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

[Lusankya]

I have to agree with Knife, a lot of the people complaining about expenses are awfully young, have never known what it was like to live in a shitty apartment with barely enough to eat, and seem terrified of the thought. My parents frequently hammered home that when they were both going to college and just married, they occasionally ran out of food toward the end of each month, lived in a crappy apartment with no furniture, didn't go to movies or out to dinner or spent money blithely, and were just barely scraping by. In other words, being 24 and unable to afford anything isn't a new phenomenon.

Replying to this one in particular quite late, but how on earth is this in any way supposed to be a good argument for kids moving out early？How's this for an equivalent statement" "My dad used to tell me about how his father beat him up all the time when he gave lip, which shows that being 14 and smashed over the head isn't a new phoenomenon."

Seriously, "that's the way it used to be done" is in no way a moral nor a practical argument, and the people of this board should know better. Whatever the cultural situation is in America is completely irrelevant to the moral point brought up by Stark and JSF and the practicality of pooling resources as mentioned by ray and others. If your culture thinks that parents kicking their kids out of home so they possibly starve is a perfectly fine and moral thing, then your culture's just shit.

[JME2]

This is the worse time to have graduated ever and young people are feeling it worse than any other group.

This gets back into the feelings and myself and two of my closest friends from college that I was going into back on Page 3.

For the record, ur BA's weren't for film studies; they were for, and I quote, "Teledramatic Arts and Technologies". Yes, we learned film history/analysis; it was required coursework. But we also learned other, practical universal tools of our trade: scripting, storyboarding, video editing, sound design, etc among the three of us alone. And unfortunately, we -- along with our major's graduating classes of 2008 and 2009 -- are pretty much up the creek right now because the film industry is barricaded against the hurricane that is the recession. Things are even worse in LA than San Francisco, courtesy of information coming from the alumni grapevine. All three of us are struggling to figure out what the hell we're going to do in the short term and whether or not we're screwed in the long term unless we take new studies. I'm struggling to decide whether or not to enroll in classes that could pay off in the long run (and fulfill my dream of doing professional voiceover work for a living), but are not a light investment in the short term.

So yeah, we are feeling it worse than any other group.

[Knife]

It presumes the parents need the pooled resources and not just code for 'our 20 something child wants to mooch off of us'. If indeed there are situations, and I don't doubt there are, where husband, wife and all available kids have jobs to maintain a household then that is a lot different than an article claiming 1/3 of people under 35 live with their parents and all the prattle in this thread where college kids want to as well.

Edit: Whoops, thought I'd be right under Lus, so didn't quote. My reply was for her post.

[Lusankya]

Which makes "well, my parents starved and turned out fine, so it's fine for my kids to starve too" ok because....?

[ArmorPierce]

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.

Because you choose to have kids. Unless there's a real reason not, why would you not want to help your kids be financially secured before moving out. There is very little social safety nets in this country so pushing them out early increases the chance that they get fucked.

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?

Read the post, it was pretty clear that I was responding to his insinuation that I am less than him because I am not moving out on my own right away after finishing school, stating that I said something I didn't and ignored the fact that in my family it is perfectly acceptable.

I haven't a goddamn clue as to why anyone would think someone in his 20s living with his folks on a permanent basis with his parents could be considered a success as a human being

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"

o 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.

Read above

Yes. You're a whiny little immature brat.

and you're a strawmanning tard

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

I never blamed my parents retard

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).

Read my fucking other posts. My parents find it perfectly acceptable for me to stay with the expectation that I and/or my brother will provide for them when the time comes. Too busy strawmanning my position? here I'll quote it.

Maybe it's a cultural difference due to me having immigrant parents and hanging out with people who are not typical Americans (or American at all). My mother particularly wants me to stay as long as possible (till married and beyond if possible) and wants to move in with either one of the kids eventually.

As for "teach[ing] a big responsibility," you still don't get it: your parents are no longer obligated to teach you anything.

That's an argument against people stating they're doing them to teach them about responsibility. I don't know if anyone said that here but it is a common one I see.

Snip the random strawmans

[Knife]

Which makes "well, my parents starved and turned out fine, so it's fine for my kids to starve too" ok because....?

Nice false dilemma. Nobody in this thread is advocating such an extreme, rather pointing out difficulty in early life should not be latched on to as an excuse.

[Lusankya]

Which makes "well, my parents starved and turned out fine, so it's fine for my kids to starve too" ok because....?

