15 ms·

Who Lives with Their Parents?

guessmyname 10y ago
This is interesting considering all the empty space available in the US compared with countries like Japan where it is more common to find people in their 30s still living with their parents even if they are married, and it is not weird at all, it is as normal as you can get considering the space available for housing.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  >Japan where it is more common to find people in their 30s still living with their parents even if they are married This is driven chiefly by their confucian societal value system rather than economics though. The wives (who are almost always the ones who have to "move in" to the family) mostly hate the experience. Living with family while single (regardless of age or gender, but especially if you are female, since gender equality in the workplace still has a long way to go) on the other hand is primarily economically driven.
  - mc32 10y ago
    You also have the "lost generation" of herbivore men, "parasite-singles" and housebound otakus who contribute to lots of stay-at-home-beyond-the-expiry-(grown)children precipitated by a tepid economy.
  - hasenj 10y ago
    I think your are mistaken. Living with one's parents in most parts of the world is just the default thing to do. The whole concept of moving out for no reason at all is super weird and confusing for most cultures, and borders on a sense of abandoning one's parents.
    - mamon 10y ago
      That's true for young and single. Default thing to do when getting married is to move out.
      - hasenj 10y ago
        Not necessarily. At least in Arab countries people used to get married in their parents' home. The wife would move in to the house of the husband's parents.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  > it is as normal as you can get considering the space available for housing Which is heavily dependent on housing regulations.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > Why It’s So Hard to Build Affordable Housing: It’s Not Affordable > Developers struggle to break even on rental projects for the poorest Americans. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-26/why-it-s-so-hard-to-build-affordable-housing-it-s-not-affordable https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-26/why-it-s-... This is without even discussing the macroeconomic effects of central banks attempting stimulus by printing money, driving up asset values artificially. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-chart-20 http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-c... "WHAT a difference a decade makes. In 2006 house prices in America hit an all-time high, after rising unabated for the previous ten years. The crash that followed brought the entire global financial system to its knees. As our cover leader this week explains, despite efforts to fix the plumbing of the American mortgage market, housing in the United States remains a dangerous menace to the world economy. In the meantime property prices in the country, underpinned by low interest rates, forge ahead. On average, American home prices have recovered nearly all their losses from the 2006 crash, but when adjusted for inflation they are still 20% below the 2006 peak."
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    I'm curious where the profits accrue in the real-estate industry. It's a manufacturing industry where we have relatively advanced machinery to build the houses themselves; you'd think that the cost of housing would have dropped the way, say, cars or silicon has. But it hasn't: the price of housing has largely been flat or increased. Usually when this happens, it's because there is some monopoly scarcity in the value-chain that allows the producer at that level to reap large profits, eg. Microsoft and Intel in the desktop software value chain, or Apple in the mobile ecosystem. I'd thought that real-estate developers were that scarcity in the housing value chain, but this article suggests that they struggle to break even. Who is it? Construction and real-estate brokers can make a lot in boom times, but they tend to lose it to the cyclical nature of the real-estate industry, so I don't normally think of them as the ones getting rich. Is it Caterpillar, making the heavy equipment used by construction? Land owners, who can keep land supply off the market? (But then, the price of raw unimproved land basically tracks inflation, indicating a competitive market.) Property managers? Is there artificial scarcity enforced by transportation infrastructure - the article indicated that one of the developer's primary constraints was the need to build near light rail?
- bigdubs 10y ago
  I don't particularly want to live in the middle of a corn-field though, I want to live near my friends, and live near other stuff that we're all into, which means cities, which means smaller areas.
  - mc32 10y ago
    But people don't have to clump only in megacities. They can clump in midsized cities throughout the Midwest and elsewhere. There is no reason there can't be more Portlands or Minneapolises in the Midwest, for example. You take all those 2,500 to 40,000 communities and build around one or the other and soak up the surrounding communities to make bigger and richer communities.
    - sporkenfang 10y ago
      That sounds wonderful. Just as soon as you pry the car culture and suburbs from the hands of the folks who live in say Kansas and enjoy the status quo...
      - nocman 10y ago
        Not everyone who lives in the U. S. wants to live in a city. Are you suggesting we should give up our right to chose where we want to live so you can have more small cities?
        dublinben 10y ago
        There is every indication that more people would like to live in cities, but can't afford to.
        ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        Pittsburg seems nice enough but seems to be pretty reasonable. Dallas? I'd say very nice, with a mix of suburbs and city spaces and a much nicer set of roads and light rail than was there in the 1980s. Perhaps there is compromise? Perhaps this is really only a real problem in SanFran and NYC. Even NYC has The Bronx and good rail service.
- ksec 10y ago
  The first thing to solve ANY problem is to recognize there is a problem. So the biggest problem is the government does NOT think there is a problem. And those people should try and work EVEN harder to afford a basic housing or mortgage.
- chongli 10y ago
  There's lots of empty space in Japan, too. Whole villages are being abandoned to the point where they're taking stops off the train lines. The problem is that only retired people want to live in rural Japan, everybody else goes to the big city to work.
- sean_patel 10y ago
  > more common to find people in their 30s still living with their parents India also. I visited a few years ago and was totally "wierded out". They call it "Joint family" there. Several cousins and uncles living under the same roof. Lots of drama in the kitchen :)
- Shivetya 10y ago
  well the Federal government allow owns nearly thirty percent of the land area of the United States, it is particularly high in many Western States which adversely affects availability on the West Coast versus the East. I find the living with parents issue to be an odd one because the period where that wasn't the case doesn't seem to be so long ago. There is a strong push toward independence of self in the US and that may have pushed people to seek their own homes a lot earlier than elsewhere but to sustain that needs a vibrant economy up and down the economic scale. To get back to that would require lessening the burden of regulation and taxation, something never happening in Japan and resulting in their stagnation for decades. You cannot spend borrowed money for so long to get out of the rut
