
Who Lives with Their Parents? - ryan_j_naughton
https://priceonomics.com/who-still-lives-at-home-with-their-parents/
======
franciscop
This would have been much better if also compared with cultural background.
I'm from Spain and it's common here to live with the family after graduating.
It's not even a bad thing and many times it's not even due to economic
reasons; we just love our families and spending time with them. I'm sure that
family ties (culturally dependent) also make an influence on who lives with
their family, so I'd love to see this in the report.

~~~
chrisan
> we just love our families and spending time with them.

I doubt love is a large factor here, it is definitely a cultural thing.

Many of my friends still live near their families and love spending time with
them, but you are viewed as a failure in society if you cannot survive on your
own. If living at home with your parents wasnt such a bad stigma in cultures
I'm sure more people would do it as they also love their families and it makes
economic sense.

Also most people leave their families when they go to college, often not in
the same town the grew up in, then take a job likely not in either town they
grew up or studied in making it very difficult to live with your parents even
if you wanted to ignore the stigma of it

~~~
angry-hacker
Are you talking about Spain? I live here and definitely you're not seen as
failure if you live with them or close to them.

------
X86BSD
Interesting to me is that in the US most parents want to give their kids the
boot at 18.

In India, where my wife is from, family lives together. Family is a big thing
there. It is not uncommon to see mom and dad, daughter and son, grandmas and
grandpas, or even aunts and uncles all living in the same home.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
_Interesting to me is that in the US most parents want to give their kids the
boot at 18_

Well we want to give them the boot earlier but the timing of higher education
and law generally sets the lower bar at 18.

~~~
internaut
You might want to rethink that. That cultural value makes sense when there is
broadly rising economic activity.

In my experience parents and their children are operating in two completely
different economies.

To be blunt in case I risk being overly oblique: 1/3 of the female students at
my university did sex work to pay the rent. That's in a place where they
worked hard to get into an elite university and didn't have to pay
extraordinary tuition fees.

Further down the socioeconomic ladder it gets worse. Merely surviving without
debt is a success story for a millennial.

I have to say: almost everything on this subject I read from the media is a
fiction. I'm not saying the stats are made up, but the _overwhelming
impression_ you get from the box on the wall is powerfully wrong.

~~~
jstanley
> 1/3 of the female students at my university did sex work to pay the rent

I find it hard to believe there's enough customers to make this viable, let
alone that it actually happens. Do you have some source to back this claim up?

~~~
DanBC
One study by Swansea claimed that it's 1 in 20 students. That covered the
whole spectrum of sex work.

[http://www.thestudentsexworkproject.co.uk/](http://www.thestudentsexworkproject.co.uk/)

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/11499381/Student-sex-
wo...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/11499381/Student-sex-work-the-
secret-industry-in-Britains-universities.html)

[http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/student-sex-workers-talk-
abou...](http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/student-sex-workers-talk-about-the-
job)

------
guessmyname
This is interesting considering all the empty space available in the US
compared with countries like Japan where it is more common to find people in
their 30s still living with their parents even if they are married, and it is
not weird at all, it is as normal as you can get considering the space
available for housing.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Why It’s So Hard to Build Affordable Housing: It’s Not Affordable

> Developers struggle to break even on rental projects for the poorest
> Americans.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-26/why-
it-s-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-26/why-it-s-so-hard-
to-build-affordable-housing-it-s-not-affordable)

This is without even discussing the macroeconomic effects of central banks
attempting stimulus by printing money, driving up asset values artificially.

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-c...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-
chart-20)

"WHAT a difference a decade makes. In 2006 house prices in America hit an all-
time high, after rising unabated for the previous ten years. The crash that
followed brought the entire global financial system to its knees. As our cover
leader this week explains, despite efforts to fix the plumbing of the American
mortgage market, housing in the United States remains a dangerous menace to
the world economy. In the meantime property prices in the country, underpinned
by low interest rates, forge ahead. On average, American home prices have
recovered nearly all their losses from the 2006 crash, but when adjusted for
inflation they are still 20% below the 2006 peak."

~~~
nostrademons
I'm curious where the profits accrue in the real-estate industry. It's a
manufacturing industry where we have relatively advanced machinery to build
the houses themselves; you'd think that the cost of housing would have dropped
the way, say, cars or silicon has. But it hasn't: the price of housing has
largely been flat or increased. Usually when this happens, it's because there
is some monopoly scarcity in the value-chain that allows the producer at that
level to reap large profits, eg. Microsoft and Intel in the desktop software
value chain, or Apple in the mobile ecosystem.