Nice false dilemma. Nobody in this thread is advocating such an extreme, rather pointing out difficulty in early life should not be latched on to as an excuse.

Look at Sanchez's post that I quoted. He uses his parents running out of food as part of his argument in favour of kicking kids out, though why I can't imagine.

I'm still not sure why you're taking it as a moral imperative to ensure that your children face difficulty. Certainly, they should be able to handle difficulty, but why are you Americans all so insistent on them having to face it unnecessarily?

If anything, American parents should be less willing than non-American parents to subject their children to things like that, due to the dismal (near nonexistent) state of the American safety net. It's not like in Australia where if you have everything go wrong for you all at once then the government can come along and pay your medical bills, give you some money and help you pay your way through a new training course. If stuff goes seriously wrong in the US, then you can be screwed for life. Given that, it's amazing to me how many Americans seem to actually view parenting as some kind of contract position which expires after 18 years.

[Big Phil]

I have to agree with Knife, a lot of the people complaining about expenses are awfully young, have never known what it was like to live in a shitty apartment with barely enough to eat, and seem terrified of the thought. My parents frequently hammered home that when they were both going to college and just married, they occasionally ran out of food toward the end of each month, lived in a crappy apartment with no furniture, didn't go to movies or out to dinner or spent money blithely, and were just barely scraping by. In other words, being 24 and unable to afford anything isn't a new phenomenon.

Replying to this one in particular quite late, but how on earth is this in any way supposed to be a good argument for kids moving out early？How's this for an equivalent statement" "My dad used to tell me about how his father beat him up all the time when he gave lip, which shows that being 14 and smashed over the head isn't a new phoenomenon."

Except, of course, they're not equivalent... but you keep telling yourself they're exactly the same

Seriously, "that's the way it used to be done" is in no way a moral nor a practical argument, and the people of this board should know better. Whatever the cultural situation is in America is completely irrelevant to the moral point brought up by Stark and JSF and the practicality of pooling resources as mentioned by ray and others. If your culture thinks that parents kicking their kids out of home so they possibly starve is a perfectly fine and moral thing, then your culture's just shit.

Yay... dick waving "mine is bigger than yours" bullshit... because of course in Australia EVERYONE lives in communal compounds, six or more to an apartment, pooling and sharing resources, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right? It's only in big, bad, shitty America where kids don't live with their parents until their mid-30's...

Look at Sanchez's post that I quoted. He uses his parents running out of food as part of his argument in favour of kicking kids out, though why I can't imagine.

I don't believe I ever argued "in favor of kicking kids out," although with that sort of imagination you should really consider writing fiction books. No, actually what I was pointing out was that things for people starting out was shitty 40+ years ago, and that it's not only Gen Y that has/had things tough.

[ray245]

No, actually what I was pointing out was that things for people starting out was shitty 40+ years ago, and that it's not only Gen Y that has/had things tough.

We KNOW that. So what if Gen X have a tougher time trying to adjust themselves as adults, that is no reason for things to remain the same.

It's like saying , I have a tough childhood, hence my son or daughter should have a tough childhood as well. Or saying that my parents decides to beat me up in order to make me learn, so I should do the same to my child.

The idea that the next generation should suffer as much as my generation is an extremely stupid idea.

[Stark]

I think people are simply conflating 'you should take care of your kids and this doesn't stop magically when they reach 18' with 'omg u so dumb for paying for an arts degree lolololol good luck getting a job and living in the basement'. Sanchez as much as does so in his (earlier) post, when the last page has been more about how the changing economy has changed the way people look at social norms (like moving out). It's all very adversarial, but since that article was posted whereby children are seen as an investment, this shouldn't surprise me. Some cultures view families as a group, and others (ie, rich Americans) appear to view it from the entirely individual perspective.

The idea that it's a normal part of growing up to suffer unnecesarily because the law says kick your kids out at 18 is, of course, extremely amusing; moreso since crazy old Armorpierce even noted that he's from a different culture. Perhaps I should engage in anecdote warfare, because I moved out at 18 and didn't suffer any hardship at all (not even bothering to work through uni), and my parents would have been happy to have me stay.

