Lost Decade: 1/3 of young people under 35 live with parents

[Lonestar]

Are you seriously suggesting the responsiblities of a parent to their children are a matter for legislation? That's hilarious! Kick your kids out in the middle of a depression, the free market will sort them out...

No, of course not. But Armorpierce and others are really bleating the "If I leave home I will not have the same standard of living that I did before", and in Armorpierce's case he thinks it's the responsibility of the parents to maintain the "kids"(lol....a 20 something a KID), well, he hasn't said indefinitely, but for a time long past the legal start of adulthood. When there are A LOT of alternatives besides "live with mom and dad".

Frankly, I think that any 20something who wants to stay with mom and dad because he might have a decrease in quality of life, is defective. If someone is at the point where he can choose between paying rent and paying healthcare(which is the given reason for staying with the folks), then let's be honest, he isn't paying much into helping maintain the household to start with.

[Stark]

It used to be WAY easier before the housing bubble made rent almost impossible for low-income earners. You could find places in East Brisbane (shit but next to city) for seriously $90. You'd never get that now.

[Aaron]

It used to be WAY easier before the housing bubble made rent almost impossible for low-income earners. You could find places in East Brisbane (shit but next to city) for seriously $90. You'd never get that now.

No kidding, I'm wondering how many of us in this thread (Knife, Matt, Myself) are looking back at this through rose coloured glasses. I left at 19 for the Army and I was pretty fucking poor when I moved out of barracks but rent for a full three bedroom house with finished basement was less then 700$ a month. People here are charging 900$+ a month for far less then what I got with my first rental; 100 years old, shit insulation, electric heat, no appliances etc.

I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of my kids being 25-30 and living with me but I'm not exactly going to boot their asses out either at 19. I'll still charge them rent provided they have work though.

[JointStrikeFighter]

It used to be WAY easier before the housing bubble made rent almost impossible for low-income earners. You could find places in East Brisbane (shit but next to city) for seriously $90. You'd never get that now.

2 bus zones from city your looking at minimum $150/week rents per person

[Stark]

Yeah, my partner is paying double what I used to pay for an older, smaller place further from the city in a less flash neighbourhood. It doesn't surprise me that more people are ending up in limbo due to higher unemployment + much higher entry for rent.

In my neighbourhood, there's a lot of development around buying up old flats and renovating them to look 'modern' so they can bump up the rent even higher for the shit 3-room, 1 bedroom units.

[Stark]

2 bus zones from city your looking at minimum $150/week rents per person

In the 90s, I knew drug addict centrelink bums who could afford to live by themselves in 2-bedroom flats up on the hill by Southbank.

[JointStrikeFighter]

I couldn't even do that in caboolture lol

[RedImperator]

My first "apartment" was two rooms on the third floor of an eighty-year old house, plus a kitchen and bathroom on the second floor, where my two roommates (one of whom, it turned out, was a pedophile) lived. It came with a shitty, half-sized gas stove, a busted refrigerator we had to pay to replace ourselves, no utilities, original 1920s wiring (lol one outlet per room, all ancient two-prongers), no overhead lights on my floor, and a boiler in the basement which sent lukewarm water to my radiator, necessitating space heaters in the winter (and the insulation sucked, so I needed it; needed to run the AC all day in the summer, too), and an intractable cockroach infestation. The town was a dump, and we lived on the main drag, meaning I was serenaded night and day by buses and tractor trailers going to and from Camden. Oh, and the previous tenant had painted my combined bedroom/living room eggplant purple, which is fucking depressing when the sun goes down.

This palace cost me $500/month. And it was a bargain. It's probably more now. And I couldn't afford it for a long time after I graduated college; I graduated with nearly a hundred grand in debt and a job making copies part time for $9/hr. I didn't live with my parents because life was awesome in their McMansion 900 square foot, 3br/1 bath postwar split level, or because "I live with my parents" is a great way to pick up girls. I lived there because my alternative was sleeping under the New Jersey Turnpike and eating at soup kitchens.

[Master of Ossus]

Are you seriously suggesting the responsiblities of a parent to their children are a matter for legislation? That's hilarious! Kick your kids out in the middle of a depression, the free market will sort them out...

