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

731–740 of 974 posts

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

#731

Post by laurent92 »

johnfn wrote: post #539
laurent92 wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how many parents fail to understand the emotional and mental situation of what their children are currently experiencing. This is crucial to understanding: - The immediate distress of young males. They have no chance of seducing externally if they don’t have moral support at home. Explains the billion of 9Gag posts about young people who fall addicted to gaming and joke about virginity and lack of self confidence,…

This is really well put. Would love to read more if you have more resources in this vein.

I’m surprised, I didn’t expect to have resonating words ;) Listen to Karen Straughan for example, she’s a good resource on how to learn to see boys where they are, not for what we project of them. She shakes me every time.

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

#732

Post by lotsofpulp »

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…

This matches my experience that children of immigrants from intergenerational living cultures choose to live separate from parents if they can afford it.

No one makes compromises unless they have to, and unless you have a big soundproof house, two or more couples living together are going to bump into each other.

I see older parents moving back in with kids due to declining health, but otherwise the consensus seems to be that having grandparents nearby in a separate home is ideal.

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

#733

Post by yelloweyes »

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…

So you're acknowledging the possibility that some might sink?

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

#734

Post by shard »

chrisseaton wrote: post #690
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…

How does it work in practice in other societies? How do you have a grown up, likely physical, relationship with your partner... when your parents are sharing the same rooms? Do you just hide in your bedroom the whole time? How do you develop your own relationships and life and way of doing things and way of raising your children, inside someone else's house? I can't understand that but I'm open to hearing about how.

Seems like you are referring to sex. Obviously, when you are living in multi-generational households, you can't be having loud sex on the kitchen table. You can either do it quietly in your bedroom, or use the Asian practice of going to love motels when you want to let the monkeys loose.

Regarding your second point, I'd like to point out your particular phrasing which makes clear your point of view, that you consider a multi-generational house "someone else's house". It would be your home that you are living in, even if it is not your name on the deed or rental agreement. Now, whether you can develop your own relationships and life and way of doing things has to be independent of whether you are living with family. For every person that is an example that living with family is a burden, there surely is another example where it is a benefit. The growth in your relationship with your family can be hindered or accelerated by your time with them, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to that.

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

#735

Post by s1artibartfast »

ryandrake wrote: post #277
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…

I'm "X" as well and while I grew up it never occurred to me that owning a single tiny home would one day be considered a luxury. I was raised by a single dad who, on one tiny teacher salary ended up with two houses, all sorts of motorized "toys", financial security and a pension by the time he retired. I probably make 3-4X what he did at the top of his career, and am kind-of hanging on to a house with a tough mortgag…

Assuming your father's peak income was in 1980, inflation has been about %315

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

#736

Post by tchaffee »

I remember our family of five children, two cars, pool (but above ground), most vacations were camping but we did make it to Disney World. We had lots of nice stuff as kids, but it was solidly middle class.

My mother stayed home while my father worked an eight hour day as an engineer at the local factory. He never worked overtime or weekends. All this with a bachelor's degree. My mother eventually went back to work so my parents retired quite early.

American workers have been conned into creating the very wealthiest people in the world by continuing to give up more and more earning power, every year, and for being more productive. Europe is slightly better thanks to good public benefits, but it has also gone in the same direction: making the wealthy far wealthier than they were in the past.

I can understand why this latest generation has little enthusiasm for doing anything extra at work. Good for them. Maybe things will eventually head back in the right direction for the middle class in developed countries.

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

#737

Post by Klinky »

amscanne wrote: post #729
Klinky wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

It likely depends on the country, but I am sure there is no lack of pampered/spoiled children at boarding schools. In the US, where free boarding schools are practically unheard up, it is even more likely.

The adults should be ensuring you don't grievously injure or harm yourself, and that you're returned in same/better condition.

You can always ring up your parents and ask for stuff, it's not like you are adopted by the school and lose all contact with your parents, nor are you earning a wage at 13 going to boarding school.

Lots of kids going to public school and/or with rough home lives learn "sink or swim" just as well or better than someone going to boarding school. I just found it odd to say you're learning to "sink or swim" when you have so many safety nets there to catch you if you did sink/fall.

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

#738

Post by tidepod12 »

chasd00 wrote: post #631
tidepod12 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Starter homes" for young people is the stuff that was built 30-40 years ago that hasn't been updated. So they are buying those mcmansions because that's what was built in the 80s-90s-00s. The really nice, older urban areas with housing built before that is way more expensive in absolute dollars. In my metro (DFW), the neighborhoods of houses built in the 60s/70s/80s are dwindling because nobody will buy them. There…

I live in DFW as well (Oak Cliff), one thing to keep in mind about home prices are schools. In East Dallas, on the border of Lakewood schools, there's literally a $100k difference between one side of the street and the other. A good public school in DISD is rare and so home prices around it are very high. I think the quality of the local school drive home prices considerably.

I notice and acknowledge this as well, but it's the same conversation about starter homes: if you are currently childless and you were to become pregnant today, you would not start using or benefiting from a school district at all for another 5-6 years. Why pay the premium for a nicer school district that you aren't even using? You're essentially just throwing away that money for half a decade, and who's to say if that school district will still even be a good one 5 years from now.

Why not move into a cheaper starter home now, and then once your child is about to start school (and you presumably have gotten some raises and built up some wealth), move into a more expensive house in the better school district? That's what the entire concept of "starter home" is about.

So now the conversation becomes: it's not that this person can't afford housing, it's that they can't afford housing that has an amenity they won't even use... which makes the entire situation seem even more silly.

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

#739

Post by throwaway49872 »

hindsightbias wrote: post #676
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…

This would not be a sustainable model for a capitalist market.

Spot on. The absurd nuclear family culture it's a product of the car and real estate marketing efforts.

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

#740

Post by artur_makly »

chrisseaton wrote: post #690
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…

How does it work in practice in other societies? How do you have a grown up, likely physical, relationship with your partner... when your parents are sharing the same rooms? Do you just hide in your bedroom the whole time? How do you develop your own relationships and life and way of doing things and way of raising your children, inside someone else's house? I can't understand that but I'm open to hearing about how.

Argentina solves this with "telos" https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telo
Post reply on HN