Interesting and thanks for posting. Sounds like Mom and Dad will do in a pinch for young folks.

I assume it's primarily due to economic issues and unemployment rates, along with sky high student debt. Also, most young people aren't married now. Wonder what the rates are for Mormons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2016 10:55AM by woodsmoke.

Health Care and College Education cost rising faster than the cost of inflation and the cost of living.

Typical it's the governments fault.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/14/link-high-education-healthcare-costs-government/

How can one pay off a $250,000 education on a $25/hour job?

Blaming the government is silly. States are decreasing support and that money is made up in tuition. In my four years teaching at my public institution, the state has decreased funding by 25%. Turn off those talking points.

it's the fault of STATE governments.

Geez, do you even think about the stuff you write before you hit "post message"?

Um...

That's the government.

Well duh it's the government. But you guys didn't bother reading the link. The link claims it's government's fault because it is subsidizing too much. And I just showed you it's because it is paying too little. But do try to keep up.

In other words stop blaming the government for funding education. This is not the problem.

*eyeroll* There are many factors, not just one. This isn't the topic. Government actions are one of them. Way too complex to get into here. Started with Reaganomics, that's for sure.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2016 06:53PM by woodsmoke.

"Started with Reaganomics, that's for sure."

Funny, I don't remember hearing college grads complaining about student loan debt during the Reagan years. If you want to consider a legitimate proximate cause of the current situation, you can start here:

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/11/23/why-the-government-is-to-blame-for-high-college-costs

"The more money the federal government pumps into financial aid, the more money the colleges charge for tuition. Inflation-adjusted tuition and fees have tripled over those same 30 years while aid quadrupled; the aid is going up faster than the tuition. Thanks to the federal government, massive sums of money are available to pay for massive tuitions."

Whenever the federal government takes over a program, the costs inevitably go up. As another example, look at the rise in health care premiums since the "Affordable" Care Act was passed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2016 09:07AM by randyj.

I'm going to disagree with that. When I was an undergrad back in the late 70's, I paid out of state tuition (therefore, full freight) at a state flagship university. Back then, tuition and fees per year were about one third of a beginning public school teacher's salary. Now it is better than two thirds. Something is out of whack. Blame it on the economy, if you will, but I believe there is much more of a mismatch between tuition and starting salaries than there used to be.

When I was in grad school in the early 90s, tuition was jacked up alarmingly. In one year alone, there were two increases for a total of 18%. My initial estimate for student loans doubled within the space of two and a half years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2016 07:10PM by summer.

I can look up the salaries of the professors at my old University. They are about the same as they were 25 years ago. It kind of makes one wonder where the money goes.

At the UCs, investments in banks and private prisons.

"How can one pay off a $250,000 education on a $25/hour job?"

Perhaps a better question is: How stupid is someone who would pay $250K for a degree without knowing that he's only going to make $25 an hour?

There are scads of jobs you can get with only basic on-the-job training that pay at least $25 an hour.

Funny, I thought that a college education was supposed to make you smarter, not stupider.

I'm a very lucky man.

I live with my wife and three stepdaughters; in a few days the fourth stepdaughter, her husband, their son (my grandson), his parents and sister and will be joining us (they just got booted out of their rental).

But it's all good. Where we live (South America) it's normal for several generations to live together. Eleven of us under one roof is no big deal. (Actually two roofs--one three-bedroom apartment in the front and two interconnected one-bedroom units in the back.)

We're poor; not a lot of choice in the matter. We work, go to school, care for the baby, do housework, and/or we're retired. Everybody pitches in. In our family are TBMs, atheists and everything in between. We're very fortunate because although we're broke and not on the same page re: dogma, we love each other. We're happy.

(Oh, the cats aren't ecstatic about the new puppy, but they'll get over it.)

My daughter moved home with her cat. My dog took to limping around everywhere she went for two weeks! I was worried and took her to the vet. He knew right away what she was was up to. She eventually tolerated the cat.

I lived with my mom off and on through my 20s. Tried going out on my own at 18... didn't go so well. Came home at 20. Left again at 22. Roommate left me stuck with a lease, couldn't make payment on my own... home again at 23 almost 24 and lost my job on top of it. (Meanwhile I was not in school, working full time only. Went back to school at 24 for a year. Left again at 26, and stayed out til 29 til an engagement went to a disengagement. lol I turned 30 while still living with my mom.