Ummm... responsibilities of a parent to their children are already a matter of legislation. States impose minimum standards, under child protection/abuse statutes, designed to ensure that children get some minimum level of care from their parents.

Moreover, he's right: kids don't have any "right" to stay with mom and dad for their entire lives. While parents should be free to continue to provide their children with care if they want to, they shouldn't be obligated to do so.

[Stark]

Are you stupid? I thought Lonestar was saying that there was no reason whatever for parents to consider their child's welfare above 18 because the law says so. This is obviously absurdly stupid, and indeed many parents not only have no problem with this situation but actually actively encourage it. I guess being rich means nobody ever has to pool resources or let their kids save money/study/etc without pissing money out the ass, right? The idea that people are afraid of obligations towards their children is fucking hilarious.

PROTIP - laws regarding child welfare MIGHT be bare minimums demanded by society and not parenting guidelines.

EDIT - oh sorry I missed your strawman there lol

[Big Phil]

It used to be WAY easier before the housing bubble made rent almost impossible for low-income earners. You could find places in East Brisbane (shit but next to city) for seriously $90. You'd never get that now.

Rent has always been problematic for low income earners... that's beside the point. The problem is that housing is becoming increasingly expensive for middle-income earners. If you're poor because you made dumb decisions when you were young, got an English degree and are $100K in debt and the best job you can get earns you $32K a year as a teacher, or you're suffering from a cycle of bad luck, tough shit. Hopefully you get some help from somewhere, but expecting/demanding it from your parents is pretty damned narcissistic. If you're a developer, or an engineer, or an attorney, or a mechanic, or an electrician, and can't afford to live on your own, then we do have a serious problem.

I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of my kids being 25-30 and living with me but I'm not exactly going to boot their asses out either at 19. I'll still charge them rent provided they have work though.

One of the common themes running through this thread is "woe is me, I can't find a decent paying job." I moved out on my own at 22, lived in crappy apartments, had roommates, a crappy, unappealing job, etc. It wasn't an ideal life, but it was my life, and I wanted to be independent and on my own. My parents would have preferred that I live at home, but I didn't want to. I don't know about you, but if my kid was pulling this "woe is me" crap, can't (or won't) find a job, and was refusing to leave the nest, I might be tempted to boot his ass. If he had a good job and wanted to live at home to save up money for a home, that's totally cool (although like Knife, I'm not sure I'd want him to live at home just because it's more convenient for him).

[Big Phil]

Are you stupid? I thought Lonestar was saying that there was no reason whatever for parents to consider their child's welfare above 18 because the law says so. This is obviously absurdly stupid, and indeed many parents not only have no problem with this situation but actually actively encourage it. I guess being rich means nobody ever has to pool resources or let their kids save money/study/etc without pissing money out the ass, right? The idea that people are afraid of obligations towards their children is fucking hilarious.

Lovely strawman... what you think (or claim) Lonestar is saying is not at all what he's actually saying, but feel free to continue screeching

[Stark]

Rent has always been problematic for low income earners... that's beside the point. The problem is that housing is becoming increasingly expensive for middle-income earners. If you're poor because you made dumb decisions when you were young, got an English degree and are $100K in debt and the best job you can get earns you $32K a year as a teacher, or you're suffering from a cycle of bad luck, tough shit. Hopefully you get some help from somewhere, but expecting/demanding it from your parents is pretty damned narcissistic. If you're a developer, or an engineer, or an attorney, or a mechanic, or an electrician, and can't afford to live on your own, then we do have a serious problem.

Eh? In AU, many couples who both work can struggle to get a non-horrid place rented, and taking on a mortgage is very difficult. How is going on about OMG THE HORRID CHILDREN changing this? PS? Most people are never going to be attorneys. I guess the answer is 'make sure your kids are attorneys so you can kick them out'. Oh and 'have hundreds of thousands saved to send them to college at 17'. Turns out rent is increasing faster than wages.

And eat a dick you little fuckhead, Lonestar and I already sorted our misunderstanding above AND you JUST FUCKING QUOTED 'I thought Lonestar was saying...'. Do you think nobody can read?

