
Percentage of Young Americans Living with Parents Rises to 75-Year High - prostoalex
http://www.wsj.com/articles/percentage-of-young-americans-living-with-parents-rises-to-75-year-high-1482316203?mod=trending_now_2
======
lonesword
23 year old Indian developer here. The concept of 'moving out' of your parents
home is baffling for most of us. I now live in a different city and I share a
decent apartment with friends. I can afford to live alone in the apartment I
now live in - the rent is 30% of my monthly income and the apartment is 15
minutes away from where I work - but living alone would be just awful. So I'm
now paying 11% of my income for rent(electricity, water and a maid included)
because I stay with friends. Eventually, most of us would want to move back to
our hometowns if we can get a job with similar pay - and live with our
parents. Not because it would be cheaper and mom would cook yummy food - but
it is just the way it is. In our society, NOT living with your parents when
you can is frowned upon. "These are people who raised you and know you well
and care for you, why would you want to move out?" is how the society thinks.
Also, in a way it is nice. You are NEVER alone. You ALWAYS have people waiting
for you when you come back from work. 'Being alone' is seldom a reason for a
depressed Indian - the family is always there.

However, compared to the west, we have little to no privacy. We are raised to
not expect much privacy in the first place so we don't really miss it. Kids do
NOT get a room of their own - never ever - they bunk with siblings. I was
around 15 when I got a room of my 'own'. There's no pressure to move out once
you grow up - parents would do their best to KEEP you home in fact. I would
not have had to 'move out' if my college was not 200 km away. There's one big
trade off with the whole set up though - no sex till you get married ;)

~~~
madaxe_again
It's unreal how greatly the human experience can vary - I was born in the uk
to itinerant parents (finance father), raised by a series of aupairs, and was
sent to boarding school at six. Despite my parents being wealthy and having
the space, I did not have a room at home from that point - when I went home
for holidays, I would stay in the guest room, and when my brother was born,
his room.

When I "left home" at 16 upon completing school and going to university, it
couldn't have been less of an issue - as it was no different to going back to
school.

I'm sure my family is an extreme example, but there's definitely a culture in
the west, particularly among elites, where getting shot of your kids as soon
as possible is highly desirable.

I have a perfectly ok relationship with each of them - see each once every few
years, we're friendly and civil - but I've never really viewed them as parents
- those would have been my aupairs and then the regimented institution of
public school.

~~~
sadface4004
This comment makes me sad.

Children should be loved and cherished, not abandoned.

~~~
rarec
You presume being loved and cherished involves having to live together.

I moved out quite early on myself, and my relationship with my parents is
quite fine. (From the US for context)

~~~
sadface4004
> You presume being loved and cherished involves having to live together.

I presume no such thing. Although any feelings a six year old has of feeling
being loved and cherished are greatly enhanced by living together with their
parent(s). That being said, what I do consider abandonment is being raised by
au pairs and shipped off to boarding school by age six.

> I moved out quite early on myself, and my relationship with my parents is
> quite fine. (From the US for context)

Moving out of your own free will is quite different from being put into
boarding school at age six.

------
epalmer
I have two girls, 24 and 18 years old. Both live at home right now. The 24
year old graduated from a selective private liberal arts college in 2015 and
is working part time in a library. She does not qualify for health insurance
or many other benefits. She does not make enough to live on her own.

She is also in graduate school online for a Master of Library Science (MLS).
She wants to be a librarian and you pretty much need an MLS to become a
librarian. Her part time income mostly goes just to pay for graduate school.

Her sister graduated high school 2016 and is taking a gap year as an AmeriCorp
Vista employee working with center city schools on after school STEM programs
from FIRST Robotics. She will go to college fall 2017 at Olin College of
Engineering.

We suspect that the oldest will live with us for many years and her mom and I
are fine with that. Expensive liberal arts degrees don't often pay well. I
think that situation is going to catch up with liberal arts colleges very
soon.

I like having her around. She does some chores and provides some company to
us. But mostly she stays to herself studying or reading. If you had told me 10
years ago that she would be living with us after college and that we would be
okay with that, I would have thought you crazy.

Her younger sister will get an engineering degree and we will only see here
once and awhile after that. We are okay with that also, though we will miss
her so much.

We mostly have younger friends so they are not yet at a place where their
older children can be living at home.

~~~
FussyZeus
I don't understand this situation with your daughter:

\- Wanted to be a librarian

\- Studied to be a librarian

\- Graduated school to be a librarian

\- Got a job as a librarian

\- Doesn't make enough to live on her own and pay the cost of her education to
be a librarian

And this isn't isolated to librarians, it's just a very instructive example.
How is it we now have entire classes of jobs where the education they require
for that job now puts you in such a degree of debt that you have to live off
of your parents? We need librarians, no? We want to make sure we still have
those? We have to be willing to pay for them.