I'd thought that real-estate developers were that scarcity in the housing
value chain, but this article suggests that they struggle to break even. Who
is it? Construction and real-estate brokers can make a lot in boom times, but
they tend to lose it to the cyclical nature of the real-estate industry, so I
don't normally think of them as the ones getting rich. Is it Caterpillar,
making the heavy equipment used by construction? Land owners, who can keep
land supply off the market? (But then, the price of raw unimproved land
basically tracks inflation, indicating a competitive market.) Property
managers? Is there artificial scarcity enforced by transportation
infrastructure - the article indicated that one of the developer's primary
constraints was the need to build near light rail?

~~~
morgante
> It's a manufacturing industry where we have relatively advanced machinery to
> build the houses themselves; you'd think that the cost of housing would have
> dropped the way, say, cars or silicon has.

I'm not sure why you think that.

Unlike manufacturing cars or silicon, housing has very poor economies of
scale. Building 10 houses isn't a whole lot cheaper than building 5.

It's also a lot harder to make more efficient. Housing isn't manufactured in
large factories where you can optimize every step of the process—instead, it's
done by lots and lots of local firms. This leads to vast differences in the
level of efficiency.

There's also the problem that there is still a social stigma against "generic"
housing. Having the same phone as everyone else isn't looked down upon, but
mass-produced homes carry a definite negative connotation. People look down on
cookie-cutter condos or manufactured homes.

> But then, the price of raw unimproved land basically tracks inflation,
> indicating a competitive market.

Where on earth are you getting that from? Raw land in the middle of nowhere
might track inflation, but land near any jobs center certainly doesn't. That's
also the explanation of where most of the profits go: to owners of
appreciating land in desirable areas, which is a mix of professional
speculators/investors and existing homeowners.

Source: Spent Thanksgiving hearing about the frustrations my architect
relatives have dealing with different contractors around the country.

~~~
zardo
>Unlike manufacturing cars or silicon, housing has very poor economies of
scale. Building 10 houses isn't a whole lot cheaper than building 5.

That's similar to cars. The economies of scale are there. You just need to
sell 500,000 a year like a car manufacturer does.

Also, cars have customers which will pay many multiples the normal price for
new technology, and that market that lasted for a century.

~~~
morgante
In what way is it similar to cars?

If you want to mass-produce housing, you have to get around two very big
barriers:

1\. Most of the market looks down on mass-produced housing thanks to its
association with trailer parks and/or identical condos.

2\. Housing is mostly produced locally. Shipping large homes would be
extremely difficult and expensive.

> Also, cars have customers which will pay many multiples the normal price for
> new technology, and that market that lasted for a century.

Sure, but that's equally true for housing. There are plenty of people who will
pay a significant premium for a "smart home" or houses with energy efficient
built in. This doesn't make mass-manufacturing easier.

~~~
majewsky
> Housing is mostly produced locally. Shipping large homes would be extremely
> difficult and expensive.

You don't need to ship the whole house in one piece. If you ship
premanufactured panels (which is the common method), the price of shipping
should be comparable to shipping the "ingredients" to the construction site.

------
jondubois
I left home (in a medium-sized town) many years ago when I was 18 to go to uni
and then later to find work in a big city.

If only my parents had lived in a big city, I would have stayed at home and
saved so much money. Instead I have saved practically nothing. It's just
impossible to save when the rent for your 'shoe box' in the city eats up half
of your after-tax salary.

~~~
jraby3
You also chose to go to school far from home.

~~~
robjan
I chose to go to school far from home too. The reason? There are no decent
universities near where I live. Sometimes there aren't many "choices".

~~~
jondubois
Exactly, what's a degree from the "Univesity of Nowhere" worth? Same with
jobs.

It's good that now at least, remote work is possible.

------
analog31
I'm somewhat older, so I see it from the other side. Many of my friends and
relatives have adult children.

In my observation, it's no longer seen as strange for kids to bounce in and
out of the parental homestead, as their economic circumstances evolve. I
really think if there was ever a stigma, it's pretty much gone.

And if you look at the folks who are very wealthy, their kids may be living in
another location physically, but their finances and opportunities remain
closely intertwined. I could cite the Trump family as a famous example, not to
be political, but just to observe something that is almost taken for granted
among the wealthy.

------
everyone
I recently quit my great job in Dublin and moved in with my parents who have a
house out in the country. With my savings and without paying rent or a
mortgage I can live for years without having to earn any money. I'm just doing
lots of outdoor activities in the beautiful countryside, indulging various
other hobbies like reading, and working on my own little software projects in
the evenings. No responsibility at all, no stress, no boss. Its awesome! I'm
really happy