That was pretty dang depressing. Mind you, she's TBM and house rules were worse than most teenagers. It was rough, but I had no choice and I always had the option to go home. It was just me and mom for a long long time, and in my family there was never any financial assistance. You wanted a car loan? No co-sign, get it yourself or don't get it. I think being able to stay home was my mom's way of helping me get back on my feet without putting her name on me and my many mistakes of growing up.

I lived with my parents for almost two years after my stint in the Peace Corps. I was 27 and it was 1999 when I finally left for good. It's hard coming of age in the USA. Thankfully, I was not raised LDS and my parents, aside from really wanting me to move out, were pretty cool.

I wouldn't want to be a young person today.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2016 12:44PM by knotheadusc.

My son couldn't wait to leave home as soon as he graduated from high school. And then he married young and moved 600 miles north.

RB

My mom added an in law apartment. Youngest son (now 26) never left, commuted for college, commutes to his job.

Oldest son with custody of his 2 kids for half of every week also lives here. We have our share of drama, but mostly, it's nice to have everyone so close.

Third son and his wife lived here on summer before oldest arrived. We would love to be able to make room for them as well.

Second son's son asked, "Hey, why can't we live at Nana and Grandpa's like everybody else?"

The grankids' friends from India have grandparents at home and they feel most at home at our house with all its people.

Multigenerational living is normal in many countries, and in some subcultures in America. We have this odd idea that there's something abnormal about living at home, but families and individuals should really just do what's best for them. Maybe more of us from older generations would have been comfortable staying at home if it hadn't been something we were shamed / mocked for doing.

There's also always been pressure to marry immediately. That trend slowing can only be a good thing IMO.

What concerns me is that generally speaking, this is out of economic necessity, not preference, in U.S. culture.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2016 06:52PM by woodsmoke.

He was gone for many years living elsewhere. I do worry about what the future holds for him. He is doing better than he was when he moved back and then lost his job. He has a job again and he functions, where he didn't for a while after he moved home and broke up with his long-time girlfriend.

I hope he gets his feet on the ground. I have had many people tell me I needed to use tough love. For him, it never works. I will NEVER put my children out. Even my father, who was a tough man, would tell me every time I moved out, "You can always come home."

I found the posts about families with many family members living there quite refreshing actually. I think it is pretty tough out there. Life just isn't the same as it was when I was in my 20s/30s. My insurance cost 95 cents a month. It was extremely good coverage. We didn't pay one penny towards the birth of our twins and their longer hospitalization and my C-section. You can't get even close to that now. There are MANY benefits we used to enjoy that we no longer have. My daughter took a huge hit on her tax return because of what she earns and her insurance coverage, and she doesn't earn THAT much in terms of really getting by. The penalty will be cheaper, though it will be a lot of money.

The economy to me is in the toilet. And any time my kids need a place to stay (and many others), there will be a place for them HERE. My brother has lived here with his son. My niece lived here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2016 07:20PM by cl2.

When I was single, my car payment for a brand new car was $50 a month. My car insurance was $100 a year. It cost me $2 to go see a Dr. or be hospitalized. Prescriptions cost nothing. My groceries were about $50 a month.

It was easy to live on $400 a month. I rented a little house for $150.

Tuition rising faster than the economy in general is too complicated for there to be a simple answer. I think a small part of the issue is that maybe fifty years ago, a larger portion of students were paying, between their own and parents' money, some loan money, plus bona fide scholarship money (of which there was not an abundance), the full cost of tuition and housing. Aid was based primarily upon merit. Then grant money based solely on economic need, or on a sharply graduated scale, weighted more heavily on eceonomic need than on than academic merit, entered the picture. When that changed, some of the federal and state money that went toward operation of the institution went to grant-in-aid money. The difference had to come from somewhere, so tuition costs were raised.

I'm not saying it's bad, good, or anything else, but I do believe it is part of the equation.

It's due to Reaganomics, the shift from liberal arts to job-based training, the higher percentage of people who attend college, the ability to profit from international students, and the huge reduction of state aid. Fifty years ago, junior colleges and public schools were almost entirely free.

My twenty-five-year-old son lives at home with us, and I love it. He would like to move out, but the cost of housing has gotten ridiculous.

I lived at home until I married in my mid-twenties. I have kind and loving parents who never took a red cent from me provided I was saving money, which I was. I love multi-generational living of the fit is right.

I have four adult children, ages 26-35 who were always welcome to live at home with the following stipulations:

They had to pay rent - depending on their income, I asked for $100-$250 a month. That covered their room and utilities.