~~~
epalmer
It is a little more complicated and it is not as bad as it sounds for her.

Undergraduate degree in sociology and a minor in anthropology. BA in sociology
is not very employable but is the most common undergraduate degree for
librarians.

Once the affordable care act (ObamaCare) was made into law the library (local
public library) started making most non-librarian jobs part time so they don't
have to provide health insurance. So today she works circulation but is not a
librarian.

She has no college debt because she got a free education. I work at the
college and they pay full tuition for some staff and faculty children. Her
education would not have been worth the greater than $200,000 retail cost of
her degree. We are very lucky to have her college paid for.

She will end up paying for maybe 80% of her graduate degree herself and take
student loans out for the last semester.

She puts money aside in her roth IRA. We are lucky she is cheap and sees the
value in saving for retirement. I guess her mom and I did something right.

Her mom and I both work for colleges. Her mom works for a public four year
school and I work for a private liberal arts college. We see in both that many
graduates are not earning what they claim the graduates can earn. As I said in
my original post that this will catch up in Liberal Arts (and really non-
technical) degreed students.

Her younger sister will be going to an engineering school where the graduates
are earning, on average, 25% more right out of school than other engineering
schools. We are hopeful she can avoid automation job collapse and maybe
participate in the automation side of this phenomenon. "If you can't beat them
then join them."

~~~
jdavis703
Why do people even spend $200,000 on a degree if they're not rich? I went to
community college for my associates degree in IT (about $5000 total), and then
went to university for a bachelor's of science in IT (roughly $15,000 all in).
Since you work at a university, what does that extra $180,000 buy? What's the
sales pitch you'll give to students to get them to pay so much?

~~~
epalmer
My Opinion Only: If you are going to an Ivy League school you are paying for
the network / brand. If you are going to a lesser tier selective school you
are paying for outcomes. But the outcomes, I believe, are starting to lag the
price. At the school I work for about 65% of the students get some financial
aid and we are need blind and meet 100% of demonstrated need. They meet need
with grants (think scholarships) and a tiny amount of student debt. We do
limit student loan debt to a small cap but many schools don't.

I'm not the best at selling the points because I went to a technical public
university and got a BS and a MS in Chemistry and Environmental Engineers.
Today I am a self taught CS guy.

I guess what I am saying is I don't fully buy into the Liberal Arts education
selling points. My eldest doesn't buy into it as well. Of course the free
education makes all the difference.

Typical selling points go like: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-
progress/2014/04/28/why-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-
progress/2014/04/28/why-getting-a-liberal-arts-college-education-is-not-a-
mistake/#2ce745871a20)

~~~
gravypod
What are the selling points on a societal level. Why is the government, and by
extention you and me, supporting liberal arts degrees that will do little to
support economic growth? I've never head an argument made against this
question.

~~~
jogjayr
> Why is the government, and by extention you and me, supporting liberal arts
> degrees that will do little to support economic growth?

As a taxpayer, I'm happy to support liberal arts even if it doesn't lead to
economic growth. But you can't convince me that it should cost $200k to get a
degree in it; that's just bananas. There's no way it costs that much to
provide that service (even with a healthy profit margin on top). They _must_
be subsidizing other costs with that money.

On a related note, I think the American model of charging per-credit-unit,
regardless of what you study, is illogical (maybe it's not the same at all
universities). It might make things easier for the bursar's office but it just
doesn't compute that a credit hour of an aerospace engineering course (with
all that expensive lab equipment) should cost the same as a credit hour of
American poetry. Or that a 200-student introductory chemistry class costs the
same as an advanced 20-student organic chemistry class.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Credit-hour was originally conceived for the purpose of quantifying
appropriate faculty compensation. It was tacked on to the student side -
particularly regarding tuition - as a somewhat lazy afterthought.

College usually meant everybody would study the same subjects. The
specialization of degrees is a relatively new innovation by way of 19th
century German institutions adapting to industrialization.

------
notyourwork
Cost of tuition continually grows, most graduates are not falling into
extremely lucrative salaries and average salaries are not keeping up with
inflation. This is far from surprising but is very concerning.

Another avenue to pursue this discussion from is the % of income allocated to
retirement savings. I have a sneaky suspicious most of my peers are saving
less for retirement than the same demographic 10, 20, 30 years ago.

What happens in a few decades when all these adults who lived with their
parents and hardly saved for retirement due to lower salaries and student
loans are too old to work? It seems our tax dollars will be supporting them
and this looks like a big problem. Curious what others think or if I am
looking at this problem from the wrong perspective.

~~~
malandrew
The problem already goes beyond millennials.

Increasing automation is going to make unskilled labor a huge liability for
countries. This is one reason I don't think some of the anti-immigrant
position of many Americans (and Europeans) is unwarranted. Every country
should want highly skilled labor to help improve their current account, but
unskilled labor is huge future liability. There is already a huge surplus of
domestic unskilled labor in developed countries. Allowing unskilled labor to
increase through immigration is only going to exacerbate the problem.