~~~
sridca
I agree. I'm currently living in India with my parents on a sabbatical, and
really enjoy the lack of responsibility and work. There is plenty of time to
relax and have fun with hobbies. It feels as if this is how life is meant to
be lived, with work being something one does once in a while as needed.

~~~
ianai
It is, given how short life is.

------
Fiachaire
Just a reminder that the Priceonomics blog is self-promotion designed to show
clients they can get people online to viral-market the website/brand/service
for them. The data and how it is presented may or may not be true, but it will
definitely be about profitable content. As most of the consumers here seem to
respond to the content by clicking through, upvoting, adding personal
anecdotes, (perhaps sharing on FB or Twitter?) I'd guess this will be a
successful advert.

Perhaps somebody trained in handling data could explain why 10 responses is
enough to reflect the rest of a states population. Is it significant that out
of 60,000 private data sets the company didn't have 10 from Vermont or South
Dakota? If we're drawing conclusions based on geography, shouldn't we be able
to determine which states have over 1000 responses, and which have less than
100?

------
baccheion
I live with my mother (oh so f*cking cliche-- for a nerd), but as that's due
to mental illness (though I think someone did and is doing this to me), I
don't think I'm what's being talked about.

If it made strong sense to live with my mother, rather than on my own, then
I'd have done so. How it's perceived by others is irrelevant to me. That said,
I can't think when I'm not living by myself and I have difficulties getting
along with my mother, so this would've never been an option for me. It's bad
enough that I'd be better off alone in a high crime, run down, low cost area
than with others in an upper class neighborhood.

If many are still living with their parents, then it implies the recession of
2009 is still inflicting damage, but what's annoying me is the notion that
what was previously smart, frugal, and sensible gets baked in as the norm
(creating more misery for everyone, but without any advantages). That is,
living with parents after graduation is done to just survive, rather than to
save more and pay off student loans faster. What BS!

~~~
loqwe
> was previously smart, frugal, and sensible gets baked in as the norm

I love that smart, frugal, sensible behavior becomes the norm. What could be
bad about that?

~~~
baccheion
As I said in my comment, "That is, living with parents after graduation is
done to just survive, rather than to save more and pay off student loans
faster."

My problem is that the advantages/payoffs (more savings, faster student loan
payoffs, etc) of sensible/smart behavior are removed, while the
misery/discomfort/etc (living with parents, being looked at funny, not being
able to be alone) remain (or are made worse).

It's even worse if the idiots then repeatedly bring up the advantages (to
excuse themselves of what they did and to make it seem there's nothing wrong
with what they are doing), as though they still exist.

~~~
smallnamespace
You seem to have strongly internalized the notion that only 'losers' live with
their parents, and hence it's inherently wrong to do so. I would question that
assumption.

It's the US that's the outlier here -- in most countries, living with parents
at least for some points in time is the normal thing to do, for the simple
reason that it's more economical.

~~~
FooBarWidget
In China it is normal to live with your parents (and even grandparents) all
your life -- even after marriage and kids -- so that you can take care of your
elders.

~~~
AtheistOfFail
Due to the land allotments in Cuba, this is actually very common. Big houses
(5-6 rooms) with three generations or four are not uncommon.

------
uiri
California, the most expensive state to live in according to the map that they
linked, pokes a big hole in their cost of living argument. It has a lower % of
people living with their parents than their national average and approximately
the same % as the least expensive state, Iowa.

The 5 most expensive states to live in are 20th, 5th, 3rd, 8th, and 9th in
their table. There is a tie for 6th in the linked cost of living ranking and
those states are 2nd and 46th in their table. The 5 least expensive states to
live in are 21st, 37th, 40th, 30th and 47th. So while cost of living is
clearly a factor, it doesn't tell the whole story.

~~~
dikdik
I'm in California. Would 100% live with my parents (as much as I would hate
it) if they lived here. There are no jobs where I grew up and went to college,
I came here so I could work in my desired industry. I actually tried leaving
earlier this year, but could not find a job elsewhere.

Will try again next year. I would be ecstatic to be a home owner and where I'm
living I won't be able to until I'm almost 40 (sans quadrupling my salary or
marrying rich).

------
Taniwha
the thing they didn't explain was how they distinguished between people who
live with their parents (in their parent's home) and people whose parents have
moved in with them.

Of course traditionally the eldest son inherited the house (and the fields)
and the supported their grandparents in their old age in the same house.

China has a unique problem in this respect, retirement essentially consists of
the eldest son inheriting the house and supporting his parents (who look after
the grandkids). The one child policy means that when a couple marry and have a
kid they end up with two sets of parents wanting to move in with the newly
married couple, vying to look after the one kid and be supported in their old
age. You can see why people have quietly been having more than one kid where
they can

~~~
gozur88
>the thing they didn't explain was how they distinguished between people who
live with their parents (in their parent's home) and people whose parents have
moved in with them.

