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

781–790 of 974 posts

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

#781

Post by fakedang »

tuna-piano wrote: post #632
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…

While it's true this seems like a strong US thing, I haven't heard many happy long-term stories of folks living intergenerationally. In my experience (talking to people from a variety of countries), most couples in their 20s/30s want their own place (even in the countries where it's not common). It seems it can even lead to happier intergenerational relationships when the roomate-type fights don't need to happen. It…

I would agree on one point and disagree on the other actually.

On the first point, from what I've seen, there is certainly a lot of conflict if intergenerational couples stay together under the same roof for prolonged periods of time, whether it's the parents living with the kids or the other way around. For short periods of time, it definitely works out positively.

I would argue that it's less because of wealth or even expenses, and moreso because of cultural norms, that children tend to stay with their parents for longer in Europe. I don't know if this comes across as anecdotal, but my SO's parents often requested her to choose a medical university closer to home, and even suggested we stay with them, even though they are extremely affluent and comfortable. Even now, after living separately in another city, her parents and relatives often stop by to check up and stay for a couple of days very often. Of course, the young will always prefer to move apart to retain some privacy, especially once the kids arrive. Obviously there's the shadow of European expenses hanging over everyone's heads.

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

#782

Post by gdyuytgh »

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…

What are those starter homes?

I've got 500k in liquid assets, a respectable salary and no debts. I'm looking at the housing market and see two options: a junk house in a sketchy area for 600k or a decent house for 1.2M, but I'd have to give up financial security and live pay check to pay check.

If there was a smallish decent condo for 200k, I'd write a check today.

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

#783

Post by subsubzero »

nradov wrote: post #703
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…

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…

I moved out at 18 while working full time, I have always been extremely independently minded and wanted to do my own thing. Was it extremely tough especially when I was going to college as well? absolutely! But it brought to me a sense of independence and tenacity that has given me a huge advantage over peers in my age group. Everything is not that difficult when compared to being on your own at a young age. I counter this to a person I knew who went to a top school who's Dad was a corp. exec and they were not working/jumping between low level jobs into their 30's and were completely dependent upon their parents weekly income. I cringe at the thought of moving into my parents house again, I love them alot, but just value my independence alot more.

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

#784

Post by tdesilva »

zpeti wrote: post #191
messe wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is blatantly false. Income tax on higher earners in the UK has decreased since the 1970s/1980s when IIRC the highest tax bands were over 70%, if not higher.

Yet in the UK the amount of tax paid by the 1% is the highest ever (34%), 42% of adults pay NO income tax. And the tax take as a proportion of GDP is 34.4%, the highest EVER. We are living in the most taxed time in history with the rich contributing the most ever. Not the impression you get from people complaining about it. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-bri...

Your article doesn't directly talk about the tax rate for the top 1%.

The fact that the percentage of total tax collected attributed to the top 1% has risen from 24% to 30% seems to be more indicative of higher wealth inequality, especially if the figures the other posters have mentioned about lower total tax rates on the rich are true. To me that's a good reason to raise taxes on top earners and lower taxes on the middle class.

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

#785

Post by shakethemonkey »

abnry wrote: post #587
Sodman wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside of the obvious "don't buy a gas guzzler" tropes, most of the best ways to save money will end up costing you time. Whether it's living with a longer commute or working more hours, there is a point at which people are just happier living their lives than wasting years in their prime scrounging and being miserable to afford a downpayment on a house in worse condition than what they could afford to rent. Big bud…

I think part of the disconnect is that many people today assume that life will be, or should be, pain free. Life is hard. It's always been hard. It's hard today. I think the reason we want to believe otherwise is because of the tremendous wealth we have experienced recently, so we expect that trend to continue indefinitely. To me, it is the lack of gratitude for what we do have and can afford that galls me.

The generation immediately after WWII gave a glimpse of what was possible, before crafty people figured out how to siphon off the majority of that wealth to those already at the top. And over time, that siphon has grown stronger.

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

#786

Post by dublinben »

dcolkitt wrote: post #413
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…

> Right, but what matters is the housing price where people are. We're not talking about houses in the middle of nowhere. These are major urban population centers. The Houston metro area has 7 million people. The Phoenix metro area has 4.9 million people. Tampa metro has 3.1 million people. Houston and Phoenix are both larger than the Bay Area metro is currently. Tampa's just shy of the size of Seattle. Nor is it the…

When you compare housing + transportation costs, those cities aren't significantly more affordable than the Bay Area or Seattle.[0]

  City, H+T % of income
  New York City, 39%
  San Francisco, 41%
  Seattle, 46%
  Houston, 45%
  Phoenix, 49%
  Tampa, 56%
Cities with "affordable housing" but expensive, car-dependant transportation are less affordable than more transit-friendly cities.