~~~
maxerickson
If there's literally no work to do, you can meet the material demands of the
problem by turning more machines on.

(meanwhile lots of the US runs on cheap labor)

~~~
praptak
The machines have owners. How do you make them give away whatever they
produce?

~~~
ArkyBeagle
They may have to. If there is no money to buy these things, then they'll be
back living at home, too.

~~~
pdimitar
Don't be naive. Governments and corporations will just devise laws that you
HAVE TO buy these goods. How do you muster the money is, and always will be,
your problem.

They'll find a way to make money, don't you worry about that at all. They'll
sooner make you owe money by the mere fact you're born than to give up.

------
white-flame
I'm not a millennial, but it makes a heck of a lot of financial sense to live
with family. I'm glad that with these shifts, the stigma is falling away. My
immediate family has lived through rough times, with lots of "creative" living
arrangements.

Of course, we should still train general life autonomy, and not promote being
able-but-incapable shut-ins, but being able to venture into housing (or back
out of it if things go really pear-shaped) should be done flexibly. The family
unit as a _reciprocating_ life cushion is a very positive thing to maintain.
If you're on the receiving end of this cushion, make sure you're doing your
part for your parents and/or extended household, too.

I don't care that economists and real estate investors bemoan the shrinking
population of those able to buy houses. When times are financially tough,
people need to pool together, not overextend themselves. Overall statistics
about economic recovery also don't evenly represent all families.

~~~
hkmurakami
I've heard that in (at least some regions of) Spain, it's perfectly common and
acceptable to continue living with their parents well into adulthood.

I remember reading that José María Olazábal (one of the best professional
golfers in the 90's, with millions of dollars in earnings) was still living
with his parents into his early 40's (though to be fair, he was traveling for
half the year on tour).

I often think that the "move out from home" pressure is a ploy by the real
estate industry.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Olaz%C3%A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Olaz%C3%A1bal)

~~~
parennoob
In India this is pretty common as well. It makes meals etc. much easier,
provides instant babysitters (the grandparents), and so makes it more flexible
for a husband/wife pair to work and still have some free time in the evening.

Privacy of course suffers, but then again I with multiple kids like a lot of
US households have, there isn't _that_ much privacy anyway.

\-----------------------------------------------------------

> I often think that the "move out from home" pressure is a ploy by the real
> estate industry.

I think it's _any_ commercial entity, right? When you move out of your
parents' house, now you collectively have to pay/buy

\- Extra rent

\- Extra money for furnishing

\- Probably more money for transport (could have carpooled with family or
neighbors)

\- More money for groceries (living on your own you will likely waste more
groceries)

\- Extra money for insurance (since it isn't a family pool)

etc.

So you're right, but possibly underestimating it. There is a _lot_ of vested
interest in convincing young people that living with their parents somehow
makes them "losers" etc.

~~~
icebraining
_I think it 's any commercial entity, right?_

Clearly not. Any money you save by staying at your parent's home will be spent
in other commercial entities. Even people who save eventually spend it.
Conversely, all that cash going to landlords, grocers, insurance, etc is not
being spent on something else.

------
PebblesHD
Not sure if Australia's current housing situation is analogous to America's
one, but one of the primary motivators on our side of the pond is financial.
Rents within 60km/35mi of the main Sydney CBD have crossed well over 50% of
the average persons wage, at around $700/week. I currently live 45km from
Sydney and pay $800/wk for a detached house primarily because I don't want to
live in a 1 bedroom box in the city. Unfortunately, for that $800, I get next
to no public transport and a local government that doesn't actually do
anything useful. If I had the option I would gladly have stayed at home for a
few years to start saving for a deposit on a house, which is no easy feat
since the national average price is creeping closer to the $1m mark, and the
average around major cities is already well over that mark.

~~~
taurath
I don't understand how politicians don't consider that a crisis. Too many fat
happy landlords I suppose.

~~~
an_account
Even if you artificially lower apartment rent, there would still be a lack of
housing in cities. It would actually make the problem worse because more
people could afford to live in cities, and less people would want to build new
units.

Either young people need to be okay not living in cities, or governments need
to encourage more housing to be built in cities. But, instead, young people
want urban living and municipalities are only increasing restrictions on
building new units. Obviously in this senario prices will go up, it's basic
supply and demand.

Note: I am a young person living in a city.

~~~
xanderstrike
> But, instead, young people want urban living

I think most young people are trying to go where the jobs are more than
anything.

