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

[ray245]

Then you completely missed my whole fucking point, since I didn't make that claim.

Then if majority of people would not stay with their parents on a permanent basis just because they lived with them in their early twenties, then what's so bad about that idea?

[General Zod]

Then you completely missed my whole fucking point, since I didn't make that claim.

Then if majority of people would not stay with their parents on a permanent basis just because they lived with them in their early twenties, then what's so bad about that idea?

Because for most people in a western society, unless there's mitigating circumstances, it's going to be viewed as a liability and a sign that you're not capable of taking care of yourself the majority of the time. As has been mentioned numerous times.

[Knife]

Then you completely missed my whole fucking point, since I didn't make that claim.

Then if majority of people would not stay with their parents on a permanent basis just because they lived with them in their early twenties, then what's so bad about that idea?

An undo burden on their parents forcing them to play parent and primary care giver long after they should have to. Some people might actually want that, others may not want it but it's their kid what the hell else are they going to do, others might resent the hell out of it.

[Lonestar]

Not another Strawman fallacy again.

No one here is ever arguing for living with parents on a permanent basis.

No, just making allusions to "until I'm in a better case financially", which is stupid. One can ALWAYS make the "i need to be in a better case financially" argument. There is no exit strategy.

Not "some". The "sample set". Destructionator countered that it's perfectly possible to contribute one's fair share of the household expenses and save money (which should be obvious anyway, or else it wouldn't ever make sense to take on roommates), and therefore, it is not reasonable to infer that the entire sample set isn't paying its fair share. I don't know if the data exists to prove anything either way; so far, this entire tangent has been dueling anecdotes, so it certainly hasn't been presented in this thread.

I would be greatly surprised if the 1/3-under-35 crowd living with mom and dad are paying signifigantly into the household in the numbers that Destructionator is talking. Especially if(presumably) the household is a place where you grew up and your parents were already paying for all the living expenses when you were a minor/in college.

After my medical discharge I moved back in with my mom, all our funds is in a communal bank account between my mom, sister, and myself.

And? After I got out I lived with my mother for 8 months while transitioning between military and civilian. I had already planned to stay for no more than a year(some of the dudes in the MESS will know what I'm talking about). It wasn't some nebulous "I'll move out when I'm in a better financial situation" that everyone is talking about here.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Then you completely missed my whole fucking point, since I didn't make that claim.

Then if majority of people would not stay with their parents on a permanent basis just because they lived with them in their early twenties, then what's so bad about that idea?

An undo burden on their parents forcing them to play parent and primary care giver long after they should have to. Some people might actually want that, others may not want it but it's their kid what the hell else are they going to do, others might resent the hell out of it.

Already fucking addressed several pages ago in the goddamn thread. Bloody hell the wall of ignorance is getting thick. Once more, somehow it works reasonably well in the rest of the world without a significant percentage of people leeching off their parents.

Okay, so since people are throwing out generalities, let's see what we have here. According to 'American Exceptionalism Lol!', the US is so horribly dramatically different from almost all other cultures that:

- It can't have gays in the military because society would break down due to the views of homophobes.
- It can't have universal health care because society would break down due to pity for the poor insurance corps.
- It can't have harsher anti-smoking laws because society would break down due to the actions of militant smokers.
- It can't discard its Victorian sexual mindset because society would break down due to the prudish.
- It can't have successful, communal family living situations because it's not 'Rugged Independence!'

At what point will people realize that if all the above is true and the US culture is physically incapable of bettering itself because of it, that it means the culture as a whole is fucking broken and needs an overhaul?

[RazorOutlaw]

This thread is a lot to take in. It's some parts shocking, revealing, and intriguing. But then, I'm naive.