Oh man, I never get tired of reading people's stories about self-inflicted suffering and refusal of assistance! I guess you're the big rugged individualist and anyone who needs to accept help from others is a horrible child you should turf out? PS, I'm not sure anyone in this thread is demanding parents MUST care for their children in this way, simply that it's not particualrly unusual (and in many cultures very usual). Oh noes, not everyone wants to live under a staircase like Sanchez the Idiot!

[aerius]

$700 a month won't even rent my 1 bedroom apartment, and it's not even in a great area or anything. Then again Toronto is just fucking expensive, when I was in Ottawa for university I was renting a bachelor apartment for $400/month, a similar place in Toronto back then was $600-700. On the bright side rents didn't go up nearly as much as housing prices around here, at least not in my area. There was probably around a 10% move from low to high over the past 10 years or so and we're now down about 3-5% from the highs, housing prices are up roughly 50% around here over the same time period.

I could've moved out of my parents' place a couple years earlier than I did, but if one of my contract jobs fell through back then there was a good chance I'd be moving back in since I'd literally be homeless or living in government subsidized housing with crackheads. So it was much better to stay the extra time and then move out since that way I'd have a cushion so I won't be completely fucked if I'm out of a job for more than a couple months. And since I was doing contract work, that was a good possibility every 6 months.

[JointStrikeFighter]

I could've moved out of my parents' place a couple years earlier than I did, but if one of my contract jobs fell through back then there was a good chance I'd be moving back in since I'd literally be homeless or living in government subsidized housing with crackheads. So it was much better to stay the extra time and then move out since that way I'd have a cushion so I won't be completely fucked if I'm out of a job for more than a couple months. And since I was doing contract work, that was a good possibility every 6 months.

FUCKING COMMIE SPONGE! Where is your rugged individualism you fucking socialist!!!

[Stark]

In AU at least, rent hikes have trailed behind real estate prices for some years; but now that real estate is slowing down, rent is continuing to increase (probably until it 'catches up' with the real price of a mortgage). I'm told this isn't unusual, since rent can only be increased at the end of leases etc.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, it IS an issue. Children to be adopted must come from somewhere. A woman waiting until after 30 to give birth is seriously risking having no biological children at all. Fertility treatments have an average success of 15-20%. That's not per attempt, that's 15-20% chance of a baby at all.

Sure, she can opt to not reproduce. That's fine. But if a woman wants kids biologically the best time is between, say 18 and 25. There's some leeway into the 30's, but not as much as people think there is.

The world needs less children in it, at the moment, and the support network in the United States is too weak for any responsible woman to consider having children before 30, in my opinion, except in certain rather exceptional circumstances. Prenatal care is usually much better in women over 30, and they're generally more responsible parents with better outcomes. Fertility in the average woman only drops 20% in the 30 - 35 range (and there's no significant drop before 30) from the ideal which is little hindrance toward conception, since it just means .8 times the typical maximal prospects for conception--those figures being from the Mayo clinic. The average age for a first child in Japan is 29.2, and that's the average[/í]. Studies in the Netherlands suggest the rate of conception, furthermore, is only 93% over 24 months in the 20 - 28 period, and then declines to 80% by 35, supporting the Mayo clinic figures.. Except that this means that since even in the 20 - 28 range, at least 7% of women are likely infertile, the percentage decline is only 13%.

At any rate, Japan has a suitably low birthrate of the sort needed in the short term to control population growth worldwide. In a future world with more resources and better, more enlightened support for women, having children younger to help bring the birthrate back up to replacement levels makes sense--but it doesn't right now, so the advice remains suitable. Average age for a first child in Germany is 30. Only America among industrial nations really retains the cult of infinite growth which pushes women so hard to commit so utterly to reproduction... And more sinisterly provides none of the support toward mothers as European countries do. The only way I'd think of reconsidering the advice not to have children before 30 is if the US started providing 1 year of 100% guaranteed income paid leave for new mothers with promotions, raises, and bonuses accruing as though still regularly at work, three to six months of said leave for the father, universal health insurance covering both parents and child without cost, and cash payments to the family to the mitigate the increased burden to the young when they have children before being fully established.

All of these are completely normative in Europe, and indeed should I end up living and working there I'd likely reconsider how firmly I'd push 30, but in the United States? Having a child before 30 here just guarantees you're continuing to help grow the population of unprepared, impoverished, and desperate youths who can't function, while dragging their parents down with them.

