How long do you think children should expect parents to support them?

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: NetWareHead

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Parents owe it to their kids to kick them out at 18. Some support should be provided as needed thereafter, but parents should strongly discourage the children from moving back in after age 20. To learn how to deal with the world they've got to get out on their own and deal with it.

That mentality is what leads to most Americans not giving a shit about their parents.

No wonder I see a lot of eighty something year olds shuffling their feet at the grocery store alone barely being able to walk or push the cart.
Their sons or grandsons can't help because the parents probably treated them like crap and they are probably just returning the favor.

Lothar hit this nail on the head dead center. Cultures around the world (most of them) have the concept of caring for their parents in the old age and the children are cared for by the parents for as long as possible. There is no concept of feeling inferior or not independent because you are in your 20s and your parents still take care of you.

To all parents out there who disagree with me...what the hell did you have children for? To boot them out the house ASAP? You should be feel the urge to kill yourself if it would help your child, never mind support the kids into their 20s. Now I am not saying support a moocher or parasite but part of that parental responsibility is to instill good work ethic, a sense of responsibility and the desire in the child to WANT to go out and get something better for himself. The parent's role is to give the child as much support as possible while driving the child to that goal. A parent who keeps a child at home and the kid is an asshole and does nothing, not only is the child a failure but the parent as well. The parent is an even bigger asshole than the kid for having raised such an IDIOT.

Minor correction: cultures around the world (most of them) have the concept of caring for their parents in the old age and the children CONTRIBUTE to the family as adults. The parents don't "care for" their adult children, the children grow into adulthood and become additional providers into the extended family unit. You don't see 27 year old Chinese men depending on their parents for a roof; you see them going out, working, and bringing enough money into the family for a roof, food, etc. where there are multiple generations to support.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: joshsquall


What? You're batshit crazy.

I'm batshit crazy for asking that you have a stake in your decisions with no safety net? Welcome to adulthood.

that goes against what a family is. family is not just a boot camp to get you ready for the war of life, it is your family, man. they are there for each other, they help out when needed, they hang out with you, celebrate with you, mourn with you. its a lifetime of companionship, not just a "18 year obligation" to get you ready for the real world. family is the only thing that will remain the same throughout your whole life. i have helped out family more than once, and they have helped me out when i needed it. thats what we are here for. too bad your family life apparently sucks, its a good feeling knowing youre not totally alone when you hit speed bumps in life.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
So many confused "adults" and "children" in this thread. I love how it's the same people who get pissed off and tell other ATOTers to let other people live their own lives who are telling people in this thread how to live theirs...

Since you've said the "adults" and "children" in this thread are confused, what is your opinion regarding this issue?
I'm sure we're all eager to hear it.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
If you're living at home, paying rent, that means that you CAN self-sufficiently meet your basic needs, you're just choosing to do so while living with your parents. My sister is a personality that could do this, for instance. She and my parents just enjoy each others' company that much. She's not doing this, but if she were then it would be the same as if she were providing for herself while living with roommates.

My mom doesn't charge me any rent.
If she starts to, there would be little incentive for me to stay.

Originally posted by: spidey07
No. Not the same. Not anywhere near the same. While the 20+ something child lives at home it thinks itself an adult, but is still a child. It is defendant on the nest to provide it's basic needs - food, shelter, comfort. Even if it thinks it is contributing it is still a child and a child mentality. Until the child can learn to provide for itself it is still a child no matter what age.

:roll:

dude, how old are you? why are you making 6 figures and not helping out your parents (unless they are uber rich and don't need your help)?
i can understand the living at home part, sorta... but making a good living, not contributing to the home, not in a relationship...

and then the attitude where if she starts charging, you're incentive to stay is gone?
you must be a total loser.

There are thousands of ways one can countribute without paying rent.
Did you read the rest of my earlier posts in this thread or did you only choose to read and pick that one out?
You must be a total idiot.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I'd say it's okay to live at home with your parents as long as you're working toward self-sufficiency. That could consist of going to college, searching for a job, or working a job long enough to save up some cash and move out. If you've got a dead-end job, you're not working toward a college degree, and not actively job hunting, then we've got a problem.

My relationship with my parents was such that both they and I wanted myself to be self-sufficient without forcing me out prematurely. It definitely helps to live away from your parents for a bit even if you are still getting financial support from them (for instance, to pay for tuition).