My father and I got into an argument this past summer. We almost never argue, we've never really raised our voices at each other. When it did happen it was quite a shock, but only later, after the heat of the moment. That very night I came home after work and I had forgot to buy something that he wanted me to buy. He asked for his money back, and when I handed it to him he snatched it out of my hand and hissed something like "I ask you to do one simple thing..." at which point I told him I had a job to do. If I was busy, as I was that night, I couldn't set aside time to find him what he wanted and buy it. Then we both exploded at each other in anger and argued for almost a half an hour. At one point he said "You're 23! I don't have to mollycoddle you, you can move out!"

And it's true, I'm 23 and still at home, although I'm still attending college because I switched schools and switched majors. I wasn't sure -how- long I was going to be at home after I graduated (it might have been longer if I wanted to pursue a BS now) but the moment he said that I knew I couldn't stay around much longer. He was right. I'm older than my brother and still at home. He's moved out (albeit with his girlfriend and then infant son). He's budgeting himself, keeping track of bills, and raising a wonderful child. He's that much more responsible than I am and I know it. I also know that the moment I graduate and have some kind of degree that I am going to find a full-time job and move out. My dad convinced me in that single moment he later apologized for. Just as I had wanted to learn to buy my own things and keep after my own car my freshman year of college I now want to have to budget myself and live away from my parents on my own. Even if my next job is only marginally better than my current one I don't care. It'll be something. If life is shit for a while then that's my problem, right?

EDIT:
Also I guess one of the managers at my workplace is also a bit of an inspiration. His mother made him want to leave his home, so at age 18 he joined the military, worked for U.S. Army Intellgience, they paid for his college, and even as he was pursuing his BS in Math (?) at a local university he was working 40 hours a week. Later he became a district manager for the company he worked at so...life was good. Extenuating circumstances have drastically changed his situation but he's basically a showcase for hard work. He doesn't understand how some people can't juggle a full-time job and school although he'll grant, if you press him, that everybody is different and has varying degrees of ability.

[ray245]

Not another Strawman fallacy again.

No one here is ever arguing for living with parents on a permanent basis.

No, just making allusions to "until I'm in a better case financially", which is stupid. One can ALWAYS make the "i need to be in a better case financially" argument. There is no exit strategy.

Then explain to me how come a large majority of people in other societies that allows you to live with your parents while you are in your early 20s would leave their parent house by the time they are in their late 20s?

People are capable of making an exit strategy in many other societies, so why the bloody hell do you still making that argument again and again?

If life is shit for a while then that's my problem, right?

If the child wants to live on his own, then I would not oppose him. What we are saying however, is the fact that the option does not need to be forced onto a person who is only in his early twenties.

[General Zod]

Then explain to me how come a large majority of people in other societies that allows you to live with your parents while you are in your early 20s would leave their parent house by the time they are in their late 20s?

Turns out different societies handle things differently?

[Cairber]

I could see having your kids being in your house until their late 20s as being pretty hard financially. You can't even downsize your house; I know that, when our kids move out, we will probably want to move into a house with maybe one guest room in a place where we don't have to pay out the ass in school taxes (many people choose pricey districts because they offer a better education). But if we had to have all three of them in the house with us until their late 20s, that would be difficult.

I can see it working, but I can also see why parents would not want their kids around into their late 20s.

Plus, by their 20s, I am pretty sure V and I would like some total privacy in our house

[RazorOutlaw]

If the child wants to live on his own, then I would not oppose him. What we are saying however, is the fact that the option does not need to be forced onto a person who is only in his early twenties.

I suppose it would depend on why, someone in his early twenties, is still at home. As "they" have said, if you're in college that's "ok" or if there's some other extenuating circumstance then you're not at fault. But if you're capable of holding a job and the only thing holding you back is you, because you don't want to or you're too afraid to try, then why should any mercy be taken on you? For instance if push came to shove and I couldn't sustain myself on my own I would really consider joining the military or some kind of -corps. Why should I run back to my parents or choose to stay sheltered at home? To be honest I would be scared shitless if I got to that point, it's easy for me to say "yeah I'll do it" because I have good enough reason to still be at home, and I would likely take a while to come a decision. I'm sure I'd do SOMETHING eventually, however. Not prostitution though, that would be a bit much.

