A Rising Share of Young Adults Live in Their Parents’ Home. A Record 21.6 Million In 2012

PEW RESEARCH ^ | 08/02/2013 | Richard Fry

[DoughtyOne]

Actually, the whole Capitalist model is breaking down in the United States. When that happens all bets are off.

Home shouldn’t drop in price, but then wages shouldn’t be stagnant for twenty-five years either. We shouldn’t have 22.8% of our work force out of work. We shouldn’t be allowing tens of millions of foreign workers in. We shouldn’t be moving other jobs off-shore.

We have done everything possible to cause a disconnect with what is considered to be normal capitalistic dynamics. With a stable work force, you have labor pushing up against business owner. Each push for a median that will represent them best, and keep the other side moderately happy.

In comes a wave of new workers that will work for wages that won’t sustain a family, and you move millions of other jobs off-shore, and all of a sudden you’ve got a labor force that can’t get enough employment to support traditional family situations.

This is why the housing market is why people can’t afford homes. It’s not that homes are too high priced. It’s that workers and their salaries are too devalued.

We have 40 million people out of work. We have 20 to 35 million illegals here, and we outsource jobs. And yet, this seems to carry no meaning at all with our leaders.

Few citizens pick up on it either.

[moovova]

I’m not living with MY mother. There isn’t enough space in her memory care room at the old folks home.

Besides, she shares a room with another resident/roommate. They wake up each morning and have to re-introduce themselves to each other.

[HomeAtLast]

Thank you for posting that. There’s so much stereotyping on this subject.
I lived with my parents in the home I was to inherit, because I loved it there and they did too, so they weren’t ready to leave until they died. Also, they wanted to avoid some taxes so they put me on the deed. Was I then “living with my parents?” in the sense commonly (mis-)understood? Then they needed some assisted living — so I assisted! I took over what they couldn’t do anymore. They didn’t want to be in nursing homes, so they stayed home and were thankful they had a grown child to take care of them. (My siblings were pretty thankful for that as well, since they didn’t want to be bothered.)
They took care of me, I took care of them, and everybody was better off for it. When did such things become contemptible?

[DoughtyOne]

I agree.

[JCBreckenridge]

“It’s not that homes are too high priced”

Yes, Mr. Boomer. Houses are going to fall just like any other commodity.

“Home shouldn’t drop in price”

When any commodity cannot fall in price, this is no longer market capitalism. Everything, including houses, should be regulated by supply and demand. If demand is insufficient to fill the present supply, prices should drop until demand is in equilibrium with supply.

Instead what we see is folks like you expending political capital to maintain the price of their largest investment. What this does is exacerbate the problem you see here with wages. Now you are calling for an increase in wages (presumably in relation to government action), so as to preserve the price of your asset since the government isn’t allowing proper price discovery.

This is the problem with market manipulation. One leads to another. Losses are reality. All commodities will rise and fall with changes in supply and demand. There are fewer young people than boomers, so we would expect housing to fall, all else being equal. However, since housing is artificially high in price - we will expect demand to fall even further as those who should be able to afford a house cannot thanks to folks like you.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

There is so much that can be said about this. There are no simple reasons:

1. Some kids are lazy. The work ethic and idea of independence has been undermined. Kids don’t want to be adults and are happy being “adult teenagers” playing video games in their parents’ basements well into their 20s and even early 30s.

2. Some kids want to get out on their own and can’t, or realize that its smart to save money by living at home to save up to buy a house. These days houses are incredibly expensive and the only way for a young couple to get a house is to live with the parents for a while.

3. In some ways, the period of 1955 through 1995 was a historical anomaly. The country was wealthy at a level not seen before during that period and now we are reverting to a more average level of wealth. Accordingly, families are living together again like they did for most of the country’s existence.

[DoughtyOne]

People don’t want to believe it. I guess it’s human nature to want to believe things are okay. I don’t know how else to address it. I simply watch them complain about this and that, and at the appropriate time try to reinforce their thinking. They seem to recognize problems, but connecting the dots is impossible for them.

