Let’s take this ridiculousness even further! The biological urge to reproduce is an innate feature of being humane, and the parents themselves never asked to be born with such a ridiculous hormonal mandate. What a cruel thing for their parents to have imposed on them! But wait, those parents weren’t really responsible either!
It’s slavery all the way down!
I’m assuming your lifetime of support wouldn’t apply to adoptive parents, step-parents, or parents who were raped, since they didn’t force a life into the world, right?
I wonder what else falls under the consent rule of Marcus’?
Did he ask the consent of the pig that he ate in his BLT last week? What about the tomato?
Did he ask the consent of the sheep that gave the wool for his favourite jumper?
Would you, Marcus, consider it right and proper to ask a baby’s consent to change its nappy? Should a parent ask permission before it picks up the baby out of the path of a speeding car? If the baby is playing with a sharp knife or a rusty needle, should consent be given before it’s made to drop it?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I would consider that to be independence. Progressive thought is not a necessary outcome of independent actions as you describe, but it seems to be the trending average of my lifetime and that of my parents and grandparents.
Interdependence would be if the kid continued to live at home and work the family farm. Doesn’t make him/her a bad person. Just not necessarily an independence seeking one. Of course, there are those late bloomers that I don’t want to write off as non-independents.
Given that Marcus Flavius has not disputed my suggestion that it should be legal to enslave these permanent dependents, lock them in chains, and put them to work at hard labor, I assume that he wholeheartedly agrees that that should be totally legal.
I mean, what else is he going to do - say that the parents should be legally obligated to pay for the to kid live in comfort? Ha!
Historically, in such families the young women have assumed a disproportionate share of the household tasks with their opportunities for growth, creativity, and work outside the home stunted. Some families are toxic, with some members exploiting, sabotaging, or abusing other members. Yes, that arrangement has some advantage when things work out well but don’t pretend it’s a panacea for all social ills.
Well, first of all, you learn to run an entire household on your own - you have to cook, clean, do all the chores, etc. If, after a period of time on your own, you then move into a multi-person/generational situation you have a better appreciation for all the work required for a household and the effort that goes into it. This will most likely make you a more effective and useful member of such a household.
You will not be called upon to put your personal goals aside for the “good of the whole” - a classic instance being of women told to put their educational and/or career aspirations on hold so a brother or other male relative could be educated or trained, thereby stunting the career choices of the woman. I know of one instance with my in-laws where woman was designated by other members of the family as the caretaker and every instance where she tried to further her education or get work outside the home was actively sabotaged by her family. When her parents died she was a 50 year old woman without a high school diploma with no marketable job skills and no one stepped forward from the family to help her. She wound up on welfare and destitute. So much for extended family/multi-generational households. Some independent living in her youth might have made that particular transition less traumatic.
If you are looking at a career that requires extensive travel (pilot, truck driver, boat captain, whatever) being skilled at independent living is pretty essential.
**Living independently gets you away from abuse/exploitation/neglect. ** Not all family members are nice people. No one should be compelled to stay in a toxic situation.
Not everyone has much family left. This is pretty much where I am. I just don’t have many living relatives left. Being able to live independently is a necessary skill at this point in my life.
But really, most people DON’T live alone all of their lives - there is a tendency to move in and out of such situations. You (hopefully) grow up in a good family, then strike out to start your own. That doesn’t necessarily mean living alone - neither of my parents lived outside of family prior to marriage - but it would, in my mind, mean that once you are an adult you start contributing as an adult. I want people ABLE to be independent, and being so by choice rather than necessity. I also want people to have the option to live in a group (either blood relatives or a group of friends) but not be compelled to do so, either. I’d like to see any stigma removed from either situation so it’s seen a choices made by people in their own self-interest rather X being a sign of being a loser or Y being required to be seen as “adult”.
Isn’t it amazing how much smarter you get when your kids get older. And how your parenting advice is requested once your kids become parents.
When my daughter complains about my grandson, I can tell her that he is easier than she was.
I really don’t think you’ve thought through the practicalities of enforcing laws about this.
SCENARIO 1: Suppose a couple wants son to move out but he refuses. They sell their house and move into a one-bedroom apartment and sell all furniture except the bed; son has nowhere to sleep. Now what? Do the police force them to buy a futon?
SCENARIO 2: Couple wants son to move out and he does. After he leaves they move into a one bedroom apartment. Son wants to move back. Are they forced to get another apartment?
2A: Their older son already moved out. After they move into a two bedroom apartment, he wants back in too. Now what?
SCENARIO 3: Parents divorce. Son wants to stay home in adulthood; which one has the obligation? Is it up to the son?