And is this hard for me? Yeah, a little. I really wanted to have children of my own and must accept adoption, if gladly in retrospect. But I don't want to see a daughter of mine as a homeless single mother, either, or to see her dreams and ambitions destroyed by a pressure to reproduce before she's 30.

[JointStrikeFighter]

But I don't want to see a daughter of mine as a homeless single mother, either, or to see her dreams and ambitions destroyed by a pressure to reproduce before she's 30.

I hear a bigger factor in a daughter being a homeless single mother is the way her parents raise her and not any intrinsic social pressure to zomfg reproduce before 30.

TURNS OUT that horrible bogan parents have a tendency to raise dirty slut teens who go on to become horrible bogan single mothers?

[General Zod]

But I don't want to see a daughter of mine as a homeless single mother, either, or to see her dreams and ambitions destroyed by a pressure to reproduce before she's 30.

I hear a bigger factor in a daughter being a homeless single mother is the way her parents raise her and not any intrinsic social pressure to zomfg reproduce before 30.

TURNS OUT that horrible bogan parents have a tendency to raise dirty slut teens who go on to become horrible bogan single mothers?

Either that or gross misinformation and demonization of sex. Turns out abstinence only doesn't work?

[Stofsk]

I didn't live with my parents because life was awesome in their McMansion 900 square foot, 3br/1 bath postwar split level, or because "I live with my parents" is a great way to pick up girls. I lived there because my alternative was sleeping under the New Jersey Turnpike and eating at soup kitchens.

Well said, Red. I don't think I'll be in any position to move away from my mum, not for a long, long time. Admittedly, my situation is somewhat unique however, it's not like I asked for my life to turn to shit for the last 5 years.

[ArmorPierce]

I hate to tell you this skippy, but in this country the legal parental responsibility comes to an abrupt halt at 18.

It's called a moral responsibility

No, of course not. But Armorpierce and others are really bleating the "If I leave home I will not have the same standard of living that I did before", and in Armorpierce's case he thinks it's the responsibility of the parents to maintain the "kids"(lol....a 20 something a KID), well, he hasn't said indefinitely, but for a time long past the legal start of adulthood. When there are A LOT of alternatives besides "live with mom and dad".

Newsflash you cock. Before naming me whining about my standard of living going down if I move out, considering that I grew up in dirt poor neighborhoods most of my life and have gone instances where I barely eaten for days at a time and have gone ill for half a year due to money constraints but was still able to finish school. My standard of living has been pretty low my entire low. Besides that NO ONE HAS MEDICAL INSURANCE IN MY HOUSE BECAUSE NONE OF US CAN AFFORD IT. I'm pretty sure that my low income is more than what each member of my family gets, however sad that is. Lets see, I already suffered my entire life, why would I want to exacerbate the situation... hmmm?

Frankly, I think that any 20something who wants to stay with mom and dad because he might have a decrease in quality of life, is defective. If someone is at the point where he can choose between paying rent and paying healthcare(which is the given reason for staying with the folks), then let's be honest, he isn't paying much into helping maintain the household to start with.

Okay lets see. I double-majored in University in two very in demand majors and got a good gpa. I am now making just enough to get a studio apartment in a ghetto and buy food. I would not be able to pay back my student loans and I wouldn't be able to go to the doctor if I get sick. This is the worse time to have graduated ever and young people are feeling it worse than any other group.

Your reponse is "wha, wha, cry more."

Hey how about this, if you want to teach your kids responsibility don't spoil them growing up. Maybe having kids stay home teaches them a big responsibility... that is saving your money rather than spending it on frivolous things, taking out huge mortgages before they are financially secured? You know, the kind of things that would have prevented this current recession?

[Master of Ossus]

Are you stupid? I thought Lonestar was saying that there was no reason whatever for parents to consider their child's welfare above 18 because the law says so. This is obviously absurdly stupid, and indeed many parents not only have no problem with this situation but actually actively encourage it.

I don't even know what you're talking about. It's clear that you parted company with reality a long time ago, in this thread.

I guess being rich means nobody ever has to pool resources or let their kids save money/study/etc without pissing money out the ass, right? The idea that people are afraid of obligations towards their children is fucking hilarious.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. No one is "afraid of obligations towards their children," but children don't have a right to expect to move back in with mom and dad once they're all grown up. That's not part of any reasonably constructed social or parenting contract.