[Uraniun235]

At what point will people realize that if all the above is true and the US culture is physically incapable of bettering itself because of it, that it means the culture as a whole is fucking broken and needs an overhaul?

You think it isn't broken?

[Aaron]

If the child wants to live on his own, then I would not oppose him. What we are saying however, is the fact that the option does not need to be forced onto a person who is only in his early twenties.

Ray, folks (myself included) have said time and time again in this thread that we don't intend to "force" anyone out of the house. They can go if they can support themselves, none of my Mess brothers in this thread would be so heartless as to boot a kid out at an arbitrary age. That said, at some point it would be nice if they did leave, cause as Cairber says it would be nice to have some complete and total privacy in the house.

Already fucking addressed several pages ago in the goddamn thread. Bloody hell the wall of ignorance is getting thick. Once more, somehow it works reasonably well in the rest of the world without a significant percentage of people leeching off their parents.

Okay, so since people are throwing out generalities, let's see what we have here. According to 'American Exceptionalism Lol!', the US is so horribly dramatically different from almost all other cultures that:

- It can't have gays in the military because society would break down due to the views of homophobes.
- It can't have universal health care because society would break down due to pity for the poor insurance corps.
- It can't have harsher anti-smoking laws because society would break down due to the actions of militant smokers.
- It can't discard its Victorian sexual mindset because society would break down due to the prudish.
- It can't have successful, communal family living situations because it's not 'Rugged Independence!'

At what point will people realize that if all the above is true and the US culture is physically incapable of bettering itself because of it, that it means the culture as a whole is fucking broken and needs an overhaul?

I don't want to get in a pissing match with you dude, but I'd like to point out that I'm not a Yank. And that the lack of all those factors up in the Great White North is a factor in favour of kids moving out. Not having to worry about the BS health care in the US means that if they get seriously injured or sick, they will not be destitute.

I suppose it would depend on why, someone in his early twenties, is still at home. As "they" have said, if you're in college that's "ok" or if there's some other extenuating circumstance then you're not at fault. But if you're capable of holding a job and the only thing holding you back is you, because you don't want to or you're too afraid to try, then why should any mercy be taken on you? For instance if push came to shove and I couldn't sustain myself on my own I would really consider joining the military or some kind of -corps. Why should I run back to my parents or choose to stay sheltered at home? To be honest I would be scared shitless if I got to that point, it's easy for me to say "yeah I'll do it" because I have good enough reason to still be at home, and I would likely take a while to come a decision. I'm sure I'd do SOMETHING eventually, however. Not prostitution though, that would be a bit much.

Bingo, that is what we have been saying.

[Lonestar]

Then explain to me how come a large majority of people in other societies that allows you to live with your parents while you are in your early 20s would leave their parent house by the time they are in their late 20s?


People are capable of making an exit strategy in many other societies, so why the bloody hell do you still making that argument again and again?

Listen, you dummy, and listen very carefully: AT NO POINT in this thread have those of us saying it's unhealthy for people in the early(mid/late) 20s to live at home, dependent upon specific conditions. I've explicitly mentioned college as a good reason, and I suspect that if Kendall or Knife's kids got into a university down the road they might even insist that they remain at home, because they do not want to foot the extra costs for dorms, I know I would. I also accept that sometimes you transition or you might have an immediate economic problem.

It's when you live from ages 1-late 20s(or 35, as in the OP) at home that it becomes bad. It encourages a mindset that you can always go home and mooch off of mom and dad. The fact that the "1/3 under 35 living with their folks" in this country coincidentally means they are the children of one of the most affluent generations, leads me to make a reasonable inference that a goodly portion, even a majority, of that under-35 crowd don't want to leave because it would mean an abrupt decrease in the amenities that they are accustomed too, rather than actual unhealthy living conditions.

