(08-02-2013 10:32 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  The question is, are they doing this because they are employed full time and trying to save money to buy a house/pay for their wedding, or are they doing it because they are still serving at Applebees and have no choice. Sometimes I think it may have been a good idea to move home after college to save up some cash, but then I remember how much more fun it was to not live at home.

Well, circumstances vary individually, but the statistics certainly don't verify that people are largely either saving to buy houses or getting married. Home ownership rates are lowest in decades and the marriage rate is abysmal.

(08-02-2013 10:47 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:23 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Some would say that the way it use to be wasn't normal at all. 50 years ago, this was very common. It encouraged people to get married so that they could get out of the house. This is normal in most countries.

The problem is why they are continuing to live with their parents. Lack of jobs.

They can find jobs, it's just they can't afford rent with those jobs. Once you take rent out of the equation, it doesn't cost much to live at all. Applebee's can pay the bills.

Along with WIC and other government assistance that comes from only making what one earns at Applebees. Sadly more and more people are just fine with that.

My sister idealizes this thread.

She's in her 40's, makes her husband work 80 hours a week to pay for her mansion (and taxes) while she sits at home, and has all 7 of her kids living at home with her. 3 of them are in their 20's, and 1 has a 4 year old.

She spends money as fast as he can make it and her kids have absolutely zero concept of money because everything has been handed to them - they have a entitlement mentality.

Her oldest son is barely old enough to drink and is engaged to be married in October to a young lady with a 3 year old, and he doesn't even have a vehicle to drive to work (spent the insurance money on a ring). He's flat broke b/c his dad lets him skip out of work (more than he goes), so he took a union job thinking the extra $3/hour would make him a millionaire overnight ($2/hr of it goes to the union).

Yes, they plan on living with my sister when married. The 50/40-somethings produced a bunch of morons and we're all doomed because of it.

Well...Keeping families together was a part of Obama's campaign rhetoric.

(08-02-2013 11:59 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:47 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:23 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Some would say that the way it use to be wasn't normal at all. 50 years ago, this was very common. It encouraged people to get married so that they could get out of the house. This is normal in most countries.

The problem is why they are continuing to live with their parents. Lack of jobs.

They can find jobs, it's just they can't afford rent with those jobs. Once you take rent out of the equation, it doesn't cost much to live at all. Applebee's can pay the bills.

Along with WIC and other government assistance that comes from only making what one earns at Applebees. Sadly more and more people are just fine with that.

They don't have to accept the job.

(08-02-2013 11:26 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  You're wrong.

Rarely.

Your manager behaves like a child? Ridiculous.

Being delighted that kids have more disposable income? Ridiculous (and ironic).

You continuing to post drivel as if it holds merit? Ridiculous.

(08-02-2013 12:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 11:26 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  You're wrong.

Rarely.

Your manager behaves like a child? Ridiculous.

Being delighted that kids have more disposable income? Ridiculous (and ironic).

You continuing to post drivel as if it holds merit? Ridiculous.

Still wrong.

Sometimes she does behave like a child. I'm going to fire her in October so that solves that problem.

Which is better for the economy?

Making $1000/mo while spending $600/mo on rent or making $1000/mo and not having to pay rent?

(08-02-2013 12:16 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 11:59 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:47 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:23 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Some would say that the way it use to be wasn't normal at all. 50 years ago, this was very common. It encouraged people to get married so that they could get out of the house. This is normal in most countries.

The problem is why they are continuing to live with their parents. Lack of jobs.

They can find jobs, it's just they can't afford rent with those jobs. Once you take rent out of the equation, it doesn't cost much to live at all. Applebee's can pay the bills.

Along with WIC and other government assistance that comes from only making what one earns at Applebees. Sadly more and more people are just fine with that.

They don't have to accept the job.

Nope. They can always get on welfare and not work at all.

(08-02-2013 12:36 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 12:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 11:26 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  You're wrong.

Rarely.

Your manager behaves like a child? Ridiculous.

Being delighted that kids have more disposable income? Ridiculous (and ironic).

You continuing to post drivel as if it holds merit? Ridiculous.

Still wrong.

Sometimes she does behave like a child. I'm going to fire her in October so that solves that problem.

Which is better for the economy?

Making $1000/mo while spending $600/mo on rent or making $1000/mo and not having to pay rent?

It's funny that you post stupider and stupider **** trying to be right for once.

(08-02-2013 12:36 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Which is better for the economy?

Making $1000/mo while spending $600/mo on rent or making $1000/mo and not having to pay rent?

It's a wash... either way it is $1000/mo going into the economy... unless they are saving the $600/mo living with parents, in which case paying the rent is better for the economy... at least in the short run, but it still only becomes a wash once it is spent.

Living with parents is actually the norm in other parts of the world. Not so much in the US. That seems like it would really reallly suck.

(08-02-2013 01:12 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Living with parents is actually the norm in other parts of the world. Not so much in the US. That seems like it would really reallly suck.

True but the "norm" is dictated by generational poverty in the majority of those countries.

I was laid off in the fall of '10. When the spring of '11 rolled around and I was still unemployed, my mother offered to let me, the smokin' hot Mrs. Smaug and the little Smaugs move in with her.

I told her I appreciated it, and we'd take it under advisement.

