I don’t recall that anyone has said they refused to date someone who owns a car. Certainly I did not say that.
That said, “choice” does not equal “attitude.” I’ve made choices in my life that are very different from my best friend’s choices. She’s an urban dweller and I’m not, as a very basic and simple example. We extend one another the courtesy of not being snotty about the other person’s choices, even though they are choices we would never have made.
It would also probably not be my choice to date someone who had made choices similar to hers. Why? Not because I think that this mythical person is beneath me. Because I don’t think we’d be compatible in the long run. That doesn’t make me self-righteous. It just means I’m thinking about what I want for my life, and being realistic about what might work.
And this whole conversation reminds me how glad I am not to be dating. I so hated dating.
I think it depends on the culture. Sure, in the US it is frowned upon, because there is generally the stereotype of the loser living in the basement smoking pot and playing video games all day, or the socially stunted hiding from responsibility aka the show “The Winner.” In some countries such as Japan, it is much more acceptable, and houses tend to have multiple generation mortgages. In fact, I am certain many homes in Europe such as Italy, in smaller towns there are a higher number of families living in the same manner for generations.
Perhaps this family closeness will come back, I certainly think we are at a loss. Why can’t families own land that have multiple houses on them, like familial compounds? I wouldn’t think less of my kids if they lived with me and my wife (my current GF is opposed to such a thing for some reason), but if you can add on to the house and make it comfortable for a multi-generational household, why not?
For the record, I don’t live at home, nor would I want to. Me and my parents are too different, though we get along ok. My parents enjoyed the empty house for about a year after my sister moved out (I moved out well before her), and for the last 5-6 years now since she has been in college, they have consistently had a foreign exchange student. I suspect this is the whole empty nest syndrome, and if in many other cultures this wouldn’t be a problem.
I suspect that if multi-generational households were more socially acceptable, you would have a lot less lonely and depressed people, and families as a whole could afford larger and more expensive homes that passed down from generation to generation.
I want someone to demonstrate a do-it-themselves attitude. This can manifest itself in terms of wealth acquisition, but it doesn’t have to. Materially speaking, someone who rents a basment apartment doesn’t “own” anything more than the guy bunking in mom’s basement for free. But he is supporting himself, which is evidence (again, not proof) of maturity. That’s what I assign value to.
Gosh, really? Such counterintuitive ideas you’re throwing out here.
Then we’ll sure as hell have to disagree as to the basic premise, because these are not the same thing. I don’t care if you want to travel by pogo-stick while wearing tofu shoes, but if you are living at home as an adult, I am entitled to wonder why and to ask you why. If your answer is “it’s cheaper!” I am entitled to ask: (1) Cheaper for whom? and (2) So cheapness is the overriding factor? Because in regards to No. 1, it may be cheaper for you but it’s probably not cheaper for your parents and in regards to No. 2, some of us value things like independence and having our own space more than we do saving money. And if you’re more interested in squirreling away the Benjamins (probably at your parents’ expense) than you are in having a life of your own, I am entitled to conclude we probably aren’t going to be compatible and that dating would be a waste of both our time because our goals and values are clearly inconsistent.
So which of us is the loser in that scenario? It obviously depends on who you’re asking.
And anyone who thinks owning a home is all about status seeking and consumerism needs a remedial course in financial planning.
I agree with most of your post; however, there are many cases where a working adult child at home allows the parents to keep their house and afford better vacations or save more for retirement. In other words, it would be a mutually beneficial arrangement.
I mentioned two friends earlier. One was nothing but a leech on his family. He contributed nothing but companionship and eventually caretaking.
My other friend stayed home so his widowed Mom and Grandmother could keep the family house. He actually contributed the most to the house. His benefits were many; Grandma loved to cook and did a lot of the cleaning. Having his salary and his Mom’s they both had money left over for frivolous things like reliable cars and computers. He could have lived in a small crappy apartment instead and lived paycheck to paycheck. Of course, his Mom would have had to sell the house and move into a crappy apartment and his Grandma would have ended up in a senior’s “warehousing” center.
My older Brother still lived at home after I moved out. He contributed more than he cost them. He was putting his life back together, but my Father was forcibly early retired and my Mom’s job never paid much. What my brother did contribute allowed them to stay in the house for two extra years before they retired to a senior’s community. They were happy that their one lost child got back on his feet and made himself into an adult. He failed while living alone before moving back home. He is now a successful manager, not bad for a lost loser pothead without any college education.
