that point, isn't it really the parents living with the children, rather than children living with the parents?

[Lonestar]

What I'm trying to say is, cultural reason aside, I still think that kids don't need to leave their parents at such an early age.

You know that in the United States you can enlist at 16? A MAN in his 20s is not a "kid".

There is nothing wrong with having to live with your parents if you have nowhere else to go. I did that when I transitioned from military to civilian life. For less than a year. I haven't a goddamn clue as to why anyone would think someone in his 20s living with his folks on a permanent basis with his parents could be considered a success as a human being, unless their were extrenuating circumstances. And I don't mean "I don't want to live in a one bedroom apartment and/or drive a used Honda" as extrenauting circumstances.

[ray245]

I'm not arguing against the fact that kids leave their parents sooner or later. Just that there is no need to make it so early.

And the only reason you really give is A) culture; where if you say that it is totally logical for me to say our culture is the opposite. B) no where to go for the young ones; where as I'm sure most people would let their kids stay with them if there were literally nowhere for them to go. Not a problem here. Plenty of places for them to go.

Also, I don't see why being in their twenties is at all 'EARLY'. Why are people in their TWENTIES considered kids? You've made no justification as to why twenty is early instead of late or just right. After twenty years of instruction and carefully watching them letting them do their thing with my advice, I think they are more than ready for me to take of the training wheels and let them ride their own damn bike.

What happens when they are still studying? What happens when their starting income isn't that high for them to afford houses that might be within travel distant of their workplaces?

Trying to get your children to leave the house at a predetermined age just trap families who aren't that well off into a vicious cycle in my opinion. Instead of being able to save up more money that might be helpful to them when they are much older, they would be wasting those money just because their parents believe that a person living in his twenties should leave the house.

There is no need to incur an additional amount of money just to ensure my son or daughter would go through the same maturity process I went through when I am growing up.

You know that in the United States you can enlist at 16? A MAN in his 20s is not a "kid".

Same here.

There is nothing wrong with having to live with your parents if you have nowhere else to go. I did that when I transitioned from military to civilian life. For less than a year. I haven't a goddamn clue as to why anyone would think someone in his 20s living with his folks on a permanent basis with his parents could be considered a success as a human being, unless their were extrenuating circumstances. And I don't mean "I don't want to live in a one bedroom apartment and/or drive a used Honda" as extrenauting circumstances.

No one down here is talking about the fact that a person who is in his 20s and live with his parents on a permanent basis as a good thing.

[General Zod]

What happens when they are still studying? What happens when their starting income isn't that high for them to afford houses that might be within travel distant of their workplaces?

Then they can get an apartment? Or hook up with roommates?

Trying to get your children to leave the house at a predetermined age just trap families who aren't that well off into a vicious cycle in my opinion. Instead of being able to save up more money that might be helpful to them when they are much older, they would be wasting those money just because their parents believe that a person living in his twenties should leave the house.

Since there's a certain amount of stigma attached to living with your parents in your 20s most people should be actively trying to leave their parents' house.

[Tiriol]

In some parts of the Western world there is actually an increasing shortage of even crappy apartments. I count myself lucky that I got myself a decent (although at the very outskirts of my city) single-room apartment with a decent rent. However, that is becoming a rarity in these days, at least in Helsinki (our capital city) and other cities. Sure, there are other places where one could get a bigger apartment at a lower cost, but then again, those places don't have higher education (sometimes not even near) establishments and as has been pointed out, it is becoming harder to find a traditional blue collar/white collar job that would pay adequately and wouldn't require a college/university education. Sure, one can apply for all sorts of jobs, but the employers seem to be VERY tough here with these requirements.

Happily enough, the military has reintroduced the non-commissioned officer corps as a viable career path, which might, in the long run, give at least some new jobs for those who have passed their mandatory military service adequately. However, these types of work are becoming less and less common - and many don't pay well at all.

Then again, these ARE the economical circumanstances which have been talked about in this thread as viable reasons to stay with parents. But I must confess that I didn't like the idea of staying with my mother, even though she had no problems with it; I wanted my own space now when I was a full-time worker (and later on an university student). I don't really understand those who, despite chances of having a decent, albeit small, apartment with decent rent/cost, stay with their parents.

[Knife]

What happens when they are still studying?

Perhaps there is a disconnect here. Why would studying be a factor here? All the state colleges and universities I know have dorms and oddly enough, have housing clustered around them with in walking and/or busing distance.

What happens when their starting income isn't that high for them to afford houses that might be within travel distant of their workplaces?

Hmmm, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Perhaps it is the cultural divide between you and I. The way I see it, you shouldn't start off buying your dream house that is a close commute to your dream job. If you can, good for you, but I don't think it should be mandatory. Some of life's best lessons are when you are first starting off and learning that not everything comes free, not everything is given to you and you need to be very careful about how you live and spend money.

There are some people in this world who are genuinely surprised, when they move out of their parents house, that toilet paper just doesn't come with the apartment.

Trying to get your children to leave the house at a predetermined age just trap families who aren't that well off into a vicious cycle in my opinion.

Being trapped in a social-economical cycle happens much earlier than that. But go on and back up your opinion here.

Instead of being able to save up more money that might be helpful to them when they are much older, they would be wasting those money just because their parents believe that a person living in his twenties should leave the house.

What a bunch of bullshit. Starting out in life is hard. It costs money. If you start at 30 or 20, you still won't be able to transition to it seamlessly. I'd rather they get started as soon as they can, as soon as they are ready, so by the time they are 30, they are over that bump. I've heard the same bullshit theory on having kids. Not wanting to have kids until they are stable or are economically ready for them. While obviously, there are upper and lower limits to this, don't have kids in high school and don't have kids when you are on state support and wellfare, in truth you are never really ready and unless you're uber rich, you'll never be financially ready for kids.

[Kodiak]

When I hit college age I went off to the university away from home, so I moved out (coming home still during the summer). When my wife and I got married, we were still in college but had part-time work that paid for our 1 bedroom appartment ($850/month in San Jose CA). After she graduated and was working full-time, we were able to buy a pre-fab modular home a few miles from the university but with rail access so I could commute. We also had another couple living with us as house-mates, so our monthly housing went up to about $1400/month. Once I graduated and had a full-time job and baby #1 was starting to walk it was time to live on our own, and our monthly housing expense went up all the way to $2200/month (mortgage plus space rent). Six months later I was laid off and managed to parley that situation into a salary match at a company 90 miles away, and we moved into a 5 bedroom that we can afford the monthly on w/ just a single salary.

It took us 6 years to be in this position, and in that time we had a couple crappy apartments and shared a house, but never did we consider moving back home. I never felt "pushed" out the door, but I felt that it was time to cowboy up and figure out solutions. We didn't always (and still don't) have everything we want, but you have to be willing to sacrifice now for prosperity later. Our dream-home isn't right next to my work, our cars are 12 and 3 years old (2 babies means it's time for a MINIVAN ), and we have a monthly budget we have to stick to without a ton of wiggle-room. At every step since highschool I asked myself "how can this help support a family?" and went from there. I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, because I knew it was a highly marketable degree; there was a time when I really wanted to get a degree in ancient languages and translate sumerian and akadian tablets all day, but it wasn't in the cards.

If people have to live at home because of unforseen circumstances, then that's one thing. If people live at home to avoid bills, that's hiding from life.