
The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents - jbegley
https://www.axios.com/working-from-parents-home-82414f13-156f-43c2-aafa-733bd7541146.html
======
munificent
I really love the quote at the end:

 _> I'm a dad who is happy to have his daughter and fiancé living with me.
They pay the utilities and make me nice meals, and it makes it a lot less
lonely here. ... I like the multi-generational thing. I know it won't last
forever, but it makes life better for now._

It's so easy to get into that cold statistical mindset about these large-scale
trends, but it's good to remember that these statistics are the aggregation of
a large number of very human stories.

~~~
kelnos
It's also useful to note that the "nuclear family" is a very Western thing,
and the US takes it to an extreme. In other parts of the world it's _abnormal_
for adults in their 20s to be living anywhere but with their parents, often
even with a fiance or new spouse in the mix.

The idea that having a multi-generational household means that the younger
members haven't "grown up" and need to "learn to live on their own" is a
completely manufactured attitude. I think many American families would have
much stronger, more healthy inter-generational relationships if we lived
together (at least for a bit) as adults. As it is now, most US kids leave home
just when they're starting to be able to meaningfully contribute to the
household as equals.

(Having said that, I definitely feel the pull of childhood and societal
expectations. When I was a new adult I was _thrilled_ to be out of my parents'
house, and could never have imagined moving back there. I'm nearly 40 now, and
thinking about the possibility of living in my parents' house during my 20s
still feels weird to me.)

~~~
nradov
I was fortunate enough to be able to attend boarding school starting from age
13, and getting out of my parents' home early was a huge benefit in every
possible way. I wish more young people had the same opportunity.

My parents are good people, there was nothing wrong with my home environment.
But it's more important that youth learn to act like independent adults and
take responsibility for their own lives. Staying at home too long causes
learned helplessness. When there's no one around to help it's sink or swim.

~~~
Klinky
Boarding school was not sink or swim, you had adults looking after you, likely
it was paid for by your parents, and you had a decent home life to return to
if shit got really tough. Most parents aren't going to let their child sink
and drown, nor is that really practical advice.

~~~
amscanne
There’s a big difference between a parent and the adults in charge at a
boarding school, in terms of the emotional support and things that those
adults will do for them.

I’m sure most 13 year olds plead with their parents to take them certain
places or buy them certain things (e.g. specific food and clothes, etc.), and
while I’ve never been to boarding school, I imagine you have to figure out how
to get things for yourself.

The point is taken re: not being “sink or swim” (you won’t be left on a ditch
on the side of the road), but surely it’s obvious that more independence is
needed living without a primary caregiver in the same home.

~~~
Klinky
It likely depends on the country, but I am sure there is no lack of
pampered/spoiled children at boarding schools. In the US, where free boarding
schools are practically unheard up, it is even more likely.

The adults should be ensuring you don't grievously injure or harm yourself,
and that you're returned in same/better condition.

You can always ring up your parents and ask for stuff, it's not like you are
adopted by the school and lose all contact with your parents, nor are you
earning a wage at 13 going to boarding school.

Lots of kids going to public school and/or with rough home lives learn "sink
or swim" just as well or better than someone going to boarding school. I just
found it odd to say you're learning to "sink or swim" when you have so many
safety nets there to catch you if you did sink/fall.

~~~
throwaway0a5e
One of the value propositions of these boarding schools is that they don't put
up with your kids crap and your kid hopefully doesn't become a spoiled brat.

------
Philip-J-Fry
I'm my early 20s and in the UK. I earn more than my Dad who is in his 50s. He
managed to get a house, have money left over for an expensive hobby, decent
car, the odd holiday etc.

I'm a 90th percentile earner. Will 95+ percentile earner in a few years time.
Yet it feels like I am not as well off as I should be. I don't live in an
expensive area either. Yet I need to save so much money to even have the
opportunity to buy a house. Then I also need to save a tonne of money for a
nice retirement as government pensions get absolutely gutted.

I'm not going to pretend I won't have a good amount of disposable income even
after maxing my pension contributions and paying a mortgage. But it just
annoys me that I'm a relatively high earner and yet the money won't go very
far. The most expensive thing I'll ever buy would be a brick box, and one
that's not even as good as my parents.

~~~
qwerty1234599
High tax rates are what causes this. You are effectively giving away half your
wage to sustain a completely unknown person leeching off the government.

~~~
gambiting
What an absolute load of tripe. I'd gladly pay even higher taxes than I do to
make sure everyone has access to healthcare and benefits when they need them.
"unknown person leeching off the government" is the attitude that just needs
to die, it annoys me so much that people still believe this crap, any one of
us can be this "unknown person" at some point.

~~~
derg
right? and like something i've come to realize over the years is that there is
a _huge_ value add of having something just _work_ that i don't think many
people actually appreciate. I would absolutely love to pay more in taxes if it
meant medicare for all so that if i get hit by a car while riding my bike
someone can call 911 and i can go to a hospital and not worry about how much
the ambulance costs, whether the doctor i see is "In Network" or not, and not
have to figure out how much of whatever needs to be done is covered by the
insurance and what the hospital is going to bill me for and whether I can
actually afford that or if I need to go into insurmountable debt just to
exist.

life already sucks enough as it is, and is entirely too complex in so many
aspects that no longer having the "can i afford to not _die_ in an emergency"
thought would be such a huge net plus for a huge majority of working
americans.

------
save_ferris
I moved back into my parents house after my lease expired, primarily to have
regular social interaction again.

> "While moving back home during the pandemic makes sense and is seen as
> socially acceptable or even smart, it also means you are living with people
> who still see you as your 18-year-old self."

One of the biggest things I’ve noticed among millennials is how many parents
fail to understand the emotional and mental situation of what their children
are currently experiencing. I feel so incredibly lucky that my parents
understand that I’m not 18, and they’re happy to help out during these
uncertain times. I’m so much more productive working from my parents house
because I now have enough space for a decent home office.

I also have coworkers that have openly talked about how their parents refuse
to let them move back in during the pandemic, citing the “time to grow up”
mentality. I’m all for taking personal responsibility in one’s life, but there
are a whole lot of older people out there that are oblivious to just how
serious the pandemic has been economically.

~~~
collyw
I will probably be going against the grain here, but I managed to rent a flat
by myself while in university years ago with a part time job in a supermarket
at weekends and applying for some hardship funds and other money available at
the time.

Rents have risen a lot since then, but is it really impossible for someone in
work to be able to afford rent? Or are they insisting on living in a
fashionable part of town? (For me independence from my parents was quite a
high priority in those days).

~~~
iso1631
I started as a trainee broadcast engineer in London on £17,800 a year in 2003.
This left me with £1,082 a month (back then student loan payments were far
higher than now). Rent for a tiny bedsit with a shared bathroom was £520 a
month, 2 mile walk from work. I could live further out, but commuting costs
outweighed any savings.

That's the equivalent of £828 a month now. Bills were included.

You can actually pick up a studio flat for £737 in the same area, which
actually looks better - it's about 60 square feet which I think it a little
smaller than the one I had, but it has it's own toilet. Council tax is on top
of that at £45 a month, but still fits in the budget, just.

Assuming the same 50% of take home wage in rent, or a net wage of £1500pcm,
would be about £21k/year

My £17800 salary in 2003 would be £28,300 today, or net of £1900pcm, so could
afford (on the same ratio) £910 a month, which gives you a fair amount of
choice at the moment in W14 according to rightmove.

I'm surprised as I felt renting was far harder now than 20 years ago, but
seems it might be slightly better. Of course rents on tiny studios are
presumably depressed because of covid19, I'm not sure what they were this time
last year.