Just to be fair, how about I mention a few benefits of a multi-generational/member household?
Splitting of household tasks - each person does assigned chores and has a subset of the required chores rather than having to do all of them.
It is easier to raise/care for small children in such a setting.
Other members can potentially assist another member - whether it’s taking on some household duties to free that person up for education or particularly profitable work, helping with children, assisting during some sort of crisis (physical, mental, whatever).
**Keeps old and/or disabled members in a home setting and not in a “facility” **- of course, not everyone can be cared for in the home but in many instances help is needed, not round the clock care.
Pooling of resources - money, larger housing, whatever.
More social interactions - which are usually a good thing, and if so, promote both physical and mental health.
I want to make it clear what I say doesn’t apply to kids who for some reason cannot be independent or who would find it difficult to be independent. Totally different situation.
But I think the differentiator is the effort the kid is putting in to be independent. Lots of people moved back in with their parents during the recession, and if they are honestly looking for a job the end date “when the economy improves” would be fine. But a moocher not really looking needs an end date. Or else it will go on forever.
Adult kids at home are constraining on parents, and parents are constraining on the kids. Much as we love our kids, we shed no tears when they went off to college. Nor did they. You can stay far better connected with parents today than I could when I went off to college.
I see your point, but this limits children to living close to their parents. Some of my kids’ friends lived at home, more lived close to where they grew up, and they have had more constrained careers than my kids did. Getting out there and seeing that other parts of the world have things to teach you that your home town does not is good.
Marcus Flavius is on the right track but doesn’t take it far enough. Legislation must be introduced which makes it illegal to cut the umbilical cord. This essential link to the parent must be maintained, artificially if necessary. Parents have no business separating themselves from their offspring. Parenthood is for life and even in death the parent can provide useful nutriment for the child.
The benefits of multi-generational living are moot in this case because MGL requires that everyone contributes labor and/or wages. The adult son in the OP did neither.
By this logic, I do NOT have an obligation to support my child at all. In fact, that obligation falls upon my parents, who brought ME into the world without my willing consent. After all, I could not have chosen to reproduce if I did not exist. Therefore, I wash my hands of all responsibility and tell the wailing brat to complain to gramma.
Career constraints due to living close to your parents depends an awful lot on what career we’re talking about and where those parents live. I’m sure there are certain jobs that can only be found in Silicon Valley - but I’m also pretty sure that there are accounting jobs nearly everywhere. And someone who wants one of those Silicon Valley jobs won’t face any constraints because he wants to live near his hometown of San Jose.
Here are some others, some of which just expand on what you said:
The toxicity of a significant other can be mitigated. One of my sisters has an (occasionally) toxic spouse. If it weren’t for the fact that she absolutely loves his father, who has lived with them since they got married almost 25 years ago, I don’t think they’d still be married. Now, one could reasonably argue that they SHOULDN’T be married and I agree with this. But my sister benefits financially from the partnership. And raising two kids by herself would have been really hard on her.
The toxicity of parents can be mitigated. Mom and/or Dad might be irresponsible lay-abouts, but it’s not so tragic if Meemaw and Pop Pop are actually running the household with a stern but loving hand.
The toxicity of downward social mobility can be mitigated. Sure, it’s great watching your son or daughter try to take on the world on their own terms as a rugged individualist. But it can’t be all that great to watch all that upper middle-class upbringing and privilege you’ve invested in your children result in grandkids who go to subpar schools because their parents can’t afford housing in the right neighborhoods. As affordable housing gets rarer, Boomer and Gen X parents are going to be experiencing this more and more. At some point, I would think the pride in seeing your kids doing the “independent adult” thing would give way to the sadness in seeing them struggle under hardships that could be avoided if only they could move back home.
I think the disadvantages you listed are real. But if the dooms-day predictions about widening income inequality and a non-existent middle class come to fruition just a little bit, then I think it is only prudent for people to re-evaluate the values they’ve been taught to esteem. Lots of 20-somethings are spinning their wheels trying to make it “big” in Silicon Valley and going broke in the process because they (like all of us) have all been taught that “going for broke” as a rugged individualist is what winners do. Losers presumably stay at home, even if staying at home allows them to endure a mediocre job and build savings and start a family and be happy. Ultimately, the person who dies happy is the one who “wins”. I think Americans need to be more open-minded about all the paths out there that can lead to happiness.
Well in this particular case living with parents makes more sense because no one except the few getting top jobs at Facebook can afford to live in Silicon Valley these days. But my youngest, who does not work in tech, can find a really good job and affordable housing elsewhere. She’d love to live near where she grew up, but knows she and her husband can’t afford it.