If the child wants to live on his own, then I would not oppose him. What we are saying however, is the fact that the option does not need to be forced onto a person who is only in his early twenties.

You have absolutely no reading comprehension skills, do you? Go back and look through my posts.

Note that on occasion I bold or underline a statement. This means that I am emphasizing a point that in previous posts you seemed to have missed.

[Aaron]

Listen, you dummy, and listen very carefully: AT NO POINT in this thread have those of us saying it's unhealthy for people in the early(mid/late) 20s to live at home, dependent upon specific conditions. I've explicitly mentioned college as a good reason, and I suspect that if Kendall or Knife's kids got into a university down the road they might even insist that they remain at home, because they do not want to foot the extra costs for dorms, I know I would. I also accept that sometimes you transition or you might have an immediate economic problem.

Oh, we would. Were there a University that was within a reasonable commute, unfortunately there is not. Personally I would prefer them to take a trade instead of going to Uni but that is there call to make. If they had to move away and live in dorms I would even consider helping them out with food or dorm costs.

[Knife]

Already fucking addressed several pages ago in the goddamn thread. Bloody hell the wall of ignorance is getting thick. Once more, somehow it works reasonably well in the rest of the world without a significant percentage of people leeching off their parents.

lol, that evidence has not been shown, except in anecdotal means from *gasp* college kids living with their parents.

Okay, so since people are throwing out generalities, let's see what we have here. According to 'American Exceptionalism Lol!', the US is so horribly dramatically different from almost all other cultures that:

- It can't have gays in the military because society would break down due to the views of homophobes.
- It can't have universal health care because society would break down due to pity for the poor insurance corps.
- It can't have harsher anti-smoking laws because society would break down due to the actions of militant smokers.
- It can't discard its Victorian sexual mindset because society would break down due to the prudish.
- It can't have successful, communal family living situations because it's not 'Rugged Independence!'

Wow, it must have hurt shitting out all those red herrings. You might want to go see a doctor about that.

At what point will people realize that if all the above is true and the US culture is physically incapable of bettering itself because of it, that it means the culture as a whole is fucking broken and needs an overhaul?

If you want to throw a shitfit over those issues, start a new thread. No where in this thread has anyone addressed the burden on the parents for having Jr. live with them till they are thirty fucking five. Here you go kiddo, I don't want my kids here when they are 35. I might want to wonder around in my boxers, fuck my wife without first figuring out where they are in the house and have my wife muffle her moans as she gets off. I might want to buy a smaller house, out of suburbia, and have a car that seats two instead of five. I might want to do all that and sentence my poor 35 year old child to watch tv in his own shitty apartment on his own shitty 19 inch tv instead of my larger screen.

None of you kids have in any way addressed that point and instead want to keep the focus on mom and pa will gladly have me till [insert some vague reason] till I leave. Of fucking course they will, they're your damn parents. None of you, though, have seriously explored the possibility that they really don't want to in your rush to find justification for your own self interest. Sure, this idea has self interest too, the parents. I mentioned that self interest in my first couple posts on the subject..

[ArmorPierce]

Why would I be against UHC?

Forgotten what you said?

Laws are derived from morals.

That was your one line response to my assertion that there is a moral responsibility from the parents to the kids past the age of 18. Under current laws if you don't got insurance and can't pay for treatment, you're fucked, you don't get treatment until it's an emergency. Running with that logic, the law is perfectly moral because laws are derived from our morals.

What bad behavior is being enabled by having a kid stay home? I could understand if the kid was a complete bum doing nothing... you are stating that a child staying home into his 20s is a failure of a human being. WHY? Saving money on unnecessary things is bad? Is your world completely backwards where saving money is seen as a negative?! It's what more people should do. Your kind of thinking is why the average debt in America is well into the thousands range.

I've already mentioned a few caveats to MEN staying at home in their 20s. Sometimes shit happens, roger that.[/quote]

Firstly, what is the difference between MEN or women staying home in their 20s?

