2 ms·

> Have any of these adult children successfully moved out after saving up money while living with their parents? Even if they do, it still means they failed to

> Have any of these adult children successfully moved out after saving up money while living with their parents? Even if they do, it still means they failed to save up that money without having to live with their parents. This is just the WSJ-reading "haves" justifying the increasing stratification of society by reframing a clear regression[0] as a "responsible individual choice" which that crowd LOVES. (EDIT: it's also cope for the parents of those kids for the not-quite-THAT-elite WSJ reader crowd who doesn't want to believe either their kids are failing or their economy is faltering.) [0] Even if you see the everyone-moves-out vs multigenerational-housing trend as a negative overall, the broadening loss of the ability to make that choice is a clear symptom of overall economic weakening.

glial 3mo ago
> This is just the WSJ-reading "haves" justifying The WSJ has had a string of such apologetics lately. I know because family members keep sending them to me. Another example: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/european-soccer-fans-marvel-at-the-splendor-of-americas-suburbs-a04f1b88 https://www.wsj.com/us-news/european-soccer-fans-marvel-at-t...
jjav 3mo ago
> Even if they do, it still means they failed to save up that money without having to live with their parents. So? This practice of moving out for no particular reason is very US-centric. To me the "normal" obverved in most peer households of my youth is that people live with their parents until they get married, often late 20s.
- jimbokun 3mo ago
  You are correct. The US is coming to resemble economically stagnant Europe more and more.
- throw-the-towel 3mo ago
  No particular reason? Says who?
- apparent 3mo ago
  > So? This practice of moving out for no particular reason is very US-centric. No particular reason? It happens when these people go off to college, for the most part. Moving back in is seen as a regression, for understandable reasons.
  - jjav 3mo ago
    If someone is going to a university far away, that would be a good reason to move. No particular reason means when there is no particular reason, such as when going to university in the same city. It's often much better to live at home and save $1K+ (sometimes quite a bit +) in rent every month in your 20s. That can build a lot of savings for a mortgage downpayment later.
anonreeeeplor 3mo ago
[dead]

glial 3mo ago

> This is just the WSJ-reading "haves" justifying The WSJ has had a string of such apologetics lately. I know because family members keep sending them to me. Another example: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/european-soccer-fans-marvel-at-the-splendor-of-americas-suburbs-a04f1b88 https://www.wsj.com/us-news/european-soccer-fans-marvel-at-t...

jjav 3mo ago

> Even if they do, it still means they failed to save up that money without having to live with their parents. So? This practice of moving out for no particular reason is very US-centric. To me the "normal" obverved in most peer households of my youth is that people live with their parents until they get married, often late 20s.

jimbokun 3mo ago
You are correct. The US is coming to resemble economically stagnant Europe more and more.
throw-the-towel 3mo ago
No particular reason? Says who?
apparent 3mo ago
> So? This practice of moving out for no particular reason is very US-centric. No particular reason? It happens when these people go off to college, for the most part. Moving back in is seen as a regression, for understandable reasons.
- jjav 3mo ago
  If someone is going to a university far away, that would be a good reason to move. No particular reason means when there is no particular reason, such as when going to university in the same city. It's often much better to live at home and save $1K+ (sometimes quite a bit +) in rent every month in your 20s. That can build a lot of savings for a mortgage downpayment later.

anonreeeeplor 3mo ago

[dead]