I have another friend that lived with his grandmother and took care of her and from age twenty, paid the mortgage and taxes on the house. My friend’s father greatly appreciated his Mom being taken care of so well and helped out where possible with career changes my friend made while working.
When my friend finally got married, he and his wife bought a house only two miles away from Grandma so he could continue to take care of her and the house. I guess his wife might be a less judgmental person than you are coming across as.
Personally, I would love to own a very large parcel of land and have a family compound. One house I looked at had a large separate three-car garage with a very convertible attic space that I took one look at and realized that if we bought the house I could convert it into a nice apartment and rent it to my Brother. (This was before he was a manager.) We even looked at Mother-Daughter houses to share with my MIL. I now think this would have driven me insane, but we seriously considered it at the time.
I like my family; I like my wife’s family. While I would not want them in my house all the time, I would be extremely comfortable with them living very nearby or even in an attached apartment. When my kids finish college sometime in the distant future, I plan to ensure they are working, but if they wish to stay home and contribute to the household, they will be welcomed to.
No, I said I’d be squicked out if I ran into the person I just fucked’s MOTHER. Big difference. Though I’d rather not bump into anyone, confronting someone’s dear old ma after I just screwed someone is just too creepy for me.
It seems to be the case everywhere that I’ve been, that living together is cheaper than living alone. If this is not the case in your neighbourhood, so be it. I haven’t been to your location, maybe eveyrything there is upside down, who knows.
As I’ve said, if your parents actually treat you like a renter, then I suppose the point is moot for them, since there is no difference between renting to you versus renting to any junkie off the street. I’m lucky enough that my parents trust me a bit more than that, and I them. The way I see it, living together generally means a reduction in total household expenditures on housing.
We are in agreement then. I didn’t ask you to justify your consumerism, in fact I’ve explicitly states that a number of times. I certainly don’t need to justify mine to you, other than the general principle that I’m not too concerned about material things. Whether you value your “own space” or a Ferrari more makes no difference to me. I’m sorry this is making you so self conscious.
I’m always up for that. Chart the performance of residential real estate with the S&P500 in the last 15 years for me, won’t you? Start another thread if you want, we can go from there.
Throatwarbler, you live in a huge city. Wouldn’t your environmental footprint be a lot smaller in a community that wasn’t so large? Large cities like Calgary are extremely hard on the environment.
Well not having a car in the majority of North America can really impinge on your social life.
For instance there was a girl a couple months ago who was really interested in me, but lived with her parents 30 miles away (on the other side of a semi-metropolis like Orlando that’s quite a ways.)
Not having a car, and living relatively in the middle of nowhere, she has to let her parents dictate where she’s going and where they will take her. At least twice, if not more, our plans for meeting each other have deteriorated due to her parents making other plans and not being able to transport her.
Of course these could just be excuses, but she’s dropped way more hints about liking me than vice versa. I’m not impressed enough with her to drive 3 hours out of the way just to meet her (and do stuff she’s suggested that frankly seem boring to me,) but I would if she would meet me at my place or split the difference and go to downtown Orlando.
It’s fantastic that the people in this thread who live at home for an extended time - or their friends who do - all have rock-solid good, pure motives for doing so, and don’t take any advantage of their parents, and their parents are always thrilled for them to be there.
It’s great that their parents are devoted enough to their kids that they are willing to give up (or continue to not have) space in their house and their kitchen, personal space, the opportunity to be adult human beings with no dependents and a little peace of mind.
HOWEVER.
I know a few people in their 20s who still live “at home” - with the parents. One of them moved back in after being on his own for a while so he could help out his parents with bills and save enough money to move to another city. The rest of them? Floated in and out of shitty fast food jobs. Sat around playing video games and smoking pot all the time. Some of their parents would have loved to kick them out but “just couldn’t,” and ALL of the kids in question felt that they were entitled to be there and that their parents loved having them around.
The one person I know in his 30s who still lives with his mother is … he lacks social skills. He has to be home every night because he’s worried about her and he calls her frequently when he’s NOT home. He plans to live with her until she dies. He also doesn’t shower with great frequency and feels that his years working at Radio Shack have made him a technical genius.
What it boils down to is, there’s probably a reason why adult folks expect extenuating circumstances when they hear that other adult folks are living with their parents.