Your caveats seems to exclude: being poor, trying to become financially stable, it being the social norm and perfectly acceptable in your culture. From your posts in response to my living situation, your beliefs on living your parents is basically "Don't want to move out because you're poor? Then you are just a lazy over-privileged failure of a human being. Being barely able to afford to pay rent, food, loans, etc or not extenuating circumstances."

People from different cultures than your own where it is a social norm to live with your parents into your adulthood are failures of human beings? I explained that my parent's are from such a culture and their culture and beliefs have been partially instilled onto me. So other people's cultural beliefs are bad and the wrong way to do things but yours is the right and good way of doing things despite you being unable to prove to me that Americans living in this sort of culture is so much better off than their equivalents from other countries?

Staying home indefinitely, however, just teaches the children that they can camp out at mom and dad's indefinitely. I don't believe for a moment that a majority of the "1/3 under 35" in the OP staying home are paying into maintaining the household in any significant manner. They are just being leeches on their extended family so they can go spend their money for their own enjoyment, not "saving money".

(I might add that if they were "Saving money" they weren't paying into the household all that much. And no, doing the dishes while living rent-free doesn't count)

Here again you confirming that "saving money" is not a good reason to live home. Show me why.

Show me the evidence that majority of people staying home are being taught that they can just stooge off their parents forever. You do realize that having several people living under the same roof is far more economical than spreading out and the costs of doing such does not increase so much, right?

As long as we're trading anecdotal stories, every single person I've met that stays at home are social defects who can't cut the strings and have never assumed direct responsibility for anything significant.

Aw yes. I guess that you missed the fact that I intentionally used an anecdote as a counter argument to your beliefs that are based purely on anecdotes and your gut feeling.

You are so full of shit. Joined the military? Job corps? Americorps/Peacecorps? Did an internship between semesters? Grad student? I can think of users ON THIS BOARD who tried one or the other(or a combination thereof) of the above, and they did it without staying at mommy and daddy's.

Alright here you go making a bunch of assumptions. I worked 25 hours during the school year and full time during the summer while taking upwards of 21 credits in order to graduate as soon as possible with paying as little money as possible. How else would I be able to pay for school and expenseson my own when I'm from a poor family dumb ass? Why else do I have loans?

I am saving up money in order to take the review classes and the exams that for my field and am planning on pursuing a grad degree even though it is not necessary (or even affects your marketability at all) in the field that I am interested in pursuing.

Explaining that even though your anecdotes may have been just as bad that it is statistically worse for the general population of young people than it had been for previous generations in the latter part of the 20th century.

Is that the sound of a violin I hear playing?[/quote]

You don't care that things are rougher for college graduates than it ever was before, believe me, I get it.

Again you make all these statements like they are facts with out any supporting evidence. So every where else in the world where kids stay with their parents well into their adulthood is the norm are failures?

Congrats on failing to repeatably ignore the caveats I've thrown in there, helping out with college/making a transition etc. Isn't bad. It's this permanent living-at-home mentality that is. Especially when you have ambiguous benchmarks for when to leave. [/quote]

responded above and here's a quote of mine that was another reason that you didn't find good enough

I have barely seen any of this huge pressure to move out as soon as possible and only have encountered one girl who actually have a problem with this. 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).

]Pooling in resources all the while increasing your marketability is a bad thing?[/quote]
Buddy, there is nothing you have said that indicates you are taking part in a resource pool to increase you're marketability. You've made vague allusions to staying at home so you could afford to pay for your own health insurance.[/quote]

You are either a liar or stupid.

Why would I move out when I can save my financial resources and pay off things like school debt. I'm not going to move out until I am financially able to live comfortably. To do otherwise when you don't need to is stupid and is the reason why many people have to end up moving back with mommie and daddie more broke than when they left.

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.