~~~
jlokier
Where I live, most property agents will do a credit and income check, and
would turn you away for not meeting the "minimum income level" for renting
those places.

Even if you feel you can afford spending 50% of your income, it doesn't follow
that you can easily find a landlord who allows it.

If you have a bad credit rating, as many people do these days, it will be even
more difficult as more landlords check that than income.

In my case, where I am currently living, I had insufficient income at the time
I moved in to qualify, and was only allowed to rent on the condition that I
paid _12 months rent up front_. And then I had to do it again the following
year. Obviously that's only available to people with decent savings.

~~~
iso1631
But that's no different to 2003 (you could have a guarantor - typically a
parent - who would be on the hook for your rent if you didn't pay it)

Before I started looking I was under the impression things were harder now
then they were in 2003, but it seems not, at least in this one case (tiny
studio/bedsits in a dodgy part of west london) -- unless asking prices on rent
are massively depressed due to covid.

In 2006/7 I lived in Tunbridge wells, paying £800pcm for a 2 bed flat that
looked almost identical to this one, although it was in the next door house
and had a garage instead of a parking spot.

[https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/84635425#/](https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/84635425#/)

£800 in 2007 is £1,117.29 today, so a near identical flat for £900 is an
interesting price point.

~~~
jlokier
Things seem to have become more difficult to obtain in some cases. Back in
2003, nobody asked me for proof of income for renting. Just basic credit
checks (which don't directly know about income or bank balances). Proof of
income is more recent.

(And difficult if you're self-employed with highly irregular income, I found.)

If using a guarantor, a guarantor has to pass similar checks.

Guarantor works a lot better for a young person starting out in a cheap-ass
room in a shared place, whose parents expect this. For a flat and an older
adult with retired parents on a low pension, or their own housing costs, not
so much.

Good like finding a guarantor if your parents or friends:

\- don't have enough _spare_ income to cover your rent _in addition_ to their
own expenses

\- don't pass the credit check themselves

\- can't pass the proof-of-income check themselves

\- don't have enough assets to use as security

\- are not happy using their assets as security for you (e.g. their limited
life savings or their one and only home)

Some people don't have parents, and these days, quite a lot of parents rent
precariously too. They would be turned down as guarantors.

More parents renting is a factor which has changed in recent years.

I imagine most people don't have friends who would be willing to be long term
rent guarantors, even if they could be.

~~~
iso1631
> Guarantor works a lot better for a young person starting out in a cheap-ass
> room in a shared place, whose parents expect this. For a flat and an older
> adult with retired parents on a low pension, or their own housing costs, not
> so much.

Absolutely. When my mother-in-law divorced and moved into a rented house, I
was _her_ guarantor.

I did have parents in 2003, but they lived 3000 miles away in a greek village
where there was an ISDN line a 20 minute ride down the mountain, so not too
practical. But this artcile is about 18-29 year olds moving in with their
parents, not 50 year olds.

~~~
jlokier
> 18-29 year olds moving in with their parents, not 50 year olds.

It applies in that age range as well.

A 29 year old moving in with their 64 year old parent(s) who are themselves
poor and renting while on the edge of official retirement age, is going to
find their parents probably rejected as guarantors.

------
dcolkitt
> Housing is more expensive for them than prior generations

I harp on this constantly. But housing is _not_ more expensive in the majority
of American metros. Adjusted for inflation the median cost per square foot of
new housing is almost exactly the same as it was in 1990. (This doesn't even
take into account that mortgage rates are drastically lower since then.)

We get skewed on this for two reasons. One is because homes today are
substantially larger and have more amenities than they did in previous
generations. We take for granted better fire safety, higher ceilings, central
A/C, higher load electrical circuits, attached garages, better lighting, and
swimming pools that are much more common in new construction.

Two is that we're highly skewed to a handful of elite metros, whose housing
markets are not representative of the country as a whole. Housing is expensive
in San Francisco, New York, LA, and DC. But in places like Tampa, Omaha,
Cincinnati, and Phoenix the cost of housing (per square foot) has barely gone
up at all.

The demand for ultra-expensive housing in places like the Bay Area is driven
by the huge earning potential of the high-skilled labor market. (Of course the
supply side of the equation is driven by NIMBY zealotry.) If you're talented
enough to make it as an L8 at Google, then it probably does make sense to buy
a house in Palo Alto. You'll earn far more money than you would in the St
Louis tech scene. more than enough to make up for the living costs.

But unless you have the potential to become an L8 at Google (or equivalent),
it makes no financial sense to choose to live in the Bay Area instead of
Raleigh. It's like somebody who works as a back office bookkeeper insisting on
buying custom tailored Seville Row suits for his work attire, then complaining
that the costs of clothes has gotten out of hand.

~~~
tidepod12
>One is because homes today are substantially larger and have more amenities
than they did in previous generations.

I have noticed that most of my fellow millennials seem to have completely
forgotten the concept of "starter home" and assume that as soon as you turn 25
you should be entitled to a 4 bedroom house with a pool, huge yard, wonderful
neighborhood, three-car garage, etc.

Among my friends that have bought houses, many of them have gone into
significant debt just to buy a 3-4 bedroom house, _even though they have no
kids and only use one of the bedrooms_ , because they think that at some point
in their life they will put them to use. The extra rooms go completely unused
(other than the extra furniture which they also went into debt for). It's like
they see the house that their parents own and assume that their house also
needs to be that, and ignore the fact that their parents probably started out
in a much smaller home and then moved into a big one once necessary.

>Two is that we're highly skewed to a handful of elite metros

I contend that it's not even just this, but also that _within_ metros
millenials are highly skewed to a handful of elite neighborhoods.

I live in a medium COL metro, and all of my friends constantly lament the
"high" cost of houses and how they will never be able to afford a house. But
when I ask what houses they are looking at, it's always the nicest, premiere
neighborhoods that have McMansions with huge yards, white picket fences, hip
restaurants within walking distance, etc. Not a single one of them even
considers living in the many much cheaper neighborhoods.

There certainly are issues with prices in some areas ( _cough_ SF _cough_ )
but at least in my metro and in my friend group, the "houses cost too much"
meme seems to be a scapegoat for what is really just an inflated sense of what
housing they are entitled to.

~~~
mywittyname
> I have noticed that most millenials seem to have completely forgotten the
> concept of "starter home" and assume that as soon as you turn 25 you should
> be entitled to a 4 bedroom house with a pool, huge yard, wonderful
> neighborhood, three-car garage, etc.