It’s a curse to see clearly what is taking place, and know that most people don’t get it.

[SeekAndFind]

The only thing disturbing about this news is this — the “some” kids you mentioned are INCREASING in numbers. I just hope “some” does not turn to “most”.

[Cowboy Bob]

But, this isn’t fair to orphans. They have no parents to go back to live with when they lose their jobs. Congress has to do so etching about this inequality! /sarc

[Cowboy Bob]

Damn iPad! So etching = something

[SampleMan]

Its the Socialist-European model. That’s the goal.

[jmaroneps37]

schmucks getting what they voted for in spades. Let them sit in Mom’s basement playing video games. My kids work and so does my granddaughter the rest of you can suck a lemon.

[HomeAtLast]

These days houses are incredibly expensive and the only way for a young couple to get a house is to live with the parents for a while.

Not everywhere. In my area, which is fairly low in crime and taxes (but I repeat myself), there are dozens of homes under $35k and they are good solid houses. If you go to the sheriff's sale you can get one for under $5k. And they're not derelicts like in Detroit.

The problem is, young couples are often financially ignorant, and like their parents they think it's fine and dandy to carry a mortgage on their backs so they can live in a certain area and work a certain job. Lack of knowledge, and lack of imagination there.

[TexasRepublic]

“I have one. My oldest at 30. He has a good job, but wastes his money. If my hubby and I could get him out of the house, we would. But it seems cruel to kick one of my children out.”

No, it isn’t cruel. That fully-grown fledgling should be kicked from the nest and told to fly. In fact, you would be doing him a real favor to make him grow up and be responsible for his own life the way a man should be. Call it tough love. Do you want grandkids? What potential wife would see any future in his present state?

I grew up in a loving home, but I was eager to live independently. I left for college at 18, got a job on graduation, got married and never moved back home. That’s how it should be.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s not that homes are too high priced...

Yes, Mr. Boomer. Houses are going to fall just like any other commodity.

You have to understand something here.  In an economy that is managed properly, homes would not be too high priced, because a healthy workforce would still be supporting those prices.

So we can say homes are too high priced, or we could simply face the reality that our economy has been so mis-managed that people can't afford them at these prices any longer.

It's a glass is half full or half empty kind of situation.  That being said, one side of this has way more negativities that the other.  I'll address that in a bit farther down.

I don't think house prices are evil, so I tend to avoid saying housing prices are too high.

I think mis-managing the economy is evil, so I tend to criticize that instead.

Home shouldn’t drop in price

When any commodity cannot fall in price, this is no longer market capitalism. Everything, including houses, should be regulated by supply and demand. If demand is insufficient to fill the present supply, prices should drop until demand is in equilibrium with supply.

Why are home prices under downward pressure?  Why are wages and the availability of jobs under pressure?  These are the two quandries I would like you to consider.  I would submit to you that mismanagement has caused one of these problems, and that problem then impacted the other.  Now, should I criticize the problem that was negatively impacted the other, or should I criticize the problem that is causing ripples across our entire economy?

You see, fixing home prices downwards does nothing to increase jobs.  Increasing jobs does everything to support housing prices where they are.  So which should I focus on fixing?

Instead what we see is folks like you expending political capital to maintain the price of their largest investment. What this does is exacerbate the problem you see here with wages. Now you are calling for an increase in wages (presumably in relation to government action), so as to preserve the price of your asset since the government isn’t allowing proper price discovery.

By 'folks like me' you must mean people who have never purchased a home.  Okay, well...  it seems your primises are more broken than I thought.

I don't advocate higher taxation for the rich.  I don't advocate the decline of property values because people who were steady gainfully employed people stuck their neck out and deserve to lose their shirts according to some people, either.

I wouldn't mind being a part of either of these two groups.  For that reason I don't advocate policies that impact them negatively.

This is the problem with market manipulation. One leads to another. Losses are reality. All commodities will rise and fall with changes in supply and demand. There are fewer young people than boomers, so we would expect housing to fall, all else being equal. However, since housing is artificially high in price - we will expect demand to fall even further as those who should be able to afford a house cannot thanks to folks like you.