These days, you can't just kick a kid out once he graduates high school and assume he'll be just fine. Rising living costs, increased job requirements (a high school diploma is no longer enough to get a good job), and the lack of minimum wage increases has greatly changed how the world works for 18-24 year olds. Spidey et al.'s assertions are antiquated and based on broad assumptions formed decades ago. There are certainly some situations where still living at home with your parents at age 24 is really pathetic. I'm personally glad I became independent when I did (I was 23), but if it had taken me a few more months to find a decent career-oriented job and I had turned 24 before doing so, would I have been a total failure? Of course not.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

that goes against what a family is. family is not just a boot camp to get you ready for the war of life, it is your family, man. they are there for each other, they help out when needed, they hang out with you, celebrate with you, mourn with you. its a lifetime of companionship, not just a "18 year obligation" to get you ready for the real world. family is the only thing that will remain the same throughout your whole life. i have helped out family more than once, and they have helped me out when i needed it. thats what we are here for. too bad your family life apparently sucks, its a good feeling knowing youre not totally alone when you hit speed bumps in life.

My family life was great, best parents in the world. They provided me the tools to be a successful adult, part of that was making me realize that I should not be living at home after school. They didn't kick me out, they made me pay rent/utilities and made it clear that it should only be temporary, that I supposed to be an adult by then and need to start acting like one.

Best lesson they ever taught me.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Maybe he has no interest in that either?

Some guys aren't looking to start a family.

And those guys are called.... Flamboyant.

I'd use another term... but i dont wanna get banned

Well, he talked about planning on paying for his children's college and expenses. Trying to figure out how he plans on eventually meeting someone if he only goes out twice a year. I'm guessing arranged marriage is in his future.

But he's investing all that money! Just think, when he's 70 and retired, he will finally be able to enjoy his millions!

Personally I think money spent now (in my 20's) will bring a lot more enjoyment while I still have my good health vs. in retirement where people often have many health issues, but I suppose that's a personal preference.

Having said that, I still make sure to invest enough for retirement. I just don't think I will enjoy money then like I can enjoy it now.

Makes more sense to me to be spending that money on trips and other fun stuff while you can still enjoy them as a youngster. When you retire at... 70 you're going to be near-dead and not able to enjoy those trips etc.

My point exactly.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
one of the worst things to happen to the economy was the introduction of dual income families. Since the 50's that extra income delivered extra buying power only for a short time. Now to make ends meet it's almost expected.

We are already seeing the salary trends with these parents coddling their kids and turning them into adult children. People knew it was tough to get a start in life, but it taught one many things.

Now with an additional 2 or more incomes, hiring companies know they can put lower salaries out there. Once it's customary to have a household netting 3-4 bread winners, the price of all goods will rise.

Good luck then buying things.

It's a totally unhealthy relationship to have a child living past the age of 18 long term in a parent's home based on the customs of the US. Unfortunately it's getting more accepted as normal.

Sad part of the reality I am sure we all have heard...for even adult kid claiming they are saving for a 'house' to 'pay off loans' etc, you have 10 or more never doing that.

What's even worse is today these adult children simply go from living with parents to immediately moving in with a g/f...another totally unhealthy deal.

Most of today's kids are far too codependant.

Damn it, alke, I used to hate your guts for the junk you posted; now stop making good points and ruining my whole bad opinion of you!

He's right; economically we're putting ourselves right into a crappy little cycle. I hadn't even thought about that.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: alkemyst
one of the worst things to happen to the economy was the introduction of dual income families. Since the 50's that extra income delivered extra buying power only for a short time. Now to make ends meet it's almost expected.

We are already seeing the salary trends with these parents coddling their kids and turning them into adult children. People knew it was tough to get a start in life, but it taught one many things.

Now with an additional 2 or more incomes, hiring companies know they can put lower salaries out there. Once it's customary to have a household netting 3-4 bread winners, the price of all goods will rise.

Good luck then buying things.

It's a totally unhealthy relationship to have a child living past the age of 18 long term in a parent's home based on the customs of the US. Unfortunately it's getting more accepted as normal.

Sad part of the reality I am sure we all have heard...for even adult kid claiming they are saving for a 'house' to 'pay off loans' etc, you have 10 or more never doing that.