- freyir 10y ago
  It's normal to live with your parents into your 30s in many countries. Italy, for example. People often wait until they can buy their own house to move out.
  - herbst 10y ago
    Exactly. No point in trying to find a cheap place just because when you can actually save the money and move to a great place as soon as it makes sense for you. I dont get the mindset at all. I dont want to live in a shitty small apartment or something shared with strangers just _because_.
    - megablast 10y ago
      You don't like your own independence? Living with other people your own age?
      - herbst 10y ago
        This is exactly the mindset i dont understand. > You don't like your own independence? i dont see how this is in conflict with living with my parents. > Living with other people your own age? Nope. Done that, wont do again. Disclaimer: I dont live with my parents anymore but wouldnt mind going back. My parents are also cool, its respectfully living together, more than i ever had when living with people my age.
        hobo_mark 10y ago
        You must have had cool parents then, but this is far from being the norm.
simonebrunozzi 10y ago
Curious to hear the "why" too - I assume mostly for economical reasons, but details would be interesting.
- itg 10y ago
  yeah a number of my south asian and east asian friends have good jobs but stay at home with their parents if they live close by.
- aianus 10y ago
  I find it really depressing to live alone. I wish we had love hotels in the west like they do in Asia so you can have a girlfriend without paying $1100 a month to come home to an empty house after work.
  - superuser2 10y ago
    I find it really depressing to live with roommates. I spend 8+ hours a day in an open office subject to other people's opinions (and carelessness) about what should enter my ears. To endure that and then come home to someone watching TV or on the phone is literally hell. I've traded away 3+ hours/day of free time to the commute so that in the little free time I have left, I get to choose the ambient noise. At least in college, the library was a short walk and open late. There are no quiet indoor public spaces open after work, sadly.
    - poikniok 10y ago
      Is such a long commute necessary? Are you in the bay area and can't afford to live closer?
      - superuser2 10y ago
        Yeah, it's the Bay Area. East Bay to SF. There are things other than roommates I could compromise on in order to live closer or go faster (standing on crowded, lurching public transit vehicles, sqft, building quality, neighborhood safety, savings %, entertainment and travel spend), but my current situation (90 minutes each way, but by pleasant means - bicycle and ferry) seems to be the least bad option for my tastes.
Taniwha 10y ago
the thing they didn't explain was how they distinguished between people who live with their parents (in their parent's home) and people whose parents have moved in with them. Of course traditionally the eldest son inherited the house (and the fields) and the supported their grandparents in their old age in the same house. China has a unique problem in this respect, retirement essentially consists of the eldest son inheriting the house and supporting his parents (who look after the grandkids). The one child policy means that when a couple marry and have a kid they end up with two sets of parents wanting to move in with the newly married couple, vying to look after the one kid and be supported in their old age. You can see why people have quietly been having more than one kid where they can
- gozur88 10y ago
  >the thing they didn't explain was how they distinguished between people who live with their parents (in their parent's home) and people whose parents have moved in with them. Because they didn't make that distinction: >Yet, some who live at home make a wage that should allow them to live independently. Like the older groups in our age analysis, these high earners could be older adults in established households who live with elderly parents to provide, not receive, support.
  - davidgay 10y ago
    My handwavy evaluation of the data says that 3% are "people whose parents moved in with them" - this is based on the "Annual Income" graph which basically bottoms out at 3%. And it's consistent with the Age graph, which also bottoms out around 3% except for people above 53 (53+30=83, so a lot of those parents are in a high-mortality age). So just subtract 3% from all numbers, where that makes sense of course...
baccheion 10y ago
I live with my mother (oh so f*cking cliche-- for a nerd), but as that's due to mental illness (though I think someone did and is doing this to me), I don't think I'm what's being talked about. If it made strong sense to live with my mother, rather than on my own, then I'd have done so. How it's perceived by others is irrelevant to me. That said, I can't think when I'm not living by myself and I have difficulties getting along with my mother, so this would've never been an option for me. It's bad enough that I'd be better off alone in a high crime, run down, low cost area than with others in an upper class neighborhood. If many are still living with their parents, then it implies the recession of 2009 is still inflicting damage, but what's annoying me is the notion that what was previously smart, frugal, and sensible gets baked in as the norm (creating more misery for everyone, but without any advantages). That is, living with parents after graduation is done to just survive, rather than to save more and pay off student loans faster. What BS!
- loqwe 10y ago
  > was previously smart, frugal, and sensible gets baked in as the norm I love that smart, frugal, sensible behavior becomes the norm. What could be bad about that?
  - rsl7 10y ago
    People become risk averse.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    It happens on a 20 year lag, so by the time it becomes the norm, it isn't necessarily any of those things. Similarly, micro versus macro economics: we can end up in a globally bad situation from everyone making locally good changes.
  - baccheion 10y ago
    As I said in my comment, "That is, living with parents after graduation is done to just survive, rather than to save more and pay off student loans faster." My problem is that the advantages/payoffs (more savings, faster student loan payoffs, etc) of sensible/smart behavior are removed, while the misery/discomfort/etc (living with parents, being looked at funny, not being able to be alone) remain (or are made worse). It's even worse if the idiots then repeatedly bring up the advantages (to excuse themselves of what they did and to make it seem there's nothing wrong with what they are doing), as though they still exist.
lqdc13 10y ago
This analysis makes no sense. "In general, having more education means it’s less likely you’ll live at home: just 3% of PhDs live with their parents, versus a quarter of those with only a high school diploma." Never mind that you are probably about 30 by the time you finish PhD so they should have compared high school educated adults of the same age groups. If anything, this shows that people with higher education are more likely to live with their parents (see associates vs bachelors). Also, their claim that STEM degree holders are better off than those with social sciences degrees is unsubstantiated. Edit: In fact, I'm fairly certain that High School educated adults are less likely to live with their parents than Bachelors educated adults at the age of ~23 and possibly later. This is because 48% of all adults who live with their parents have to have a high school degree.
- ec109685 10y ago
  Yeah, their interpretation of the data is wrong. 25% of high sachool only educated adults do not live st home. Instead, out of the universe of adult people that live at home 25% are only college educated. A big difference.
