Yes, I suppose if you think of sharing living accomodations with your parents as “stealing”, then I agree you shouldn’t do it. I just think that one’s relationship with parents should be a bit better than that.
That’s why I hesitate to apply the same rationale here. I’d be happy to pay above market rents to live with my parents, if that’s what they want, but in my household, that makes little difference, since we children are their de facto retirement plan, and I’d happily give the parents everything I owned without batting an eye, if that’s what they wanted. Of course, I know everyone doesn’t share that kind of relationship with their family, but it would be equally incorrect to generalize in the opposite direction, no?
Sure – Anyone paying a mortgage who is willing to have a boarder (who pays rent and thus offsets the mortgage) benefits thereby. But there are obvious reasons why many people choose not to have boarders in their home, even if – especially if – those boarders are children: Privacy, wear and tear, increased utility costs, and, frequently in the case of children, boarders who do not actually pay their fair share. Not to mention the delaying of independence from the child’s side. To many of us, this doesn’t sound like a great arrangement, and we’re not wrong to have concluded so. Is it a great arrangement for some people? Apparently so – but that doesn’t mean that dating prospects might not have very defensible reasons for discounting or passing over an adult prospect who is still living in his or her parents’ home.
Except that your parents should not be responsible for any part of your housing expenditure if you are an adult; that is your responsibily, as is your food and your utilities and all the rest of the expenses you incur. So the question isn’t whether it’s cheaper for all of you, the question is whether it’s cheaper for them. If it’s not cheaper for them, then you’re basically a freeloader, reducing your own housing expenses by increasing theirs.
Having your own space is not necessarily, or even generally, principally about consumerism. You might make a consumerism argument about the type of home a person wants – McMansion, penthouse, yacht – but you can’t make that argument just because they want a home that they don’t have to share with their parents. For all you know, we’re talking about a yurt or a cardboard box under an overpass. I’m sorry your failure to grasp the difference between independence and materialim is making you so self conscious. Though I do see how it helps you rationalize the fact that you still live at home.
Why would I do that? I’m not the one arguing that the owning a residential home that you live in is not a good “investment” – quotation marks used by you. But if you want to educate yourself as to whether owning your own home is in fact a good “investment,” you may want to start here or here or here. And if you’re truly making enough money to park your ass at your parents and invest in the S&P 500 – and you don’t have strong cultural reasons for staying – a lot of people are going to think you’re a freeloader, period.
The thing you continue to gloss over is that vast majority of the benefit is to you with very little benefit to them. But that’s okay because one’s relationship with one’s parents should transcend such petty concerns such as whether one is actually costing them money. It’s an argument that gets a big :dubious: from a lot of people. Heck, when you’re a kid living at home at least you’re a tax deduction; when you’re an adult you’re not even that.
I agree with the general principle, but as I stated above, I don’t want to make any sweeping generalizations here because everyone’s relationship with their parents is different. I agree that if your parents are indifferent between charging a market rent to you, and charging a market rent to a stranger, then the choice is meaningless to you.
I made a generalization that it’s usually cheaper for everyone to live together. If this is somehow not the case for you, then don’t worry about it. I’m not.
shrug That’s fine, we’ll agree to disagree on that, but if you change your mind, I’d be happy to participate.
I left at 17. I have been living other than in my parents’ home my entire adult life. I have been financially independent since I finished college at 21. My lifestyle was different from my parents, significantly enough that living at home would have oppressed and infantilized me; living as the adult I wanted to be required separating from my parents. I wanted to live in a different place geographically as well. The logical thing to do at that point is move out, live on my own, and finance my existence myself. Perhaps self-determination and indepedence are, in your book, a luxury? I don’t think so. To me, they are a necessity.
You are rather prone to hyperbole, aren’t you? I wouldn’t die but my quality of life would be pretty miserable if I were living in Staten Island with my dad at 35. The fact that I would not cease to exist if I lived there means that not living there = buying a Ferrari… you truly believe this analogy has merit? Think about it.
No, obviously we’re all hitting a nerve with YOU. You’ve posted stridently and often to this thread casting aspersions on people who want to live on their own, making spurious comparisons to justify your own situation. After all, it’s you who’ve been characterized as a loser. You have reasons to feel defensive. All I have to do is point out obvious inaccuracies in your argument. No big deal. I still have my house, and you’re still living with mummy and daddy, in the final analysis, so I’m OK with the whole thing.
Throatwarbler Mangrove, I have to agree with Jodi, if you are done with school and living at home, you should be working and contributing more money to the home than you cost. Hopefully enough for your parents to see some benefit from the arrangement. If you are costing your parents money or breaking evil, you are being a leech.
I think it is fine to stay home if your parents are fine with it. Paying $400 a month beats paying $900 a month like so many in my state have to do. I imagine the more expensive the area, the more acceptable it is for someone to live at home past 25. I think for every deadbeat, we probably know someone who is helping the family out instead. I know more that are helpful than deadbeats. Again, this might be a NY/NJ thing.
It has also been mentioned that people seem to feel it is more acceptable for women to stay home longer. I would add there is holdover from older days when a Father would be more protective of his daughters and the days when daughters moved directly from Dad’s house to Husband place.
