Log in

View Full Version : Going on 30, Living With Parents



Pages : 1 [2]

Almost Jaded
03-05-2014, 03:35 PM
Eagle - remove the top 1% of income earners from the equation and recalculate the average. The results are frightening.

Sabihah
03-05-2014, 08:48 PM
I honestly don't see the point in picking on 20- and 30-somethings who want to live somewhat comfortably, especially when they do that by living with their parents rather than accruing tons of debt. I think it's worth considering the long-term dividends paid to your mental, physical, and social wellbeing by developing healthy eating habits, going to a gym, living in a safe neighborhood, being near friends and family, and occasionally spending money on hobbies/social activities/personal development/entertainment. If you're making $30k/year, it's not like you're going to be living in the lap of luxury even without paying rent - but if you can avoid living off ramen with crazy roommates screaming at each other across the hall at night, why not?

I basically don't think we should fault people for figuring out a way to be happier and healthier with less money. Yes, there are "adult babies" who've supposedly been "looking for employment" for two years while emptying their parents' fridge and playing video games in the basement, but I don't think the ones who're working and helping out a bit at home should be lumped in with them just because their lives don't suck.

ytqclys
03-05-2014, 09:13 PM
Yes, exactly. Letting them stay home forever stunts them. What kind of parent wants their child to be stunted and inadequate as an adult?

Also, the comment you quoted really bugs me. I think it's really easy for people to say "IF I had kids like that, I wouldn't mind." Yeah, most people would. It breeds resentment. There comes a time when kids are supposed to grow up, not play "forever 15" and use their own money for fun stuff while expecting you to pay all of life's necessities. The parents are being used. It hurts to know that one of the people you love most in the world is just using you to avoid the basic responsibilities of being an adult.

Seems to me like you're mixing separate issues. Look at Justin Bieber, he's not living at home, and he's not growing up either. I understand your particular personal situation is the worst, but you shouldn't generalize to everyone who's got a kid living at home. I don't think it's a given that the kids are taking advantage of the parents and/or having an extended childhood. Many times kids get caught in a role-reversal, they are serving the parent's needs, rather than the other way around.

This seems a little like the "strippers all have daddy issues" type crap. Let's just focus on the immaturity or the daddy issues or whatever is a real, actual problem. Don't deprive people of options by jumping to conclusions without proof that one thing always goes with another.

Melonie
03-06-2014, 11:34 AM
I basically don't think we should fault people for figuring out a way to be happier and healthier with less money. Yes, there are "adult babies" who've supposedly been "looking for employment" for two years while emptying their parents' fridge and playing video games in the basement, but I don't think the ones who're working and helping out a bit at home should be lumped in with them just because their lives don't suck.

Such people are still a negative force for the economy in general, since they are not buying houses / renting apartments, since they are not buying home furnishings, since they are not buying cars, and a long list of other 'not buying's . Beyond that, a real 'time bomb' is ticking based on the parents wanting to retire at some point, leaving the basement dwelling offspring with no place to live and no refrigerator to raid.



remove the top 1% of income earners from the equation and recalculate the average. The results are frightening

Indeed. And removing the 'top 10%' leaves results that are downright appalling.

Vamp
03-07-2014, 09:26 AM
If you're making $30k/year, it's not like you're going to be living in the lap of luxury even without paying rent - but if you can avoid living off ramen with crazy roommates screaming at each other across the hall at night, why not?
I basically don't think we should fault people for figuring out a way to be happier and healthier with less money. Yes, there are "adult babies" who've supposedly been "looking for employment" for two years while emptying their parents' fridge and playing video games in the basement, but I don't think the ones who're working and helping out a bit at home should be lumped in with them just because their lives don't suck.

If someone has went out and lived on their own, hits a wall (unemployment, sick parent etc), then moves back home.... I dont fault them. They have tried.

It is 20-30 somethings that never leave home, simply because they dont want to rough it, that is concerning. They would rather live comfortably then be adults. Some have called them the Peter Pan generation. They dont want to take on any real responsibility. Which is more then likely going to be their attitude for the rest of their lives. Melonie talks about when parents retire but what happens when the parents die? Even if these adult babies have jobs, they do not have life experience. This trend isnt like other cultures either. Children that stay home in other cultures take on the responsibility of the household from their parents.

There is no way in hell I would ever date one of these boys either. They would constantly be wanting a mother to do everything for him. For the first time in my life I am glad I am not younger. I wouldnt want to deal with this hot mess.

gocanucks
03-07-2014, 10:06 AM
If someone has went out and lived on their own, hits a wall (unemployment, sick parent etc), then moves back home.... I dont fault them. They have tried.