They had to help around the house - dishes, laundry, cleaning, taking care of the cat(s), etc.

They had to be working toward living on their own.

If they were going to be out, I didn't care where/when/how late, but they absolutely, positively should not drink and drive.

For a while it was a revolving door here, but now all of them live on their own now, and I'm pretty sure nobody's coming back. But if they do...same rules apply.

When I was a child, I often heard criticisms of American culture because multigenerational households were so rare. Many people from other cultures felt that Americans were missing or lacking a great deal by expecting all of those separate households for different generations in one family.

Funny how things change.

Until the mid-20th Century, young adults, often with spouses and small children, lived with parents in an extended-family set up. Many things have changed that.br

Often overlooked is the 30-year mortgage, which allowed young adults to buy homes with (relatively) small downpaymets of 20%. Before that, a 50% downpayment and a 5-7 year (higher monthlies) mortgage was the norm. People had to save years to qualify.

Urbanization is a big factor.

Also, huge improvements in communication and transportation. think: one's own car and the interstate highway system. People don't feel compelled to live at, or near, where they grew up.

I think increased live-at-home young adults is (mostly) an improvement, bringing and keeping families together. I have an adult son (very employed) still with us. Not a slacker at all.

Social norms change with the times. The past couple of generations have seen some incredible affluence and poverty in the USA. Houses were once being built, in some areas, by numbers that outstripped the local population two to one. I saw some twenty somethings in the dot com age building 4 to 5 thousand square foot homes and lose them when the market tanked. I wondered why our local area had so many more houses being built during the housing bubble when population was steady. Turns out that when people got divorced the wife would go out and buy a house and, voila, a single home family became a double home family. Parents were buying houses for their kids in college so they could sell it in four years and make a profit. Developers are still building million dollar properties because the small starter homes that people are clamoring to buy are too costly to build and make a profit for the builder. The land alone is a huge cost and all the building regs cost a bundle even if a house is small. Thus we are getting another bubble because people won't sell their homes if they can't find a new house that meets their needs and is affordable.

In generations past a woman lived with her parents until she was married and if she didn't get married she didn't leave her parents. When parents died, she got the house. It just wasn't done for a single woman to live alone. Some families would live several generations in the same house and when the grandparents died the house just got transfered down to the next generation. People didn't move so much in those days.

My great grandfather built a house that never left our family until it was torn down and redeveloped. Great grandfather, grandfather, and my mother all lived in it. I got to visit it but was a child when it was torn down. It was three stories and my grandparents had some friends that lived with them on the top floor for awhile and never had to interact if they didn't want to. It was some neat house! Different era altogether.

I'm shocked to see kids who buy thousands of dollars of technology related products but cannot afford a house or car. I own a modest home and drive an older car but I have no debt and very little techno stuff. There is a price to pay living like the Joneses.

Too bad we lost the Puritain values of thrift, modesty, respect for hard work, patience, disdain of debt, vanity, and excess. I think those were values that helped set a strong foundation for a great USA.

I do not live in America, obviously, but when it comes to the cost of higher education, I believe that the solution lies in more a more selective admission process and an appreciation of trade schools (and skills). In fact, I believe that once this is accomplished, tuition for all qualifying students could be abolished.

What we have seen in America is that, since the late 1990s, an increased push has been made for degrees in the STEM fields. That was also around the time when countries like India and China began chopping away at the U.S. comparative advantage in these fields, and the gap has been closing ever since. In other words, STEM jobs are not staying in the U.S. at as high of a rate as has been projected. That does not mean that STEM should be abandoned in the U.S., but that in consideration of a maybe 50-year time window, the market has been overheated. There is relatively little long-term job security in the fields that have been "pushed" for about two decades now.

Compare that to some of the most highly-demanded jobs in the U.S. right now. I like to use plumbers as an example, because - with the technology we have for the near future - jobs in plumbing will probably not decrease in number. Toilets, water tanks, and so forth, will continue to break at about the same rate as they do today. This applies to most other traditional trade skills as well. And, because of consistently high labor demand, wage rates are high - often higher than for those who went to college, even in the long run. That is, as long as new labor supply does not surpass labor demand by much (which would decrease wages in the short run).

In other words, as long as the education system in the U.S. does not adjust to predictable macroeconomic demand over at least the next half century or so, future generations will not be able to break with the trend of being financially too overburdened to live on their own.