Wow, what's even Sanchez's point? Does it make him furious that it's more expensive for young people to get their own place and so it makes sense for them to stick around in many cases? Does he rage against the evil twentysomethings holding their long-suffering parents hostage? What about the existence of whole cultures where homes are multi-generational as a matter of course? Oh wait, things were hard at some other point, which of course is why it's necessary for people to suffer now... somehow. Caring for your children beyond legal requirements is such a crazy idea!

[Lusankya]

I don't believe I ever argued "in favor of kicking kids out," although with that sort of imagination you should really consider writing fiction books. No, actually what I was pointing out was that things for people starting out was shitty 40+ years ago, and that it's not only Gen Y that has/had things tough.

When you said "I agree with Knife", I assumed you agreed with him on the "no kids in my house after 20 without damn good reason" bit as well, and I interpreted your post to mean that you considered the condition your parents lived in in their early 20s to be acceptable conditions for your children to live in too - i.e. not a good enough reason to live with you.

If misunderstood, then I apologise.

PS. What ray said too.

[Big Phil]

I don't believe I ever argued "in favor of kicking kids out," although with that sort of imagination you should really consider writing fiction books. No, actually what I was pointing out was that things for people starting out was shitty 40+ years ago, and that it's not only Gen Y that has/had things tough.

When you said "I agree with Knife", I assumed you agreed with him on the "no kids in my house after 20 without damn good reason" bit as well, and I interpreted your post to mean that you considered the condition your parents lived in in their early 20s to be acceptable conditions for your children to live in too - i.e. not a good enough reason to live with you.

I thought I'd defined those "good enough reasons," but if that wasn't clear, I'd say saving money or being temporarily down on your luck would be reasonable reasons. Not wanting to move out of the comfortable nest (and not contributing to the household finances) is not a good reason. Of course, some parents may be okay with a 35 year old teenager living at home, but most would consider themselves failures as parents if their adult children couldn't take care of themselves.

The idea that the next generation should suffer as much as my generation is an extremely stupid idea.

No argument there, but then I didn't say they needed to suffer, just that suffering isn't unusual (or necessarily bad, particularly if it's temporary). I'm not taking issue with the article in the OP, which I agree with. I'm just tired of hearing whiny college students bitching about how tough they have it.





Oh, and Stark, it's pretty damned ironic that you, of all people, are accusing me of "raging," considering how you act like you haven't pooped in weeks... I've met hungry toddlers who are less grumpy than you are...

[Guardsman Bass]

Not wanting to move out of the comfortable nest (and not contributing to the household finances) is not a good reason.

The bolded part is the rub, isn't it? Considering the way employment and compensation trends have been going, I could see a situation where you get more multi-generational households due to two-income households no longer being sufficient to sustain the expected lifestyle. It'd be butting up against American culture, but household styles are usually a product of both culture and economic necessity.

That's more or less the situation I'm in. If I could get full-time hours at the job I'm working at (a distinct possibility in a year, although I'd rather be working at a higher paying job, and I can't do it now because I have to finish college), I would probably have enough income to move into a reasonably nice studio apartment in my city (and to be honest, I'd really like to do so; I lived in the on-campus apartments for two years, and ever since moving back I've been feeling an itch to get my own place again) - were it not for issues like saving up a security deposit, and keeping my mother from losing her house (I help out with the finances).

[Stark]

I think mixing up the issues was bad for everyone. I don't have a lot of sympathy for university hobbyists who get non- or barely-functional degrees either (but then I can barely imagine doing so in the US where univesity is such an investment), but at least in AU being able to tick 'has tertiary qualification' does have SOME value, as many roles simply filter out non-graduates. It's pretty dumb, but the logistics manager for my company is a chemical engineer, someone's PA is an art graduate, etc. One of my mates studied criminology (for which he knew there were exactly two roles in the entire state) and when he graduated just got a regular job. That said, in AU it's not the huge investment it is in the US, so the scene is probably different.

What Bass says is interesting; while my parents would have been fine to let me stay with them, I personally couldn't imagine doing so without contributing to the upkeep of the household. I think that's the real element of 'growing up' or 'independence'; being able to pay your own way. Buying a house is a big stretch for a lot of people, but staying at home isn't a way to avoid paying anything.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The thing that amuses me most are the allegations that people who live with their parents will have no luck finding romance. Okay, maybe they won't have any luck finding romance with shallow twits who think that living with parents is the sole defining factor in attractiveness, but maybe I'm weird in not exactly wanting to gain the affections of such people. Since personal anecdotes seem to be a valid form of argument in this thread, I can vouch that when I was a rather awkward dork living with my parents at age twenty-two in the US, I had no trouble at all finding a mate when I actually went out looking for one.