Jim
A tirade? Apparently another vocab word with which you are not familiar. You said that I would not die if I had to live at home, therefore not living at home is a luxury akin to driving a Testarossa. I am trying to explain to you, using small words, that for some people, living at home as an adult is unacceptable, unhealthy, and moving out is necessary to having a satisfying life. To you, only certain death would justify the expensive of living anywhere but home. Surely even you realize this is bullshit.
Yep. I do. A lot of people do. It’s completely normal to pay rent or a mortgage and live somewhere away from your parents. For many people, it’s a healthful, uplifting, empowering experience, and the spending of money is almost incidental… it’s just how life is. Adults have to spend money, Sparky. I’m not sure you realize this, but it is so.
The question isn’t whether they’re indifferent to charging market rent to you versus a stranger – many people would not choose to have any boarder and, sure, if they had to for financial reasons, would prefer a related boarder. But the question is whether they are charging market rent to a boarder versus charging less-than-market rent to a kid. The former contributes to the household in a measurable way; the latter does not. IOW, if your parents are letting you live at home for no rent or low rent, they are doing you a favor, at least financially. Whether they’re doing you a favor otherwise is open to debate.
Yes, I understood your generalization. I pointed out that the operative concern is not whether it is cheaper for all of you but rather whether it is cheaper for the parents – because if it isn’t, the adult child is inarguably being a financial burden to the parents and people who might look at dating the adult child might reasonably take that into account.
It’s not really something that’s open to disagreement. You strongly implied through your use of quotation marks and otherwise that owning a home is not a good personal investment. This is incorrect. I’m unlikely to change my mind about something so generally understood to be true.
And FWIW I am no more approving or disapproving of women living at home than men, because I don’t come from a cultural background that draws such distinctions. IME, some have good reasons, some don’t.
And FWIW, within the bounds of civility, direct aggression is generally preferable to passive aggession, so if you’re going to be hostile you can dispense with the smilies.
No problem. I agree that winthin the context, at least a market rent should be charged, if not an above market rent.
Again, I agree, with the caveat that the above doesn’t neccesarily follow soley from the fact that one chooses to live with parents.
…and I’m not going to try. I suggested we might want to explore it further, for the benefit of our readers, but in any case, I imagine there are already threads about it in existance.
Can you accept that you and I might define “luxury” differently, or are you suggesting that there is an absolute standard as to what would be considered luxury and what wouldn’t? Something that is a “luxury” to a poor immigrant like me may very well be a neccesity for a wealthy home owner like you, certainly?
Throatwarbler Mangrove, as Jodi just said, I think this would be more productive if you dispensed with snarky smilies and the offhand dismissal of the other posters and actually told us your feelings on money and consumerism. Do you think that spending money is somehow a “sin”? What sort of things take priority for your money over potential housing? In regards to being a financial burden on your parents, do you contribute money to offset your cost in the household?
I feel like I have a good relationship with my parents, and in an emergency I have no doubt I could live with them just fine. But given my education and the kind of work I do now, there’s no feasible way for me to live at home even if I wanted to.
Snarky? moi? Well, I don’t know what more I can do, I’ve already apologized for everything that’s been brought up, without protest. I don’t think the problem is on my end.
Not at all.
What does it matter what I do with my money? I certainly haven’t implied that spending money on housing is somehow less moral than what I choose to use my money for. It’s your money, do whatever you want. At the same time, I agree with DianeG, spending money on housing is still consumption. What I take issue with is the idea that it’s somehow MORE moral.
Well, as stated, I don’t live with my parents, and neither I nor my parents have any need for such an arrangement to offset costs, this isn’t about me. To answer your question: In principle, yes, I think people should make a net positive finanical contribution to their families, I don’t disagree with Jodi in that respect, but that doesn’t necesarily have any bearing WRT where one chooses to live.
I am not wealthy. I’m just good with money. If you can’t work a full time job and afford to move out, nor have the emotional wherewithal to separate from the nest, maybe independence is a “luxury” for you. To me, it’s not.
I’d rather be poor and independent than wealthy and infantilized, so your argument that I own a house so I’m rich is just patently false AND is contraindicated by your very own argument . I’ve lived alone for 10 years. You think that was easy or I could afford it due to being rich? No, I’m a public school teacher, and before that, I took student loans, went to grad school, worked sometimes 2 jobs, and made it happen. I used my financial sensibility to make it so. Do not try to imply that somehow I’m economically advantaged over you and that makes my independence possible. Maybe I’m just better with money than you are… and maybe that’s because I had to learn to manage my own finances 15+ years ago, and you haven’t learned it at all yet.
What “better use for your money” do you have other than finding a place to live and gaining your independence? Buying an XBox or some shit? If you want to save money, go get some roomates like everyone else.
Look, no one thinks they are a “loser”. But what do you think a loser is? Is it someone afraid to make their own way in the world? Is it someone who gloms off of the good nature of other people? Is it someone who needs to be taken care of by other people? Someone who won’t grow up?
Fact is if you are an adult living at home with your parents, we have no way of knowing if you are a loser or a winner since you aren’t even playing. You can quit your job or just skate by since who cares if you get fired? Your parents won’t evict you or shut off the electricity. You can pursue stupid hobbies that masquerade as your “career” or work at nothing at all if you want.