~~~
taurath
This entirely. If you want competitive wages and non-backwards social groups
you go to cities. I suspect there will be enclaves out in the suburbs soon as
people make their money and switch mid life to more rural living where it's
slower and more sustainable

------
_RPM
I am 26 and just graduated college 3 years behind my high school class. I have
accepted a software engineering job, but will be living at home commuting 3
hours per day until I can save up enough for an emergency fund to be able to
move out and afford a 12 month lease in case I get fired. I'm planning on
getting my own place in the beginning of Q2, 2017. Unfortunately, I'm a little
behind salary wise.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Keep this up as long as you can if it does not affect your social life
(girlfriend/boyfriend). There is nothing like money in the bank.

~~~
morgante
3 hours a day is a huge amount of time and commute time is one of the biggest,
easily changeable factors of happiness.

Nobody in a software engineering job should have to live with parents for
financial reasons. I appreciate OP's dedication, but they should be able to
save up an emergency fund pretty quickly and move into their own (small)
apartment.

~~~
_RPM
3 hours per day is going to kill me. I did it over the summer for an
internship, and just plan to save for 3 months until I have a solid base to
add to my savings account. I'm targeting a solid 9-10 months of emergency
fund. If I moved out right now, I could afford the first and last month of
rent, but would not have that much left in my bank account. And for the
record, a reason I want to move out is so I can start to build my own life
with a woman in my life. I can't do this at my parents place. I love my
parents, but at 26 it is time for me to be on my own.

~~~
ryandrake
Don't worry. I commute 4 hours a day. You get used to it. You have to live
where you can afford, man.

~~~
flukus
At 4 hours a day it's time to look at what else you can cut, like
house/apartment size.

~~~
gamegoblin
I feel like it's maybe doable if you use that 4 hours for your "entertainment"
time-budget for the day. Listen to audiobooks or podcasts. Then don't watch TV
or Netflix or whatever when you actually are home.

That said, this is purely speculation. I have a 10 minute commute by
subway+walking.

~~~
flukus
Can people listen to audio books while driving? I find if I'm doing anything
more complicated than washing the dishes I lose track of the book.

------
ChicagoBoy11
As a foreigner living in the U.S., I have to admit this obsession with leaving
your parents house kinda baffles me.

I'm from Brazil, and despite nearing my thirties, back home the majority of my
friends live with their parents and it is hardly seen as a big deal. I think a
big driver of this shift is the fact that in the U.S. it is extremely common
for one to leave for college, whereas in Brazil literally 100% of my friends
who went to school in the country resided with their parents while they were
in school.

One of the things that most attract me about the U.S. is the fact that
opportunity and mobility is so rampant, and you have people crossing the
country for jobs and a different life. That is a superb thing. But what I
never, ever understood is seeing young friends of mine who get jobs in their
hometowns but who stubbornly "move out" even if they are barely making enough
to survive. In terms of lifetime earnings, those few thousand dollars a month
that go to a stranger for rent are so, so valuable.

Another point this statistic does not take into account is that the current
generation of "parents" are also on average better off than their parents
were. The prospect of "living with the parents" would have seemed worse for my
father than it did for me. I get that there are economic forces "forcing" kids
to stay home, but I'm sure there is also a genuine shift in preference as
well.

~~~
ebbv
Speaking for myself, growing up in the US I couldn't wait to move out of my
parents' house and live on my own. My friends were the same way. The reasons
having my own place was appealing to me really boil down to independence.

Being able to choose where I live, being able to decide my own priorities, not
dealing with them being around and pestering me, having peace and quiet when I
want it and being able to blast my music that they don't like without being
asked to turn it down. Being able to have my friends over. Being able to have
girls over. Being able to move in with a girlfriend (which is what I did when
I moved out.)

I love my parents but I cannot live with them. They annoy me within a few
hours of being around them. We don't like the same things. We don't like the
same music, the same TV shows, we don't hold similar politics, they are
religious and I am an atheist. We just aren't compatible.

~~~
slededit
Why is liking the same TV shows a precondition to living with them? I think
the real underlying problem is American's don't seem big on the "live and let
live" philosophy on the micro level. Which is strange because there is so much
more diversity among larger groups.

------
danm07
I think one of the other reasons is that parents this day and age are more
liberal minded than previous generations.

I remember talking to my mom and dad about this. When they left the nest,
their parents held very strict conservative view, and were often very
opinionated in how their sons and daughters should conduct their lives.