awqrre 10y ago
Who's parents moved back in with them?
gruez 10y ago
why is there like, no contrast on the map? i can barely infer each state's percentage without doing a comparison game to see which color it falls in.
- jlarocco 10y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. With only four categories, there's no excuse for the colors being so difficult to discern.
uiri 10y ago
California, the most expensive state to live in according to the map that they linked, pokes a big hole in their cost of living argument. It has a lower % of people living with their parents than their national average and approximately the same % as the least expensive state, Iowa. The 5 most expensive states to live in are 20th, 5th, 3rd, 8th, and 9th in their table. There is a tie for 6th in the linked cost of living ranking and those states are 2nd and 46th in their table. The 5 least expensive states to live in are 21st, 37th, 40th, 30th and 47th. So while cost of living is clearly a factor, it doesn't tell the whole story.
- 35bge57dtjku 10y ago
  Maybe they are homeless instead of living at home.
- superuser2 10y ago
  People who stop living with their parents are quite likely to move to California (and New York).
- niftich 10y ago
  You can construct several plausible hypotheses to explain the data. One is that California's lower percentage may be because many of those surveyed who live in California have parents living in other states.
- dikdik 10y ago
  I'm in California. Would 100% live with my parents (as much as I would hate it) if they lived here. There are no jobs where I grew up and went to college, I came here so I could work in my desired industry. I actually tried leaving earlier this year, but could not find a job elsewhere. Will try again next year. I would be ecstatic to be a home owner and where I'm living I won't be able to until I'm almost 40 (sans quadrupling my salary or marrying rich).
kusmi 10y ago
I have a different take on this. Coming out of university with a BS, graduates today are far from well-equipped to perform in corporate upper middle-class jobs (the jobs promising upward mobility). I think this has most to do with an increase in the amount of data companies deal with. White-collar employees need to know not only the ins-and-outs of their industry, but they must also know how to use increasingly complicated enterprise software, and possess more advanced analytical skills to operate with more complicated data. As a result, graduates with a 4year degree are stuck for 5+ years in internship limbo. Companies will bleed money training interns who literally can't offer anything of value and instead will use up the work hours of the skilled employees who train them. Hence, <30k salaries. I think this is why there is a trend for the more math-heavy STEM fields to flee the coop earlier --they spend less time on the software and analytics training to become valuable sooner. Certain degrees like health, or design are unlike general STEM fields in that they train students for specific technical jobs rather than teaching broader critical thinking/problem solving. So, they get jobs right out of school (5year engineering programs...?). PhD's are in the best position to flee the coop quickly because they are paid a livable wage (in most cases) while in graduate school. It's also not terribly difficult to get into a PhD program (completing it is another story). After receiving their doctorate, PhDs rely on tight-knit academic networking within their field of study to do their post-doc. However, this is where many of them get stuck, receiving a salary <70k (often far <). Increasing competition for faculty positions has pushed many a post-doc out of academics (though, by this time I feel they can compete well in the corporate sector). What I can't explain is law students. I thought there was a bubble leaving most of them jobless. I presume that maybe a law degree is relatively more helpful in scaling the world of big-data (and 'big-regulation') making them prime pickings for corporate jobs earlier than the rest.
X86BSD 10y ago
Interesting to me is that in the US most parents want to give their kids the boot at 18. In India, where my wife is from, family lives together. Family is a big thing there. It is not uncommon to see mom and dad, daughter and son, grandmas and grandpas, or even aunts and uncles all living in the same home.
- vayarajesh 10y ago
  Yes, it is very common to live as a big family together in the same house. Infact it might be considered rare where children do not live with their parents and siblings. It is a part of a culture than anything else. I think many Asian countries have similar culture. I am from India but live in Dubai and even in middle eastern cultures it is not uncommon to live with parents and other relatives in the same house as a big family.
- AndrewKemendo 10y ago
  Interesting to me is that in the US most parents want to give their kids the boot at 18 Well we want to give them the boot earlier but the timing of higher education and law generally sets the lower bar at 18.
  - internaut 10y ago
    You might want to rethink that. That cultural value makes sense when there is broadly rising economic activity. In my experience parents and their children are operating in two completely different economies. To be blunt in case I risk being overly oblique: 1/3 of the female students at my university did sex work to pay the rent. That's in a place where they worked hard to get into an elite university and didn't have to pay extraordinary tuition fees. Further down the socioeconomic ladder it gets worse. Merely surviving without debt is a success story for a millennial. I have to say: almost everything on this subject I read from the media is a fiction. I'm not saying the stats are made up, but the overwhelming impression you get from the box on the wall is powerfully wrong.
    - GuiA 10y ago
analog31 10y ago
I'm somewhat older, so I see it from the other side. Many of my friends and relatives have adult children. In my observation, it's no longer seen as strange for kids to bounce in and out of the parental homestead, as their economic circumstances evolve. I really think if there was ever a stigma, it's pretty much gone. And if you look at the folks who are very wealthy, their kids may be living in another location physically, but their finances and opportunities remain closely intertwined. I could cite the Trump family as a famous example, not to be political, but just to observe something that is almost taken for granted among the wealthy.
eva1984 10y ago
Real estate is much more expensive than last few decades and birthrate is lower than ever, this is hardly a surprise.
sergers 10y ago
i live alone, in a house in vancouver suburb for 8 years (bought when 22). i really didnt want a house, was interested in a condo... but parents instilled value of land (they happen to be realtors/housing developers). i carried a 550k mortgage at 22, earning about ~60k annually. i have renters in bsmt, so definitely helped. sure i have a nice house, but i definately wasnt living a life of luxury outside... i envied my friends who lived at home with parents, whose only financial burden was if they had enough money to party on the weekend. or they spent money on cars, lifestyle etc. definately now that i am older, a bit more sensible, little worries... am so glad i went through this early on in life. first of all i am laughing at a bunch of my new neighbours buying a smaller version of my house for only $900,000.00 more than i paid in this recent vancouver real estate market. second of all, i sure as hell couldnt afford a house here even though i make significantly more here than previously. for the people that lived at home, to save for a future you might have a chance at home ownership in this market. if you blew it on cars, extravagant expenses/trips/lifestyle than better hope your family has money to bankroll a house. i am selling my house for about 140% markup of what i paid even though market definately not as hot with time of year + recent restrictions.