Because they didn't make that distinction:

>Yet, some who live at home make a wage that should allow them to live
independently. Like the older groups in our age analysis, these high earners
could be older adults in established households who live with elderly parents
to provide, not receive, support.

~~~
davidgay
My handwavy evaluation of the data says that 3% are "people whose parents
moved in with them" \- this is based on the "Annual Income" graph which
basically bottoms out at 3%. And it's consistent with the Age graph, which
also bottoms out around 3% except for people above 53 (53+30=83, so a lot of
those parents are in a high-mortality age).

So just subtract 3% from all numbers, where that makes sense of course...

------
gruez
why is there like, no contrast on the map? i can barely infer each state's
percentage without doing a comparison game to see which color it falls in.

~~~
jlarocco
I was thinking the same thing. With only four categories, there's no excuse
for the colors being so difficult to discern.

------
smoyer
When I saw this title I thought it would make an interesting "ask HN" ... Now
I see that it's turned into one!

For the record, I moved our of my parents house when I was 20 (I'm not
counting living in the college dorms at 17). I love my parents but I couldn't
take living with them again.

------
Fiachaire
If your clients come to you for help with student loans, aren't most of these
figures blatantly obvious or hopelessly misleading? Think of it this way:

Only 1% of people over the age of 53 needed our help with student loans and
also live with their parents.

Almost 25% of people living with their parents in need of our help with
student loans have only a high school degree...for now. The company is only 3
years old.

Also, why is the Earnest article titled "Math, Engineering Majors First to
Leave the Nest"/"Humanities, Psych Majors More Likely to Live at Home"? Math
and engineering majors seemed middle of the road, and in the chart there is no
indication that they even factor in graduation. If I have a high school
degree, and a student loan and am a client of Earnest I may or may not live at
home, but I definitely have a major.

And why do they have data for 48-50 (less than 10 != 0) states if they only
operate in 41 and DC?

------
pklausler
I read through all of these comments and saw no gratitude at all for the
parents and extended families that continue to provide room and board for
their adult offspring. :-(

------
lqdc13
This analysis makes no sense.

"In general, having more education means it’s less likely you’ll live at home:
just 3% of PhDs live with their parents, versus a quarter of those with only a
high school diploma."

Never mind that you are probably about 30 by the time you finish PhD so they
should have compared high school educated adults of the same age groups.

If anything, this shows that people with higher education are more likely to
live with their parents (see associates vs bachelors).

Also, their claim that STEM degree holders are better off than those with
social sciences degrees is unsubstantiated.

Edit:

In fact, I'm fairly certain that High School educated adults are less likely
to live with their parents than Bachelors educated adults at the age of ~23
and possibly later.