Nowadays there's not much to rebel against, especially among the educated
class.

~~~
Fraterkes
This seems like a pretty big deal, parents and kids listening to a lot of the
same music, watching the same kind of television/series. Its interesting, many
parents actually expect their kids to rebel nowadays, because they themselves
did, but this expectation is of course counter to the whole idea of rebelling.

------
hn_user2
Rising rents and harder to get home loans do sound like the primary cause.

That being said, I also believe there is not quite the same urgency to leave
home for current young adults. Just from personal observation they don't
necessarily see increasing their expenses just to be more independent as
worthwhile. Same goes with getting a driver license and a car.

I don't think it's necessarily being lazy, I think they might rightly see that
building up all these expenses just to be independent is a bit overkill.

Mix this with people in general getting married later and I find it quite
natural that more people are living at home.

~~~
dikdik
I sort of agree with you, but I don't think you completely understand the
problem. Yes, it doesn't really "matter" if people are living with their
parents or on their own. The problem is what this shift signals.

People are not much different than they were 50 years ago. If it took just as
much resources to live on your own 50 years ago as today, there would "not be
the same urgency to leave home." Of course no one wants to leave home if it's
going to cost them 40% of their take home pay, but if it only costs them
10-20% of their pay, I really doubt you will see a ton of millenials that
don't care about living at home.

This shift in housing signals a dearth of resources available to the current
generation. Do we think that's a good thing? A bad thing? Or is it completely
neutral? Does it have implications elsewhere for our economy? These are the
things that are actually important.

~~~
white-flame
Or is this a signal that the broad and rapid American growth in the middle of
the 20th century was anomalous, not a baseline?

It might not be a "dearth of resources" but a return to the true long-term
norm.

~~~
Clubber
The broad, rapid American growth has a lot to do with the fact that Europe and
the Far East was in complete ruins after WWII and the US was in the immediate
position to rebuild Europe.

Remember, right before the mid century prosperity, we were in a massive
depression caused by the "Roaring 20s" which was fueled by another smoldering
Europe.

The time period before WWI; the late 1800s and early 1900s were pretty bleak.
Before that, the North was fairly prosperous but the South was under
reconstruction, so that region was pretty bleak as well.

Of course, there is plenty of wealth to go around today, it's just
concentrated due to a war on the middle class by industry, aided by goverment,
dating back to at least Reagan.

~~~
linkregister
The time period from 1890 to 1929 experienced steady growth in the U.S. [1]

The Roaring 20s was not the cause of the Great Depression. The Great
Depression was caused by a variety of factors, primarily unsustainable debt
issuance and overproduction in the agricultural sector. Other important
factors include crushing wartime debts owed by European nations to American
creditors (vastly harming exports), a liquidity crunch and massive deflation
due to adherence to the gold standard, and uncertainty by Capital resulting in
a lack of expansion.[2]

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States#Economic_growth_and_the_1910_break)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression)

~~~
pjmorris
I always thought that the 'Roaring 20s' were caused by 'unsustainable debt
issuance'. You seem to not connect the two... can you elaborate?

~~~
linkregister
It's a common misconception that the stock speculation bought on leverage was
the cause of the depression. Indeed, margin calls caused automatic stock sales
to cover the leverage, forcing stock prices down.

However, the cascade of bank failures occurred due to due to defaulting
agricultural loans. The loans' refinancing requests were suddenly refused when
European powers pulled currency out of U.S. banks in order to pay their war
debts and reparations.

The stock market crash was not the cause of the depression; just one of many
larger factors that precipitated it.

~~~
pjmorris
I didn't distinguish between borrowing for stocks and borrowing for
agriculture. I see both as elements of the unsustainable debt buildup. I view
the stock market crash as a symptom of the unsustainable debt, not as a cause.

------
jprzybyl
Young Canadian here. Personally, it's just hard to find work, and there's no
cheaper place than mom's house. My girlfriend lives with her parents. She has
a job, but her family is having a hard time finding work themselves.

I'm doing it because it's free, and it's a chance to find a job. If I had a
steady job, I'd be out in no time. But goings are tough.

I'm saying job a lot. Live in rural Canada and you'll find that job is the
magic word. Lots of people do contracting work up here, for welding and
scaffolding and that sort of thing. Lots of people have known the experience
of working for a month and never seeing the paycheck as the company goes
under.

There's a lot of fuss about the Cite C dam in British Columbia. I think it
will be built, no matter the problems, because it means work for the people
building it, and those people are people I know. Jobs jobs jobs.

I know this isn't about Canada, and I didn't even read the paywalled article,
but I think we're staying home because the economy sucks and there are no
jobs.

~~~
aianus
I've lived at home and I've lived on my own and I'd rather live at home even
if the cost was the same. Going home to an empty apartment or roommates that
don't care about you is lonely af.

------
rebootthesystem
The most natural state is to remain with your family until you form your own
family. I have never understood the stigma attached to adult children living
at home.

Admittedly, this might very well be because I have lived in multiple cultures,
most of which don't have this antagonistic "kick them out of the house"
relationship between parents and adult kids.

The other side of that story is that, yes, if an adult kid has opportunities
that might take the kid away from the family home it could make total sense to
move out. One example is getting into a really good university on the other
side of the country.

I personally believe that the family connection is crucially important and it
must remain as intact as possible until the adult children are ready to form
their own families. There is no better incubator for future good people than a
good family life.