Knife and Sanchez have hit the nail on the head, though they don't realize it: The culture in the US is fundamentally broken. The mindset that children should leave their parents as young as legally possible, that the relationship between children and parents should be seen first as an economic thing and second as a display of love, that what's good for one generation, even if it's pretty crappy, should be good for the next and people should stop complaining, is something that needs to go. The fact that the credit market encourages such irresponsible behaviour just makes the problem worse.

Even so, I've discovered through personal experience that it is preferable and entirely possible to stay with one's parents until a firm financial basis and good real-world experience is acquired, even in the US. I had one brief stint with 'rugged independence' shortly after my nineteenth birthday which ended up with me homeless and living out of my car. After returning to my parents (and even living with my boyfriend's parents) for a while, building up a stable work history and having some financial windfall, I was able to pay them back and even give a lot of money to them after I once again moved out and they were in danger of being evicted. Funny that, keeping your kids with you until they have a stable financial basis is actually more likely to pay you back when they're finally independent and more able to help you if you run into trouble yourself.

It is true that there are plenty of mooches out there. But I see that more a problem with the way they were raised, which again leads to a problem with the culture. To overgeneralize: If you raise kids with the mindset that pulling your own weight in a communal living situation is important, they will work their asses off to make sure they're contributing to the household. Raise them in the stereotypical American manner of take all you can get and screw everyone else, they will mooch.

[ray245]

I would also like to add in this point. People who mooch in almost every culture, be it an asian culture or a western culture, they are always in a minority.

If living with your parents means you would mooch, then most Asian nations would have suffered from total economic collapse a long time ago.

[AniThyng]

I would also like to add in this point. People who mooch in almost every culture, be it an asian culture or a western culture, they are always in a minority.

If living with your parents means you would mooch, then most Asian nations would have suffered from total economic collapse a long time ago.

Personally, I'm 26 with a well-paying job and live at my parents house. It also happens to be in commuting distance of my workplace and has enough room for me, so I don't really see a need to pay someone else a third of my salary to rent my own place while I am still single and unmarried. Instead I give the money to my parents as "rent" and utilities. This is actually a fairly common scenario in Asian societies, and not just the province of fat nerd moochers. From a societal standpoint, it does seem to be a better use of shared resources then if I went out and tried to rent my own place. (of course, I could just get a huge housing loan and buy a house RIGHT NOW, but...)

And yes, I went to university away from home and did the "stay on my own" bit so it's not that I do not know how to manage living in a shitty apartment with psycho roommates...

[Aaron]

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?

WTF are you talking about Shep? You know how much a Pvt made in 97? 19K a year, we didn't start to make "ok" pay until well into the 2000's.

I'm talking about the "I did it and survived" bit that I specifically am guilty of so "you'll be fine" that I have to consciously suppress.

[Lusankya]

From a societal standpoint, it does seem to be a better use of shared resources then if I went out and tried to rent my own place. (of course, I could just get a huge housing loan and buy a house RIGHT NOW, but...)

It's definitely a more efficient use of resources. My mum bought a four bedroom house so that all her children could live with her, and now that one sister's moved out, I'm in China and the other sister will be going to England in a month or so, she's going to have a huge house to live in all by herself. She's already thinking about taking boarders.

And when I am at my mothers home, I don't just contribute to the finances: I also help to clean the house, try to make sure there's a meal ready for my mother when she gets home, look after the pets (ok - this job is easy) and so on. There are more ways to contribute to a household than just financial ones - otherwise we would be claiming that stay at home parents make no contribution to their families just because they don't make any money.

[RedImperator]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for university hobbyists who get non- or barely-functional degrees either (but then I can barely imagine doing so in the US where univesity is such an investment)

Keep in mind, in the US, high school students are routinely told that a bachelor's degree, regardless of subject, is an instant ticket to the good life, and they're steered towards the most prestigious (read: expensive) college to which they can gain admission. To the extent that anything else matters, it's GPA which kids are told is most important. Until the credit market imploded, financing college was trivially easy--even today, my divorced, twice-bankrupted aunt managed to get a loan for her son--so a "cost is no object" attitude was and still is encouraged by high school counselors, the college admissions industry, and society at large. There are shitloads of scholarships available, but most of these are merit based and tend to accumulate to the brightest, most self-motivated students--that is, the ones most likely to find jobs after college anyway.