You think market manipulation, and immediately see housing as the big problem.  I think market manipulation, and immediately see tens of millions of illegal aliens, millions of other jobs moved off shore, and the transfer of massive numbers of manufacturing jobs, research, development, and technology transfers to other nations.

I am looking at the root cause of the problem and you're focused on a symptom.

One does lead to another.  One does not lead to another.  Yes, all commodities will rise and fall.  The question is, should they be given so much help toward that end?

Our government imposed policies and supported corporations who wanted to move jobs off shore.  In some instances tax breaks made that even more desirable.  I and other U. S. Citizens tried to explain what this would mean to our nation in the long run.  We said there would be massive amounts of jobs lost.  We said there would be massive amounts of people who would have to work for half the wages they used to.  We said there would be massive dislocation.  We said there would be massive hits on local communities, regions, and the nation at large.  You can't have this many workers negatively impacted, and not lose income streams across the board.

Jobs went flat in 2000.  We have hardly added any jobs since that period.  Meanwhile the population kept expanding, and those bably boomers you want to blame for what ails you, are now retiring.  And guess what, the full employment stream of tax income to the federal government isn't there.  I have actually seen folks on the forum talk about doing away with Social Security, just cut it off, who cares that upwards of 40 million citizens would be homeless and starve to death in short order.  No big deal.  Baby boomers deserve it.  Now you trot in to say they investment they spent 40 years developing, should be revalued to half it's price on the day they retire.  Is that about it?

I've got news for you.  Baby boomers didn't cause this problem.  They played by the rules.  They were steadily gainfully employed, and they invested wisely.

It's not their fault that the American public was betrayed by their leaders in Washington, D. C.

What happens if we suddenly devalue homes by 50%?  Who eats that loss?  Homeowners, banks, credit unions, insurance companies, Wall Street,... the list is long.

Who supports the individual homeowner, particularly ones who are ready to retire?

Okay great.  We bankrupt entities as diverse as all these, force the government into some sort of bail-out so your generation won't be forced to live under a system that isn't just damaged, but completely broken.  Then what Mr. Smart Guy?

As we watch the baby boomer genration die off in short order so you can own a home, will that ease your pain?

How about joining some of us who recognize what the government has done to our nation, and get it back on track so everyone can advance.  Knock off the spiteful pitting of one segment of our society against another, and pull together for a change.

If you think housing is the key part of our economy that isn't running according to a healthy capitalist plan, boy do you have some things to learn.

[RJS1950]

The majority today are living with their parents because they cannot find fulltime jobs anymore, especially after being laid off. Telling them to grow up and find a job is absurd in the today’s job climate and thanks to obamacare it is getting worse.

Adults living with parents is not new. In the 1800s up through the 1940s that was fairly common, check the census rolls if you don’t believe that. Wilbur and Orville Wright lived in their father’s home for many years. My mother was living with her parents during and after WWII until she married and she was not in a minority. My father lived in his mother’s house until he enlisted for the war and had to go back there to live after he was discharged. When he was called back for Korea in 1950 my mother had to live with her parents again and it was my first home when I was born because my father was still settling into his assignment in Texas.

It is not at all a good situation but the choice is frequently to let your kids and/or their families if they have one live on the street, destitute, or do you take them in? Either way it will be you or you as taxpayers who are billed to support them. Thanks to the National Socialist Democrat Party the economy is trashed and many are forced into survival mode. It happened during the depression and before that and it will probably get worse before it gets better.

The question is: how much more of this will all citizens put up with before we reach a 1776 moment? The money supply from all of us tax slaves is not going to last too much longer.

[Paine in the Neck]

That’s until Hillary gets to run things. Then no one will have a home to live in.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s the 22.8% unemployment that is glossed over that causes me grave concern. If the populace were to discover and contemplate on that, there would be massive unrest.

I understand why our government is terrified.