"Starter homes" for young people is the stuff that was built 30-40 years ago
that hasn't been updated. So they are buying those mcmansions because that's
what was built in the 80s-90s-00s. The really nice, older urban areas with
housing built before that is way more expensive in absolute dollars.

Smaller is not cheaper in most cases. Smaller is "established" and everyone
with money wants to live in those established neighborhoods, not the suburban
sprawl 50m from the city center.

~~~
tidepod12
>"Starter homes" for young people is the stuff that was built 30-40 years ago
that hasn't been updated. So they are buying those mcmansions because that's
what was built in the 80s-90s-00s. The really nice, older urban areas with
housing built before that is way more expensive in absolute dollars.

In my metro (DFW), the neighborhoods of houses built in the 60s/70s/80s are
dwindling because nobody will buy them. There are neighborhoods of perfectly
fine ~200k houses just sitting on the market for _months_ because "ewww, I
don't want to live in _Grand Prairie /Garland/Irving_". Then those same people
pine over the newly built $500k mcmansions in Frisco or the $2m mansions in
Highland Park and lament about how they'll never be able to afford being a
homeowner. Do you see the disconnect?

>Smaller is "established" and everyone with money wants to live in those
established neighborhoods, not the suburban sprawl 50m from the city center.

It's not some secret that desirable location is a huge driver of property
prices, and being closer to a city center is more desirable. My parents knew
this 50 years ago, which is why even though they loved living downtown in an
apartment, when it came time to buy a house they moved out to the suburbs
because that's where the affordable starter homes are. Then, when they became
more established in their career and built up some wealth, we moved a little
bit closer to the urban center. That's just how it works. But these days,
millennials seem to think that they are automatically entitled to live
downtown in a 4 bedroom, newly renovated/constructed house with full amenities
next to the main park and hip shopping center and zero crime while on an entry
level salary. I understand that, and I wish I could have that too, but that's
just not how the world works (nor how it has ever worked).

~~~
chasd00
I live in DFW as well (Oak Cliff), one thing to keep in mind about home prices
are schools. In East Dallas, on the border of Lakewood schools, there's
literally a $100k difference between one side of the street and the other. A
good public school in DISD is rare and so home prices around it are very high.

I think the quality of the local school drive home prices considerably.

~~~
tidepod12
I notice and acknowledge this as well, but it's the same conversation about
starter homes: if you are currently childless and you were to become pregnant
today, you would not start using or benefiting from a school district at all
for another 5-6 years. Why pay the premium for a nicer school district that
you aren't even using? You're essentially just throwing away that money for
half a decade, and who's to say if that school district will still even be a
good one 5 years from now.

Why not move into a cheaper starter home now, and then once your child is
about to start school (and you presumably have gotten some raises and built up
some wealth), move into a more expensive house in the better school district?
That's what the entire concept of "starter home" is about.

So now the conversation becomes: it's not that this person can't afford
housing, it's that they can't afford housing that has an amenity they won't
even use... which makes the entire situation seem even more silly.

~~~
thatfrenchguy
"Not a good school district" is usually a proxy for "not my social class /
ethnicity" ;-)

------
tchaffee
I remember our family of five children, two cars, pool (but above ground),
most vacations were camping but we did make it to Disney World. We had lots of
nice stuff as kids, but it was solidly middle class.

My mother stayed home while my father worked an eight hour day as an engineer
at the local factory. He never worked overtime or weekends. All this with a
bachelor's degree. My mother eventually went back to work so my parents
retired quite early.

American workers have been conned into creating the very wealthiest people in
the world by continuing to give up more and more earning power, every year,
and for being more productive. Europe is slightly better thanks to good public
benefits, but it has also gone in the same direction: making the wealthy far
wealthier than they were in the past.

I can understand why this latest generation has little enthusiasm for doing
anything extra at work. Good for them. Maybe things will eventually head back
in the right direction for the middle class in developed countries.

~~~
colinmhayes
I wouldn't say it's a con. In the end capital has bargaining power over labor
because labor works for capital. Labor needs to organize very hard to take
back control and that's difficult when everyone is scared they'll lose their
job. Capital is able to make unilateral decisions because it's usually
controlled by single/very focused and competent entity.

~~~
tchaffee
> Labor needs to organize very hard to take back control and that's difficult
> when everyone is scared they'll lose their job

It's fair to note that one party in the USA has worked very hard to break up
unions. And it has worked. So it's not just labor vs. capital. It's labor vs.
capital allied with the government.

~~~
colinmhayes
Politicians don't want to lose their job, so they bow to capital's demands in
exchange for campaign funding.

~~~
tchaffee
Well politicians from one party bow to capital's demands. Democrats get
campaign funding from unions. I'm not claiming Dems are free from corruption
or deals with big business - they are not. But they for sure have not worked
hard like the GOP to destroy unions and worker rights in favor of big business
and the rich.

------
zpeti
I think people need to start realising just how incredibly much the government
is now stepping in at each of these crises to make them as smooth as possible.
But there is a downside to this. You are not allowing the normal economic
effects to happen because you are wanting to keep everything as it is, but
then guess what, the status quo stays, and anyone joining the ladder is
finding it increasingly difficult.

What's amazing is how the narrative around this however is that we need MORE
government to set things right. Yet in the tech bubble the government blew up
the real este bubble, in 2008 all the banks got saved along with loads of
other insurance and other businesses, and now we have the largest stimulus
packages ever. (on top of government subsidised student loans, which have made
loads of money available for college, pushing up prices).

It's counter intuitive but in the long run this is BAD for anyone that doesn't
already have something. It inflates asset prices, it locks in people who
already have something. It's bad for millennials. And millennials shouldn't be
arguing for more government intervention, but less. Let things fail, so that
the waste can get burned off.

Unfortunately it seems a lot of people think things literally need to be
burned down for there to be change. But let's be clear, 30-40 years of
interventions by governments did this, which is exactly what left leaning
people want of government.

~~~
wonderwonder
"millennials shouldn't be arguing for more government intervention, but less"

Your argument that government intervention is bad for millennials is flawed.
Without government intervention such as eviction moratoriums, unemployment
benefits and federal government stimulus checks there would have been massive
homelessness. Prior to the pandemic 40% of americans could not cover a $400
emergency, all of these people would have been on the street without the
government stepping in. At one point the unemployment rate as 15%. I cant
really see how this would have been good for them.

I would argue that specific and targeted government intervention such as
complete student loan forgiveness would have a massive beneficial effect on
millenials.

~~~
pnutjam
Burn it down is always a mistake in hindsight. There is alot of low hanging
fruit to fix these issues; higher taxes; amendment to fix Citizen's United;
revamp the Supreme Court..

All of these are easier then digging a shaft, jumping in, and trying to climb
out. Speaking as someone who has no assets, no 401k, no home.

~~~
bryanlarsen
[https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment](https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment)

thanks pnutjam

~~~
tengbretson
> Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to abridge freedom of the
> press.

Cool, so instead of PACs we'd just candidate-backing "news" coalitions?

~~~
pnutjam
How is that worse? You're claiming it's the same?