~~~
rhapsodic
_> personally believe that the family connection is crucially important and it
must remain as intact as possible until the adult children are ready to form
their own families. There is no better incubator for future good people than a
good family life._

I think there's something to be said for living on your own, cooking your own
meals, doing your own laundry and housework, paying your own living expenses,
and managing your own finances, _before_ taking the plunge into a situation
where it's non-optional. (E.g. a marriage.)

~~~
rebootthesystem
The things you mention are incompatible with adult children staying at home
longer.

The secret is to have some of those things be part of normal life from when
they are little. Bring the laundry to the washing machine. Help fold it. Help
cook Help clean, etc. Not that difficult.

The financial side can be introduced initially through games and later on in
different ways.

It just takes forethought and consistency. And it doesn't have to be
punishment but rather part of normal life.

~~~
rebootthesystem
Damn iOS auto-correct...that was suppose to say "compatible".

------
akulbe
I'm curious... why is this such a bad thing? As a society (an American
society, as this isn't true in many other places) we place a rather negative
stigma on a person who doesn't leave home at the age of majority (usually 18).

This is a norm that I think we should do away with. And by that, I mean we
should stop making turning that age the time that we flip the switch and the
kids move out.

What I would suggest in its place... encourage them to go _when they 're
ready_. This places more responsibility on the parents in assisting with all
the types of preparation that make one ready for leaving home.

There's a LOT more to this conversation, but I figure this is a good starter.
:)

~~~
throawaybay
Well it is an economic thing. It means that jobs and wages don't support
independent living. It means that young people don't (or can't) migrate for
jobs. It may mean that there aren't enough jobs or they are otherwise
unqualified.

------
msimpson
First of all, housing in America is a dual income trap. So unless you are
comfortable with roommates, have a significant other, or can attain a
lucrative salary, you have limited options. Second, renting is for chumps; as
you will simply throw money away to the tune of a monthly mortgage payment.

Therefore, you should stay where you are (if possible) and save until that
down payment can make a worthwhile home affordable with only a single income.
It is the only fiscally responsible choice.

~~~
q-base
Renting also equals freedom. YES you may throw away money in the light of the
ability to sell a property at equal or higher price than you payed. BUT you
may also end up losing a lot of money or being bound to a property if market
changes and prices drop. Renting is a transparent way of knowing the cost of
living where you do. In a liquid somewhat stable housing market you probably
are better off buying - but just to say that saying renting is for chumps is
bit of a simplification in my opinion.

P.S. I know the above probably is a bit of topic as even having the ability to
choose somewhat implies that you aren't totally struggling financially.

~~~
msimpson
"Renting also equals freedom."

Only if you plan to relocate often.

"...you may also end up losing a lot of money or being bound to a property if
market changes and prices drop."

Which is why making good investments and leveraging refinancing is very
important.

"...saying renting is for chumps is bit of a simplification..."

Yet in most cases, it isn't. Just like leasing a car.

------
analog31
I've got two kids in high school. Among all of the ways to support them after
college if necessary, having them live at home may be the most economical.
Fortunately, they're pleasant to hang around with.

------
dforrestwilson1
The nuclear family concept was always odd to me anyway.

Myself, my wife, and my daughter are building a house with my parents right
now. If you can find a good job in the same city, I have trouble understanding
why someone wouldn't want to live together.

The economies of scale and the benefits of having extra helpers around with
our daughter (and 2nd one on the way!), more than outweigh any downsides to
us. The psychological impacts to our children of having our grandparents
around as positive continual influences seem pretty valuable to us?

------
dkarapetyan
It might surprise people but there is no stigma around adults living with
their parents in other places. As if giving a stranger $1.5k+ every month is
an indicator of adulthood. Save that money and put it into a retirement or
savings account. Unless your job or life situation truly demands having your
own space I see no reason to move out.

------
m23khan
What I would like to see happen is for young people to stay with their aging
parents even after becoming financially settled and even after marriage.

The whole concept of 'moving out' is barbaric to say the least. Old folks who
can't fend for themselves in many situations and their old bodies fail them in
most basic of tasks such as cleaning house and cooking are then simply shoved
into 'old folks house' till they breathe their last.

Best if this generation can break this sh!tty concept about 'moving out' \-
after all, they themselves would become old one day...