The combination is really toxic. We send kids to the most expensive colleges possible, tacitly encourage them to take the past of least resistance (after all, an English degree is way easier than mechanical engineering, you should be more worried about your GPA than the usefulness of your degree, and any bachelor's degree will land you a good job after you graduate anyway), and then toss them into a job market which doesn't need them.

[Broomstick]

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.

That's because of our fucked up health "system", and the better prenatal care only applies to women who have decent, private insurance - which is getting to be a smaller slice of the pie.

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%.

Except women who start having children at 30 don't have them all at age 30. It is still better, biologically, for a woman to start having children in their 20's. Doesn't mean it's impossible to have them later - I'm a "late child" myself - but all other things being equal the 20's are better than the 30's from a physical standpoint.

You also seem to be assuming that any girl child (or indeed, any child) you have will want to pursue higher education, or have the capacity to pursue an advanced degree. That is not always the case. Have you considered what you would do it you had a child that simply did not have the mental power to be a PhD or pursue an intellectually demanding career?

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.

Ah yes - that's why my sister who was born when my mother was in her 20's has four degrees, including an MD, and the of two of us born past 30 one of us was broke and homeless earlier this year and little old me is currently living below the poverty line....

If you had expressed that scenario as "tendency" or "increases the chances" I would have let it slide, but no, it is not guaranteed.

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.

On the other hand, if she truly wants children as a major priority in life, and presuming she has a stable partner, I'd suggest informing her of the facts and suggesting she find a career of some sort with a short post-high school training requirement to establish some financial security in the form of a nest egg (they live on the partner's salary while banking hers), and strongly suggest that when her children are older that she return to school for more education and eventually a better career. Or make sure she understands she may need to be more frugal and/or accept a lower standard of living.

Being a parent should be seen as just as valuable as having a career, and taken just as seriously.

[Broomstick]

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.

Which is a goddamn shame - I've had three supervisors who are former military sergeants and they were awesome as people managers. MUCH better than the MBA brats I've encountered. While I doubt the quality of former sergeants is universal the military does seem to turn out some fine examples of such people.

[Broomstick]

I think mixing up the issues was bad for everyone. I don't have a lot of sympathy for university hobbyists who get non- or barely-functional degrees either (but then I can barely imagine doing so in the US where univesity is such an investment), but at least in AU being able to tick 'has tertiary qualification' does have SOME value, as many roles simply filter out non-graduates.

One of the problems is that in the US most decent jobs filter out non-graduates. So even a "barely functional" degree not only has value, it's almost mandatory if you want to be middle class.

Back when I went to college student debt was at least an order of magnitude less than it is today. The credit/loan industry at some point saw an opportunity in naive college students and started convincing them to take huge loans, and this was combined with an enormous rise in college tuition which soaks up the loan money. The amount I paid for my entire degree today would only buy a semester or two of college. The housing bubble has enormously inflated housing costs. Wages in some areas have, when adjusted for inflation, actually fallen these past 25 years.

The result was that when I left college (yes, with an art degree) I was able to get a job, and apartment (1 room studio), buy food, AND pay off my debts. Kids coming out of college today face starting wages only minimally higher than what I got, but are paying 4-5 times as much for housing and carrying 10 times the debt load. Thus, comparing their situation to the one I face at graduation is apples to oranges. Oh, additionally - I, too, graduated into a recession, but again, THIS recession is enormously more of a problem.

Unquestionably today's new college graduate is in a MUCH more difficult position than I was at the same age. Anyone who won't admit that has their head up their ass. In the US, with it's shit safety net, that leaves only a few alternatives:

- Become homeless
- Acquire as many roommates as possible and deal with the issues of communal living
- Live with family

Sorry, that's it. Pick one of the above.

That said, in AU it's not the huge investment it is in the US, so the scene is probably different.

As I said - a generation ago college was expensive, but one could realistically handle the expense, even if your family wasn't especially wealthy. A lot of people were able to get through it by working their asses off and graduated with either no debt or debt that could actually be handled on a $9-10/hour job with housing costs that were significantly lower. The current situation in untenable.

What Bass says is interesting; while my parents would have been fine to let me stay with them, I personally couldn't imagine doing so without contributing to the upkeep of the household. I think that's the real element of 'growing up' or 'independence'; being able to pay your own way. Buying a house is a big stretch for a lot of people, but staying at home isn't a way to avoid paying anything.

