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

641–650 of 974 posts

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

#641

Post by wonnage »

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…

You are so, so close to understanding the problem, and then stopped at the last minute. Are you arguing that SF should be only populated by L8s at Google? Surely not. It should make financial sense for teachers and cooks and Uber drivers to live in SF, because that's how cities work. L8s are great at writing design docs for obscure CI systems but what if I want a burrito?

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

#642

Post by 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.

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

#644

Post by chasd00 »

klmadfejno wrote: post #542
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 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. Then you've got a non representative sample. This claim is outrageous, and it's not true. Honestly it pisses me off how casually you just assert that…

"Honestly it pisses me off how casually you just assert that most millenials think this way". I totally get that, imagine how baby-boomers feel.

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

#645

Post by trey-jones »

aphextron wrote: post #634
kelnos wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 me…

You're projecting yourself onto all other Americans here. Personally I feel the same about some points:

I moved back to my hometown after finishing college (in Germany!) and went to work at the family business. I was there for 4 years, and miserable for 3 of them. I finally told my dad that I didn't want to work there anymore, and it hurt his feelings for sure, but the last 10 years have been much better for me.

At the same time, I still live in my hometown and I find that the "get out" mentality in high school was massively overhyped. I like it here. My younger brother eventually went to work for my dad, and he seems to like it.

I'm just trying to say that just because you believe living with your parents would stunt your personal growth, doesn't mean that your neighbor can't live a perfectly happy and successful life in that situation.

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

#646

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

ballenf wrote: post #401
babelfish wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Right, but what matters is the housing price where people are. It doesn't matter what the housing market looks like in South Dakota if I don't want to live there. While houses in South Dakota may be 1/10 the price of houses in NYC (likely cheaper, honestly), they also have 1/10 the po…

Ok so the change from a decade or two ago is that young people want to live in places they can't afford. In the past they were evidently more content to live in places they could afford. Doesn't really feel like cost of housing is what's changed.

> Ok so the change from a decade or two ago is that young people want to live in places they can't afford.

It's their own fault for not living where HS graduates can afford - a tent on someone's unmaintained property.

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

#647

Post by leetcrew »

TuringNYC wrote: post #619
leetcrew wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got the $200k figure assuming a 6% rate of return, which is basically the inflation-adjusted rate of return for the S&P 500. both the $200k and $60k are 2020 dollars.

>> both the $200k and $60k are 2020 dollars. This is the problem. $200k in 2020 dollars wont mean much 40yrs from now. Similarly, $60k sounded like a huge figure in 1980 for retirees planning for 2020. For a proper comparison, you'd need to compare purchasing power of $60k to a retiree today vs $200k to a retiree in 2060 -- i'll bet it is about the same!!! Inflation is a huge unknown here. My parents' home in 1981 wa…

I hope this doesn't come off as condescending, but I think you are missing the distinction between real and nominal value. if I just say "$200k" without qualification, that is a nominal value. if I associate that nominal value with an instant in time (a whole year can be a narrow enough window when inflation is reasonably low), it becomes a real value. when I say you would have $200k in 2020 dollars in forty years, inflation is already taken into account. if a dollar is worth half as much in 2060, I'm saying you would have $400k in 2060.

you are right that inflation is a huge unknown. if inflation goes up massively without a corresponding increase in nominal returns (unlikely, but possible), it would make that 6% figure incorrect. in this case, you would have less than $200k 2020 dollars in 2060, but the real value of a 2020 dollar would not have changed.

as a concrete example, suppose I own a three shares of microsoft stock and you have a brand new ipad air. both are worth about $600 today. if I offered to trade you my microsoft stock for the air, you might be happy to do so if you don't have any use for the ipad. if the fed prints trillions of dollars overnight causing the value to collapse, it doesn't change the fact that my three MSFT shares have roughly the same real value as the ipad. "2020 dollars" is just a slightly more abstract way of describing this dynamic.

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

#648

Post by tstrimple »

abnry wrote: post #533
vertbhrtn wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your countertops or your landlord's countertops? Because all the rest - all those iphones & vacations - is cheap fluff, really.

That's the point. The cheap fluff today was expensive stuff yesteryear, if it existed at all.

Seems like the ol' "poor people aren't really poor because they almost all have refrigerators and not even kings had refrigerators two hundred years ago!" argument.

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

#649

Post by tstewart161 »

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…

I’ll ding you on the financial sense of not living in Bay Area vs living there even if you’re just a new grad (or just below L8). I live in a very low cost of living area with salary nearly twice the median software engineer and I’d still be able to save 40% more on a google paycheck even adjusting for the rent 5 times my current for the same amenities.

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

#650

Post by pwillia7 »

wonnage wrote: post #641
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…

You are so, so close to understanding the problem, and then stopped at the last minute. Are you arguing that SF should be only populated by L8s at Google? Surely not. It should make financial sense for teachers and cooks and Uber drivers to live in SF, because that's how cities work. L8s are great at writing design docs for obscure CI systems but what if I want a burrito?

Well, then that'll be $287.65
Post reply on HN