What's even worse is today these adult children simply go from living with parents to immediately moving in with a g/f...another totally unhealthy deal.

Most of today's kids are far too codependant.

Damn it, alke, I used to hate your guts for the junk you posted; now stop making good points and ruining my whole bad opinion of you!

He's right; economically we're putting ourselves right into a crappy little cycle. I hadn't even thought about that.

I'm not sure I agree with alkemyst's analogy between women entering the workforce and "children" living at home with their parents into early adulthood. In the case of women, a large population that previously didn't work at all decided to go out and get jobs. This led to increased competition, which drove prices up and wages down (relative to the case when women didn't work) and pretty much ensured that most households would need to have 2 incomes from that point onward.

On the other hand, children living with the parents into adulthood would have found a job and spent money anyway if they were working and living on their own, so I don't see how their decision to live with their parents as young adults would contribute to lower salaries and rising prices.

The two situations are different.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: alkemyst
one of the worst things to happen to the economy was the introduction of dual income families. Since the 50's that extra income delivered extra buying power only for a short time. Now to make ends meet it's almost expected.

We are already seeing the salary trends with these parents coddling their kids and turning them into adult children. People knew it was tough to get a start in life, but it taught one many things.

Now with an additional 2 or more incomes, hiring companies know they can put lower salaries out there. Once it's customary to have a household netting 3-4 bread winners, the price of all goods will rise.

Good luck then buying things.

It's a totally unhealthy relationship to have a child living past the age of 18 long term in a parent's home based on the customs of the US. Unfortunately it's getting more accepted as normal.

Sad part of the reality I am sure we all have heard...for even adult kid claiming they are saving for a 'house' to 'pay off loans' etc, you have 10 or more never doing that.

What's even worse is today these adult children simply go from living with parents to immediately moving in with a g/f...another totally unhealthy deal.

Most of today's kids are far too codependant.

Damn it, alke, I used to hate your guts for the junk you posted; now stop making good points and ruining my whole bad opinion of you!

He's right; economically we're putting ourselves right into a crappy little cycle. I hadn't even thought about that.

I'm not sure I agree with alkemyst's analogy between women entering the workforce and "children" living at home with their parents into early adulthood. In the case of women, a large population that previously didn't work at all decided to go out and get jobs. This led to increased competition, which drove prices up and wages down (relative to the case when women didn't work) and pretty much ensured that most households would need to have 2 incomes from that point onward.

On the other hand, children living with the parents into adulthood would have found a job and spent money anyway if they were working and living on their own, so I don't see how their decision to live with their parents as young adults would contribute to lower salaries and rising prices.

The two situations are different.

Hmm, more to consider, and you're right about the increase in workforce. However, I was thinking of it in a ratio sort of fashion. When you expect 1 person to provide for the needs of a family, things wind up being priced accordingly (because otherwise you price them out of reach and nobody buys them.) When you expected 2 people to provide for the family, prices could rise. Now were talking 3-4 people expected to provide for a family, which means there's more pricing leeway (a $2 bag of chips might have been the upper budget limit before, but when you have more free cash because you have an extra household contributor you might be willing to pay $4).

Poor assumptions on my part? I'm definitely not an economist.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Maybe he has no interest in that either?

Some guys aren't looking to start a family.

And those guys are called.... Flamboyant.

I'd use another term... but i dont wanna get banned

Well, he talked about planning on paying for his children's college and expenses. Trying to figure out how he plans on eventually meeting someone if he only goes out twice a year. I'm guessing arranged marriage is in his future.

But he's investing all that money! Just think, when he's 70 and retired, he will finally be able to enjoy his millions!

Personally I think money spent now (in my 20's) will bring a lot more enjoyment while I still have my good health vs. in retirement where people often have many health issues, but I suppose that's a personal preference.

Having said that, I still make sure to invest enough for retirement. I just don't think I will enjoy money then like I can enjoy it now.

Makes more sense to me to be spending that money on trips and other fun stuff while you can still enjoy them as a youngster. When you retire at... 70 you're going to be near-dead and not able to enjoy those trips etc.

Yep.
I should be enjoying life by driving an expensive luxury car, flying business class, buying homes I cannot afford, and buying things on credit cards that I know I won't be able to pay the balance off.