~~~
nicolas_t
I often see that point of view when I discuss with friends in Asia (where
living with the parents is much more prevalent). Let me offer an anecdotical
counter point. I have a grandmother, she's getting old (85 years old) and
things are much harder than they used to be, she no longer can easily go
shopping by herself or clean the house.

We've asked her multiple times if she wanted to live with us or our aunt,
every time she's refused. She wants to stay independent and instead hired a
helper who comes everyday for a few hours and helps her with the basic tasks.

We often come to visit her but she doesn't want us to stay too long or too
often for the same reason. She values her independence. So, yes I see the
point about living with aging parents but it's also good not to deny the
independence of those same aging parents.

The Asian model of staying at home with the parents does have a lot of
tradeoffs too. Usually the wife needs to move in with her husband's parents
and this is not easy at all for the wife. I've seen a few divorces that were
due to conflicts with the in laws (which are much worse when you actually have
to live with them). I also have a friend whose parents had a big house and
lived together with all their sons and the parents decided to sell that house,
buy separate houses for each of their sons and live alone because it was just
too much headache for them.

------
ebbv
The plural of anecdote is not data but just to give my own experience here; my
youngest brother is of this age group and still lives with my parents for no
reason other than laziness. He just has no ambition or interest in getting a
steady job and moving out to his own place. No interest in finding a romantic
partner. He just sits at home and plays video games as he has for his entire
life. He has friends doing the same thing.

I don't know if this is a real trend or just something I'm seeing but someone
should probably study this phenomenon.

------
kayman
Moved out to college after highschool, never lived home since.

Not everyone who lives at home with their parents are the same and in some
cases it does make sense,

but from my observations of people who live at home:

\- No skills on managing self: relies on parents to manage

\- No financial management skills: using all your money for play money and not
contributing to the household.

\- Can't take a date home: unless you want to introduce your parents right
away

\- ManChild Syndrome: grown kids playing video games and watching tv.

\- No drive: as long as you have parents, why try. Everything is already
provided for you.

~~~
flukus
I lived at home until my late 20's and your way off on most of those.

> No skills on managing self:

This was the worst part for me, I wanted and had been self reliant before, but
it's hard to do in a shared house.

>No financial management skills: using all your money for play money and not
contributing to the household.

I was paying minimal board (when I was able) and saving for a deposit on a
house (which are insanely expensive here), is that irresponsible?

>Can't take a date home: unless you want to introduce your parents right away

It's not the 1950's anymore. Meeting someones parents is not a big deal.

>ManChild Syndrome: grown kids playing video games and watching tv.

Problem being?

>No drive: as long as you have parents, why try. Everything is already
provided for you.

Another expense to try and minimize.

------
gravypod
I'm in the minority here of my generation but I'm 19 and I really would like
to get out of my house. Due to some complications with my family it's just my
mom and I now and we'll be moving into an apartment soon. I'd like to get out
so I can learn about machining and electronics without being told to "stop
bringing garbage into my house".

Unfortuantly I 1) don't have enough time for a full time job since I'm wasting
away my better years and credit in college, and 2) none of my friends want to
move out or will be allowed to move out by their parents.

Finding a room mate will be tough. I'm going to try... but it'll still be
tough. This is extra worse because of how high the rent is here in NJ (even in
Paterson, Franklin Lakes, and Newerk where I go to school).

------
chiefalchemist
I'm going to say a simple X Y plot probably oversimplifies the picture.

1) Parents have been having kids later in life. How many of these are because
the child (read: adult offspring) is home to help care of an ill or older
parent?

2) As the divorce rate increases homes that were was the right size for a
traditional family are now too big for one parent or the other on their own.
The kids move back because it's practical for all.

3) Related to 2, the housing market has sucked. Selling for many hasn't been
an option. This "enables" yas to stay home longer.

The point is, this isn't a YA issue per se. There are plenty of broader social
changes that a helping to redefine the American family unit.

------
pdimitar
Disclaimer: this is a somewhat personal-nuanced and anecdotal essay, so skip
it if you prefer colder facts. You've been warned. ;)

Eastern European (Bulgarian) 36-year old programmer here, still living in
Sofia (the capital).

We don't miss communism and socialism. _At all_. A good chunk of us around
here are competitive and want to demonstrate skills for better money. There
are frauds and freeloaders but hell, is there a community where there isn't?

I've witnessed the fall of our regime (1989) when I was 9. Later on the fall
of the USSR followed. I didn't quite appreciate these events back then but the
effect on the standard of living on the other hand was VERY visible.

It has been a _very_ gradual process, but our country is bleeding brains,
skills and money -- badly, and all the time. Quite frankly I don't think that
the EU countries are so much better; what good is a triple salary if your rent
and bills are triple the amount as well? The only real benefit I guess is to
get a citizenship several years down the line and not be afraid that yet
another shady government will appropriate all retirement funds and you'll be
left with peanuts when you eventually grow old.

My mother lives with me and my girlfriend. _Her pension is 60 euros_. You read
that correctly, it's not a typo. If it wasn't for me, she'd be yet another old
woman with eyes full of tears, struggling not to die of cold on the street,
and to have a few mouthfuls of bread a day. (Father died a long time ago, back
in 2002)

We at Eastern Europe are diverse people. We don't frown upon at either
situation -- living with or without parents, but for many people living in a
bigger flat/house with the family is simply more convenient (my mother's
cooking is absolutely fantastic and is easily worth €30 a meal, I am pretty
sure of it!) and makes much more sense financially. It is what it is, we can't
do much about it.

Long story short: I am now in ~ €20,000 debt and the thought of getting a
mortgage is making me grind my teeth. As other posters said, we're not even
close! My mother and father were working governmental jobs and they had an
apartment fully paid for when they were at their ages of 40-42. Had two cars.
And that was a backwater communistic/socialistic country, a mere satelite of
the USSR. I can't imagine how much better many others had it really.

(The fact that I should probably look for a higher paid job since I am in
demand is an irony that doesn't escape me, but that's a personal struggle
interwoven with many other factors which I won't touch upon here.)

The article has struck many nerves in me. It's true not only in the USA.

------
castratikron
For me, the main reason I don't have a house is because I wouldn't have anyone
to share it with; finding a partner outside of college while being employed in
a field comprised of 97% men is impossible.

