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

721–730 of 974 posts

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

#721

Post by triceratops »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #709
triceratops wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obamacare banned declining coverage for pre-existing conditions and allowed Since they don't see things getting better for them as they get older, maybe it's not so irrational to support expansion of Medicare and Social Security. It's not as illogical or against their self-interest as you think.

Except that you skip over the most important provisions. Do you think that insurance for a 60 year old is 3x as expensive as a 30 year old for health care? The government MANDATES that to be the case. Who do you think pays for that? Obamacare mandates that a 64 year old get charged no more that 3x a 27 year old.

> Who do you think pays for that?

Employers. Or the government - via subsidies. And the insureds themselves.

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.

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

#722

Post by imtringued »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #434
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…

>And it's simply not feasible for the vast majority of people living paycheck to paycheck to just up and leave to Raleigh like you imply. There was a time where people would move countries with nothing but what they can carry at a chance of improving their life. At a time where the only way to travel was by boat for weeks and the only way to communicate to relatives was by mail. Now we balk at the idea of moving citi…

>There was a time where people would move countries with nothing but what they can carry at a chance of improving their life. At a time where the only way to travel was by boat for weeks and the only way to communicate to relatives was by mail.

They went to a place that is better than their hometown. What you are suggesting is that people should leave their hometown for a place that is worse at everything except housing.

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

#723

Post by prewett »

lordnacho wrote: post #537
PaulStatezny wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. It was from being very frugal in _all_ areas of the budget. Eating out, entertainment, internet, not taking vacations that wouldn't be financially responsible. Frugal dates, frugal Christmas/holiday celebrations, living in an extremely inexpensive apartment in a not-wonderful area of town. We were pretty late adopters of smart phones because we had cheap flip phones. We gave to charity too. It's all about pr…

How are you ever going to be financially free from eating out less often? A meal at a restaurant costs what, $100? That's $5K a year. No holiday, another $5K maybe? Cheaper phone, ok, you don't buy the newest iPhone, so maybe you save most of a grand in relation to iPhone couples. Even the car cost is not as big as the sticker price, because it has residual value. Granted it may be a big figure, but it is also spread…

Investing $10k a year at 6% (average stock market returns are 6-8%) gives you $368k after 20 years (net increase of $297k over inflation at 2%). Even if you just saved it for ten years that's $100k. Neither are enough to retire on, but it gives you a lot more options. Even if housing increases faster than the stock market, that $10k is $800/month which could be going towards a mortgage (in addition to the rent they are already paying).

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

#724

Post by [deleted] »

thinkharderdev wrote: post #477
jbay808 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The demand for ultra-expensive housing in places like the Bay Area is driven by the huge earning potential of the high-skilled labor market. Maybe the Bay area, but that's (sadly) not the case in places like Vancouver and Victoria. Sky high property prices, but no corresponding earning potential.

I've never quite been able to figure out what happened in Vancouver. It's a great city with a tech scene but salaries there seem very low (by American tech worker standards). Who is actually buying all these multi-million dollar bungalow? None of the senior-level engineers I've worked with from the area would ever be able to even sniff being able to afford that.

[deleted]

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

#725

Post by imtringued »

MattGaiser wrote: post #576
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…

> if I don't want to live there. But then you are choosing to be poorer. And that can be a valid choice, but it is a choice you are making.

People go to those places because they chose to not be poorer.

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

#726

Post by charlesu »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #439
computerphage wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The rust belt cities don't have skyrocketing housing prices if you're willing to buy non-McMansion older stock.

The rust belt cities are booming.

Akron, Ohio is up 7%. So is Cleveland, Madison, and Toledo. Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and Scranton are up even higher. [1] These are figures from before the pandemic.

The idea that the rust belt has lots of cheap housing is outdated. That was true in five to ten years ago. It is not true today. You can expect to pay around $200k for a house in any given rust belt city with decent jobs -- and quite a bit more if you want to live in a nicer neighborhood or a nicer home.

[1] https://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/t010-c000-s002...

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

#727

Post by mixmastamyk »

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…

Those points are not wrong per se, but you don't mention them being a result of the NIMBY phenomenon, supported and enshrined by law.

If we built hundreds of Tokyo-sized apartments over every metro station, the housing shortage would be over.

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

#728

Post by loughnane »

My wife and I are living with her parents... because my mother-in-law has moved in with us so that she can moderate our kids remote learning sessions while my wife and I both work.

It's not _great_, but it's not bad. Either way, I think we should get used to it.

The Economist [0] had a great special report recently that highlighted something I think we all know but don't think about; old people need care and we don't know how we're going to pay for it.

The idea of elders going off to homes is relatively recent. Multi-generational homes are not just, as the OP points out, geographical unique, they are also historically unique. I suspect the next few decades will have more multi-generational homes.

What this means for gender roles (the burden of all sorts of care tends to be disproportionately carried by women), work-life balance, rural vs urban preferences, remains to be seen. Either way, having family nearby will become increasingly relevant, which is a big deal for the U.S., where people tend to move around more freely.

[0] https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/08/27/the-big-...

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

#729

Post by amscanne »

Klinky wrote: post #718
nradov wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Boarding school was not sink or swim, you had adults looking after you, likely it was paid for by your parents, and you had a decent home life to return to if shit got really tough. Most parents aren't going to let their child sink and drown, nor is that really practical advice.

There’s a big difference between a parent and the adults in charge at a boarding school, in terms of the emotional support and things that those adults will do for them.

I’m sure most 13 year olds plead with their parents to take them certain places or buy them certain things (e.g. specific food and clothes, etc.), and while I’ve never been to boarding school, I imagine you have to figure out how to get things for yourself.

The point is taken re: not being “sink or swim” (you won’t be left on a ditch on the side of the road), but surely it’s obvious that more independence is needed living without a primary caregiver in the same home.

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

#730

Post by topkai22 »

contingencies wrote: post #700
dandersh wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our mother in law is staying with us due to the unexpected passing of her husband, and we have been experiencing this first hand as we look for a shared home. Not only is there no multi-gen homes in our area (exurb an hour away from a major city) but it's difficult to find a layout where a part of the house can be a mini apartment or her own personal area. It seems like more basements are finished now and some of the…

Some regulators have different rulesets for 'temporary structures' (whose permanence can be fuzzy), for 'extensions' (whose connectedness can be limited), or 'renovations' (whose alteration vs. new-build can be gamed). Work the system. Worst case, put up a glamping tent and go neo-Mongol.

On the glamping line of thinking, I've seen some families around here use an RV as a mother-in-law apartment. They are a bit expensive right now, but still way cheaper than full renovation to add the same amount of space. Plus, then you have an RV.
Post reply on HN