I did not make reference to my health insurance situation until after you called me out. I used it as an example... an example that don't apply to me because I don't have health insurance (well I got school health insurance still but that about to expire).

If the lion's share of your monthly revenue is NOT going into your household, then you ARE having a largely parasitic relationship with your parents.

That's between the parents and the kids isn't it? I am planning on paying them back by taking care of them in the future, again, as I have stated previously.

As I stated above

out do realize that having several people living under the same roof is far more economical than spreading out and the costs of doing such does not increase so much, right?

You do realize that the current economic crisis is in a large part due to just that, right?People leaving home as soon as possible instead of pooling in their resources and going on to buy houses that they could not afford on their own.

(1)You seem deadset on ignoring the caveats that myself, Kendall, and others are throwing into the thread. AT NO POINT have we suggested to kick children out at the first opportunity. Not once in the fucking thread.[/quote]

No you didn't, you just stated that the kids were failure of human beings and your caveats if you go by how you called me out seems to be about non-existent. Go ahead and back pedal if you want

(2)AT NO POINT in this thread have we been proposing that kids "kicked out" should go off and buy gi-normous McMansions they can't afford. A few of us have even noted that we lived in shitty apartments in our early 20s(in my case, shitty barracks and open bay berthing on a ship), and bummer. Sometimes we can't all sit around praying for that magical 6-figure income to drop in our laps while freeloading off of mom.

No you didn't, you suggested that kids moving out of their house magically instilled some knowledge that is better than the knowledge that they may gain at home when this is demonstrably not true

Please show me your evidence that if people stayed home things would be worse. No anecdotes this time because that's worth shit. Anyway you can continue screeching about 'young people these days' when it was the baby boomers living in excess that caused the troubles that we are facing today and young people are disproportionately facing.

Are you honestly saying I can't reach a reasonable inference that the"1/3 of people under the age of 35 living with the folks", the progeny of one of the most financial successful generations in the history of this country, have a serious entitlement complex?[/quote]

So your argument is "Some people exploit their parents by staying home, hence they are all losers and should all move out. Doing otherwise makes you a failure of a human being."

And I'm not a baby-boomer, I'm 27. Dumbass.

Congratualtions, you got me

[Big Phil]

Here again you confirming that "saving money" is not a good reason to live home. Show me why.

Show me the evidence that majority of people staying home are being taught that they can just stooge off their parents forever. You do realize that having several people living under the same roof is far more economical than spreading out and the costs of doing such does not increase so much, right?

Do us all a favor so we can stop wasting time on this. Show me evidence that the parents of adult children living at home are generally saving money by having their children living with them, and that it's not just the adult children who are saving money. In other words, show me that this is happening on a wide scale (families living communally so they all save money), rather than your own personal anecdote.

[ArmorPierce]

Here again you confirming that "saving money" is not a good reason to live home. Show me why.

Show me the evidence that majority of people staying home are being taught that they can just stooge off their parents forever. You do realize that having several people living under the same roof is far more economical than spreading out and the costs of doing such does not increase so much, right?

Do us all a favor so we can stop wasting time on this. Show me evidence that the parents of adult children living at home are generally saving money by having their children living with them, and that it's not just the adult children who are saving money. In other words, show me that this is happening on a wide scale (families living communally so they all save money), rather than your own personal anecdote.

It definitely is more economical if you view the family as a unit rather than an assortment of individuals. I do, my family does. Not everyone does.If someone that sees a family as an assortment of individuals and split up costs such as that, then they would indeed be saving money. My argument is over classifying a large group of people (particularly me in this thread as I've been called out in name as one) as 'failures of human beings' because under your personal belief system on family and individuals it is so and the arguments that support your beliefs are nothing but anecdotes.

[AniThyng]

lol, that evidence has not been shown, except in anecdotal means from *gasp* college kids living with their parents.

