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

771–780 of 974 posts

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

#771

Post by 0x6862 »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #322
Gunax wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone will argue with their own statistics, but I think your general sentiment is correct. Everyone seems to think the oldies had it easy in the good ol' days and the youngens are a bunch of lazy good-for-nothins. There are probably certain a ways it has gotten easier and others in which it is worse... But I think this is more about generational sentiment than actual facts.

thats not really true though, we have the numbers. In real terms, education, healthcare, and housing costs have grown at a much higher rate than inflation. It is more expensive to go to college, pay rent, and stay healthy now than it was 30/40/50 years ago.

Housing seems to be the primary issue, but you’ll find very little support for actually fixing the issue - more and taller buildings in densely populated areas.

I don’t think people have a problem with spending more on education, they just want a reasonable return on investment for it. Turns out pumping money into monopolistic schools doesn’t get you a better result

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

#773

Post by ineedasername »

Historically, and in other parts of the world, families would live together for longer periods of time like this.

I'm not sure why much of Western culture got away from this behavior, but it's interesting that a lot of the driving factors are economic rather than (only) issues of family connection.

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

#774

Post by novok »

trey-jones wrote: post #645
aphextron wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 a completely manufactured attitude. I think many American families would have much stronger, more healthy inter-generational relationships if we lived together (at least for a bit) as adults. As it is now, most US kids leave home just when they're starting to be able to me…

You're projecting yourself onto all other Americans here. Personally I feel the same about some points: I moved back to my hometown after finishing college (in Germany!) and went to work at the family business. I was there for 4 years, and miserable for 3 of them. I finally told my dad that I didn't want to work there anymore, and it hurt his feelings for sure, but the last 10 years have been much better for me. At t…

In america, there is a difference between just living in the same town as you grew up in (not a loser) vs. a room in your parents house because you can't afford it.

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

#775

Post by Havoc »

c-rhodes wrote: post #698
Havoc wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing how pervasive & broad the issues are these days. You mentioned you had a house. I'm fast approach the top 1-2% by income and think I can maybe swing a 1 bed apartment. It'll be borderline. Not house...apartment. ...no idea what the other 98% of my peers are doing but they sure as hell aren't buying houses. Meanwhile all the landlords I've rented from thus far where a generation older and had en…

Then you must be living in a really expensive city.

Yup. London. In the land of limp pay cheques (compared to US).

Financial sector means being in a financial hub though so not much choice.

I'll probably end up moving further out and accepting a long commute eventually.

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

#776

Post by colinmhayes »

tchaffee wrote: post #736

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 s…

I wouldn't say it's a con. In the end capital has bargaining power over labor because labor works for capital. Labor needs to organize very hard to take back control and that's difficult when everyone is scared they'll lose their job. Capital is able to make unilateral decisions because it's usually controlled by single/very focused and competent entity.

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

#777

Post by novok »

tstrimple wrote: post #648
abnry wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point. The cheap fluff today was expensive stuff yesteryear, if it existed at all.

Seems like the ol' "poor people aren't really poor because they almost all have refrigerators and not even kings had refrigerators two hundred years ago!" argument.

I call the counterargument "You can't live on pepper". As in even though pepper is way cheaper than it was 500 years ago, you'll starve if that is all you can afford.

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

#778

Post by novok »

Havoc wrote: post #775
c-rhodes wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you must be living in a really expensive city.

Yup. London. In the land of limp pay cheques (compared to US). Financial sector means being in a financial hub though so not much choice. I'll probably end up moving further out and accepting a long commute eventually.

Why not move to SF or NYC if your in tech or finance?

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

#779

Post by novok »

0x6862 wrote: post #771
0xB31B1B wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thats not really true though, we have the numbers. In real terms, education, healthcare, and housing costs have grown at a much higher rate than inflation. It is more expensive to go to college, pay rent, and stay healthy now than it was 30/40/50 years ago.

Housing seems to be the primary issue, but you’ll find very little support for actually fixing the issue - more and taller buildings in densely populated areas. I don’t think people have a problem with spending more on education, they just want a reasonable return on investment for it. Turns out pumping money into monopolistic schools doesn’t get you a better result

The olds don't want it because it decreases the value of their boomer bank account (houses) and being old, don't like change in general.

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

#780

Post by bradlys »

tstewart161 wrote: post #655
confidantlake wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the economic opportunities are much greater in the DC area than Richmond.

But clearly not if you can’t even afford a place to live. Richmond and plenty other cities have TONS of economic opportunities, but not as many as NYC or SF - they’re also much cheaper. Clearly there’s a balance here so the answer isn’t so obviously “there’s a housing crisis because I can’t afford to live in SF”

Hmm - I think you're misunderstanding (or maybe I am too). There aren't really that many opportunities (AKA - jobs) in Raleigh as in DC. Certain professions are not as common in Raleigh as they are in DC. If you're looking to be a lawyer, DC probably gonna be better.

So, it doesn't matter if X region is cheaper if there aren't any jobs there...

I mean - I moved to the bay area because that's where so many software engineering jobs are. I didn't move here because I loved the high cost of living. I moved here because there were a lot of jobs and I had an easier time getting a job here than almost anywhere else (ironic - I know). The places that were hiring in "anywhere else" were paying $50k/yr and still not easy to get into.

Post reply on HN