I’ll bet he already has an IRA also.
But this sounds like an upper-middle class problem…this prolonging of adolescence thing. Not a universal “OMG!? WHAT’S HAPPENING TO THE YOUTHS?!” problem.
Not that you don’t have a point at all. At my age, my mother had four kids and a husband, a house, and everything that we tend to associate with maturity. She was grown-up no matter how you slice it. Meanwhile, I’m single, childless, still sleep in on the weekends, don’t make up my bed, and barely know how to cook. I’m grown up because I pay my own bills. But I’m not as emotionally mature as my mother was, when she was my age.
But! I am much more independent than my mother was at my age…and even now. She has no idea how it feels to travel hundreds of miles from home all by oneself and set up a new household, all by oneself. Or even rely exclusively on her own labor for survival. So in some ways, I’m more mature than she was at 34. At least for women, I think we may be more mature than our mothers were because we’re staying unmmarried and childless longer, and more of us are going to school and having careers. My maternal grandmother never worked outside of the home in her whole life. She’s full of wisdom, don’t get me wrong. But I know a whole helluva lot more about how the world works–how people are–than she does.
I do think that low-level addiction, poor parenting, and a bad economy are interacting in a way that’s messing up a segment of our population. But I’m really not seeing an “epidemic”. I see plenty of young people in college, struggling on their own, working two or three McJobs, and doing what they have to do. Just like they always have. This sounds like a man-made “first world problem” to me.
I wonder what all is going into that or why it’s becoming expected. I was living on my own with minimal support at 19 and my SO did the same at 18. (We’re now 36 and 30 respectively)
Where is the idea coming from that you shouldn’t be pulling your own weight at 18 or so?
Confirmation bias.
Look at the “stereotypical” young adults from 1968 - they weren’t held up as models of maturity. How about ten years later - 1978 - not quite a decade before I graduated from high school - a lot of those young adults were stoners. The William Shatner “get a life and move out of your parent’s basement” skit was from 1986.
There are always going to be a small number of people who reach maturity young and accomplish great things - a coworker’s son is one of those amazing young people - working on a degree at Stanford, interning at Google. And there will always be young people who take a bit to reach maturity - or never do.
I don’t know if we can blame the crappy economy for why the guys in the article are not pulling their weight. For one, if their parents can afford a place like this, I’m imagining they are in a priviledged position where the economic forces that affect most people aren’t really at play. And besides, it sounds like they are failing before they even get officially “launched”.
But I’d say the crappy economy is making many younger people simply unable to pull their own weight. If their parents can’t even get jobs, why would you expect someone fresh out of high school with no skills or experience to fare better?
I would guess some employers would prefer the skill-less recent graduate because they wouldn’t have to pay them as much as they would an older person. Also the kids wouldn’t know they’re supposed to get benefits.
But the fact that younger Americans have been the hardest hit group of the recession should indicate that it hasn’t been so easy for them to just knock on an employer’s door and get a job.
Especially since they are working against the presumption that they over-pampered, self-indulgent, spoiled brat babies.
Have you just shut your eyes to the world in the last decade or something?
-
College loans have gone through the roof because…
-
A college degree has become a requirement for even the most menial jobs because…
-
We’re in an employers market because of the nationwide recession that…
-
Has been going on for the last 3-4 years so…
-
Young people that graduate college at 22 are seen as losers and layabouts because they don’t have a job at 26 (or older). So they go back to school and then…
-
See number one.
But once again, the article that prompted this thread is about kids that look like they come from money and aren’t even trying. I’ve certainly been hearing about adults in their mid 20’s like this for longer than 3-4 years and have never understood it.
I’m sure it’s a factor and likely not a small one, at least for people from lower income families. Hell, I come from one. I know how hard it is to get started on your own with little to no financial help.
The people in the article actually remind me of someone I know, except he’s in his mid 40’s. Came from a family with resources and is waiting for an inheritance. In the meantime he can’t hold down a job, has very little in the way of motivation and has a life that is going nowhere.
That’s because no one does. Look at what Dangerosa wrote directly after you:
“Look at the “stereotypical” young adults from 1968 - they weren’t held up as models of maturity. How about ten years later - 1978 - not quite a decade before I graduated from high school - a lot of those young adults were stoners. The William Shatner “get a life and move out of your parent’s basement” skit was from 1986.”
There were always “losers” in the 20-30 set. Kids who relied on mommy and daddy much longer than the average person thinks is healthy. But I’ve noticed two things about those average people.
One, they’re usually not average. Almost all of them found a great, well-paying job right out of high school or college, or, they were kicked out of their house the day they turned 18 (or earlier). That wasn’t common back in the day and it sure as hell isn’t common now. But that’s the standard these “losers” get judged on.
Two, these average people don’t want to admit that the world is different today. It really does take a college degree to get your foot in the door almost anywhere. And it requires hefty loans to get that degree (I escaped with only $30,000 in debt, a bargain compared to some of my friends). But! We’re also in a recession and jobs are hard to come by, even for the most qualified of applicants. Now imagine you’re a kid fresh out of college with no experience.
It is a perfect storm of crap getting dumped on 20somethings that has never occurred before. And the sooner we all admit that, the better off those 20somethings (and the teenagers coming after them) will be.
And from someone now “closer to 50 than 40” - I’ve noticed something about the losers…most of them don’t stay that way. Yeah, they might live with Mom and Dad for a while, or in a crummy apartment. They might deliver pizza into their 30s, or work at a coffee shop.