~~~
flycaliguy
Then this might be a great chance to choose one that you like, with the
features you prefer, before have to make a compromise with a partner!

Keep it nice and cozy and you'll be able to invite women to your house. Seems
like a solid game plan.

------
siliconc0w
I'm a millennial - Living with my parents after college allowed me to save a
boat load of money which I then invested and now I'm in a comfortable place
finally - even looking at early retirement.

------
blazespin
Could be a demographic thing. Increasing Asian and Mexican population have
stronger cultural ties to family and saving habits?

They should Plot it by race.

Honestly though, video games and vr. Who needs your own place

------
Dowwie
This article is part of a broader spotlight casted upon declining economic
opportunities. Raj Chetty and company released a great deal of research about
this, which journalists have been slowly summarizing for the public:
[http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/](http://www.equality-of-
opportunity.org/)

------
jgalt212
ZIRP is the reason. Once we get away from ZIRP, interest rate sensitive assets
will go down in price, and people will be able to afford housing. They may not
be able to afford bread (inflation), but housing will be cheaper.

------
ktRolster
If there aren't enough houses for everyone, then the people who can't afford
to pay as much will be the ones pushed out of the market.

------
trendoid
Any way to read the article without signing in? Can someone paste useful
paragraphs from the article here?

~~~
grzm
The "web" link beneath the submission title will bring you to a search page
with a link to the actual article, which should get you around the paywall.

------
babyrainbow
Great. Now let us push it even more.

------
known
Sounds like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori)

------
tayo42
Cant read the article since im not subscribed.

Why were so many people living with their parents in 1940 and why did it stop?
Does the article explain that?

~~~
vinhboy
Click on "web" under the article title (in HN). Then you can click on the link
in google. It's a built in HN hack...

~~~
tayo42
heh good to know. thanks

------
cryoshon
it's the economy, stupid.

americans of generations X and Y got raped out of their money by the looter
economy comprised of high-interest big-sum debt, decreasing wages, increasing
rent, increasing cost of living, and few jobs. this story gets rehashed every
few months (starting from around 2010) as though it's new. it's not new that
capitalism has scarred the young.

it took me a while to leave my parents after college-- and it was a miserable
period that couldn't have elapsed quickly enough. suffice it to say that young
americans stay at home due to not being able to afford any alternatives. even
living with roommates is expensive if you're in an area that has jobs-- and
most areas do not have any jobs, or any well paying jobs.

we can't save money to move out, nor buy a house, nor save for retirement,
etc, etc. it's been this way for nearly ten years. things have actually gotten
worse economically, and we're now overdue for another recession. the "main
street" economy is completely divorced from any successes of the "wall st" or
finance center economy, yet it suffers their failures even more violently.

millenials can't afford to take care of their dying boomer parents... it seems
as though they'll grow even poorer while trying, however. millenials can also
expect no real return from their investment, as their parents have themselves
been hollowed out of wealth by the process of aging.

here is a radical statement: seizing the means of production or forcing the
downward redistribution of capital is now justified and overdue... the time
wasted waiting for a handout from the business owners or the government would
be better spent organizing the young to eat the rich.

~~~
cableshaft
"When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich."
~Jean-Jacques Rousseau

"Eat the rich, there's only one thing that they're good for, eat the rich,
take one bite now, come back for more." ~Aerosmith

