In the U.S. and abroad, more young adults are living with their parents


:eek: You live in the midwest without a basement!

(I am thinking tornadoes)



LOL! That’s why they didn’t put the one bathroom on an exterior wall :smiley: (Or so I’d like to believe.

Honestly - after 4 near misses with tornadoes (1 to 4 miles away), they don’t worry me much. We shelter in the bathroom if needed, but mainly figure what’s going to happen is going to happen. :shrug:

But we also live in a suburb, still somewhat on a lower floodplain - if I lived “in the open” so to speak, I’d probably be more concerned.


This was my situation.

I was allowed to stay rent-free provided that I was doing something constructive.

If I was sitting around the house not working and playing video games all day I would have been warned first, then told to leave.

In my case, I think it’s safe to say I learned a work ethic, working outside the home and paying for my own education.

And there was no “mom and dad’s money”; Mom and I shared a one-person Social Security check.

This reminds me of my aunt and uncle and their big family.

It was made clear to my cousins that after four years of college they were expected to move out. My cousin joked that he came home to find a pool table where his bed used to be.

But, their Mom and Dad paid for college and provided other financial assistance when needed.


It’s funny, though. Size of house and size of family doesn’t seem to matter in many other countries. According to my wife and her friends, in Mexico, adult children live with their parents until they’re married, and often long after. The families are (or at least used to be) much larger, and the houses much smaller, especially in the poorer areas of the cities. In fact, in their culture, they see it as cruel to have the children leave the house before they’re married.

So, a lot of this is cultural. As I stated before, in the US, we’ve always preached self-sufficiency as a virtue. Our heroes are the frontiersmen and the mountain men. And, I know this gets off-topic a little, but it’s why we, as a culture, were so easily persuaded by the Marlboro Man and one of the biggest reasons why guns are so important here.


You may jest, but I’ve seen this actually happen.

It’s caused no end of friction in my extended family as my wife’s cousin and husband moved in with her mother and grand parents when she had her first kid. It was supposed to be a short term situation until they got on their feet. Seven years later and one grandparent having passed and they’re still there. They’ve even kicked her mother out of the main house and back into the back house where the grandmother still lives. And they’re more than on their feet seeing as he makes 6 figures and they blow their money on high end merchandise like high end hand bags, jewelry, a half dozen cars in 7 years, exclusive tennis club memberships, Etc… They’ve even begun trying to get the grandmother to change her and her recently deceased husband’s will to give them the house when she dies (the will for decades has had the house going to the mother and her 3 siblings equally as the grandfather had always wanted).


I agree regarding former generations, but I do think that the Sanders supporters, and the Occupiers, and others who lament “income inequality” and essentially support socialism, are expressly challenging the idea of “self-sufficiency as a virtue”, they see that as a myth that the One Percent used to cleverly trick the proletariat into being happily exploited by Big Bad Business and the Big Bad Bankers.

So, I think that it’s not just about “economic realities forcing children to live with parents” with the implication being “they’d rather not do that, of course”. They actually believe that as long as the parents can afford it, they have a responsibility to support their kids, long into adulthood. One of the Obamacare policies was to allow kids to remain on their parents’ health insurance policies until age 26.

And while I agree that in traditional cultures, even poor families had children live with them until marriage, I also think that the entire perception of a parent’s role is changing, and it’s somewhat of a vicious spiral.

As people have fewer children, they have more financial resources to distribute to each child, and they start to assume they have the responsibility to pay for every child’s college education, or to let their children live with them into their 20s or even 30s. Then, of course, it is the “responsible” thing to do to limit how many kids you have, because if you have “too many” kids, they “might not be happy” to find out you can’t fund their whole college education the way parents in small families do.

I have actually seen people make comments even on CAF that if people have "too many " kids, then surely the kids will eventually come to resent their parents for not giving them as much financial support as society considered appropriate. Sometimes in very snarky ways.


Oh I agree that culture plays a large part. My response was to the increase in the US only - where as you mention, self-sufficiency rather than continued support, has been the cultural norm.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit