Comment by white-flame | Hacker News Reader

Comment by white-flame | Hacker News Reader

I'm not a millennial, but it makes a heck of a lot of financial sense to live with family. I'm glad that with these shifts, the stigma is falling away. My immediate family has lived through rough times, with lots of "creative" living arrangements.

Of course, we should still train general life autonomy, and not promote being able-but-incapable shut-ins, but being able to venture into housing (or back out of it if things go really pear-shaped) should be done flexibly. The family unit as a reciprocating life cushion is a very positive thing to maintain. If you're on the receiving end of this cushion, make sure you're doing your part for your parents and/or extended household, too.

I don't care that economists and real estate investors bemoan the shrinking population of those able to buy houses. When times are financially tough, people need to pool together, not overextend themselves. Overall statistics about economic recovery also don't evenly represent all families.

I've heard that in (at least some regions of) Spain, it's perfectly common and acceptable to continue living with their parents well into adulthood.

I remember reading that José María Olazábal (one of the best professional golfers in the 90's, with millions of dollars in earnings) was still living with his parents into his early 40's (though to be fair, he was traveling for half the year on tour).

I often think that the "move out from home" pressure is a ploy by the real estate industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Olaz%C3%A...

Culturally, many contemporary societies in Southern Europe -- including places like Italy's boot, Spain, and Greece -- place a strong emphasis on family and don't subscribe as much to the brand of fiercely self-reliant individualism manifested in America that evolved from the 'protestant work ethic'.

I'd say it's mostly because we're fucking poor. France isn't protestant either, yet they leave the home much earlier. Looking at the map, it seems to correlate pretty strongly with income: http://i.imgur.com/KIPcRbM.png

> Italy's boot

So are you referring to all of Italy or are you saying this doesn't apply to Sicily (or other islands)?

Socioeconomic analysis of Italy normally sees a distinction between the wealthier, more industrial Northern half (e.g. cities like Milan) and the poorer, more agricultural, mafia-troubled Southern half (e.g. Naples) normally including Sicily and Sardinia too. A rough line for the split could be about the latitude of Rome.

"Italy's boot" here corresponds to this Southern Italy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Italy

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/15/world/north-south-divide-i...

Thanks, I wasn't familiar with the expression in that context

The biggest "move out from home" push in the USA was mid-1900s government cold war propaganda, to live as a trendy "Nuclear family" with just parents & their kids.

While this was anti-socialist material, given its greater focus on individualism, it was rumored to also be intended to break up powerful family clans, as well as prevent future rise of the same.

Before these times, it was a lot more common for extended family to live together.

In India this is pretty common as well. It makes meals etc. much easier, provides instant babysitters (the grandparents), and so makes it more flexible for a husband/wife pair to work and still have some free time in the evening.

Privacy of course suffers, but then again I with multiple kids like a lot of US households have, there isn't that much privacy anyway.

-----------------------------------------------------------

> I often think that the "move out from home" pressure is a ploy by the real estate industry.

I think it's any commercial entity, right? When you move out of your parents' house, now you collectively have to pay/buy

- Extra rent

- Extra money for furnishing

- Probably more money for transport (could have carpooled with family or neighbors)

- More money for groceries (living on your own you will likely waste more groceries)

- Extra money for insurance (since it isn't a family pool)

etc.

So you're right, but possibly underestimating it. There is a lot of vested interest in convincing young people that living with their parents somehow makes them "losers" etc.

> Privacy of course suffers

Sure, but I'd rather be in a house with extended family than with roommates.

I think it's any commercial entity, right?

Clearly not. Any money you save by staying at your parent's home will be spent in other commercial entities. Even people who save eventually spend it. Conversely, all that cash going to landlords, grocers, insurance, etc is not being spent on something else.

In India, it is considered rather disrespectful to leave parents house once a person starts working. This is because, traditionally kids are supposed to take care of parents during their old age.

It's actually pretty common in Hispanic countries since you build larger family homes (My home back there had 7 bedrooms, but three generations live there -> grandma, mother, daughters)

It is an artifact of the VA mortgage and Levittown. Sears would write you a note on a Crafstman house, but it wasn't for 30 years. Of course you had to own the land.

Look at how Harry Truman lived. My uncles all lived at home until they moved, either for military service or because they got married. Age range roughly 1915 to around 1945 or so.

People lived in boarding houses if they didn't have a family.

My sister has a "boomerang" Millenial; the house is probably 3-4000 sq feet and the "kids suite" upstairs is probably 1200 sq ft. or so.

>The family unit as a reciprocating life cushion

I'm not sure about that. Parents siphoning their children's (or children's spouses') "excess" income as a substitute for emergency and retirement savings seems pretty destructive. Rather than a self-perpetuating cycle of wealth transfer forward (i.e. paying for college), children start out less advantaged and, once they have earning power later in life, are expected to contribute it backwards. Of course, what you are expected to "reciprocate" here is not usually free housing as an adult, but your upbringing in general.

I'm very grateful that my parents have been fiscally responsible, and have taught me to do the same. While I will of course take care of them as medical situations arise (as they're currently doing with their parents), I very much appreciate that we're not in a tradition of tithing to our elders like so many other families seem to be. I can only hope that my eventual spouse would feel the same way. I certainly would not expect it from my children. But if my parents demanded it, then I'd have no choice but to demand it.

Not sure how you got the impression that it's talking about parents sucking wealth out of their kids. I mean, living with parents is more or less the definition of parents helping their children, not the other way around.

The reciprocation comes later in life, when parents aren't able to be self sufficient anymore.

I'm highlighting the word "reciprocating" which seems to suggest both directions.

Well if your staying in their home longer than normal and using their resources why shouldn't you 'reciprocate' financially?

I consider reciprocation in a healthy relationship to be a voluntary give/give situation based on judgment, need, and care for one another; not a take/take parasitic one. s/family unit/family relationship/ in my prior post

Taking care of children and the elderly are of course one-sided cases, but when two generations are both adults (pre-elderly parents, adult children), and among siblings, a healthy relationship and taking care of each other goes a long way in times of struggle on otherwise equal footing.

As opposed to some literal rent-seeker siphoning your excess income as literal rent, caring for your parents doesn't seem so bad.

In many situations, it does make financial sense to live with family — however, sometimes one is simply happier and more productive when one has sufficient space that one more or less controls. Living in close proximity with others can be wonderful, but it can also take a toll. Even when those around you are nice people, it can take some energy to interact with them. I wonder how much productivity society loses when people who long to live alone are forced by circumstance to live together with others.

Completely agree. Now you make me wonder if the stigma around this kind of life style is being purposefully pushed by moneyed interest like home sellers etc...

It's not a stigma, it's societal expectations that ones offspring do better than their parents. Those expectations are being dashed, and heartedly. The millenials know we're being screwed, but the wall of people with massive equity/net worth tied up in their homes isn't budging. This will be a huge crisis going forward as we approach Australia levels of housing costs. Mark my words, in the next 20 years I believe will see a huge asset inflationary bubble that will be worse than the Great Recession.

The next 20 years will see large mortality in baby boomers, who bought their houses inexpensively and didn't move around much. That's going to return a lot of supply to the market and might drive prices down. At least outside the insane areas like San Francisco and Manhattan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com