It is 20-30 somethings that never leave home, simply because they dont want to rough it, that is concerning. They would rather live comfortably then be adults. Some have called them the Peter Pan generation. They dont want to take on any real responsibility. Which is more then likely going to be their attitude for the rest of their lives. Melonie talks about when parents retire but what happens when the parents die? Even if these adult babies have jobs, they do not have life experience. This trend isnt like other cultures either. Children that stay home in other cultures take on the responsibility of the household from their parents.

There is no way in hell I would ever date one of these boys either. They would constantly be wanting a mother to do everything for him. For the first time in my life I am glad I am not younger. I wouldnt want to deal with this hot mess.

Those 3 points x 1000.

To categorize all adults who live at home with their parents is too sweeping - cultural values and financial limits are a real factor for these cases. I also wholeheartedly agree that in most of those cases, the responsible young adults also take charge of household affairs, and contribute in time/financially where they can.

I also couldn't agree more with the sentiment that for those that fit in the "Peter Pan" generation, Melonie's characterization is dead on. We should be sophisticated enough to realize that multiple realities exist, rather than a one-size-fits-all label. After all, that's a chief complaint dancers have on their professional choice (all dancers are certainly not the same in their motivations, job descriptions, etc.) - so we shouldn't fall prey to the same oversimplification for adults who live with their parents.

And for the record, I was on my own from 21 onwards, and let my parents know how much their support meant to me - and that I'd repay them back any way I could as I got on my feet. So, take that perspective for what it's worth.

Melonie
03-07-2014, 02:21 PM
again, keep in mind that while there is a clear difference in attitude between a 'Peter Pan' basement dweller and a child who has been forced to live at ( or return ) home due to poor economic / job opportunities, they do share one undeniable commonality. IN both cases, there simply isn't enough money available for them to both live independently and also maintain an 'acceptable' standard of living. In both cases, right now it is the parents who are 'subsidizing' their standard of living.

And in both cases, by one means or another, those parental 'subsidies' will eventually come to an end. When that day comes, the standard of living of both the 'Peter Pan' basement dwellers and the 'economic hardship' basement dwellers will drop like a proverbial stone. And when that day comes, one of the first things that both will be forced to 'throw overboard' is discretionary spending on non-essential items ... like lap dances and paid webcams !

eagle2
03-08-2014, 10:55 AM
Eagle - remove the top 1% of income earners from the equation and recalculate the average. The results are frightening.

Here's a chart showing average weekly and hourly wages of private sector employees, both overall, and by sector. These figures don't include the top 1%, who are mostly business owners or high level executives, and not employees. It's just typical American workers.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm

The overall average is approximately $830 a week, and in many sectors, the average is over $1,000 a week.

eagle2
03-08-2014, 11:27 AM
Such people are still a negative force for the economy in general, since they are not buying houses / renting apartments, since they are not buying home furnishings, since they are not buying cars, and a long list of other 'not buying's . Beyond that, a real 'time bomb' is ticking based on the parents wanting to retire at some point, leaving the basement dwelling offspring with no place to live and no refrigerator to raid.

They're not a negative force on the economy if they're working and paying taxes. Just because they're living with their parents doesn't meant they haven't bought a car. You're assuming that the earnings of a 20-something living at home with his parents is never going to change. In general, for most people, their earnings increase as they get older and more experienced. This is especially true for college graduates. Just because someone in their 20's doesn't earn enough to live comfortably on his own, doesn't meant he won't be earning a lot more in his 30's and 40's. In addition, that person can later marry someone else with a good job and the couple will have twice as much to pay for housing. Overall, our economy would be a lot better off now if a lot more people in their 20's lived with their parents over the past decade and saved their money, instead of going out and buying houses they couldn't afford, with no money down.

Financially, it makes sense for a lot of people in their 20's to live with their parents, if they're taking advantage of their situation to save money and find a good job where they have an opportunity to advance their career. If all they're doing is working part-time at a minimum wage job and spending their money frivolously on things like night-clubs and video-games, I agree it's not the responsible thing to do.





Indeed. And removing the 'top 10%' leaves results that are downright appalling.

What are the figures you are basing this on? In the past, you posted about how well-off Americans living in poverty are. Now you're saying that if you're not in the top 10%, the situation is "downright appalling". Which is it?

ytqclys
03-08-2014, 11:48 AM
Such people are still a negative force for the economy in general, since they are not buying houses / renting apartments, since they are not buying home furnishings, since they are not buying cars, and a long list of other 'not buying's . ...