This is because 48% of all adults who live with their parents have to have a
high school degree.

~~~
ec109685
Yeah, their interpretation of the data is wrong. 25% of high sachool only
educated adults do _not_ live st home. Instead, out of the universe of adult
people that live at home 25% are only college educated. A big difference.

------
kusmi
I have a different take on this.

Coming out of university with a BS, graduates today are far from well-equipped
to perform in corporate upper middle-class jobs (the jobs promising upward
mobility). I think this has most to do with an increase in the amount of data
companies deal with. White-collar employees need to know not only the ins-and-
outs of their industry, but they must also know how to use increasingly
complicated enterprise software, and possess more advanced analytical skills
to operate with more complicated data. As a result, graduates with a 4year
degree are stuck for 5+ years in internship limbo. Companies will bleed money
training interns who literally can't offer anything of value and instead will
use up the work hours of the skilled employees who train them. Hence, <30k
salaries.

I think this is why there is a trend for the more math-heavy STEM fields to
flee the coop earlier --they spend less time on the software and analytics
training to become valuable sooner.

Certain degrees like health, or design are unlike general STEM fields in that
they train students for specific technical jobs rather than teaching broader
critical thinking/problem solving. So, they get jobs right out of school
(5year engineering programs...?).

PhD's are in the best position to flee the coop quickly because they are paid
a livable wage (in most cases) while in graduate school. It's also not
terribly difficult to get into a PhD program (completing it is another story).
After receiving their doctorate, PhDs rely on tight-knit academic networking
within their field of study to do their post-doc. However, this is where many
of them get stuck, receiving a salary <70k (often far <). Increasing
competition for faculty positions has pushed many a post-doc out of academics
(though, by this time I feel they can compete well in the corporate sector).

What I can't explain is law students. I thought there was a bubble leaving
most of them jobless. I presume that maybe a law degree is relatively more
helpful in scaling the world of big-data (and 'big-regulation') making them
prime pickings for corporate jobs earlier than the rest.

------
btdiehr
I noticed they found a correlation between living with parents and higher
education, which isn't surprising, but I think they missed a big component of
it, and the effect is certainly smaller than it appears from their
visualization.

Higher education correlates directly with an older average age, what would the
statistics look like if you corrected for the high-education -> older age
correlation? The average age of PhD graduates will certainly make them skip
out on the age brackets which are most strongly associated with living at
home.

------
sergers
i live alone, in a house in vancouver suburb for 8 years (bought when 22). i
really didnt want a house, was interested in a condo... but parents instilled
value of land (they happen to be realtors/housing developers).

i carried a 550k mortgage at 22, earning about ~60k annually. i have renters
in bsmt, so definitely helped.

sure i have a nice house, but i definately wasnt living a life of luxury
outside... i envied my friends who lived at home with parents, whose only
financial burden was if they had enough money to party on the weekend. or they
spent money on cars, lifestyle etc.

definately now that i am older, a bit more sensible, little worries... am so
glad i went through this early on in life.

first of all i am laughing at a bunch of my new neighbours buying a smaller
version of my house for only $900,000.00 more than i paid in this recent
vancouver real estate market.

second of all, i sure as hell couldnt afford a house here even though i make
significantly more here than previously.

for the people that lived at home, to save for a future you might have a
chance at home ownership in this market.

if you blew it on cars, extravagant expenses/trips/lifestyle than better hope
your family has money to bankroll a house.

i am selling my house for about 140% markup of what i paid even though market
definately not as hot with time of year + recent restrictions.

~~~
dandr01d
To play devil's advocate:

Lots of people spend money in their 20s on experiences: partying, moving,
traveling, trying new things... It's sure as hell harder to do all these
things later in life with a spouse/kids.

------
awqrre
Who's parents moved back in with them?

------
piyush_soni
In India (where I'm from) we generally live with our parents (even after
marriage) unless of course we have to go to another city for higher education
or job. Even then, our 'permanent address' remains our parents' address.
Things are changing rapidly here though, mostly in big cities where they live
separately from their parents as they get the freedom to do whatever they want
and also because it's the new "in-thing".

------
eva1984
Real estate is much more expensive than last few decades and birthrate is
lower than ever, this is hardly a surprise.

------
simonebrunozzi
Curious to hear the "why" too - I assume mostly for economical reasons, but
details would be interesting.

~~~
aianus
I find it really depressing to live alone.

I wish we had love hotels in the west like they do in Asia so you can have a
girlfriend without paying $1100 a month to come home to an empty house after
work.

~~~
superuser2
I find it really depressing to live with roommates. I spend 8+ hours a day in
an open office subject to other people's opinions (and carelessness) about
what should enter my ears. To endure that and then come home to someone
watching TV or on the phone is literally hell.

I've traded away 3+ hours/day of free time to the commute so that in the
little free time I have left, I get to choose the ambient noise.

At least in college, the library was a short walk and open late. There are no
quiet indoor public spaces open after work, sadly.

~~~
poikniok
Is such a long commute necessary? Are you in the bay area and can't afford to
live closer?

~~~
superuser2
Yeah, it's the Bay Area. East Bay to SF. There are things other than roommates
I could compromise on in order to live closer or go faster (standing on
crowded, lurching public transit vehicles, sqft, building quality,
neighborhood safety, savings %, entertainment and travel spend), but my
current situation (90 minutes each way, but by pleasant means - bicycle and
ferry) seems to be the least bad option for my tastes.

~~~
himlion
Maybe an e-bike would be a good option for you?

~~~
superuser2
The route to the ferry is only ~10 minutes faster by car, and the Bay Bridge
is (infuriatingly) not passable to bicycles.

I'm looking into motorcycling.

------
mcs_
There is nothing to do in this era for a "kid" at 18...

In my time... there was a lot of work to do (and that was all)

Right now there is no such thing. How do you survive in modern times without
someone that pays for you?

------
therealasdf
Where I'm from, it's uncommon to move out of your parents house if you're not
married.

------
kimshibal
My cats

