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

751–760 of 974 posts

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

#751

Post by bradlys »

munificent wrote: post #457
bradlys wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we’re going to have to accept we’re the uncommon ones around here. I don’t know what the stats are but I’ve got a feeling that most people on HN (particularly those in expensive cities) get along with their parents quite well. I’ve noticed in my time in SV that I’ve never really heard anyone say their parents are/were abusive. Or that they even really hated their parents. On the contrary, I hear most people l…

> I’ve never really heard anyone say their parents are/were abusive. There are probably many people in your social circle with abusive parents. Just because they don't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. People tend to keep their skeletons in their closets. Related: Many men would not believe how common sexual assault of women is. A lot of men are like, "I don't know any women who have been assaulted." Reall…

> There are probably many people in your social circle with abusive parents. Just because they don't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. People tend to keep their skeletons in their closets.

I've asked directly to a lot of people about their relationship with their parents. My point is more like: They all seem to love their parents. They call them daily or, minimum, weekly. They enjoy their family gatherings and being around their parents overall.

If you did the ACE test with the younger crowd in SV's tech sphere, I would really doubt many people with troubled parents would show up. I get a score of 7 on that test and I don't see many 7+'s here. https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/ If you had shitty parents, you probably wouldn't get into tech here. The people I know with shit parents are not in tech.

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

#752

Post by s1artibartfast »

leetcrew wrote: post #248
wernercd wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with "life" is all the... nickle and dimes... $10 for Nextflix, $90 for Amazon, etc. On top of Gas, Electric, Phone, Internet, Car, Insurance, Gas, etc. It's easy to watch the money flow in... and right back out.

this is a variation of the "avocado toast" argument. if you go crazy and subscribe to amazon prime, a music streaming service, and several video streaming services, you're paying somewhere around $100/month. if instead you invested the $100 every month, you could expect to have an extra ~$200k (inflation adjusted) after forty years. that's not nothing, but it doesn't add a whole lot to your safe withdrawal rate in re…

This all depends on what you assume for spending. Speaking from experience, it is pretty easy for an "entertainment" budget to hit $1000 per month, or a $2MM inflation adjusted savings.

4x nice restaurant or dates = $200 1x Weekend trip = $250 Hobby projects = $100 Drinks with friends = $100 Media Subscriptions =$50

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

#753

Post by beefalo »

charlesu wrote: post #717
neilparikh wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But unless you have the potential to become an L8 at Google (or equivalent), it makes no financial sense to choose to live in the Bay Area instead of Raleigh. It's like somebody who works as a back office bookkeeper insisting on buying custom tailored Seville Row suits for his work attire, then complaining that the costs of clothes has gotten out of hand. Buying a custom tailored suit requires extra/better labour a…

Not sure that's true. L8 at Google is a total compensation of >$500k. You can afford to live on that in the Bay Area. If you leave Google for a job in Raleigh, you're probably going to take a massive pay cut. Remember, the average SWE makes like ~$100k. It's not nothing but it's not that great either after you factor in a mortgage, car insurance, gas, utilities, food, retirement, and increased healthcare costs due to…

L6 at google is >$500k for engineering... L8 should be $1M+

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

#754

Post by paulryanrogers »

stinkytaco wrote: post #589
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.

Though I agree that it's not wrong or abnormal (at least for most of the world), in this context it represents a pretty large economic step backwards. There was a time in most middle aged people's memories where starting a career, affording a house and starting a family were all realistic goals in your twenties. Now that's not possible for many, even as economic indicators like GPD, the stock market, inflation, etc.…

I doubt think this has been true for most of history. Rather usually one lived and worked the farm with the family. Then it got subdivided as more children survived childhood, at least until the birth rate declined.

There has been golden eras, usually from expansion or industrialization where youths could acquire their own places relatively young. But it doesn't scale forever.

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

#755

Post by ookdatnog »

laurent92 wrote: post #512
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…

> 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,…

> Living with the parents isn’t the best way to get social interactions, unless it is a venue where they can be for _caring for others_. Because young men are especially deprived of places where they can care for someone, women being very independent nowadays, especially in their 20ies. And caring for someone is the blood of the soul.

I think you put that very nicely.

I think I understand this problem, and I have empathy for these men (it also took me a long time to get my first relationship, I know how it feels). I just don't know what the solution is. Their frustration might to some extent be caused by the independence of women (where women now may prefer to be single than to be in a relationship they don't really want), but I don't think it's right to hold back on women's emancipation in order to make men feel better about themselves.

What exactly is the right's suggested solution here (I ask this out of genuine curiosity)? Today's mainstream right looks at these frustrated men's hardening hearts, and all it seems to see is an opportunity to accelerate that hardening for political gain, by convincing them that the source of their woes (and the rightful targets of their anger) are immigrants/feminists/protestors/... I'm skeptical that we should expect any workable solutions from there.

Also, as a side note, why do you feel the need to use quotes around "Extreme right"? Do you disagree with labeling rising movements like QAnon and incel/blackpill subculture as "extreme right"?

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

#756

Post by ser0 »

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.

> 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.

In my experience what happens is that the "family" raises the children.

In intergenerational households - in Asian cultures at least - it is still generally the older generations calling the shots, in patriarchy/matriarchy sense. In practical terms it depends on how much financial power each generation holds that determines how much say they have. But in Asian cultures age do grant at least some implicit authority.

Given the above cultural context, tensions can arise if the way of living/child-raising are not aligned. I would say this resolves how normal conflicts get resolved. Those who have the most time and influence usually win out. Although culturally people understand they have to pick their battles for the benefit of daily harmony.

I think a way to think about how the living arrangement works that may be more relatable is to think about a multi-generational family business. If you watch shows like Chef's Table there are stories were children take over the family's business by more-or-less following in a prescribed footpath, while others conflict and find that they have to strike out on their own.

On a day to day basis though, it's just like living in a very close knit community - you could say a family.

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

#757

Post by triceratops »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #750
triceratops wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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 - this isn't specific to any particular age group. And frankly, as I've opined elsewhere on this site, retirement savings laws particularly are overly complicated for nearly everyone.

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

#759

Post by boltzmann_brain »

kelnos wrote: post #553
munificent wrote: post #464

I really love the quote at the end: > I'm a dad who is happy to have his daughter and fiancé living with me. They pay the utilities and make me nice meals, and it makes it a lot less lonely here. ... I like the multi-generational thing. I know it won't last forever, but it makes life better for now. It's so easy to get into that cold statistical mindset about these large-scale trends, but it's good to remember that t…

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…

It's also completely against human nature, especially when it comes to raising kids. We have always lived in large groups and kids were nurtured by and brought up by many members of family, instead of just father and mother. It results in much healthier humans, who learned from all members of family, because who's to say that father and mother themselves only are best guardians? Not to mention the sheer amount of effort required to take care of a child, which was shared by much larger extended family or just tribe members. Today's nuclear family mostly brings mental issues and overburdens the parents in an unnatural way.

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

#760

Post by inamberclad »

I think HN is insulated from the stresses of growing up in the US today. I'm on the younger side and many of my friends felt tremendous relief when they moved away from their parents.

So I'm sure it's good for some, but don't discount the people who are feeling trapped right now.

Post reply on HN