- dandr01d 10y ago
  To play devil's advocate: Lots of people spend money in their 20s on experiences: partying, moving, traveling, trying new things... It's sure as hell harder to do all these things later in life with a spouse/kids.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  So you were lucky with when you were born.
kimshibal 10y ago
My cats
jondubois 10y ago
I left home (in a medium-sized town) many years ago when I was 18 to go to uni and then later to find work in a big city. If only my parents had lived in a big city, I would have stayed at home and saved so much money. Instead I have saved practically nothing. It's just impossible to save when the rent for your 'shoe box' in the city eats up half of your after-tax salary.
- jstanley 10y ago
  Try living somewhere else. You chose to live in the city.
- jraby3 10y ago
  You also chose to go to school far from home.
  - robjan 10y ago
    I chose to go to school far from home too. The reason? There are no decent universities near where I live. Sometimes there aren't many "choices".
    - jondubois 10y ago
      Exactly, what's a degree from the "Univesity of Nowhere" worth? Same with jobs. It's good that now at least, remote work is possible.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Fiachaire 10y ago
Just a reminder that the Priceonomics blog is self-promotion designed to show clients they can get people online to viral-market the website/brand/service for them. The data and how it is presented may or may not be true, but it will definitely be about profitable content. As most of the consumers here seem to respond to the content by clicking through, upvoting, adding personal anecdotes, (perhaps sharing on FB or Twitter?) I'd guess this will be a successful advert. Perhaps somebody trained in handling data could explain why 10 responses is enough to reflect the rest of a states population. Is it significant that out of 60,000 private data sets the company didn't have 10 from Vermont or South Dakota? If we're drawing conclusions based on geography, shouldn't we be able to determine which states have over 1000 responses, and which have less than 100?
franciscop 10y ago
This would have been much better if also compared with cultural background. I'm from Spain and it's common here to live with the family after graduating. It's not even a bad thing and many times it's not even due to economic reasons; we just love our families and spending time with them. I'm sure that family ties (culturally dependent) also make an influence on who lives with their family, so I'd love to see this in the report.
- Fiachaire 10y ago
  The 'report' is drawn from Earnests clients. Earnest bills itself as the bank of tomorrow, but seems to profit mainly by student and personal loans. As such, one of the requirements to get a loan/be used in this totally scientific advertisement is to be in the US...although they appear to only operate in 41 states, so perhaps there's a statistically significant exception.
- Baeocystin 10y ago
  When I was a kid, we lived in SE Asia, and multi-generational homes were the norm. Usually more of a shared farm/compound with a bunch of satellite homes clustered next to each other. Honestly, even as an introverted kid, I liked visiting my friends in their stilt homes and hanging out with the various families. Having everyone together and able to support each other was nice.
- herbst 10y ago
  Agreed. Even in Switzerland it is not to unusual to stay _at home_ for a while. More because economic reasons, but its reasonable. Many will, when they move out, look for something nice and not start with shitty small apartments or crowded WGs just to get away from their parents.
- ryao 10y ago
  Religious background, martial status and future housing aspirations might have also been useful. I live at home. The main reasons in my case are that I am not married and while apartments are affordable, saving money for a really nice house is harder to do if I have one.
- 10y ago
Fiachaire 10y ago
If your clients come to you for help with student loans, aren't most of these figures blatantly obvious or hopelessly misleading? Think of it this way: Only 1% of people over the age of 53 needed our help with student loans and also live with their parents. Almost 25% of people living with their parents in need of our help with student loans have only a high school degree...for now. The company is only 3 years old. Also, why is the Earnest article titled "Math, Engineering Majors First to Leave the Nest"/"Humanities, Psych Majors More Likely to Live at Home"? Math and engineering majors seemed middle of the road, and in the chart there is no indication that they even factor in graduation. If I have a high school degree, and a student loan and am a client of Earnest I may or may not live at home, but I definitely have a major. And why do they have data for 48-50 (less than 10 != 0) states if they only operate in 41 and DC?
therealasdf 10y ago
Where I'm from, it's uncommon to move out of your parents house if you're not married.
everyone 10y ago
I recently quit my great job in Dublin and moved in with my parents who have a house out in the country. With my savings and without paying rent or a mortgage I can live for years without having to earn any money. I'm just doing lots of outdoor activities in the beautiful countryside, indulging various other hobbies like reading, and working on my own little software projects in the evenings. No responsibility at all, no stress, no boss. Its awesome! I'm really happy
- sridca 10y ago
  I agree. I'm currently living in India with my parents on a sabbatical, and really enjoy the lack of responsibility and work. There is plenty of time to relax and have fun with hobbies. It feels as if this is how life is meant to be lived, with work being something one does once in a while as needed.
  - ianai 10y ago
    It is, given how short life is.
smoyer 10y ago
When I saw this title I thought it would make an interesting "ask HN" ... Now I see that it's turned into one! For the record, I moved our of my parents house when I was 20 (I'm not counting living in the college dorms at 17). I love my parents but I couldn't take living with them again.
pklausler 10y ago
I read through all of these comments and saw no gratitude at all for the parents and extended families that continue to provide room and board for their adult offspring. :-(
btdiehr 10y ago
I noticed they found a correlation between living with parents and higher education, which isn't surprising, but I think they missed a big component of it, and the effect is certainly smaller than it appears from their visualization. Higher education correlates directly with an older average age, what would the statistics look like if you corrected for the high-education -> older age correlation? The average age of PhD graduates will certainly make them skip out on the age brackets which are most strongly associated with living at home.
mcs_ 10y ago
There is nothing to do in this era for a "kid" at 18... In my time... there was a lot of work to do (and that was all) Right now there is no such thing. How do you survive in modern times without someone that pays for you?
piyush_soni 10y ago
In India (where I'm from) we generally live with our parents (even after marriage) unless of course we have to go to another city for higher education or job. Even then, our 'permanent address' remains our parents' address. Things are changing rapidly here though, mostly in big cities where they live separately from their parents as they get the freedom to do whatever they want and also because it's the new "in-thing".

