Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 974 posts

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#361

Post by throwaway0a5e »

Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #94

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…

Your house has smoke detectors and a dishwasher. Your car has airbags. When you decide you want to build a garden shed behind that brick box you need to get permission from the town and pay for that permission. Your dad didn't have any of that stuff. You more or less need a smartphone to function in modern society. There's more wealth sloshing around and more (in terms of quantity, probably not proportion) of it comes your way but you're not getting any freedom to do the things you want to do from that wealth because society takes a huge chunk of it and earmarks it for things and you don't get to use it to take a vacation or whatever. Basically standards of living have inflated and there's no choice not to buy in.

Also the interest rates vs asset prices thing other commenters have mentioned isn't helping.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#362

Post by narwally »

throwanem wrote: post #131
kayodelycaon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

"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"

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#363

Post by wavefunction »

tidepod12 wrote: post #284
dcolkitt wrote: post #246

> 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 h…

>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 ho…

"Starter homes" were bought up by wealthier older people or businesses to turn into AirBnBs or rentals. https://www.bobvila.com/slideshow/7-signs-starter-homes-may-... I don't know if you talk to any "millenials" but most of them are _extremely pragmatic_ by necessity.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#364

Post by lowdose »

rayajason wrote: post #346
tidepod12 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ho…

> 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 I don't know where you live but I almost find this insulting. I'm from Amsterdam my self and friends of my are being forced out the city because of the high rent pri…

Housing in the Netherlands is really awful, in the '90 the boomers have build smaller apartments for their parents to move in and actually profit in an illicit way 2x of their real estate gains of sometimes 6x. No boomer is living smaller to make room for the next generation. I think the best way to combat current shortage in housing is putting up a limit on m2 that an individual could claim. 300m2 for a single person in a metro area while being on a pension is not sustainable in current conditions.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#365

Post by TuringNYC »

elektor wrote: post #253
dcolkitt wrote: post #246

> 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 h…

That's a valid point but millions of people live and work in SF, NY, LA, and DC. Their needs for housing should be acknowledged as well.

I dont think this is a regional problem -- it is a problem of income/price and income/rent ratios off the historical chart almost regardless of where you live. It is a worse problem in SF, NY, LA, and DC but still a universal problem.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#366

Post by tidepod12 »

ransom1538 wrote: post #349
tidepod12 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ho…

"just to buy a 3-4 bedroom" It should be noted, they don't build 2 bedroom homes anymore. I was talking to a real estate developer in Sacramento about this. New 3 bedrooms do exist, however, they would rather cram out the lot with a 5 bedroom since the cost to add on another few hundred square feet is nothing if you have the equipment and material right there. PLUS! People will go ahead and take on huge loans with th…

>It should be noted, they don't build 2 bedroom homes anymore

I don't know if this is what you meant by this, but I do see this same argument come up a lot, and it's a great example of the "entitlement" I'm referring to.

The only reason it would be relevant that they don't build 2 bedroom houses anymore is if you for some reason think you must have a newly built houses. The old 2 bedroom houses didn't suddenly disappear. They are there in abundance for great prices (at least in my metro), but my extended circle (close friends plus people I know from childhood/high school/etc) won't buy them because they insist on new builds or new renovations.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#367

Post by zip1234 »

computerphage wrote: post #262
war1025 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that it's a regional, not generational, problem.

It's not just a regional problem if it's happening in every region.

Local control over zoning is a massive problem. Most people agree that building more homes would bring housing prices down. However, most cities have more than half of the land exclusively reserved for single family homes and have rules that prevent any creativity or density. They want other places to add the housing. I can't see the problems going away unless entire states reform zoning.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#368

Post by pradn »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #361
Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #94

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…

Your house has smoke detectors and a dishwasher. Your car has airbags. When you decide you want to build a garden shed behind that brick box you need to get permission from the town and pay for that permission. Your dad didn't have any of that stuff. You more or less need a smartphone to function in modern society. There's more wealth sloshing around and more (in terms of quantity, probably not proportion) of it come…

I see this argument, but it has limits. A seasonal farmworker today has access to Google and Wikipedia, but they are still working 12 hour days. They are less likely to get communicable diseases due to vaccination and disease eradication, but hospital stays are more prohibitively expensive than before. It's complex.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#369

Post by TuringNYC »

Gunax wrote: post #294
leetcrew wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a variation of the "avocado toast" argument. if you go crazy and subscribe to amazon prime, a music streaming service, and several video streaming services, you're paying somewhere around $100/month. if instead you invested the $100 every month, you could expect to have an extra ~$200k (inflation adjusted) after forty years. that's not nothing, but it doesn't add a whole lot to your safe withdrawal rate in re…

We might be talking about different budget levels, but to normal people (people who don't have the word 'software' in their job title), 200k in retirement is a lot. Actually the median 401k balance at retirement is only around 60k, so that alone would quadruple their retirement savings.

>> Actually the median 401k balance at retirement is only around 60k, so that alone would quadruple their retirement savings.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing today's values at retirement to future values at retirement. It is almost certain that $200k 40yrs from now will not be worth $200k in today's dollars. Inflation accrued over 40yrs -- however low and however faked -- is absolutely going to make that $200k seem not so much.

Presumably, some of the $200k invested will grow, but also, not all the 200k is invested right now, it drips in over 40yrs.

You also forget the wildcard of healthcare lottery. One large medical surgery co-pay and you lose half your nextegg.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#370

Post by stan_rogers »

Shivetya wrote: post #326
tidepod12 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ho…

it isn't just homes. there is no starter car, no starter tv, no started anything. I regularly work with tech support persons who are spending more than I am on a wide range of goods and services. It is mind boggling to me. Yes some have trade offs but that seems to be either they are house poor or car poor but mostly the latter. What catches them as with those who do have the money is all those monthly bills can add…

"Starter TVs" are certainly still a thing. And it's not just inflation-adjusted; you can get a 24" LED for about the same dollar price that a 15" B&W CRT TV would have been when I left high school. And there are used units out there as well.
Post reply on HN