PROTIP - laws regarding child welfare MIGHT be bare minimums demanded by society and not parenting guidelines.

And this changes my argument how? What the fuck is a "responsibility" if not a minimum socially acceptable duty that one must fulfill?

EDIT - oh sorry I missed your strawman there lol

I still have no idea what you're talking about, but apparently you missed the fact that Lonestar wasn't saying anything remotely like what you were claiming he was arguing.

[Master of Ossus]

It's called a moral responsibility

So why must a parent be morally responsible for what their kid does once they're 18, or 21, or some other arbitrary age? If a kid went out and committed some felonies when they were that old, the parents wouldn't be responsible for very good reason: the kid is socially understood as being old enough to make their own decisions and care for themselves independent of their parents.

Newsflash you cock. Before naming me whining about my standard of living going down if I move out, considering that I grew up in dirt poor neighborhoods most of my life and have gone instances where I barely eaten for days at a time and have gone ill for half a year due to money constraints but was still able to finish school. My standard of living has been pretty low my entire low. Besides that NO ONE HAS MEDICAL INSURANCE IN MY HOUSE BECAUSE NONE OF US CAN AFFORD IT. I'm pretty sure that my low income is more than what each member of my family gets, however sad that is. Lets see, I already suffered my entire life, why would I want to exacerbate the situation... hmmm?

Now you're just busting out the whiny brat routine. Your parents are obligated to take care of you now because they didn't take care of you as well as you would've wanted when you were younger?

Okay lets see. I double-majored in University in two very in demand majors and got a good gpa. I am now making just enough to get a studio apartment in a ghetto and buy food. I would not be able to pay back my student loans and I wouldn't be able to go to the doctor if I get sick. This is the worse time to have graduated ever and young people are feeling it worse than any other group.

So how does that equate to "My parents have to keep taking care of me?" It's hardly your parents' fault that the economy isn't doing so hot.

Your reponse is "wha, wha, cry more."

Yes. You're a whiny little immature brat.

Hey how about this, if you want to teach your kids responsibility don't spoil them growing up. Maybe having kids stay home teaches them a big responsibility... that is saving your money rather than spending it on frivolous things, taking out huge mortgages before they are financially secured? You know, the kind of things that would have prevented this current recession?

Oh, so it is your parents' fault that the economy's doing badly.

It's quite telling that your entire attitude revolves only around what's best for you, with not a single word of concern for your parents' situation (even as you lament the fact that you don't have health insurance because you can't afford it, the focus is obviously on your own situation and your "Woah is me and poverty" routine). As for "teach[ing] a big responsibility," you still don't get it: your parents are no longer obligated to teach you anything. You've already graduated from college, for Christ's sake. This one-sided "parents give; kids take" relationship you seem to idealize isn't a socially desirable parenting model once the "kid" is old enough to care for himself. I suppose you will blame your own obnoxious and atrocious attitude on your parents (and why not? You've already blamed them for everything else that's bad in the world even as they gratuitously house your snotty, thankless ass), but you're old enough to be responsible for your own actions, at this point in your life.

[MKSheppard]

No kidding, I'm wondering how many of us in this thread (Knife, Matt, Myself) are looking back at this through rose coloured glasses.

You mean people who spend years in an environment where the pay is okay (it's not awesome, but okay); and expenses are absurdly low, due to major expenses being picked up by the employer (training, housing, health care); and thus come out onto the private market with a surplus of money and training -- they see the world through rose colored glasses?

WHO KNEW?

[Knife]

No kidding, I'm wondering how many of us in this thread (Knife, Matt, Myself) are looking back at this through rose coloured glasses.

You mean people who spend years in an environment where the pay is okay (it's not awesome, but okay); and expenses are absurdly low, due to major expenses being picked up by the employer (training, housing, health care); and thus come out onto the private market with a surplus of money and training -- they see the world through rose colored glasses?

WHO KNEW?

lol. I lived in southern California between San Diego and LA, my major expenses were awful and to boot, I had a wife and two kids at the time. My rose colored glasses look pretty clear to me. I went to work in a fucking warehouse when I got out since there isn't a huge demand for infantry sergeants in the civilian world.