This is interesting considering all the empty space available in the US compared with countries like Japan where it is more common to find people in their 30s still living with their parents even if they are married, and it is not weird at all, it is as normal as you can get considering the space available for housing.

hkmurakami 10y ago
>Japan where it is more common to find people in their 30s still living with their parents even if they are married This is driven chiefly by their confucian societal value system rather than economics though. The wives (who are almost always the ones who have to "move in" to the family) mostly hate the experience. Living with family while single (regardless of age or gender, but especially if you are female, since gender equality in the workplace still has a long way to go) on the other hand is primarily economically driven.
- mc32 10y ago
  You also have the "lost generation" of herbivore men, "parasite-singles" and housebound otakus who contribute to lots of stay-at-home-beyond-the-expiry-(grown)children precipitated by a tepid economy.
- hasenj 10y ago
  I think your are mistaken. Living with one's parents in most parts of the world is just the default thing to do. The whole concept of moving out for no reason at all is super weird and confusing for most cultures, and borders on a sense of abandoning one's parents.
  - mamon 10y ago
    That's true for young and single. Default thing to do when getting married is to move out.
    - hasenj 10y ago
      Not necessarily. At least in Arab countries people used to get married in their parents' home. The wife would move in to the house of the husband's parents.
ekianjo 10y ago
> it is as normal as you can get considering the space available for housing Which is heavily dependent on housing regulations.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Why It’s So Hard to Build Affordable Housing: It’s Not Affordable > Developers struggle to break even on rental projects for the poorest Americans. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-26/why-it-s-so-hard-to-build-affordable-housing-it-s-not-affordable https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-26/why-it-s-... This is without even discussing the macroeconomic effects of central banks attempting stimulus by printing money, driving up asset values artificially. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-chart-20 http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-c... "WHAT a difference a decade makes. In 2006 house prices in America hit an all-time high, after rising unabated for the previous ten years. The crash that followed brought the entire global financial system to its knees. As our cover leader this week explains, despite efforts to fix the plumbing of the American mortgage market, housing in the United States remains a dangerous menace to the world economy. In the meantime property prices in the country, underpinned by low interest rates, forge ahead. On average, American home prices have recovered nearly all their losses from the 2006 crash, but when adjusted for inflation they are still 20% below the 2006 peak."
- nostrademons 10y ago
  I'm curious where the profits accrue in the real-estate industry. It's a manufacturing industry where we have relatively advanced machinery to build the houses themselves; you'd think that the cost of housing would have dropped the way, say, cars or silicon has. But it hasn't: the price of housing has largely been flat or increased. Usually when this happens, it's because there is some monopoly scarcity in the value-chain that allows the producer at that level to reap large profits, eg. Microsoft and Intel in the desktop software value chain, or Apple in the mobile ecosystem. I'd thought that real-estate developers were that scarcity in the housing value chain, but this article suggests that they struggle to break even. Who is it? Construction and real-estate brokers can make a lot in boom times, but they tend to lose it to the cyclical nature of the real-estate industry, so I don't normally think of them as the ones getting rich. Is it Caterpillar, making the heavy equipment used by construction? Land owners, who can keep land supply off the market? (But then, the price of raw unimproved land basically tracks inflation, indicating a competitive market.) Property managers? Is there artificial scarcity enforced by transportation infrastructure - the article indicated that one of the developer's primary constraints was the need to build near light rail?
bigdubs 10y ago
I don't particularly want to live in the middle of a corn-field though, I want to live near my friends, and live near other stuff that we're all into, which means cities, which means smaller areas.
- mc32 10y ago
  But people don't have to clump only in megacities. They can clump in midsized cities throughout the Midwest and elsewhere. There is no reason there can't be more Portlands or Minneapolises in the Midwest, for example. You take all those 2,500 to 40,000 communities and build around one or the other and soak up the surrounding communities to make bigger and richer communities.
  - sporkenfang 10y ago
    That sounds wonderful. Just as soon as you pry the car culture and suburbs from the hands of the folks who live in say Kansas and enjoy the status quo...
    - nocman 10y ago
      Not everyone who lives in the U. S. wants to live in a city. Are you suggesting we should give up our right to chose where we want to live so you can have more small cities?
      - dublinben 10y ago
        There is every indication that more people would like to live in cities, but can't afford to.
        ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        Pittsburg seems nice enough but seems to be pretty reasonable. Dallas? I'd say very nice, with a mix of suburbs and city spaces and a much nicer set of roads and light rail than was there in the 1980s. Perhaps there is compromise? Perhaps this is really only a real problem in SanFran and NYC. Even NYC has The Bronx and good rail service.
ksec 10y ago
The first thing to solve ANY problem is to recognize there is a problem. So the biggest problem is the government does NOT think there is a problem. And those people should try and work EVEN harder to afford a basic housing or mortgage.
chongli 10y ago
There's lots of empty space in Japan, too. Whole villages are being abandoned to the point where they're taking stops off the train lines. The problem is that only retired people want to live in rural Japan, everybody else goes to the big city to work.
sean_patel 10y ago
> more common to find people in their 30s still living with their parents India also. I visited a few years ago and was totally "wierded out". They call it "Joint family" there. Several cousins and uncles living under the same roof. Lots of drama in the kitchen :)
Shivetya 10y ago
well the Federal government allow owns nearly thirty percent of the land area of the United States, it is particularly high in many Western States which adversely affects availability on the West Coast versus the East. I find the living with parents issue to be an odd one because the period where that wasn't the case doesn't seem to be so long ago. There is a strong push toward independence of self in the US and that may have pushed people to seek their own homes a lot earlier than elsewhere but to sustain that needs a vibrant economy up and down the economic scale. To get back to that would require lessening the burden of regulation and taxation, something never happening in Japan and resulting in their stagnation for decades. You cannot spend borrowed money for so long to get out of the rut
freyir 10y ago
It's normal to live with your parents into your 30s in many countries. Italy, for example. People often wait until they can buy their own house to move out.
- herbst 10y ago
  Exactly. No point in trying to find a cheap place just because when you can actually save the money and move to a great place as soon as it makes sense for you. I dont get the mindset at all. I dont want to live in a shitty small apartment or something shared with strangers just _because_.
  - megablast 10y ago
    You don't like your own independence? Living with other people your own age?
    - herbst 10y ago
      This is exactly the mindset i dont understand. > You don't like your own independence? i dont see how this is in conflict with living with my parents. > Living with other people your own age? Nope. Done that, wont do again. Disclaimer: I dont live with my parents anymore but wouldnt mind going back. My parents are also cool, its respectfully living together, more than i ever had when living with people my age.
      - hobo_mark 10y ago
        You must have had cool parents then, but this is far from being the norm.