You’ve brought this up a couple of times, and I think your implication that people whose parents don’t want them to live with them don’t TRUST them is disingenuous at best, blatantly insulting at worst.
I think one thing that’s being overlooked here is that in my experience, those who buy into the “cheapness” argument find it to be much more compelling than anything else, and simply cannot understand any other point of view. In my experience, cheapness is the overriding factor, and it can come from both parents and kids.
My mother did not want to see my sister or I move out. Period. I don’t know why, and this is neither the time nor the place to speculate, but she did not. And she glommed on to the “cheapness” argument: Live at home; it’s cheaper. If you’re not paying market rent, you can save for a house. If you’re not paying bills, you can afford to travel. Without any expenses like independent people have, you can save for a nicer car. And so on. But not once did she ever allow that any argument could possibly override the “cheapness” argument. No amount of talk of independence, of being closer to work, of odd-hours comings or goings, or of a bit of privacy would shake her conviction that living at home with parents was better because it was cheaper. She turned every argument into one of expenses.
I didn’t buy it. Against her strongly-worded objections, and her threats of how I’d be home in six months because I couldn’t afford it; and in spite of having to duck a few thrown objects, I got the hell out. I managed, at some points just barely, but I got by. Never went to live with my parents again, although we did keep in touch and I visited at times. Mom often asked about rent and bills and other expenses, and alluded to how much cheaper it would be to live at home, like my sister.
Because my sister bought into the whole cheapness argument, lock, stock, and barrel. She simply could not understand why I did not want to live at home, where it was cheaper. Again, she didn’t understand why I valued independence more than cheapness, and why I would want to move out because living at home with parents was so much cheaper. Discussions with my sister about moving out always resulted in her turning the conversation to expenses. Needless to say, she was Mom’s Golden Girl, while I was the Black Sheep. Point is though, that each of them always turned any conversation or argument on the subject back to expenses. For them, there simply was no other argument.
I think the “cheapness” argument is one upon which folks have to agree to disagree. Based on my experience, I think that those who support it cannot understand any other point of view, while those who value independence (among other things) cannot understand it at all. It may be best to just let this one be.
This is exactly it. I value “cheapness” in this context because I have better uses for my money than fancy housing arrangements. I’m not making a value judgement on you if you don’t feel the same way, but you can’t categorize that as anything other than a pattern of consumption, it isn’t any more or less noble than buying a Ferrari.
Actually Anaamika, my feelings have always been your stories are very much the exception but what I suspect is that our samples of Indian community have been rather self-selecting. My parents are liberal and come from a liberal part of India (Mumbai/Marathi culture) and hang around with like-minded people. Perhaps your family has self-selected for friends that match their own values. I strongly object to the statements you routinely put forth that Indian men are psychotic mama’s boys and most parents are control freak narcissists out to ruin their childrens’ lives as it is a pretty broad brush and India is a big country full of many different cultures and communities.
My dad is a pretty nice chap, truth be told, and endeavours only to beat and oppress us on Fridays before the full moon. My brother-in-law even left my sister a few teeth to chew with, the darling.
My housing arrangements are not fancy. They are very economical. I shopped around, got a great deal on a mortgage, put serious money down, have a rental unit, etc. If by fancy you mean “not living in dad’s basement at 35,” then I do not think that word means what you think it means. Please do not insist that those of us who live on our own all live in luxury penthouse suites. It makes you sound bitter, as in, sour grapes.
Living on one’s own NOT a luxury item. For some of us, it is a necessity. To compare my decision not to live with my father and to buy a house rather than pay extortionist rent in the place where I have made my life to owning a Ferrari-- well, it’s just a bullshit comparison. It’s inaccurate. Your continued strident repetition of it sounds really defensive…
If living in your own home is comparable to buying a Ferrari, then please explain to me how living in someone *else’s * home isn’t comparable to stealing one.
No matter where you live, you are consuming. The question becomes whether what you are consuming belongs to you.
You believe it’s a “neccesity”. I don’t, and quite frankly I don’t see how you can keep repeating that when both you and I, at one point or another ( I assume you didn’t grow up sleeping in cardboard boxes), have done without it and apparently survived the experience. You can’t objectively tell me that your life will somehow end if you were forced to live with your parents, so what’s the issue? I apologize if I’m hitting a nerve with you, and I must say, once again, that you don’t need to justify any of your spending habits to me, if that will save you from any further apoplexy.
