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

301–310 of 974 posts

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

#301

Post by ARandumGuy »

saagarjha wrote: post #225
analog31 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

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?

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.

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

#302

Post by sharadov »

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…

Unfortunately this is also where all the tech jobs are located. And the reason most people live here is that it's extremely easy to move jobs. Yeah, Austin and Seattle have become the next locations, but we need more. Hopefully the remote work options because of Covid become more permanent.

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

#303

Post by actuator »

save_ferris wrote: post #8

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 m…

Interestingly in most parts of Asia(East, SE, South), living with your parents is the norm, so parents usually prefer if their kids stay with them but it does mean way less personal space and freedom.

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

#304

Post by PaulStatezny »

leetcrew wrote: post #286
_qulr wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crucial data point is missing: "two very small incomes". US minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. 2 people working full-time at minimum wage would bring in a household income of $30k per year. But you couldn't possibly pay off $60k in debt and buy a house with that. So your household income had to be much, much higher. One cannot save oneself into a higher income.

presumably GP and their wife did not go on to both earn minimum wage after getting their degree(s?). even today when a bachelor's degree is worth less than it once was, the median wage for college graduates at their first job is around $48k. only about 2% of people with any amount of college education actually make minimum wage. it's pretty rough living on minimum wage, but paying off student debt is very rarely a co…

You're right. It was about [REDACTED FOR PRIVACY - but much much less than parent's 48k medium income per person for college grads] before taxes, both with college degrees.

I'm sorry lapcatsoftware if it sounded like I was making light of poverty. Poverty is terrible. But at least in the US, there is _so much_ opportunity to not be stuck on a minimum wage salary. Resigning to the idea that, "Well, I guess I just have to work for minimum wage" is not going to help and it doesn't have to be true. It's sad to think that people give up mentally when there's so much they can do to help themselves.

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

#305

Post by bjustin »

zpeti wrote: post #37

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…

If we let large numbers of businesses fail, the people who have a lot of money now will buy up their assets and we'll come out with more concentrated wealth in society.

I will grant you that the federal government in the US could have done better in some ways by just sending out checks to every citizen instead of loans to businesses, but I don't think that's what you had in mind when you talk about less government.

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

#306

Post by RhysU »

keiferski wrote: post #39

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.

One downside is that all of those areas, which have been unattractive for new employers for whatever reason, will no longer need to become attractive to new employers in a heavily WFH economy.

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

#307

Post by mathattack »

geofft wrote: post #101
mathattack wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very complex. Where does this end? I’m a renter. Do I need to prove I’ve lost my job to not pay? Do I get to skip out on paying for a luxury apartment if I have money in the bank? Does my landlord get to skip her mortgage? Or only the portion paid by my rent? What about the bank who holds the mortgage? Or the retired bond holder who ultimately gets the mortgage payments? Every step along the way requires some…

It is very complex, but what's the alternative? Widespread evictions (in the midst of "stay inside," no less)? A bad answer is so much better than none at all, in the same way that a badly-implemented draft and a poorly-trained army is a vastly superior response to an invasion than nothing. I think the starting principle I'd take is that this is going to go very poorly for some people, and our only decision is for wh…

It’s not an easy solution. Even if the Govt pays, we pay as taxpayers. My inclination is if the broader “we” decide someone doesn’t have to pay, then “we” have to be willing to pay for it.

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

#308

Post by 0DHm2CxO7Lb3 »

mediaman wrote: post #200
augustt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let things fail, so that the waste can get burned off I guess the waste here is people who simply can not pay for food or housing? What a naive take.

Yes. It's the sort of take by people who have made zero effort to study history or economics. "Keep the budgets tight" was the mantra in the early 30s in response to the depression. It took a World War that killed millions of people (and was -- surprise! -- a major artificial government stimulus) to get out of it. Yes, providing monetary liquidity and fiscal stimulus during times of extreme stress is not purely good.…

> It took a World War that killed millions of people (and was -- surprise! -- a major artificial government stimulus) to get out of it.

You are describing the broken window fallacy here. War and destruction doesn't help the economy. What happens in war is that useful resources in the economy are diverted from productive use and mutual beneficial trade to death and destruction.

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

#309

Post by daxfohl »

xchaotic wrote: post #17

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.

My family spends about three months a year working remotely from my inlaws' place in Malaysia. Frankly it's the best time of the year for my mental well being. Things run so much more smoothly with more adults in the house.

And maybe it makes sense to start framing the US in those terms too. We had the whole manifest destiny thing, and now it's time to move back to traditional life.

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

#310

Post by iso1631 »

qwerty1234599 wrote: post #116
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…

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.

In the UK a 90% income is £55k gross.

Net wage on that is £40,543, so that's 26% tax.

Local taxes would be about £1200 a year (council tax - a property based tax), so call is £39k -- 29% total tax.

In the US a 90% income is $117k gross. Take home pay is 88,866, or 24% tax, that's after Federal Income Tax and Social security

On top of that there's local income tax, picking a random state -- New Mexico -- that's $4,856, leaving about $83k -- 29% total tax.

So seems that UK and US taxes are about the same, but in the US you have to fund your own healthcare.

Post reply on HN