What I didn't tell her is, bless her heart, I'd have lived under a bridge before I'd have moved back into her house.

(08-02-2013 12:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 12:36 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 12:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 11:26 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  You're wrong.

Rarely.

Your manager behaves like a child? Ridiculous.

Being delighted that kids have more disposable income? Ridiculous (and ironic).

You continuing to post drivel as if it holds merit? Ridiculous.

Still wrong.

Sometimes she does behave like a child. I'm going to fire her in October so that solves that problem.

Which is better for the economy?

Making $1000/mo while spending $600/mo on rent or making $1000/mo and not having to pay rent?

It's funny that you post stupider and stupider **** trying to be right for once.

Torcho, you are incorrigible.

(08-02-2013 01:17 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I was laid off in the fall of '10. When the spring of '11 rolled around and I was still unemployed, my mother offered to let me, the smokin' hot Mrs. Smaug and the little Smaugs move in with her.

I told her I appreciated it, and we'd take it under advisement.

Same here. I was laid off in 2000 when the tech bubble burst. I was young in my career and got 4 weeks of severance. We had just bought a house so I had a mortgage on top of it. Unsuccessful in finding a job in my career I went to a temp agency and took a job working the phones and collecting for a finance company. I made just enough to cover the mortgage each month and my car payment. Parents made me the same offer but I said the same as you.

Quote:What I didn't tell her is, bless her heart, I'd have lived under a bridge before I'd have moved back into her house.

(08-02-2013 12:43 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 12:36 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Which is better for the economy?

Making $1000/mo while spending $600/mo on rent or making $1000/mo and not having to pay rent?

It's a wash... either way it is $1000/mo going into the economy... unless they are saving the $600/mo living with parents, in which case paying the rent is better for the economy... at least in the short run, but it still only becomes a wash once it is spent.

I probably should have finances instead of economy.

(08-02-2013 01:17 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I was laid off in the fall of '10. When the spring of '11 rolled around and I was still unemployed, my mother offered to let me, the smokin' hot Mrs. Smaug and the little Smaugs move in with her.

I told her I appreciated it, and we'd take it under advisement.

What I didn't tell her is, bless her heart, I'd have lived under a bridge before I'd have moved back into her house.

Look at you. Denying the older Mrs. Smaug an opportunity to spent time with her grand kids. SMH.

(08-02-2013 10:16 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:11 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/08/0...ents-home/

The unspoken tragedy of this economy.

The decline of good parenting is also a contributing factor.

Depends...

If my kid is 24 unmarried and wants to live at home I am ok so long as

1 - They have a good job and are saving/investing money
2 - They have good direction
3 - They pay room and board (a trivial amount but something)
4 - They are seeking a good spouse

(08-02-2013 01:37 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  I'm almost 25 and still live with my parents. I'm really appreciative of their help, but it's definitely soul-crushing; it's not where I imagined I'd be at this age. I help around the house and with the bills, but there's nothing more I'd love to do than start my career and living life independently. My current income simply isn't enough though, but it is what it is. Just gotta keep chugging along and hoping to land a job related to my field of study.

ps. Other than student loans, I haven't taken anything from the taxpayers.

Firmbizzle is right about the fact that this matches most of history. If you're saving and looking for a good spouse, then you're doing the sensible thing.

(08-02-2013 10:11 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:In 2012, 36% of the nation’s young adults ages 18 to 31—the so-called Millennial generation—were living in their parents’ home, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. This is the highest share in at least four decades and represents a slow but steady increase over the 32% of their same-aged counterparts who were living at home prior to the Great Recession in 2007 and the 34% doing so when it officially ended in 2009.

A record total of 21.6 million Millennials lived in their parents’ home in 2012, up from 18.5 million of their same aged counterparts in 2007. Of these, at least a third and perhaps as many as half are college students. (In the census data used for this analysis, college students who live in dormitories during the academic year are counted as living with their parents).

Younger Millennials (ages 18 to 24) are much more likely than older ones (ages 25 to 31) to be living with their parents—56% versus 16%. Since the onset of the 2007-2009 recession, both age groups have experienced a rise in this living arrangement.

The men of the Millennial generation are more likely than the women to be living with their parents—40% versus 32%—continuing a long-term gender gap in the share of young adults who do so.1

The steady rise in the share of young adults who live in their parents’ home appears to be driven by a combination of economic, educational and cultural factors. Among them:

* Declining employment. In 2012, 63% of 18- to 31-year-olds had jobs, down from the 70% of their same-aged counterparts who had jobs in 2007. In 2012, unemployed Millennials were much more likely than employed Millennials to be living with their parents (45% versus 29%).

* Rising college enrollment. In March 2012, 39% of 18- to 24-year-olds were enrolled in college, up from 35% in March 2007. Among 18 to 24 year olds, those enrolled in college were much more likely than those not in college to be living at home – 66% versus 50%.

* Declining marriage. In 2012 just 25% of Millennials were married, down from the 30% of 18- to 31-year-olds who were married in 2007. Today’s unmarried Millennials are much more likely than married Millennials to be living with their parents (47% versus 3%).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/08/0...ents-home/

The unspoken tragedy of this economy.

Why is it that only in America that it is bad for generations of families to live together?