simonebrunozzi 10y ago

Curious to hear the "why" too - I assume mostly for economical reasons, but details would be interesting.

itg 10y ago
yeah a number of my south asian and east asian friends have good jobs but stay at home with their parents if they live close by.
aianus 10y ago
I find it really depressing to live alone. I wish we had love hotels in the west like they do in Asia so you can have a girlfriend without paying $1100 a month to come home to an empty house after work.
- superuser2 10y ago
  I find it really depressing to live with roommates. I spend 8+ hours a day in an open office subject to other people's opinions (and carelessness) about what should enter my ears. To endure that and then come home to someone watching TV or on the phone is literally hell. I've traded away 3+ hours/day of free time to the commute so that in the little free time I have left, I get to choose the ambient noise. At least in college, the library was a short walk and open late. There are no quiet indoor public spaces open after work, sadly.
  - poikniok 10y ago
    Is such a long commute necessary? Are you in the bay area and can't afford to live closer?
    - superuser2 10y ago
      Yeah, it's the Bay Area. East Bay to SF. There are things other than roommates I could compromise on in order to live closer or go faster (standing on crowded, lurching public transit vehicles, sqft, building quality, neighborhood safety, savings %, entertainment and travel spend), but my current situation (90 minutes each way, but by pleasant means - bicycle and ferry) seems to be the least bad option for my tastes.

Taniwha 10y ago

the thing they didn't explain was how they distinguished between people who live with their parents (in their parent's home) and people whose parents have moved in with them. Of course traditionally the eldest son inherited the house (and the fields) and the supported their grandparents in their old age in the same house. China has a unique problem in this respect, retirement essentially consists of the eldest son inheriting the house and supporting his parents (who look after the grandkids). The one child policy means that when a couple marry and have a kid they end up with two sets of parents wanting to move in with the newly married couple, vying to look after the one kid and be supported in their old age. You can see why people have quietly been having more than one kid where they can

gozur88 10y ago
>the thing they didn't explain was how they distinguished between people who live with their parents (in their parent's home) and people whose parents have moved in with them. Because they didn't make that distinction: >Yet, some who live at home make a wage that should allow them to live independently. Like the older groups in our age analysis, these high earners could be older adults in established households who live with elderly parents to provide, not receive, support.
- davidgay 10y ago
  My handwavy evaluation of the data says that 3% are "people whose parents moved in with them" - this is based on the "Annual Income" graph which basically bottoms out at 3%. And it's consistent with the Age graph, which also bottoms out around 3% except for people above 53 (53+30=83, so a lot of those parents are in a high-mortality age). So just subtract 3% from all numbers, where that makes sense of course...

baccheion 10y ago

I live with my mother (oh so f*cking cliche-- for a nerd), but as that's due to mental illness (though I think someone did and is doing this to me), I don't think I'm what's being talked about. If it made strong sense to live with my mother, rather than on my own, then I'd have done so. How it's perceived by others is irrelevant to me. That said, I can't think when I'm not living by myself and I have difficulties getting along with my mother, so this would've never been an option for me. It's bad enough that I'd be better off alone in a high crime, run down, low cost area than with others in an upper class neighborhood. If many are still living with their parents, then it implies the recession of 2009 is still inflicting damage, but what's annoying me is the notion that what was previously smart, frugal, and sensible gets baked in as the norm (creating more misery for everyone, but without any advantages). That is, living with parents after graduation is done to just survive, rather than to save more and pay off student loans faster. What BS!

loqwe 10y ago
> was previously smart, frugal, and sensible gets baked in as the norm I love that smart, frugal, sensible behavior becomes the norm. What could be bad about that?
- rsl7 10y ago
  People become risk averse.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  It happens on a 20 year lag, so by the time it becomes the norm, it isn't necessarily any of those things. Similarly, micro versus macro economics: we can end up in a globally bad situation from everyone making locally good changes.
- baccheion 10y ago
  As I said in my comment, "That is, living with parents after graduation is done to just survive, rather than to save more and pay off student loans faster." My problem is that the advantages/payoffs (more savings, faster student loan payoffs, etc) of sensible/smart behavior are removed, while the misery/discomfort/etc (living with parents, being looked at funny, not being able to be alone) remain (or are made worse). It's even worse if the idiots then repeatedly bring up the advantages (to excuse themselves of what they did and to make it seem there's nothing wrong with what they are doing), as though they still exist.

lqdc13 10y ago

This analysis makes no sense. "In general, having more education means it’s less likely you’ll live at home: just 3% of PhDs live with their parents, versus a quarter of those with only a high school diploma." Never mind that you are probably about 30 by the time you finish PhD so they should have compared high school educated adults of the same age groups. If anything, this shows that people with higher education are more likely to live with their parents (see associates vs bachelors). Also, their claim that STEM degree holders are better off than those with social sciences degrees is unsubstantiated. Edit: In fact, I'm fairly certain that High School educated adults are less likely to live with their parents than Bachelors educated adults at the age of ~23 and possibly later. This is because 48% of all adults who live with their parents have to have a high school degree.

ec109685 10y ago
Yeah, their interpretation of the data is wrong. 25% of high sachool only educated adults do not live st home. Instead, out of the universe of adult people that live at home 25% are only college educated. A big difference.

awqrre 10y ago

Who's parents moved back in with them?

gruez 10y ago

why is there like, no contrast on the map? i can barely infer each state's percentage without doing a comparison game to see which color it falls in.

jlarocco 10y ago
I was thinking the same thing. With only four categories, there's no excuse for the colors being so difficult to discern.

uiri 10y ago

California, the most expensive state to live in according to the map that they linked, pokes a big hole in their cost of living argument. It has a lower % of people living with their parents than their national average and approximately the same % as the least expensive state, Iowa. The 5 most expensive states to live in are 20th, 5th, 3rd, 8th, and 9th in their table. There is a tie for 6th in the linked cost of living ranking and those states are 2nd and 46th in their table. The 5 least expensive states to live in are 21st, 37th, 40th, 30th and 47th. So while cost of living is clearly a factor, it doesn't tell the whole story.