~~~
tengbretson
I'm saying this couldn't work without explicitly including restrictions on the
freedom of the press, since "the press" is the very vehicle by which money
gets turned into political influence. Unless this amendment includes something
akin to the fairness doctrine I can't see how it could possibly have the
effect you are looking for.

~~~
pnutjam
corporations != people

The press does it's fair share, but you're wrong. Don't be afraid of change.
If something isn't working; we should fix it.

~~~
tengbretson
Perhaps corporations are not people, however "the press" is made of
corporations. If there is to be no restriction on the press then what is to
stop any corporate entity from advancing the cause of their politics as a
member of the so-called press?

> Don't be afraid of change. If something isn't working; we should fix it.

Furthermore, this is a binary line of thinking that isn't even fit for a
children's book. The world is not split between those that want change, and
those that are afraid of change. It is very much possible for intelligent
adults to consider the details of what is being prescribed and conclude that
"that sounds at least as bad or possibly worse than the status quo."

~~~
pnutjam
You're listing one possibly problem when this addresses dozens of issues.
Removing corporate money from law making will make it was easier to address
these issues in the future, with sensible legislation.

------
yardie
I live downtown in a coastal city. What I’m seeing is a lot of young men
living in the streets. This is the other side of this story some young adults
don’t have a home to go back to after job loss and eviction.

We’re seeing just the tip of the iceberg. I expect a lot more social upheaval
in the coming years. Social services are going to get severely strained.

~~~
dghughes
I've seen a documentary about San Francisco it's crazy how middle income
people are being pushed farther from the city. One teacher had several bus
transfers and then a long walk to get to her job. Even bus stops where "poor"
people (less than $100,000/year) are being crowded by private buses like
Google forcing city buses to wait which adds to the wait down the line. Nuts!

~~~
war1025
> "poor" people (less than $100,000/year)

How anyone making $100k can be considered "poor" is beyond me.

No wonder everyone on the West coast thinks being a Millennial sucks.

~~~
racl101
Just like how you can live in a castle in middle America that costs $250K.

It's just part and parcel of living where everyone else wants to live.

~~~
war1025
As someone in middle America with a not-quite castle that I paid $100k for,
I'm perfectly happy with that trade off I guess.

------
Cro_on
I grew up on the farm, but have spent most of my adult life living in big
cities. But I take a month or so home most years for a bit of farm work /
harvest celebration.

Corono got me good traveling SEA in February, and have been now living and
working at home since March. I could have never thought about living here
beforehand. At least I always think that twenties and thirties are for the
movement of the city, and then the farm work / home life can begin.

But having been somewhat forced to force myself to settle for an indefinite
period, it is giving me much appreciation for a different kind of life.
Building stuff, farming and a lot of cooking / baking / fermenting has brought
out a real positivity, which now seems impossible to find in the city.

It's even got to the point where we've started inviting friends to come and
live and work with us, and there seems to be that community feeling bubbling
up all around.

Commuting and travel seem so weird to me by this point, and I know that the
logistics are hell to try and rearrange the entire economy to be kind of
segmented, but I'm starting to believe that this is the only realistic hope we
have left.

~~~
curiousllama
Don't let the awesomeness turn to pessimism! The gap between "this is great"
and "this is the only realistic hope" is huge. Others - even outside of farm
life - have found community too.

~~~
Cro_on
It's not pessimism!

I guess it wasn't worded clearly, but I meant that it's the only hope for a
less wasteful economy.

EDIT to add: In the short term! Right now the infrastructure is totally oil
based, and consumerism relies on ecological destruction. But I am definitely
not saying that we can't have a global zero carbon everything you want
economy. But that is a question that I do not have the patience or information
to ponder seriously!

------
matthewheath
I earn more than my family or my peers earn, but living in London often feels
like my money comes in and goes out again immediately. As a result, I
currently live with my family in an extraordinarily nice house that I would
never be able to afford myself. I pay them a nominal sum for rent; they refuse
to take the market rate even though I am happy to pay it...

I look at the rental cost of a standard 1 bedroom flat in my part of London,
and they want £1,200/month just in rent. It would be cheaper to get a
mortgage, but I fail the "affordability" tests. Perhaps I am selfish, but I am
not so desperate to move out to a relatively inferior property in which I
possess no interest (since I will merely be renting) for that sum.

I don't believe I'll ever be able to afford a house, especially as wage growth
allegedly stagnates and then seemingly declines past the age of 40. If these
are my "peak earning" years, then I'm quite sad because at this rate I'll be
trapped at home forever. It would be fine if rents were about the same as a
mortgage: one could rent while saving.

At the moment though, renting while saving seems eminently unaffordable.

~~~
lol768
> It would be cheaper to get a mortgage, but I fail the "affordability" tests

I naively thought that these affordability tests would involve looking at
whether my take home income minus my monthly costs was higher than the monthly
cost of the mortgage. That sounds like a reasonable definition of
"affordable", right? We can account for increases in interest rates too.

In reality, the amount of ridiculous hoops that need to be jumped through to
quality as being able to "afford" a mortgage is silly, and it never used to be
like this. Current employment contract less than a year old? Denied, even if
you've been at the same company longer than that. Contractor without 2 years
of Ltd company history? Welp. Want to use help to buy? That'll limit your pool
of potential lenders even further.

~~~
CodeyWhizzBang
There's also the point that banks want you to put down a sizeable deposit so
that if the market crashes and you lose your job they can sell the house,
recover their outstanding debt and you lose your deposit.

So you might be able to afford £1,200 a month in mortgage payments (which on a
30 year mortgage could mean you could borrow £400,000) but you'd need a 20%
deposit, meaning you'd need to have saved up £100,000 to take advantage of it.

And even then, for £500k in London that's, what an okay 2 bed flat.

~~~
matthewheath
Yes, £500k doesn't get you much here. This is why I champion remote working
and possibly relocating to more affordable areas of the United Kingdom, thus
spreading the wealth around a bit more.

------
square_usual
Chiming in with the rest here. Moved in with my parents, and honestly I think
this is great. I've traded in a bit of freedom for much healthier meals and
people to talk with. I'm also saving a ton on rent, to the point where I'm
throwing in nearly 70% of my paycheck into savings. I'm not thinking of
keeping this up in the long term, but I'm glad I did this for now.

~~~
racl101
Exactly.

If you have the opportunity take it.

In other parts of the planet there isn't this weird pride that means the only
way to assert independence is by having your own place.

Most parents are happy that you just keep the area clean and chip in for
groceries and rent.

What's so bad about that?

I guess it's only a bummer when you wanna get laid, but there's probably ways
around that.

