I left my parents’ home at 17 and the idea of ever, but ever, going back to live with them was never considered. Wasn’t that the point of growing up, to strike out on your own and to establish yourself as an independent adult, for better or worse? Perhaps it was, but not anymore.
This year’s rapid inflation rates have meant higher prices for virtually everything, including rent, food and even partying. So what comes next may not be much of a surprise: Nearly a third of Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 — part of what is collectively known as Gen Z — live at home with their parents or other relatives, according to a new study, and they considered it a long-term housing solution.
This was happening before inflation, before pandemic and few parents are all that concerned that the cost of partying will make junior sad, but the fact remains that this thing that prior generations did anything possible to avoid is not merely happening, but happening without any regret, with Gen Z.
A 2020 analysis from Zillow found that about 2.7 million adults in the United States moved in with a parent or grandparent in March and April of that year.
From a logistical perspective, it makes a lot of sense. The room is there, sitting fallow. Homes and apartments are expensive, at least for the moment. Wages and salaries haven’t kept pace with cost of living for the last generation. And, some might argue, these 20-somethings aren’t really “adults” as that word was commonly understood, but rather children with body hair.
On the other hand, this allows, if not feeds into, stunted adolescence, where kids never grow up, take responsibility for themselves, do the hard work necessary to become mature members of society as they sit in the basement eating Cheetos that mommy buys for them while working remotely if they don’t feel the need for a mental health day after being traumatized by a story someone posted on Tik Tok.
Historically, families living together was hardly unusual, but times are substantially different and they’re no longer going to inherit the family farm if they milk the cows daily. There is little heavy lifting demanded of children living with mommy, although no doubt some contribute both financially and in kind to the support and maintenance of the family home.
But if not, should they be allowed to live at home like five-year-olds in perpetuity? Is this healthy, for the kids, the parents, society? Is it healthy that kids are okay with returning to the nest rather than flying off on their own? Is this how to create a strong, independent and capable polity in reality and not just people deciding to pretend they’re “hot” on Insta?
Parents whose children return home to live in their empty bedrooms likely mean well and want to help their beloved offspring through difficult times, but are they, or are they enabling weakness, failure and irresponsibility?
And if they come back until they save enough to get their own place, or meet that person of their dreams, or get that job that will fulfill their passions, will they ever leave?
As the song asks, “how can I miss you if you won’t go away?”
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“On a freight train leaving town, not knowing where I’m bound . . .”
Classic. One of the first music videos. Allen Ginsberg and Bob Neuwirth in the background.
Theme song of the Prodigal basement dweller.
Of course, by setting the age range from 18-25, they’re sweeping in a lot of undergraduate students. I stayed at home during my undergraduate years, and avoided a lot of student loans that way. By the time I was 25, I had moved out, found full-time work, and married. Maybe today’s 25 year-olds consider that an unrealistically compressed timeline, but it’s hard to judge when you lump them together with 18 year-olds.
The data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland spanning March 2020 to September 2021 is unequivocal: this phenomenon of “boomerang kids” is concentrated in families with a household income level exceeding $140,000/yr, where a full 36% of children of these higher-income parents are “boomerang” vs ~15% that do not live with their parents. For the household income level of $84,000 to $140,000 “boomerang” vs not-at-home children is roughly each at 22%; and for lower household income the ratio flips, with an income level not exceeding $27,000 showing 10% of their children are “boomerang” vs 17% not-at-home.
All these figures come from a CNBC article dated 10 January 2022 entitled “How ‘boomerang kids’ who moved back home show the unequal effects of the pandemic.” Figures 2 and 3, which are credited to the Cleveland Fed and are based off of the Current Population Survey extracted from the IPUMS CPS, are especially useful to answer the question of what drives “boomerang kids.” Figure 3 in particular shows that all young adults are predominately employed or in school, with only the lowest quintle showing employment below 50% (40% employment according to the figure) while the second quintle shows a 59% employment rate before rising rapidly to the 70% range for the top three quintles. In each income case the second-most prevalent activity is schooling, with unemployment percentages decreasing with income.
The second half of the figure is especially telling, as the employment percentage vs. adult children in school reverses, as almost 55% of “boomerang kids” in the top income quintile are engaged in schooling. As tuition increases have outstripped inflation since roughly 1988, this has almost certainly been a major driver behind the “boomerang kids” phenomenon.
This seems to indicate that schooling, particularly grad school, has become so expensive that parents with household incomes exceeding $140,000/yr quite understandably would rather not pay for on-campus room and board on top of school tuition when their student children could instead live at home. Also given the percentage of classes that have gone online (with no corresponding reduction in tuition, of course), high income parents might quite understandably want their student children to be at home so they can be monitored, instead of risking the cost of additional semesters and the consequent increase in tuition expenditure.
I consider myself an example supporting tough love.
I stayed home until 19, ostensibly to “upgrade”. I was afraid of working, afraid of the real world. My parents had enough at 19, of the Cheeto eating lazy shit, and told me to get a job or go on welfare, and get a place to live. Get out, in other words.
I did. I got a job, an apartment. It was the kick I needed, and i never looked back.
My daughter is turning 21 and hasn’t been in school since 17. COVID helped some, but she’s been in her bedroom for 4 years. She’s exhibited the same issues, fear of working, getting yelled at by bosses if she does poorly, fear of navigating the adult world. My wife coddles, as mothers do.
I hear that in some cultures this is normal, for children, or parents, to stay for decades, generations. That’s not my culture.
My hot take: if they stay, they pay a share of the mortgage, the utilities, and they buy their own groceries outside of the family meals – should require a job, but hey, that’s why the great resignation was so ‘great’, because people can work at doordash and uber without bosses. Sounds like a source of income to me.
This hasn’t worked in practice so far, but I have two more about to reach adulthood. Stay tuned.
Certainly they shouldn’t be encouraged to do it as perpetual children.
LA Times headline: Adult Children Living with Parents. Women and Minorities to Suffer Most.
This week on “Boomers dealing with the mess they’ve made…”
Everything that’s wrong with the country today can be blamed on “Boomers.”
That’s been the millennial, gen x, gen z mantra. It’s easy to sit on your collective asses and blame the previous generation instead of taking responsibility for yourselves and your own futures.