I like your style of enjoying life. :thumbsup:
Who cares about debt and living to age 70?

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Maybe he has no interest in that either?

Some guys aren't looking to start a family.

And those guys are called.... Flamboyant.

I'd use another term... but i dont wanna get banned

Well, he talked about planning on paying for his children's college and expenses. Trying to figure out how he plans on eventually meeting someone if he only goes out twice a year. I'm guessing arranged marriage is in his future.

But he's investing all that money! Just think, when he's 70 and retired, he will finally be able to enjoy his millions!

Personally I think money spent now (in my 20's) will bring a lot more enjoyment while I still have my good health vs. in retirement where people often have many health issues, but I suppose that's a personal preference.

Having said that, I still make sure to invest enough for retirement. I just don't think I will enjoy money then like I can enjoy it now.

Makes more sense to me to be spending that money on trips and other fun stuff while you can still enjoy them as a youngster. When you retire at... 70 you're going to be near-dead and not able to enjoy those trips etc.

Yep.
I should be enjoying life by driving an expensive luxury car, flying business class, buying homes I cannot afford, and buying things on credit cards that I know I won't be able to pay the balance off.

I like your style of enjoying life. :thumbsup:
Who cares about debt and living to age 70?

Why are you going to be in debt? All I said was going on trips and spending your free money on some fun stuff. I was talking about spending money you make, not credit.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
So many confused "adults" and "children" in this thread. I love how it's the same people who get pissed off and tell other ATOTers to let other people live their own lives who are telling people in this thread how to live theirs...

Since you've said the "adults" and "children" in this thread are confused, what is your opinion regarding this issue?
I'm sure we're all eager to hear it.

On the one hand we have smart asses like you, on the other we have trolls like spidey07.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Homerboy


I'm venturing to guess that EVERYONE saying "20+ is ok to live it home is 20ish themselves and without kids?

nope, im 39 and have 3 kids.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

that goes against what a family is. family is not just a boot camp to get you ready for the war of life, it is your family, man. they are there for each other, they help out when needed, they hang out with you, celebrate with you, mourn with you. its a lifetime of companionship, not just a "18 year obligation" to get you ready for the real world. family is the only thing that will remain the same throughout your whole life. i have helped out family more than once, and they have helped me out when i needed it. thats what we are here for. too bad your family life apparently sucks, its a good feeling knowing youre not totally alone when you hit speed bumps in life.

My family life was great, best parents in the world. They provided me the tools to be a successful adult, part of that was making me realize that I should not be living at home after school. They didn't kick me out, they made me pay rent/utilities and made it clear that it should only be temporary, that I supposed to be an adult by then and need to start acting like one.

Best lesson they ever taught me.

So you lived at home but paid rent and utilities even after you turned 18? Man. You're such a failure at life. You're also a child.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

that goes against what a family is. family is not just a boot camp to get you ready for the war of life, it is your family, man. they are there for each other, they help out when needed, they hang out with you, celebrate with you, mourn with you. its a lifetime of companionship, not just a "18 year obligation" to get you ready for the real world. family is the only thing that will remain the same throughout your whole life. i have helped out family more than once, and they have helped me out when i needed it. thats what we are here for. too bad your family life apparently sucks, its a good feeling knowing youre not totally alone when you hit speed bumps in life.

My family life was great, best parents in the world. They provided me the tools to be a successful adult, part of that was making me realize that I should not be living at home after school. They didn't kick me out, they made me pay rent/utilities and made it clear that it should only be temporary, that I supposed to be an adult by then and need to start acting like one.

Best lesson they ever taught me.

same thing im teaching my kids. but theres also a healthy amount of "get a great education, youll need it" in there too. while they are bettering themselves, ill always be there to help out if needed. if thhey are sitting on their ass and expecting free rides, ill be kicking that ass to help them get it in gear.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Maybe he has no interest in that either?

Some guys aren't looking to start a family.

And those guys are called.... Flamboyant.

I'd use another term... but i dont wanna get banned

Well, he talked about planning on paying for his children's college and expenses. Trying to figure out how he plans on eventually meeting someone if he only goes out twice a year. I'm guessing arranged marriage is in his future.

But he's investing all that money! Just think, when he's 70 and retired, he will finally be able to enjoy his millions!

