4 ms·
There's nothing wrong with it, but there's a lot of reasons the child wouldn't want that, and I think that's the reason it's used as a metric of an unhealthy ec
by threentaway 6y ago
There's nothing wrong with it, but there's a lot of reasons the child wouldn't want that, and I think that's the reason it's used as a metric of an unhealthy economy is because it indicates they have no other choice. EG: Want to have friends over but not have your parents involved? Can't do that if you don't have your own place.
- notsureaboutpg 6y agoNever understood this. Just go out to meet your friends rather than have them over. Also hopefully your life isn't so far away from what your parents wanted you to live like.
- mellowdream 6y agoOther commenters here seem to say that the culture, if not the modern phenomenon, of children moving out of their parents' homes early is more characteristic of the West (U.S., Western Europe), and not so much places like China, Japan, India (continuation of tradition, less modern stigmatization). This aligns with my experience and what little I learned in school as well. (Yes, N = 1.) It so happens that this pattern is economically inefficient, and only in our inability to support it does its discontinuation serve as a negative economic indicator. American culture makes it an effective metric in the U.S. Where it's already common for children to live with their parents longer though, such as in India, the original choice could very likely be to stay, which makes the metric less useful.