~~~
youredoneson
So here's the thing

My parents suck and I want nothing to do with them really

Everything in my life is better the less I deal with them

 _Everything_

~~~
bradlys
I think we’re going to have to accept we’re the uncommon ones around here.

I don’t know what the stats are but I’ve got a feeling that most people on HN
(particularly those in expensive cities) get along with their parents quite
well. I’ve noticed in my time in SV that I’ve never really heard anyone say
their parents are/were abusive. Or that they even really hated their parents.
On the contrary, I hear most people liking their parents quite a bit.

Abusive or terrible people for parents just don’t seem too common around these
parts. Makes sense, abused children don’t tend to be rising stars - they kill
theirselves instead.

The higher you get, the more supportive the parents are. It’s hard to get far
alone and without a kickstart.

~~~
munificent
_> I’ve never really heard anyone say their parents are/were abusive._

There are probably many people in your social circle with abusive parents.
Just because they don't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. People
tend to keep their skeletons in their closets.

Related: Many men would not _believe_ how common sexual assault of women is. A
lot of men are like, "I don't know any women who have been assaulted." Really,
it's that you don't know any women who have _told_ you that they have been.
For many reasons, most women only bring that kind of stuff up around a select
trusted set of people, if any.

I always try to be mindful when interacting with people that almost everyone
has some trauma in their past or some cross to bear. Just because they aren't
showing it doesn't mean it isn't there.

~~~
bradlys
> There are probably many people in your social circle with abusive parents.
> Just because they don't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. People
> tend to keep their skeletons in their closets.

I've asked directly to a lot of people about their relationship with their
parents. My point is more like: They all seem to love their parents. They call
them daily or, minimum, weekly. They enjoy their family gatherings and being
around their parents overall.

If you did the ACE test with the younger crowd in SV's tech sphere, I would
really doubt many people with troubled parents would show up. I get a score of
7 on that test and I don't see many 7+'s here. [https://acestoohigh.com/got-
your-ace-score/](https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/) If you had
shitty parents, you probably wouldn't get into tech here. The people I know
with shit parents are not in tech.

------
CalRobert
Those parents often shout about "greedy developers" (or, if pressed, "parking
and neighbourhood character") when, heaven forfend, someone tries to build new
homes near them.

Treating homes an investment was one of the worst mistakes of the 20th
century.

~~~
dcdevthrowaway
You say mistake as if it were an intentional choice that turned out to be a
bad one. I don't know my history of this subject very well, did policymakers
really sit down and encourage homes to be treated as investment, leading them
to become less affordable? Or were homes becoming less affordable just the
natural consequence of having an expanding population and fixed supply of
land? I'd always sort of assumed the latter.

~~~
MrPowers
Congress made mortgage interest payments tax deductible in 1913, which gave
folks an incentive to think of houses as investments.

Increasing home ownership was an express goal of the Bush Administration:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68&ab_channel=vastg...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68&ab_channel=vastgoedzeepbel)

They wanted to promote an "ownership society":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society)

Great questions.

------
Wowfunhappy
I'm 26.

Since the pandemic hit, my parents have been trying to convince me to move
back in with them. I'm working remotely now, they say, so I don't have to live
in the city, so I _might as well_ live with them, right?

I have to keep making different excuses. They don't seem to quite get the
message that as much as I love them, I just don't want to live with them...

~~~
compscistd
I was in a similar boat. I eventually said _sure why not, might actually be
great!_ , sold my house, and moved back in with them. A month later and now I
live with my sibling because I hit my breaking point.

~~~
srtjstjsj
Try online therapy?

------
wonderwonder
Millennials face a very real risk of being a lost generation financially. They
have endured 2 major, years long recessions, and now the Covid pandemic
coupled with social isolation and massive unemployment that does not appear to
have an end date in sight. Housing is more expensive for them than prior
generations, wages are stagnant, school is expensive and social conflict is
also currently on deck.

WW2 was of course a much more trying time but it was followed by massive
economic growth for most sectors of the population, I don't see that happening
after the pandemic, wealth is just being silo'd and prosperity limited.

~~~
Aeolun
Anecdotally at least, all of my friends around my age (32) have by now managed
to buy homes at very reasonable rates (<2.5% ish).

Meanwhile my parents are stuck with their much higher 10% boom years interest
rate, even though the absolute amount was much lower initially.

Of course this is in Europe, not the states.

~~~
smeeth
Is refinancing not a thing in Europe?

~~~
Xylakant
At least in Germany, it's common to have a fixed interest rate for up to 30
years (more common are 10 and 20, 30 is rare). You can refinance, but you have
to basically pay a fee that covers the expected loss for the bank, so that may
not be worth it. Other countries differ, for example AFAIR it was common in
Poland to have housing credits pegged to the swiss franc.

However, I'm fairly certain that the GP is exaggerating. Even 15 years ago, no
bank asked for 10%. 5% would have been a lot, something around 3.5 - 4%
common. My parents paid between 7 and 10% when they built their house, but
that's like at least 40 years now. Today, something around 2% is the going
rate.

At least in the booming markets, however, the rise in prices has completely
eaten the gain in interest. I could for the same monthly installmend pretty
much finance the same size as I could 10 years ago, the interest rate would be
lower, but the principal substantially higher.

~~~
analog31
That's interesting. In the US, it's called a "pre-payment penalty," where you
have to pay a fee if you want to pay off a loan early. It's not imposed by
regulation, but is up to each lender, so you can choose a loan that does not
have such a penalty.

Often consumers with weak credit or low incomes end up with loans that have
worse terms, such as these penalties.

My family refinanced our home loan, and it was just a matter of going to the
bank and signing the paperwork that they filled out for us. It took less than
an hour, and the ROI was not hard to compute.

~~~
saagarjha
Perhaps I don’t understand why there should be a _penalty_ to pay off a loan
too early? I’ve given the bank back their money; isn’t that exactly why I was
paying interest in the first place?

~~~
ARandumGuy
Because paying off a loan early means that loan has had less time to generate
interest, which means the bank gets less money.

On an extreme example, imagine taking out a loan, then you pay it all back the
next day. The loan has earned no interest, but the bank had to spend a bunch
of time and money to get the loan set up.

Of course, early payment penalties are still pretty scummy. However, it does
make sense why a bank would have one.

~~~
names_are_hard
I don't know if they're scummy. When I buy a typical corporate bond I expect
that the company will pay until maturity. If I buy a callable bond wouldn't I
expect to be compensated for the one sided exposure to interest rate risk I'm
exposing myself to (rates go up I lose, rates go down I lose)?

With consumer debt we have different expectations of what's fair, but consider
the bank's risk profile here - if interest rates go up those outstanding
mortgages are taking them for a ride, and if they go down the customers
refi... seems natural they'd want to minimize prepayments.

~~~
analog31
In my view, the chance that a loan will be paid off early can be worked into
the risk calculation that the bank uses for coming up with the interest rates
and fees that they are willing to offer, and also for computing the cash value
of the mortgage on the secondary market. At the end of the day, the bank just
wants to know that they can sell the loan for more than it cost to originate
it.

An issue with consumer debt is that a proliferation of fees and "fine print"
make it confusing for folks to understand what they're signing up for, and to
do comparison shopping on loans.

Traditionally, folks were advised to be wary of prepayment penalties because
of a widespread strategy to prepay a loan if possible. When interest rates
were high, this was like an investment with a guaranteed percentage return.

For instance, my family took out a loan with a particular payment, but we paid
more than the minimum each month because we could afford it. On the other
hand, being able to drop back to a lower payment was a kind of safety net in
case something happened to one of our jobs, or something like that.

------
keiferski
I hope we see a cultural shift toward recognizing that so-called "flyover
country" is actually ripe for re-development and cultural renewal. There are
tens of thousands of small towns and cities in the Midwest in which buying a
house is still possible for the average middle-class person.

The main issue, of course, is the lack of jobs in the area, but with remote
work growing, that might become less of an issue.