Since Oni explicitly mentioned "the rest of the world", in East Asia it is not considered unusual for someone in his 20's and working to be staying with their parents. It's not by all means universal, and people do move out for whatever reason (marriage, desire for freedom, job out of town, etc.). The logic that it makes more financial sense to pool resources rather then duplicating them, and doing so with family rather then strangers is still sound. The major difference I suppose is that while in NA this is something only fat jobless nerds do, in Asia it's something a broad segment of people do, not just the fat jobless nerds, which obviously still exist.

[Surlethe]

At what point will people realize that if all the above is true and the US culture is physically incapable of bettering itself because of it, that it means the culture as a whole is fucking broken and needs an overhaul?

You think it isn't broken?

How does one fix a broken culture?

[Stark]

Social, economic or demographic pressure? The US has been pretty culturally conservative for some time. I'm not even sure what the word for the kind of pressures exerted since the 30s to make sure things/values/etc remain the same would be.

[Big Phil]

Here again you confirming that "saving money" is not a good reason to live home. Show me why.

Show me the evidence that majority of people staying home are being taught that they can just stooge off their parents forever. You do realize that having several people living under the same roof is far more economical than spreading out and the costs of doing such does not increase so much, right?

Do us all a favor so we can stop wasting time on this. Show me evidence that the parents of adult children living at home are generally saving money by having their children living with them, and that it's not just the adult children who are saving money. In other words, show me that this is happening on a wide scale (families living communally so they all save money), rather than your own personal anecdote.

It definitely is more economical if you view the family as a unit rather than an assortment of individuals. I do, my family does. Not everyone does.If someone that sees a family as an assortment of individuals and split up costs such as that, then they would indeed be saving money. My argument is over classifying a large group of people (particularly me in this thread as I've been called out in name as one) as 'failures of human beings' because under your personal belief system on family and individuals it is so and the arguments that support your beliefs are nothing but anecdotes.

No argument that it's more economical. However, just because five people live together under the same roof doesn't mean that they're all contributing equally (or even proportionally to their income) to the maintenance of the household. I don't believe for one second that the examples in the OP are contributing equitably to their parents' household expenses; in my personal (anecdotal) experience, people I know who live at home might pay for their own food, but usually don't pay the mortgage, taxes, utilities, etc., and that's why I'm asking for non-anecdotal evidence that adults living with their parents are actually contributing equally (or proportionally) to the household... if they're not, they're just mooching, cultural differences aside.

EDIT: to add one additional point, according to the survey (page 15) 52% of young workers living with their parents make less than $30K per year. Based on this, one could make a good argument that they're probably NOT contributing equally to household expenses, particularly if they're paying off expensive student loans or credit card debt.

[Big Phil]

Social, economic or demographic pressure? The US has been pretty culturally conservative for some time. I'm not even sure what the word for the kind of pressures exerted since the 30s to make sure things/values/etc remain the same would be.

Dude, things have been culturally conservative since the Pilgrims...

[Stark]

From my limited understanding of US history, it seems that while 'conservative' it at least changed over time, whereas it seems there's a very powerful 'anti-progressive' movement and has been for most of last century. Ignoring pressures that might drive social change seems to be common, but I'm not sure it's a great idea. To answer Surlethe's question I' not sure what kind of 'trigger' would make the US more responsive.

[aerius]

No argument that it's more economical. However, just because five people live together under the same roof doesn't mean that they're all contributing equally (or even proportionally to their income) to the maintenance of the household. I don't believe for one second that the examples in the OP are contributing equitably to their parents' household expenses; in my personal (anecdotal) experience, people I know who live at home might pay for their own food, but usually don't pay the mortgage, taxes, utilities, etc., and that's why I'm asking for non-anecdotal evidence that adults living with their parents are actually contributing equally (or proportionally) to the household... if they're not, they're just mooching, cultural differences aside.

Why would you expect the kids to be contributing equally to the household? Does your wife contribute equally to the household? Does the average wife? What about proportionally? If not, then why would you expect the kids to do so?