Personally I think money spent now (in my 20's) will bring a lot more enjoyment while I still have my good health vs. in retirement where people often have many health issues, but I suppose that's a personal preference.

Having said that, I still make sure to invest enough for retirement. I just don't think I will enjoy money then like I can enjoy it now.

Makes more sense to me to be spending that money on trips and other fun stuff while you can still enjoy them as a youngster. When you retire at... 70 you're going to be near-dead and not able to enjoy those trips etc.

Yep.
I should be enjoying life by driving an expensive luxury car, flying business class, buying homes I cannot afford, and buying things on credit cards that I know I won't be able to pay the balance off.

I like your style of enjoying life. :thumbsup:
Who cares about debt and living to age 70?

There's a huge difference between investing/hoarding every last penny and living your entire life on credit.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
one of the worst things to happen to the economy was the introduction of dual income families. Since the 50's that extra income delivered extra buying power only for a short time. Now to make ends meet it's almost expected.

We are already seeing the salary trends with these parents coddling their kids and turning them into adult children. People knew it was tough to get a start in life, but it taught one many things.

Now with an additional 2 or more incomes, hiring companies know they can put lower salaries out there. Once it's customary to have a household netting 3-4 bread winners, the price of all goods will rise.

Good luck then buying things.

It's a totally unhealthy relationship to have a child living past the age of 18 long term in a parent's home based on the customs of the US. Unfortunately it's getting more accepted as normal.

Sad part of the reality I am sure we all have heard...for even adult kid claiming they are saving for a 'house' to 'pay off loans' etc, you have 10 or more never doing that.

What's even worse is today these adult children simply go from living with parents to immediately moving in with a g/f...another totally unhealthy deal.

Most of today's kids are far too codependant.

Do you have any references to what you are claiming? Maybe actual research done by economists? I'm just genuinely interested in reading more about the effects of women in the workplace and what you brought up seems interesting. I can't find anything worthwhile from Google aside from some book suggestions.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: scorpious

Originally posted by: LilPima

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you still living at home at age 24 you are a complete failure at life honestly. If you can't put a roof over your head and provide for your life and self, well that's failure at life.

Area707 - by providing a roof over the head still classifies as failure of the child. The now mid 20s child can't even meet it's basic needs without assistance. The child is a failure at life and the parents are enabling this failure.

18 is the bar. Above and beyond that will only lead to the child's failure in life.

How much is the average monthly rent in Kentucky? Here, a shithole apt can start at $1000/mo., and you have to pay more for nicer areas/places.

Not being able to put a roof over your own personal head and opting not to, while making more sound financial decisions is the better way to go.

Exactly, bum fuck Kentucky has cheap ass housing. I just found a studio for $450 on craigslist.

:roll:

LOL. During college I paid $1490 for an apartment (2BR). Total steal. Last week one of my friends told me she pays $2400 and has to split 4 ways for a different building but it was the exact same design as my complex. Seriously. It is insanely hard for anyone to live it out there alone where I am. I know it's definitely possible with my pay, but how the hell do you expect me to ever save up to buy a house?

It's ridiculous. Housing prices fell like 15% here only. Certainly schools don't matter yet because I'm not having kids anytime too soon but I don't see how people can buy an $800,000 3BR house here while renting for the meantime after graduating from college. Try paying off college debt at the same time. There's no way you can make it out in CA here like this. Even if you do, you will be in debt for a LONG TIME. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just not the wisest thing to do. That's why many of us Asians live at home. It's not so much we can't get out there and live. I make plenty to go out there and survive, but given that our parents don't mind us at home and would rather us save money, I say why not. Until I decide to move out with my SO or whatever this is the wisest thing to do. I'm saving money, and I know plenty of people who have done the same. It's a lot easier for them to go out after 3 years and just put a downpayment on the ridiculous housing prices here.