But they do grow up - or most of them do. I know “losers” who have Masters degrees and PhDs, granted, they were in their 30s and 40s before they got them, and are well employed. High school drop outs who are homeowners holding down jobs and maintaining a middle class life. I know guys who were huge losers who had nice military careers, people that were supported by Mom and Dad into their late 20s who are published authors, and trust fund kids who didn’t hold real jobs until their 40s making huge contributions working for non-profits.
I also know a 40 year old or two who still lives in Mom’s basement - but they are really the exception - and usually have issues beyond mere “failure to launch” - like mental illness.
I think that there are two people who poor economies hit REALLY hard.
One is the poor. Obviously. They - as you said - don’t have the skills or the resources.
But these silver spoon kids don’t have it easy. My sister married a kid whose Dad was a VP at Ford - lots of money. And he was used to skiing in Aspen every winter and designer clothes. He had no idea how to support himself in a more economical manner - no idea how to eat cheaply or cook. And when you add in parents providing a very attractive safety net - letting you live at home, or paying for your apartments (!), or taking you on vacation, why would they launch? And, if they weren’t raised to have obligations, they don’t develop the skills - someone hassles them out of bed in the morning, the maid makes their bed and does their laundry. They don’t have chores like mowing the lawn. A tutor talks them through their homework so they don’t need to pay attention in school. And when they turn the age of these young men, Mom and Dad say “oops” and realize they screwed up, but the dynamic isn’t going to change. They’ve created a nice situation of co-dependency.
Their expectations are designer clothes and BMWs. Their earnings potential out of college is an apartment with roomies and a bus pass. Why should they bother? And often, the expectations of their parents are BMWs and designer clothes - everyone is disappointed.
The idea that you should be independent at 18 and be in a comfortable position by your mid twenties is one that existed for a short amount of time in a few specific places. For a few short decades in America, it was considered the norm. Even during that time, it certainly wasn’t the norm for everyone. Half the adult population, for example, was expected to be relatively dependent and was not expected to work outside the home, manage finances beyond a shopping budget, or play the deciding role in major household decisions.
For the vast majority of people in the world, through almost all of history, it’s totally normal to live in an extended family. Most people, everywhere, either live with or close to their parents (or their spouses parents) for most of their life. Most people do not expect to be the head of household until their parents pass away. Few people have ever experienced anything approaching the independence people in their twenties expect today.
In the 1940s, 24.7% of the population lived in mutli-generation households. This fell sharply after WWII, and continue to decline until it fell to a low of 12% in the 1980s. Since then, it has creeped back up fo around 16%, with Asian and Latino immigration accounting for a big chunk of the rise.
There is no “golden age” or default family structure. It has always been evolving, and it will continue to evolve.
Anyway, I agree that this specific program looks like it’s designed to relieve rich parents of some of their excess money. I do think it might be helpful to the kids involved, but maybe not as helpful as a nice solo backpacking trip to Europe or something that actually does foster some independence. But there are plenty of people that age who could benefit from a reality check and a chance to reboot, and there is a chance this program can provide it.
I also agree that most “failure to thrive” cases do figure it out eventually. So they waste some time in their life…we all waste time one way or another.
Dangerosa, that sounds like a breakdown of common sense, though. Not a breakdown of society. But I suppose if paying $350 a day is what it takes to correct parental failings and I’m not being asked to pay it, I shouldn’t judge too much.
Having read the article – it may well do some kids some good.
I can name 10 middle-aged men off the top of my head who need their asses shipped off to somewhere like this, because they’re still playing video games and living off of their parents.
Parents frequently have breakdowns of common sense - common sense isn’t all that common, you know. And when its your beloved child, its easy to put off the difficult things and believe you are “helping” them when you aren’t.
And its very hard to know if what you are doing is for the best or not. Is a tutor enabling your kid not to listen in school and setting them up for failure, or are they helping them reach untapped potential? When you harass your fifteen year old out of bed each morning, are you enabling laziness and creating a dependency on you that will hamper their independence - or are you assisting them through that horrible “can’t get enough sleep and my biological clock is off” few years of being a teenager that is fairly normal biology? Is a divorced mom who doesn’t make her son mow the lawn shrugging off a responsibility to teach her son to handle household obligations, or is she purposely sidestepping creating a dynamic where she is replacing a spouse with a teenage boy - sending him to eternal therapy. When you take your kids on vacation to Hawaii, are you giving them experiences that will shape a worldview - teaching them about volcanoes, Polynesian culture, and whales - or are you setting them up for an entitlement mentality?
Excellent post. In hindsight, it’s pretty easy to see when a parent went wrong. But from the inside in the moment, it’s not at all clear exactly what point strikes the right balance between fostering independence and providing unconditional love. In the past, life what quite a bit tougher, and parents pushed their kids towards independence in part because they had no other choice. Now parents of nearly-grown children have smaller families, larger homes, and cushier lives. It’s a lot easier to err on the side of too supportive.
I think that there is a tremendous difference between living as a productive member of an extended family, and laying in the mud like a flounder. I think the issue is not when one moves out, but rather when one takes on the responsibilities of a productive adult either while living on one’s own or while living as part of an extended family.
And when you are raised in constrained circumstances, there aren’t necessarily a lot of choices. Junior HAS to mow the lawn and do chores because Mom is working 60 hours a week and someone needs to do it. You don’t get to go to Hawaii and you can’t hire a tutor. (Mom might still be able to hassle Junior out of bed). When your circumstances aren’t constrained, it can be really easy to give your kid “advantages” that turn out to be anything but.
And for parents who are well off, they earned things. Should he not drive a BMW because his kids might develop an unrealistic sense of entitlement? Should they leave the kids at home while they enjoy a well deserved and easily afforded beach vacation? Do they need to clean their own house when they can easily afford a housekeeper once a week - giving someone else employment?