So, not to be that person who always brings stuff like this up, but that whole moving away thing is a little bit of an Anglo bias.
Of course, I am sorry if people who want to move out can’t because of financial circumstances.
However, intergenerational living can be marvelous and when possible, it makes a whole lot of sense, and not even just $en$e. F.e., there was a recent LAT piece all about how Asian-Ams are the new big spenders out here. Well, every single one profiled was living with extended family, and the reporter didn’t seem to notice. So instead of wasting money on rent when it wasn’t necessary, they went out and got stuff. I’m just saying. (We still need a jobs program though, imo.)
That’s a really interesting and good point.
This is very true, and I kind of wish the study had sectioned living with family into to categories: living with family without significant financial contribution and living with family with significant financial contribution. The main reason being in the cultures where inter-generational living is the norm it’s also usually the norm that the children are expected to start contributing to the household when they’re old enough to work. Now, obviously this isn’t always true, and I’m sure even in these situations you end up paying way less than you would living on your own with an unrelated roommate, but there’s a big difference between still crashing with mom and dad because you’re broke and being an active, adult member of the household financially and culturally, if that makes sense.
Absolutely, you’re right — it’s much better to live with family as a *choice.* And even when broke, one can always pitch in. And for people with kids, it can make a ton of sense that way too.
Then again, one can also live next door … or down the street! All good options.
THANK YOU so I don’t have to watch the big game.