[0] https://htaindex.cnt.org/map/

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

#787

Post by rjkennedy98 »

triceratops wrote: post #757
rjkennedy98 wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you considered that many millennials are OK with paying more if it means everyone is taken care of? People don't always vote for policies that benefit solely themselves. So that's why they vote for policies that exclusively benefit Boomers. Gotcha! Have you considered that maybe Millenials just don't understand how money and taxes work? I was talking to my friend the other day that lives in California and didn…

> So that's why they vote for policies that exclusively benefit Boomers And I would disagree with the "exclusively" part of that sentence. I've already shown you how millennials benefit from Obamacare. Your note about young people subsidizing over-60s is a red herring. Over-65s are already on Medicare and it's pretty good. Why wouldn't millennials want that for themselves? Most people don't understand taxes and money…

> I've already shown you how millennials benefit from Obamacare.

Actually you didn't. Pointing out a single feature that benefits them while ignoring all the others is not a cost benefit analysis.

> Your note about young people subsidizing over-60s is a red herring.

And this a straw man. Actually, no - its wrong.

I worked on Obamacare for 2 years. I think it's a decent law a vacuum. I can't possible pretend its good for young people. It's good for my 60 year old aunt who has diabetes who thinks she pays too much for insurance but actually is getting the deal of a century considering how much health care costs.

Obamacare did little to slow health care spending (another long story) but it did work to spread the costs around - mostly to young people.

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

#788

Post by ubercow13 »

doteka wrote: post #320
mcv wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no millennial, but gen-X. My brick box is okay. Not as big as the one my parents had, but it's in a bigger city, which really adds to the cost. But my wife and I are double earners, unlike my parents. And we both have really good jobs. We don't have it hard, but we don't drive new cars either; we've got a second hand Prius. The only sign that we've got it good is that our house in Amsterdam is not as tiny as most…

You live in Amsterdam... sorry to say, but that is privileged as hell. Housing prices are becoming insane even outside the Randstad (I’m a 95 percentile earner too) so if you own property in the Randstad and think ‘the only sign you have it good your house is not tiny’ - take off the horse blinders.

Isn't that the whole point though?

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

#789

Post by mwfunk »

_5yoy wrote: post #602
tanilama wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I don't like what the title tries to suggest that living with your parents is something wrong/abnormal? Why is that? I understand for many it is not a choice, but it doesn't necessarily meaning people are suffering as a result.

Well - it's abnormal in that it is not what the US's coming-of-age systems look like. Hit 18, move out, get a job. Whether that is good or bad or right or wrong is irrelevant, it's definitely abnormal from a cultural standpoint.

Yeah, there's definitely a cultural aspect. People WANT to get out of the house ASAP. It's not like all of those American 18 year olds are bummed that their parents expect them to go someplace, it's that many/most of them are chomping at the bit to have their own place and their own life with day-to-day financial and social independence from their family. If they're more likely to be staying home now, it's a sign of financial trouble because presumably most of them would love to go someplace else but can't.

To the degree that there's a stigma associated with adults living with their parents in the US, the stigma comes more from being the sort of person who would want to live with their parents when they could afford to be on their own. That's the stigma. It's not a stigma about poverty, it's a stigma about someone who would want a more sheltered and less independent life, and a stigma about someone who wouldn't get seriously annoyed at having their family around 24/7. Those are both pretty alien concepts to a lot of people in the US. There's also the rule of thumb that the #1 way to keep a family together and loving each other and constructively involved in each other's lives is to not see each other every day. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and all that.

But like you said, this is independent of it being good or bad or right or wrong, it's really just cultural context, but that's the cultural context.

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

#790

Post by TP4Cornholio »

charlesu wrote: post #704
tstewart161 wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to keep looking then. Plenty of cities have great job opportunities while still having inexpensive and great houses

Can you name some? I would gladly leave my HoL city for a cheaper one with great job opportunities in technology (not necessarily at a tech company) and cheap housing. The only city that seems to have all those things is Minneapolis. Even Atlanta is fairly expensive at this point.

I work at Aberdeen, MD making 141k. I got an offer once for 155k from a nearby military base not long ago. I've seen houses nearby for 180k. Pretty easy to save here if you're ok with Gov beurocrac. Easy to get a new job, too.
Post reply on HN