~~~
Loughla
Also, many rural areas have cooperatives for their internet and have gigabit
fiber, now. I live 40-50 minutes from the closest 'town' and 3-4 hours from
the closest urban center, and I will have fiber by the end of this month.
Remote work is absolutely an option.

That being said, no one should consider flyover country to move to. Please
stay away from my flyover country, it's bad enough with east and west coast
investment firms buying all the property and driving regular folks out of the
market entirely. When my partner and I bought the property our home is on, in
2009, we paid ~$3,000/acre. This was a high price.

The place next to ours sold last week for ~$13,000/acre to an investment firm
from New Jersey.

I feel a shift coming, and I feel like the smart money is way out in front of
it - buying up land that would be ripe for development once people figure out
how much cheaper it is in the country.

And it's killing the people who live out here, right now. I can't imagine what
it will look like if people start moving out here.

~~~
techsupporter
> And it's killing the people who live out here, right now. I can't imagine
> what it will look like if people start moving out here.

To be blunt, this is what already happened to all of the "desirable" cities on
the West Coast and, as those of us who've lived here since basically the
beginning said: buck you, you can't stop it. Start preparing _now_ for what a
wave of migration looks like and take steps to make room for the new arrivals
before they[0] show up and outbid everyone who's already there.

Yes, this is going to look like "density" or "growth" or "change." Genuinely
sorry, but the world is not a static place and since freedom of movement
inside the United States is still a thing, all pretending that it won't happen
or trying to make policies to limit it will do is turn whatever other area
into one of haves and have-nots.

0 - I wrote "they" because I'm not leaving. I must be one of the tiny minority
of people who likes where I live and have no plans to depart. If everyone else
wants to pack up from the West Coast city where I live and move to Omaha, good
on 'em.

------
xchaotic
Multi generation homes used to be norm but societies became wealthy enough to
move away from that ( and various frictions it creates) looks like we’re
literally moving back. Good for the environment, bad for the economy and
mental well being.

~~~
joaomacp
Is it really bad for mental well being? I know a lot of people nowadays
(including me) have the desire to live separately from parents. But mental
health has been going down, with increasing rates of reported loneliness and
isolation.

Society has made us individualistic / "independent". But has it really made
our mental health better?

Edit: and as others have pointed out, more people living separately is not
ecologically efficient / sustainable.

~~~
claudeganon
But in America, at least, a lot of people’s parents are fully gone down the
road of selfishness and cruelty.

It would be nice if we had a culture that encouraged multigenerational
support, but you can’t pull that out of thin air. It’s something that would’ve
needed to be in place prior to the pandemic. I think millennials may come out
changed from this, as, at least in my experience, we’re already more
supportive of each other and collectively-oriented then our parents
generation, but that would be a change felt far off in the future.

~~~
srtjstjsj
The suburbs are similar. Dealing with bad relationships by spreading farther
apart is economically and ecologically terrible. We need to fix the people.

------
swyx
I am one of those people, though in my case it was not so much for cost saving
reasons as it was the easiest means of leaving a coastal city that would
clearly be hard hit by Coronavirus.

oddly enough I'm morbidly curious about the decline in birth and marriage
rates due to this whole episode. hard to hook up in your parent's home.

~~~
halfmatthalfcat
I'm curious as well but in the opposite. People are spending more time at home
together, could there be a birth boom in Q1/Q2 of next year?

~~~
rileyteige
Anecdotally where I live several OB/GYNs (my wife is a resident) have told me
they will be delivering a ton of babies over this upcoming winter, and that
they are busier than ever - with obstetric cases.

Also anecdotally, we're expecting our first - we were waiting for the right
time, had it all planned out.. then COVID pulled the rug out from under
everything so we said screw it and just went for it. I suspect we're not alone
in this...

~~~
swyx
> screw it

heh heh heh you sure did. congrats on becoming a parent soon!

------
WarOnPrivacy
There are 5 18-29-year-olds in this house (plus myself). Here's what we
learned.

Very, very few companies will consider an applicant without a job history.
Felons tend to have easier time finding employment than HS Graduates.

Which companies hire w/o job history? Applicants don't know. It's not like
companies advertise their hiring bias. Sometimes word of mouth may lead you to
a reasonable employer - in which case the applicant can expect to compete
against countless other applicants, for the one available position.

This is reality. Part of it anyway. The rest isn't any better.

~~~
nsm
This is an excellent point. I know someone who is having a really hard time
finding jobs because they just got out of school, but there are hardly any
entry-level positions and the ones present are highly contested. They must
have applied to >200 places at this point. This is in a non-software, but STEM
field.

~~~
WarOnPrivacy
I have one son who took 4 years to score a job. In between applying to _every_
local job listing, he also walked door-to-door trying to find an unadvertised
position (which didn't work out).

He had state food prep certifications. The ALF who eventually hired him got a
worker who's on time every day, easy to get on with & does his job with
consistency and competence.

------
isabelc
This article fails to mention this as one of the reasons for young adults
moving back home: college dorms being closed.

 _Edit: that point is less important now that the article 's title has
changed. The title was like: 30 million young adults moved back to their
parents._

------
djhworld
I'm 33 and will soon be moving back to my parents place in a different city.
No point paying London rents for a tiny crappy apartment whilst WFH

------
loughnane
My wife and I are living with her parents... because my mother-in-law has
moved in with us so that she can moderate our kids remote learning sessions
while my wife and I both work.

It's not _great_, but it's not bad. Either way, I think we should get used to
it.

The Economist [0] had a great special report recently that highlighted
something I think we all know but don't think about; old people need care and
we don't know how we're going to pay for it.

The idea of elders going off to homes is relatively recent. Multi-generational
homes are not just, as the OP points out, geographical unique, they are also
historically unique. I suspect the next few decades will have more multi-
generational homes.

What this means for gender roles (the burden of all sorts of care tends to be
disproportionately carried by women), work-life balance, rural vs urban
preferences, remains to be seen. Either way, having family nearby will become
increasingly relevant, which is a big deal for the U.S., where people tend to
move around more freely.

[0] [https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/08/27/the-
big-...](https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/08/27/the-big-question-
about-dementia-care-is-who-is-going-to-do-it)

------
rtx
This is great news, it will reduce pollution. We need to live together.

~~~
dzhiurgis
Cannot agree more. There's nothing wrong to live with your kids. I have a
child now and would love to live with my parents (a little bit so they can
take care of it) provided we all had big enough house.