35bge57dtjku 10y ago
Maybe they are homeless instead of living at home.
superuser2 10y ago
People who stop living with their parents are quite likely to move to California (and New York).
niftich 10y ago
You can construct several plausible hypotheses to explain the data. One is that California's lower percentage may be because many of those surveyed who live in California have parents living in other states.
dikdik 10y ago
I'm in California. Would 100% live with my parents (as much as I would hate it) if they lived here. There are no jobs where I grew up and went to college, I came here so I could work in my desired industry. I actually tried leaving earlier this year, but could not find a job elsewhere. Will try again next year. I would be ecstatic to be a home owner and where I'm living I won't be able to until I'm almost 40 (sans quadrupling my salary or marrying rich).

kusmi 10y ago

I have a different take on this. Coming out of university with a BS, graduates today are far from well-equipped to perform in corporate upper middle-class jobs (the jobs promising upward mobility). I think this has most to do with an increase in the amount of data companies deal with. White-collar employees need to know not only the ins-and-outs of their industry, but they must also know how to use increasingly complicated enterprise software, and possess more advanced analytical skills to operate with more complicated data. As a result, graduates with a 4year degree are stuck for 5+ years in internship limbo. Companies will bleed money training interns who literally can't offer anything of value and instead will use up the work hours of the skilled employees who train them. Hence, <30k salaries. I think this is why there is a trend for the more math-heavy STEM fields to flee the coop earlier --they spend less time on the software and analytics training to become valuable sooner. Certain degrees like health, or design are unlike general STEM fields in that they train students for specific technical jobs rather than teaching broader critical thinking/problem solving. So, they get jobs right out of school (5year engineering programs...?). PhD's are in the best position to flee the coop quickly because they are paid a livable wage (in most cases) while in graduate school. It's also not terribly difficult to get into a PhD program (completing it is another story). After receiving their doctorate, PhDs rely on tight-knit academic networking within their field of study to do their post-doc. However, this is where many of them get stuck, receiving a salary <70k (often far <). Increasing competition for faculty positions has pushed many a post-doc out of academics (though, by this time I feel they can compete well in the corporate sector). What I can't explain is law students. I thought there was a bubble leaving most of them jobless. I presume that maybe a law degree is relatively more helpful in scaling the world of big-data (and 'big-regulation') making them prime pickings for corporate jobs earlier than the rest.

X86BSD 10y ago

Interesting to me is that in the US most parents want to give their kids the boot at 18. In India, where my wife is from, family lives together. Family is a big thing there. It is not uncommon to see mom and dad, daughter and son, grandmas and grandpas, or even aunts and uncles all living in the same home.

vayarajesh 10y ago
Yes, it is very common to live as a big family together in the same house. Infact it might be considered rare where children do not live with their parents and siblings. It is a part of a culture than anything else. I think many Asian countries have similar culture. I am from India but live in Dubai and even in middle eastern cultures it is not uncommon to live with parents and other relatives in the same house as a big family.
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
Interesting to me is that in the US most parents want to give their kids the boot at 18 Well we want to give them the boot earlier but the timing of higher education and law generally sets the lower bar at 18.
- internaut 10y ago
  You might want to rethink that. That cultural value makes sense when there is broadly rising economic activity. In my experience parents and their children are operating in two completely different economies. To be blunt in case I risk being overly oblique: 1/3 of the female students at my university did sex work to pay the rent. That's in a place where they worked hard to get into an elite university and didn't have to pay extraordinary tuition fees. Further down the socioeconomic ladder it gets worse. Merely surviving without debt is a success story for a millennial. I have to say: almost everything on this subject I read from the media is a fiction. I'm not saying the stats are made up, but the overwhelming impression you get from the box on the wall is powerfully wrong.
  - GuiA 10y ago

analog31 10y ago

I'm somewhat older, so I see it from the other side. Many of my friends and relatives have adult children. In my observation, it's no longer seen as strange for kids to bounce in and out of the parental homestead, as their economic circumstances evolve. I really think if there was ever a stigma, it's pretty much gone. And if you look at the folks who are very wealthy, their kids may be living in another location physically, but their finances and opportunities remain closely intertwined. I could cite the Trump family as a famous example, not to be political, but just to observe something that is almost taken for granted among the wealthy.

eva1984 10y ago

Real estate is much more expensive than last few decades and birthrate is lower than ever, this is hardly a surprise.

sergers 10y ago

i live alone, in a house in vancouver suburb for 8 years (bought when 22). i really didnt want a house, was interested in a condo... but parents instilled value of land (they happen to be realtors/housing developers). i carried a 550k mortgage at 22, earning about ~60k annually. i have renters in bsmt, so definitely helped. sure i have a nice house, but i definately wasnt living a life of luxury outside... i envied my friends who lived at home with parents, whose only financial burden was if they had enough money to party on the weekend. or they spent money on cars, lifestyle etc. definately now that i am older, a bit more sensible, little worries... am so glad i went through this early on in life. first of all i am laughing at a bunch of my new neighbours buying a smaller version of my house for only $900,000.00 more than i paid in this recent vancouver real estate market. second of all, i sure as hell couldnt afford a house here even though i make significantly more here than previously. for the people that lived at home, to save for a future you might have a chance at home ownership in this market. if you blew it on cars, extravagant expenses/trips/lifestyle than better hope your family has money to bankroll a house. i am selling my house for about 140% markup of what i paid even though market definately not as hot with time of year + recent restrictions.