That's the key thing - contributing as an adult member of the household. When one of my sisters left college and came home to live the family again for awhile she entirely took care of her own expenses (transportation, etc.), paid a portion of the rent, and a portion of the food costs for the entire household. She had a job, she wasn't sitting around all day. In other words, she was conducting herself as an adult.

If I had an adult child in these times I would prefer them to be financially independent and on their own, but I wouldn't kick them out if they were having problems. I would expect them to contribute to the household - that means paying towards household expenses like housing costs, food, and utilities; if they don't have a job they must spend significant time each day looking for one; and they need to do a share of the household chores (cooking, cleaning, laundry, trash removal, etc.). They are no longer a child they are an adult and need to assume the responsibilities of an adult regardless of their financial circumstances.

[Tiriol]

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.

Which is a goddamn shame - I've had three supervisors who are former military sergeants and they were awesome as people managers. MUCH better than the MBA brats I've encountered. While I doubt the quality of former sergeants is universal the military does seem to turn out some fine examples of such people.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that in military, you actually have to lead the men and women under your command in practice, not just in theory. There lies the difficulty of academically teaching leadership and management skills: those skills are not easily teachable, since they rely much on experience, ability to communicate clearly, realiably and in terms everyone can understand. And this is why I chuckled a bit when I spotted a "management/leadership" specialization in the curriculum of Helsinki's School of Economics (an economic university) - these economic universities don't require work experience from their students, don't require "field training" and fixate on theory (sometimes to the detriment of practical side). This is the reason why I'm relatively happy with my NCO training back in the army and why I chose to apply for an university of APPLIED sciences: I take the view that practice and applying what you have learned are more important than economic models and theories concerning leading people in management and leadership. But for some time now the idea has been that university studies are EVERYTHING and if you don't enroll, you don't amount to, if I may be so rude, shit. And even then there's a huge in-fighting going on between higher education establishments which can be pretty vicious from time to time.

Of course, I probably got shafted anyway, since universities of applied sciences are sometimes considered to be a bit of a joke (not REAL universities, since, you know, they are more work-oriented than the academic universities) and their graduates (bachelors of business administration, IT administration etc.) to be less qualified and less intelligent than the ones who graduated from economic and scientific universities. There is SOME truth to that, since Finns usually go straight for their master's degrees while universities of applied sciences require hopeful graduate students to have enough work experience in the field of their study before letting them enroll, so most remain "bachelors" when compared to the "masters of economics", despite the very real chance of the BBA being more qualified to be a manager or all around leader than the person who got his master's degree in an economic university in leadership and management skills and who has no experience in leading people whatsoever. This is why I honestly hope to get into a "real" academic university to study in addition to my applied science university. Besides, it won't probably hurt if I have, say, a degree in history in case my BBA won't do squat or other way around.

But considering how hard the current situation is all around, I'm honestly pleased with my own situation: I have more money than I STRICTLY need (if I would go on basic needs alone), I have a job, a place to study, a chance to join the military as a paid NCO or to enroll to the cadet school, my own (rent apartment) and sometimes even time for some hobbies (not that much, admittedly...). However, it did require a stroke of luck (in the form of my apartment) and honest-to-God work. It isn't easy to pull 80-hours work weeks (school + job) from time to time.

[Cairber]

Another problem with the "don't have kids until 30" idea is that, while 30 only shows modest increases in chromosomal abnormalities, once you hit 35 it basically sky rockets. So if it generally takes 6months to 1 year to conceive and a pregnancy is 9 months long and breastfeeding inhibits ovulation for a further 6 months...well, it would be tough to have more than one well-spaced child without hitting that 35 zone.

But I may be biased . I like being a young mom and I have a very successful husband and the opportunity to work part time now and go into owning my own business once the kids are in school (taking over karate school I teach at now). I guess my own experience leads me to feel that kids before 30 are not an immediate poverty sentence or the like. But it was hard at first I admit, but now we are in a great situation through a lot of hard work, debt busting, etc.


On kids at home...

I've read this entire thread and I cannot decide how I would feel about my kids wanting to live with me after college. Obviously, like Red said, I would never want them sleeping under a bridge and eating in soup kitchens. I suppose I would feel OK with the situation if they were contributing to bills and actively seeking to better themselves.