3 ms·

Right, and I think it's the negative stigma of the former ("jobless") than the latter ("living with parents"). Multi-generational family cohabitation is nothin

Right, and I think it's the negative stigma of the former ("jobless") than the latter ("living with parents"). Multi-generational family cohabitation is nothing new and still the norm in many parts of the world. There's many advantages of it, though also carries risks (example is Italy's seniors exposure to COVID19). The "jobless" part is more cross-cultural in its negative stigma, on the expectation that adults are contributing members of their respective societies. But as this article goes into detail, the quality of the job matters as much as having one. "Gainfully employed" > "employed", especially for the person in question. I think another aspect of this is the age of the individual. When one is in their early 20s, then being "jobless" and "living with parents" is much more acceptable (both by the self and the society). But as one gets older, such as in the article's 40+ year old norm, then it becomes much harder. Add on top the Japanese/Asian emphasis on image and honor, then the resulting perceived sense of shame/failure can be very burdensome.

pyuser583 6y ago
There is another problem with multigenerational housing: it can seriously reinforce inequality. Living with your parents in a wealthy suburb is very different from living with your parents in a trailer park.
- _jahh 6y ago
  you're missing the cause for the effect, multigenerational wealth is the source of inequality. Most generally in the fact the 'west' has been pillaging 'the rest' for 400 odd years.
  - pyuser583 6y ago
    A factor can be both cause and effect. It’s called a virtuous (or vicious) cycle. These cycles are what reinforce inequality. A family has more money, so they can afford better education for their kids, so their kids make more money. A family can afford a good house, in a low-crime neighborhood, with neighbors who are corporate executives. Their kids grow up living next door to the rich and powerful. Living at home with mom and dad at age 25 might mean living in a house with lead paint and drug use. Or it might get you free membership at the neighborhood country club.

pyuser583 6y ago

There is another problem with multigenerational housing: it can seriously reinforce inequality. Living with your parents in a wealthy suburb is very different from living with your parents in a trailer park.

_jahh 6y ago
you're missing the cause for the effect, multigenerational wealth is the source of inequality. Most generally in the fact the 'west' has been pillaging 'the rest' for 400 odd years.
- pyuser583 6y ago
  A factor can be both cause and effect. It’s called a virtuous (or vicious) cycle. These cycles are what reinforce inequality. A family has more money, so they can afford better education for their kids, so their kids make more money. A family can afford a good house, in a low-crime neighborhood, with neighbors who are corporate executives. Their kids grow up living next door to the rich and powerful. Living at home with mom and dad at age 25 might mean living in a house with lead paint and drug use. Or it might get you free membership at the neighborhood country club.