Try doing this if your parents kicked you out at the age of 18. It's not hard to NOT qualify for financial aid in CA. If your family makes 6 figures, you're screwed. Even as a family of 4 trying to pay off a $800k house, 6 figures doesn't get very far. I have plenty of friends who have to live on tight budgets because of a single income source (yay 6 figures as a PhD sounds great but it's not THAT great). If you had to work for say public school which costs $20k a year, work studies won't even let you break even. I honestly don't know ANY engineer here who worked their way to support themselves. The ones who worked only worked enough so they had their spare cash to spend on entertainment. If you had to work 20 hr weeks and study, you would fail in no time. I still don't get how people say it's possible (maybe if you went to some ridiculously easy school). By the time you graduate you would be in debt. Try getting a car, house, etc. Yeah. GL.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: AreaCode707


If you're living at home, paying rent, that means that you CAN self-sufficiently meet your basic needs, you're just choosing to do so while living with your parents. My sister is a personality that could do this, for instance. She and my parents just enjoy each others' company that much. She's not doing this, but if she were then it would be the same as if she were providing for herself while living with roommates.

No. Not the same. Not anywhere near the same. While the 20+ something child lives at home it thinks itself an adult, but is still a child. It is defendant on the nest to provide it's basic needs - food, shelter, comfort. Even if it thinks it is contributing it is still a child and a child mentality. Until the child can learn to provide for itself it is still a child no matter what age.

Eh, I will respectfully disagree. I was out of the house at 18, so I'm not arguing in self-defense, but I do know people that are both self-sufficient ($70k+ a year, good social lives) and live at home.

Anyway, my question really pertained more to the kids that expect tuition, rent, car, gas, and spending money and, to end our difference of opinion, let's say live outside of the home.

Those are the responsibility of the parents.
It is the child's responsibility to bring the good grades home.

As long as my children keep a 3.3 GPA and don't pick stupid majors like psychology, liberal arts, social science, medieval history, or any other equivalent stupid degree they can expect their undergrad tuition to be fully covered(after scholarships are accounted for).
In fact, if they decide that they want to also get a Masters/PhD, I will gladly give them an "interest free" loan for it.

I would prefer my child to bring an "A" on his/her report card than to bring a "C" due to him/her working a stupid $8-10/hr job at CVS or some other stupid job on campus.
If "work" is the issue preventing one from bringing me an "A" on their report card, then they need to quit it.

Your ideas only apply to parents who can afford those luxuries. I could get a 4.0GPA and my parents would say, "too bad, no tuition payment from us. We can't afford Harvard or even a public university. That 4.0GPA can get you scholarships, work it."

My parents live on a fixed income(not a large one), so they could not afford it.

IMO, if they didn't plan to save for college, they shouldn't have had kids. We planned financially before we had our child...

LOL this one takes the cake.
ROFLOL!!!!

What's funny is that people keep pumping out kids without care for their well being. Being financially responsible is part of being a parent. It isn't just you anymore. Why do you think so many kids become bums? Copy of the parents.

 

[BoomerD]

"Mommie...I's skeered to go out in the big cruel world and make it on my own...it's too 'spensive!"

"There there junior. You're almost 50. You have to make the step someday."

:roll: at kids with an entitlement attitude.

YES, it's tough on the "outside," but it CAN be done. As we always here on these boards, not everyone has to own a house of their own. If you can't live on your own and buy a house, relegate your self to being a renter.

Big college debts? No one ever said you had to attend that fancy ivy-league college. Live within your means.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Wow. Not enough time to read through the whole thread, but here are my thoughts.

Kids have so many options these days. I see no problem with kids staying at home after 18 as long as they are working/volunteering/traveling (backpacking)/going to school etc. i.e. doing something productive.

People progress at different rates in life, so hard age caps are stupid. Some people take longer to finish school, some want to travel and explore the world, others want to volunteer, and this is all part of the growing process.

The reason so many have to live at home to achieve these goals is because of our fucked up economic policies. Most people's adjusted incomes have stagnated over the last 30 years, real estate prices are up, and cost of living in general is much higher. School is much more expensive than it used to be.

Even discounting all the additional useless crap kids feel they "need" to buy nowadays (fancier computers, cellphones, new cars, plasma TVs etc.), life is way more expensive than before.

Even if you've been responsible with your money, saved and invested and worked hard through your teens and early 20s, it is not easy to put a decent down payment on a good property, especially if you've paid for school.

As long as kids are helping out around the house, working hard and have clear goals of what they want to achieve and when they will be able to move out, staying at home is fine.
____________________________________

I worked summers from Grade 9 onwards and put all of my money towards university; my parents covered the difference. Worked full time after graduating while attending more school and moved out after finishing that program (age 24).

