I for one remember the wave of articles in the late 90s early 00s bemoaning the death of the multi generational household and how we lose so much culture and history.

> thus can take jobs which focus on experience rather than salary and they can save money for entrepreneurial activity

Yeah, but the tone of the article is that they're not doing that. They're working menial or frustrating jobs that they're not sticking around very long at. And very likely not saving much money from.

Whether that's self-imposed or a reality of external factors is a source of debate, but the outlook's the same either way: bleak.

Sure, but this article isn't really about that group.

Regardless of being a super responsible person saving/investing your money wisely while living at home, if you're unable to obtain fruitful employment by your early 30s then something has gone seriously awry, either internal or external to that person.

>Is there anything wrong with young people staying at home for longer?

Well, one of the reasons is that oftentimes this ends up being a crutch. Little reason to take any chances, or really apply yourself when you can tell yourself that mom & dad will bail you out. Of course, not everyone is like this; some people have the necessary drive (and resources) to kick ass right out of high-school. But many don't realize their true potential until they're forced to do so.

If you live at home you can afford to take more chances. You can start a business with less worries of having to cover extortionate rent every month which is something that keeps many people in their 9-5.

I totally agree with you. But there is a big difference between living at home so you can get your business off the ground, and living at home so you can more easily afford your video game hobby.

All I'm saying is that the world isn't black-and-white. Parents need to make the judgement call about what is best for their child. Sometimes that's letting them stay at home to build up resources. Sometimes it's forcing them out to let them learn and develop themselves. Sometimes it's probably something between the two, like charging rent.

>Realistically, who's going to tell their somewhat lazy underachieving child to get out and go to a homeless shelter or park bench?

Please don't strawman me. At no point did I say we should kick kids out of the house with nothing, nor not allow them back under their parents' wing when they fail. It's absolutely silly (in normal circumstances) to force your kid to live at a homeless shelter when you have the resources to help them back on their feet. But I feel it's important to do so in a manner than encourages independence, rather than encouraging dependance. After all, the parents won't be around forever- sooner or later the kid(s) will need to be self-sufficient enough to survive without that safety net.

What I said was in response to the parent's question of "is there anything wrong with letting kids stay at home longer". That's all.

How do you do that without a credible threat of kicking them out on the street? I'm serious.

I don't pay rent to my landlord because I feel like being independent, I do it because otherwise he'll evict me.

First and probably most importantly, they may not be able to pursue their career or hobby of choice while living with their parents. As someone who grew up in a small town, I basically had no choice but to leave if I wanted to do something that I'd enjoy with my life. My parents, on the other hand, have careers that allow them to live very comfortably in more rural areas but wouldn't be paid commensurately in a big city, so it just wouldn't make economic sense for them to try to come along with me.

Second, moving out gives you an opportunity to see more of the world. Visiting a place is not the same as living there and will never give you the same depth of appreciation.

It's also a hell of a lot easier to socialize with your own age group and demographic in London or any other major city than it is in a more remote or suburban neighborhood city.

What I personally think should be more common might be the reverse of what you're proposing. If I could afford it, I'd get a bigger house and let my parents move in with me when they retire (if they wanted). This means they'd also be able to sell their current home and pocket the profit (or invest it), easing their retirement.

But if more people stay at home then socialising isn't a problem if enough people are doing the same thing. There's also then incentive for companies to move out of the big cities if they can hire a cheaper workforce.

The socializing would have to happen within parents' residences. Let's face it: parents aren't going to approve of everything that young people want to do. There are bars and clubs, but what do you do when you come back home? And besides, not everybody would want to relegate their entire social life to clubs.

This is an American phenomenon. When I lived in Japan, many people stayed with their parents until marriage. It's also typical in Brazil.

Near-mandatory moving out is also a common attitude in Scandinavia, not a purely American attitude. If anything it's stronger in Scandinavia: it's pretty unusual not to move out by 18, and even seen as a bit weird not to, unless you have a good explanation for it (e.g. really sick parents). But that's partly because the high minimum wages and strong social system means that it's unusual to need to live with parents for economic reasons. So it's become a cultural expectation here that you won't.

Interesting. Thank you for the added international insight. I wonder if there's an interesting chart on where this does and doesn't happen.

Well I moved out when I was 16 in 1994 and it was awesome; there is definitely something to be said for independence. The thing was though, I paid $200/month for a room in a friend's house. I live in London now, but I don't know how it could be done as a kid. If I had to face the prospect of paying £1000 for some rat-infested hovel I might well prefer to move back in with my parents.