bwhiting2356 · 4 days ago

You assume the goal is to move out, but it might not be. Extended families have lived together in many parts of the world throughout history. Expectations of living alone are relatively new.

typs · 4 days ago

Yes, I absolutely know some. At the same time, many weren’t out of financial necessity but maybe financial convenience. I know a few who had a remote job or worked in their hometown even though they had savings and weren’t spending a lot.

They then would move out to a bigger more expensive city and feel more financially comfortable than they would have. This was in first generation immigrant families, which as the article notes, is where this practice is more common.

majormajor · 4 days ago

> Have any of these adult children successfully moved out after saving up money while living with their parents?

Even if they do, it still means they failed to save up that money without having to live with their parents.

This is just the WSJ-reading "haves" justifying the increasing stratification of society by reframing a clear regression[0] as a "responsible individual choice" which that crowd LOVES.

(EDIT: it's also cope for the parents of those kids for the not-quite-THAT-elite WSJ reader crowd who doesn't want to believe either their kids are failing or their economy is faltering.)

[0] Even if you see the everyone-moves-out vs multigenerational-housing trend as a negative overall, the broadening loss of the ability to make that choice is a clear symptom of overall economic weakening.

Mr-Frog · 4 days ago

> > Have any of these adult children successfully moved out after saving up money while living with their parents?

Most people in my circle who bought a home in California before the age of 30 did exactly this.

xhkkffbf · 4 days ago

Yes. Or they stayed put. I had a friend who lived at home and drove a Jaguar. He helped his mom occasionally, but it was a financially great deal that allowed him to live large.

jimbokun · 4 days ago

Yes I see people accusing the article of sanitizing the reality of capitalistic excesses, but can’t access the article text to evaluate for myself.

jimbokun · 4 days ago

Sure but the point is that these scenarios must be far more common now than in past decades, if they are to account with the big increase in adult children living with parents.

So what changed?

jimbokun · 4 days ago

Mainly housing.

thrance · 4 days ago

> I say all this because the WSJ is defending this generational theft by arguing that people are being "financially savvy" when people seek independence ultimately and this is simply a product of the affordability crisis and declining real wages. It's asinine.

Indeed. There's this common trope in modern journalim of pretending that these financial moves are pure results of personal choices and nothing else. So, tweens going back to their parents is them "being financially savvy". Americans spending more on groceries and rent rather than other goods and services is them "adopting new consumer preferences".

It's always chosen, never suffered. Once you start seeing it, you notice it everywhere.

prewett · 3 days ago

Landlords of Adam Smith's England and what "landlord" means in contemporary America are two different things. None of my landlords have charged to use pre-existing natural resources, they charged to use a decidedly non-natural housing structure.

Landlords absolutely create value. One value they create is liquid short-term (yearly, usually) housing. Another value they create is dense housing in desirable areas (such as downtown housing complexes), although landlords are not the only way to do this. They also create smaller housing than single-family homes, and maintenance-free living (again, not the only way to do this).

Now, whether what they charge is commensurate with the value they provide is a different question. My experience with private landlords has been positive and with commercial landlords has been grossly overpriced, lousy construction, and noisy. In my area commercial landlords are priced close to a mortgage, so they are a terrible value unless you are definitely short-term.

(Also, I don't think Xi Jinping popped the real-estate bubble quietly... He was pretty public with your statement, but it was a debt crisis that popped the bubble. It was not quiet at the time, and secondary effects lead to several locally-large protests.)