Quit my (menial) job at 25 to go backpacking for a few months, and rebounded when I got home for a few months, until I was able to find a good job and a new place to live.

I'm now 26 with a good career job, modest rental suite, old but functional car and decent savings and investments. Still can't afford a downpayment on an apartment where I live but at least I'm living independently. Maybe I'll be able to get a mortgage a few years from now when the market bottoms out post-Olympics.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Wow. Not enough time to read through the whole thread, but here are my thoughts.

Kids have so many options these days. I see no problem with kids staying at home after 18 as long as they are working/volunteering/traveling (backpacking)/going to school etc. i.e. doing something productive.

People progress at different rates in life, so hard age caps are stupid. Some people take longer to finish school, some want to travel and explore the world, others want to volunteer, and this is all part of the growing process.

The reason so many have to live at home to achieve these goals is because of our fucked up economic policies. Most people's adjusted incomes have stagnated over the last 30 years, real estate prices are up, and cost of living in general is much higher. School is much more expensive than it used to be.

Even discounting all the additional useless crap kids feel they "need" to buy nowadays (fancier computers, cellphones, new cars, plasma TVs etc.), life is way more expensive than before.

Even if you've been responsible with your money, saved and invested and worked hard through your teens and early 20s, it is not easy to put a decent down payment on a good property, especially if you've paid for school.

As long as kids are helping out around the house, working hard and have clear goals of what they want to achieve and when they will be able to move out, staying at home is fine.
____________________________________

I worked summers from Grade 9 onwards and put all of my money towards university; my parents covered the difference. Worked full time after graduating while attending more school and moved out after finishing that program (age 24).

Quit my (menial) job at 25 to go backpacking for a few months, and rebounded when I got home for a few months, until I was able to find a good job and a new place to live.

I'm now 26 with a good career job, modest rental suite, old but functional car and decent savings and investments. Still can't afford a downpayment on an apartment where I live but at least I'm living independently. Maybe I'll be able to get a mortgage a few years from now when the market bottoms out post-Olympics.

You're only 26? Somehow I pictured you as older than that, probably because you tend to have very level-headed posts.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
If you're living at home, paying rent, that means that you CAN self-sufficiently meet your basic needs, you're just choosing to do so while living with your parents. My sister is a personality that could do this, for instance. She and my parents just enjoy each others' company that much. She's not doing this, but if she were then it would be the same as if she were providing for herself while living with roommates.

My mom doesn't charge me any rent.
If she starts to, there would be little incentive for me to stay.

Originally posted by: spidey07
No. Not the same. Not anywhere near the same. While the 20+ something child lives at home it thinks itself an adult, but is still a child. It is defendant on the nest to provide it's basic needs - food, shelter, comfort. Even if it thinks it is contributing it is still a child and a child mentality. Until the child can learn to provide for itself it is still a child no matter what age.

:roll:

dude, how old are you? why are you making 6 figures and not helping out your parents (unless they are uber rich and don't need your help)?
i can understand the living at home part, sorta... but making a good living, not contributing to the home, not in a relationship...

and then the attitude where if she starts charging, you're incentive to stay is gone?
you must be a total loser.

There are thousands of ways one can countribute without paying rent.
Did you read the rest of my earlier posts in this thread or did you only choose to read and pick that one out?
You must be a total idiot.

i like how you conveniently left out the part where you're only staying until she starts charging you.
freeloading loser confirmed.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: zerogear

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: zerogear

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
In many parts of the world, sometimes children NEVER leave home. And with homes costing $250,000 on up and peoples desire to remain single, 20 somethings at 'home' will become more and more common.

I actually get the 20-somethings at home just fine, but you can still be at home and living on your own dime (paying rent, buying your own car/gas, doing your own housework). By itself living at home doesn't mean expecting your parents to support you.

I think being 20s something and at home is fine. For some people living at home is a method of saving money for that big move in the future.

Saving money at your parents expense. No matter how much you think you are "pulling your own weight" at home, you simply are not. I dont care if you pay rent or whatever, you're still an expense to your parents.

I'm venturing to guess that EVERYONE saying "20+ is ok to live it home is 20ish themselves and without kids?

If your parents are fine with it, I don't see any reason not to. If they wanted you out, then you should move out.

parents being fine with it are just parents being irresponsible.