------
rafaelvasco
Living with parents until late 20's is just harmful if you don't have a job,
don't do anything and just live supported by parents, because you're lazy or
some similar reason.

There's those cases. But if you have the means to go living alone you tend to
develop faster since you have to handle everything, manage your
responsibilities etc.

In my case, I left my parents home when I was 30. Bit late by some people's
standards, ok by others.

I did just right because I was already very mature by that point. It can be
hard for your parents at first, but it's for the best in the long run. I guess
leaving by 30 could be a sweet spot depending on your family situation.

------
01100011
These sorts of threads seem to spiral down the drain rather quickly. There is
a rather large disconnect between the opinions of most 20-40, 40-60, and 60+
year olds. I hope we find a way to bridge those gaps, understand where the
real problems are, and find solutions.

For what it's worth, I'm 45 and I feel like the last 25+ years were filled
with a lot more wealth and choices than when I grew up. I feel like
expectations are higher than ever, and the number of things one needs to buy
in order to have a complete life is higher than ever. There are many
expectations, like owning a detached, single-family home, which do not seem
practical in many highly populated regions. I feel bad for the younger folk,
because they have inherited dreams which may never become true. That said, as
the child of two parents who both worked hard at full-time, well-paying jobs
just to provide a modest lifestyle for my family(home, but no cars, no
college, etc), I feel like some in the younger generation are judging by an
inaccurate yardstick.

The HN community, which is far, far removed from average America, is likely to
feel even more bitter. They've often been sold on the idea that they are
highly paid professionals, and they are, but their location(Bay Area, NYC, DC,
Seattle, etc) prevents them from having the life they think that should buy
them. Unfortunately with the way wealth is distributed geographically in the
US, it is unlikely they will ever really feel that wealth until they relocate.

------
a2tech
My wife has a staff of 20 and most of them are young-ish. Like a few years out
of college, first real professional job. About half of them have packed up
their apartments and gone home to their parents. They're still paying their
rent but they're living with their parents so they can have a little social
interaction and have more room than their apartments. Its caused a little
concern with the higher ups because they didn't realize people were leaving
the local area. Lots of internal arguments over it.

~~~
milkytron
Are they all working remotely, and did they have permission to?

I'm curious why there would be arguments over this, why would higher ups want
people to stay put when the work is remote anyway?

~~~
bradlys
Time zone differences. Remote people are less likely to want to come back to
the office after or might be slow to do such (“cant yet. Have to find a place
to live. Will take months.”) Taxation purposes. Plenty of reasons afaict.

~~~
techsupporter
> Remote people are less likely to want to come back to the office after or
> might be slow to do such

I'm in the same area code as my employer and I am far less likely to want to
come back to the office after. My "office" is a 15-person open space pod with
no barriers, no door, and a handful of breakout rooms per floor for one-on-one
meetings that are always occupied by someone camped out in there for the
entire day (the lunch wrappers and multiple soda cans are a dead giveaway).

Meanwhile, at home, my family might be in a smallish apartment but I have a
bedroom I can use as a home office, my own food with all of the zero-sugar
soda I can buy, a restroom where no one is ever sitting in a stall gabbing
away on the phone, and I'm not sitting four feet from my boss' shoulder while
we're both doing technical calls.

I never want to go back, and I loved my commute.

------
unemphysbro
I did it. Spend the last decade trying to get into graduate school/graduate
school. Finished up my phd this year as covid hit while I'm job hunting in
industry. I couldn't justify spending my savings on rent.

So far, it's been mutually beneficial, I keep my savings to a minimum while I
job hunt and I help around wherever I can.

It's also been great reconnecting with my parents as more mature person.

------
dheera
It's worth noting that a huge number of universities and colleges have shut
their doors and doing online learning, which accounts for probably a large
number of the 18-22 year olds and many of the 23-25 years olds.

Unemployment is a thing, but there are also many people who have gone home
because they can't be social with friends during lockdown and for some, being
social with parents is better than being alone.

And then there are people with kids who can't cope with the kids being around
at home (instead of school) while trying to do work at the same time, so they
use their parents' free babysitting services.

In short, there are many people who are _choosing_ to be home for very valid
reasons rather than NEET and economically forced to be home.

There really isn't enough data in this article to make much sense of how to
interpret this. Numbers split out by reasons would be nice.

~~~
smadge
It has been a mostly steady trend since 1960 at 29% to now where it is at 52%.
All of your examples of young adults choosing to live with their parents are
because of COVID-19, which can only account for the 5% increase since February
2020, not the other 18% increase since the 1960s.

------
irrational
My 21 and 23 year old daughters have moved back in with us. They stay up until
the wee hours of the morning watching streaming media, then wake up mid
afternoon to get on social media, eat dinner with us and then repeat. I can't
wait till they leave. At least when they are living on their own I don't have
to know about their bad habits.

~~~
koolba
Do you blame the outside world for molding them as such or is this an example
of reaping what you’ve sown?

~~~
irrational
Well, they definitely didn't learn it from me or my wife. We both work all the
time and barely take time to stop and rest. When they were growing up we would
have them work with us on house projects, in the garden, at the food bank,
etc. Apparently our work ethic didn't get picked up.

~~~
anoonmoose
you have 7k comment karma in ~4 years

i have 500 in ~7 years and i know i use HN too much

you comment on HN multiple times a day and appear to have done that for some
time

~~~
user5994461
Let's not judge people for giving attention to Hacker News instead of their
wife, or we're all to blame here ;)

------
dannykwells
I live with my wife's parents. Well, really, they live with us. And I think it
is glorious. Always someone around to chat with, play a game with. We get last
minute childcare help and sit cooking, cleaning and upkeep. For them, well
they get super cheap rent in the place they want to live and tons of grandkid
time.

Multi generational housing is the the norm in so many societies. For the US to
constantly bemoan it speaks mostly to our fucked up family culture and little
else. I couldn't be happier living with extended family and hope to do so for
a long time.

------
mensetmanusman
My mom moved in early feburary due to mental health issues, but it has been a
huge help to have her around, and great for her mental health!

------
Datsundere
Funnily enough, there was a thread on hacker news where this guy was saying
that his friend who lived with his parents was a coward and therefore everyone
that lives with their parents are cowards.

I guess majority of 20 year olds are cowards then

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24158219](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24158219)

------
iopq
I did that in my twenties, then I got some good investment returns and
retired.

Traveling everywhere all year long was amazing before... the current
situation.

------
buzzert
Important thing to consider: a majority of 18-29 year-olds also probably
normally live in dense cities, and dense cities have lost nearly all of their
appeal during the pandemic. So it might not be a financial thing necessarily,
but instead people just wanting to go back to having a room in the suburbs to
escape their shitty box in the city.

------
ineedasername
Historically, and in other parts of the world, families would live together
for longer periods of time like this.

I'm not sure why much of Western culture got away from this behavior, but it's
interesting that a lot of the driving factors are economic rather than (only)
issues of family connection.

------
inamberclad
I think HN is insulated from the stresses of growing up in the US today. I'm
on the younger side and many of my friends felt tremendous relief when they
moved away from their parents.