dandr01d 10y ago
To play devil's advocate: Lots of people spend money in their 20s on experiences: partying, moving, traveling, trying new things... It's sure as hell harder to do all these things later in life with a spouse/kids.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
So you were lucky with when you were born.

kimshibal 10y ago

My cats

jondubois 10y ago

I left home (in a medium-sized town) many years ago when I was 18 to go to uni and then later to find work in a big city. If only my parents had lived in a big city, I would have stayed at home and saved so much money. Instead I have saved practically nothing. It's just impossible to save when the rent for your 'shoe box' in the city eats up half of your after-tax salary.

jstanley 10y ago
Try living somewhere else. You chose to live in the city.
jraby3 10y ago
You also chose to go to school far from home.
- robjan 10y ago
  I chose to go to school far from home too. The reason? There are no decent universities near where I live. Sometimes there aren't many "choices".
  - jondubois 10y ago
    Exactly, what's a degree from the "Univesity of Nowhere" worth? Same with jobs. It's good that now at least, remote work is possible.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Fiachaire 10y ago

Just a reminder that the Priceonomics blog is self-promotion designed to show clients they can get people online to viral-market the website/brand/service for them. The data and how it is presented may or may not be true, but it will definitely be about profitable content. As most of the consumers here seem to respond to the content by clicking through, upvoting, adding personal anecdotes, (perhaps sharing on FB or Twitter?) I'd guess this will be a successful advert. Perhaps somebody trained in handling data could explain why 10 responses is enough to reflect the rest of a states population. Is it significant that out of 60,000 private data sets the company didn't have 10 from Vermont or South Dakota? If we're drawing conclusions based on geography, shouldn't we be able to determine which states have over 1000 responses, and which have less than 100?

franciscop 10y ago

This would have been much better if also compared with cultural background. I'm from Spain and it's common here to live with the family after graduating. It's not even a bad thing and many times it's not even due to economic reasons; we just love our families and spending time with them. I'm sure that family ties (culturally dependent) also make an influence on who lives with their family, so I'd love to see this in the report.

Fiachaire 10y ago
The 'report' is drawn from Earnests clients. Earnest bills itself as the bank of tomorrow, but seems to profit mainly by student and personal loans. As such, one of the requirements to get a loan/be used in this totally scientific advertisement is to be in the US...although they appear to only operate in 41 states, so perhaps there's a statistically significant exception.
Baeocystin 10y ago
When I was a kid, we lived in SE Asia, and multi-generational homes were the norm. Usually more of a shared farm/compound with a bunch of satellite homes clustered next to each other. Honestly, even as an introverted kid, I liked visiting my friends in their stilt homes and hanging out with the various families. Having everyone together and able to support each other was nice.
herbst 10y ago
Agreed. Even in Switzerland it is not to unusual to stay _at home_ for a while. More because economic reasons, but its reasonable. Many will, when they move out, look for something nice and not start with shitty small apartments or crowded WGs just to get away from their parents.
ryao 10y ago
Religious background, martial status and future housing aspirations might have also been useful. I live at home. The main reasons in my case are that I am not married and while apartments are affordable, saving money for a really nice house is harder to do if I have one.
10y ago

Fiachaire 10y ago

If your clients come to you for help with student loans, aren't most of these figures blatantly obvious or hopelessly misleading? Think of it this way: Only 1% of people over the age of 53 needed our help with student loans and also live with their parents. Almost 25% of people living with their parents in need of our help with student loans have only a high school degree...for now. The company is only 3 years old. Also, why is the Earnest article titled "Math, Engineering Majors First to Leave the Nest"/"Humanities, Psych Majors More Likely to Live at Home"? Math and engineering majors seemed middle of the road, and in the chart there is no indication that they even factor in graduation. If I have a high school degree, and a student loan and am a client of Earnest I may or may not live at home, but I definitely have a major. And why do they have data for 48-50 (less than 10 != 0) states if they only operate in 41 and DC?

therealasdf 10y ago

Where I'm from, it's uncommon to move out of your parents house if you're not married.

everyone 10y ago

I recently quit my great job in Dublin and moved in with my parents who have a house out in the country. With my savings and without paying rent or a mortgage I can live for years without having to earn any money. I'm just doing lots of outdoor activities in the beautiful countryside, indulging various other hobbies like reading, and working on my own little software projects in the evenings. No responsibility at all, no stress, no boss. Its awesome! I'm really happy

sridca 10y ago
I agree. I'm currently living in India with my parents on a sabbatical, and really enjoy the lack of responsibility and work. There is plenty of time to relax and have fun with hobbies. It feels as if this is how life is meant to be lived, with work being something one does once in a while as needed.
- ianai 10y ago
  It is, given how short life is.

smoyer 10y ago

When I saw this title I thought it would make an interesting "ask HN" ... Now I see that it's turned into one! For the record, I moved our of my parents house when I was 20 (I'm not counting living in the college dorms at 17). I love my parents but I couldn't take living with them again.

pklausler 10y ago

I read through all of these comments and saw no gratitude at all for the parents and extended families that continue to provide room and board for their adult offspring. :-(

btdiehr 10y ago

I noticed they found a correlation between living with parents and higher education, which isn't surprising, but I think they missed a big component of it, and the effect is certainly smaller than it appears from their visualization. Higher education correlates directly with an older average age, what would the statistics look like if you corrected for the high-education -> older age correlation? The average age of PhD graduates will certainly make them skip out on the age brackets which are most strongly associated with living at home.

mcs_ 10y ago

There is nothing to do in this era for a "kid" at 18... In my time... there was a lot of work to do (and that was all) Right now there is no such thing. How do you survive in modern times without someone that pays for you?

piyush_soni 10y ago

In India (where I'm from) we generally live with our parents (even after marriage) unless of course we have to go to another city for higher education or job. Even then, our 'permanent address' remains our parents' address. Things are changing rapidly here though, mostly in big cities where they live separately from their parents as they get the freedom to do whatever they want and also because it's the new "in-thing".