That's true. But the real problem is that our economic structure can give people options as to WHAT to consume. But it doesn't deal with it well if people choose to LIMIT consumption, by living more densely or in other ways. We need to find some way for lower consumption to translate into a lot of people having a little more leisure time, rather than some people having too little work/income to pay basic expenses.

Melonie
03-19-2014, 10:20 PM
What are the figures you are basing this on? In the past, you posted about how well-off Americans living in poverty are. Now you're saying that if you're not in the top 10%, the situation is "downright appalling". Which is it?

The point we are both ( indirectly ) tap-dancing around is whether or not EBT cards can be used at strip clubs ! Well, not literally ... the point is about possible levels of 'discretionary' spending ( or lack thereof ), something upon which dancers, camgirls etc. are almost completely dependent.



They're not a negative force on the economy if they're working and paying taxes.

Again, this interpretation depends on whether or not they are 'net' taxpayers, versus the equivalent dollar value of actual taxes paid minus refundable tax credits / gov't grants / gov't subsidized benefits received coming out to be a negative number. Generally speaking, low earning 'basement dwellers' result in a net negative ( i.e. they 'cost' actual taxpayers money ) ... although the net effect may sometimes be spread over the actual taxes paid by the 'household' i.e. parents and 'basement dwelling' dependent child combined.

Or more specifically, the claim is often made that low earning Americans are in fact 'taxpayers' because they do pay 6.75% SSI taxes, they do pay 5% ( or whatever ) sales taxes, etc. However, the dollar value received via refundable tax credits, Pell grants, subsidized public health insurance premiums, etc. can easily exceed the actual amount of money paid out in SSI and sales taxes. In my book that makes them a net negative force on the economy.



We need to find some way for lower consumption to translate into a lot of people having a little more leisure time, rather than some people having too little work/income to pay basic expenses.

This assertion brings us dangerously close to the topic of 'wealth redistribution' ... which I'll try to avoid in respect of SW's policy regarding political topics. However I will comment that there is a purely economic principle of 'added value creation'. In today's global economy, absent 'wealth redistribution', the amount of money that a given American can arguably be 'competitively' paid is the same amount of money being paid to people performing similar work in China, India, etc. ... based on the presumption that they both create equal 'added value'. When other factors dictate that American workers must be paid at a significantly higher rate, employers are incentivized to outsource work to China and India, employers are incentivized to invest in robotics / automation to eliminate the need for as many American workers, etc. Ultimately, in the absence of 'wealth redistribution', this boils down to an inconvenient truth that the cost of maintaining a 'minimum acceptable standard of living' in the USA exceeds the present ability of millions of Americans to generate that level of 'added value'.

Melonie
04-30-2014, 01:18 PM
interesting news tidbit ... indicating that construction workers have now been added to the list of robotics / automation 'targets'.

from

(snip)The University of Southern California is testing a giant 3D printer that could be used to build a whole house in under 24 hours.

Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis has designed the giant robot that replaces construction workers with a nozzle on a gantry, this squirts out concrete and can quickly build a home according to a computer pattern. It is “basically scaling up 3D printing to the scale of building,” says Khoshnevis. The technology, known as Contour Crafting, could revolutionise the construction industry.

The affordable home?

Contour Crafting could slash the cost of home-owning, making it possible for millions of displaced people to get on the property ladder. It could even be used in disaster relief areas to build emergency and replacement housing. For example, after an event such as Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, which has displaced almost 600,000 people, Contour Crafting could be used to build replacement homes quickly.

It could be used to create high-quality shelter for people currently living in desperate conditions. “At the dawn of the 21st century [slums] are the condition of shelter for nearly one billion people in our world,” says Khoshnevis, “These buildings are breeding grounds for disease a problem of conventional construction which is slow, labour intensive and inefficient.”

As Khoshnevis points out, if you look around you pretty much everything is made automatically these days – “your shoes, your clothes, home appliances, your car. The only thing that is still built by hand are these buildings.”(snip)

(snip)Will builders be out of work?

What the implications are for builders is, of course, a major concern. Building and construction has largely escaped the construction line automation of other industries and remains solid employment for millions worldwide. According to the International Labour Organisation construction employs nearly 110 million people worldwide and “plays a major role in combating the high levels of unemployment and in absorbing surplus labour from the rural areas.”

That’s a lot of people Contour Crafting could make redundant, which raises the question of whether the system could do more harm than good.(snip)

This certainly doesn't sound encouraging for future unemployed millenials ... given that semi-skilled summer construction jobs have been an available 'fallback' option for decades.