So I'm sure it's good for some, but don't discount the people who are feeling
trapped right now.

------
racl101
Is this a problem for non Americans and other cultures where living with
family is just the norm?

~~~
ativzzz
Probably not, hence the article being about the US

------
microcolonel
I hope to build a household that the kids will consider staying without won't
havinc to wait until a disaster strikes and 20 governors panic to find a way
to avoid accountability by being "firm and comprehensive" rather than finding
a balance.

------
bfrog
I'm a huge fan of the multigenerational house, having grown up in one myself
and now being the middle generation in a 3 generation house, it's really
amazing there's always help and conversation to be found.

------
ratsimihah
I've lived my 20s far away from home, and having moved back in in my 30s now,
even if it took some time amd awkwardness, my parents understand I've grown
and changed and they respect my need for space and intimacy.

------
risyachka
As long as you don't move in with your parents permanently it can be a good
idea even when you can pay rent by yourself.

Depending on the city you live if you can save a ton of cash and spend some
extra time with your family.

------
ponker
Some of this is voluntary. I have no financial problems but my wife and kids
and I moved in with my parents / her parents alternating every few months to
avoid total isolation.

------
anonu
> Those living arrangements can come with a great deal of awkwardness and pain

Says who? Random article by random author? Why sensationalize something so
commonplace and banal?

------
kayodelycaon
A lot of my friends (and myself) have abusive parents. I seriously consider
suicide to be a better option than going home.

~~~
HorizonXP
I no longer feel like this about my parents now that I live independently and
have my own child. They’re wonderful grandparents.

But yeah, when I was living with them in my 20s for my Masters? I felt just
like you did.

~~~
kayodelycaon
I'm 34 and bipolar. I'm stable on medication but my dad doesn't believe mental
illness exists and attributes every symptom to a lack of moral character... or
demon possession.

I don't see myself changing how I feel about him any time soon.

~~~
throwanem
Nor should you.

It can't help but be a little frustrating, however well-intentioned, when
someone without the experience to accurately inform the comment says something
like "but he's still your dad", "she's still your mom", et cetera. Bridges
burn just as well from either end. And I think it's genuinely difficult for
most good or even decent parents, in particular, to imagine how bad _bad_
parents can be.

~~~
narwally
"She's still your mom."

yeah, and these are still the scars from the cigarettes she put out on my
thigh. Sometimes bridges are burnt, and sometimes they were never built in the
first place.

"The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb"

------
adnjoo
In Asia this is normal. Nothing wrong with living with your parents.

Housing is so expensive nowadays; unless we build upwards and zone apartments/
condos over SFH.

------
romanoderoma
Welcome to Italy.

It's not as bad as it sounds, believe me.

------
denismcinerny
I just don't believe insights like this when 90% of the people I know in this
age demo aren't living at home..

------
simonw
Does the USA have enough housing for this not to be the case?

------
woah
This is wild conjecture, but could it be that part of the trend of young
people living with their parents is that the older generation has monopolized
housing. The baby boomers have clamped down in a historically unprecedented
way on the construction of new housing with height limits, environmental and
shade analysis, obstructionism in local government, extremely high subsidized
housing requirements for new projects etc etc. This has massively pumped up
the value of their houses, but now their children can't find somewhere to live
by themselves.

------
satisfaction
This is how is should be.

------
advertising
Much like Europe already

------
Tarsul
I'm sorry but the title is misleading. It's not that 30M young people (18-29)
are living with their parents due to Corona but more that the number has grown
from 24M to 26,6M in America [!] since February. Meaning the title should
rather be: "The pandemic has pushed 2,6M young Americans to move in with their
parents." see the linked source from the article:
[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-live-with-their-parents-
for-the-first-time-since-the-great-depression/) edit: i see the title has
already been corrected, HN is great :)

~~~
Valgrim
Question: How many americans have reached 18 since february?

Census says 4,021,726 americans were born in 2002, so 7 months since february:
(7/12*4,021,726=2,346,006) + immigration...

I'm not so sure this is how we should read those numbers. It could also mean
that the majority of young people reaching 18 chose to stay with their parents
a bit longer because of the pandemic.

~~~
gruez
> Question: How many americans have reached 18 since february?

Isn't that mostly canceled out by all the americans reaching 30?

~~~
alextheparrot
If the age-in population has a 75% incidence and the age-out population has a
25% incidence it won’t cancel out. The age-in population will be adding a lot
more than the age-out will be subtracting.

~~~
qes
Wouldn't you assume the age-in and age-out are quite similar?

Why would you lean towards assuming it differs by such an astounding amount
over a relatively short time period?

~~~
alextheparrot
The numbers I used are roughly derived (I rounded to the nearest quarter for
simplicity of example) from the top-level poster's Pew link [0]. Splitting the
18-29 year old cohort, 18-24 year olds increase from 63 to 71%, while 25-29
year olds increased from 26 to 28%.

Pretty much, there seems to be a natural gradient pre-existing, where the age-
in group seems to have a much greater natural affinity to be living with their
parents even prior to the pandemic. We can all probably generate reasonable
hypotheses for that, but that's the root of the mathematical assumptions.

[0] Here's a re-link of what I'm referencing:
[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-live-with-their-parents-
for-the-first-time-since-the-great-depression/)

------
thisisbrians
This headline is flat-out wrong (and should be changed, please, @dang). About
2.5M young adults in the US have moved in with their parents since February,
2020: [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-live-with-their-parents-
for-the-first-time-since-the-great-depression/)

~~~
dang
Ok, we've changed the title to a different phrase from the article. Thanks!

------
nateburke
What boomers say:

"Time to grow up"

What boomers mean:

"Time to grow up, at least for now, while the company to which I pay my long
term care premiums is solvent and likely to be able to provide care when I am
frail, though it is looking like it might not always be the case, in which
case I would prefer for you to live with me at that point."

------
x87678r
Its pretty disgraceful that for 99.99% of millennials covid is just a mild
disease. We're shutting down everything for the benefit of baby boomers again.
When its all over there will be no thank-you. House prices aren't even getting
cheaper so young people again be shafted. Its crazy.

~~~
brianmcc
To be fair there are quite a few millennials for whom loss of beloved parents
and grandparents to an avoidable cause would be something of a downside too...

------
mrandish
One of the worst effects of all the blanket lockdown policies will be the
long-term impact on an entire generation in both education and career.

------
helge9210
> "While moving back home

It's not their home, it's their parent's home.

> still see you as your 18-year-old self

or worse, as a failure.

------
paul_f
A majority? That's astounding. Unless unemployed, why don't millennials do
what we did in our twenties, find two or three roommates and split the rent?

~~~
Macha
Many of them already are, except in many cities, it's 5-6 housemates,
including 1 actual roommate (as in sharing the same room). This is the case I
would say for the majority of my mid-20s friends, except those in the software
industry. In the software industry there's more people managing with just
their partner or 1 housemate. Living alone is the least common. Is it that
unreasonable that many would choose to go back to their parents when there's
now no actual reason for them to be in that situation if they're working from
home indefinitely?

