Parents supporting kids into their 40s

[Philip Brewer]

The New York Times has an interesting series of essays on parents supporting their kids for years--decades--after they've grown up:

The 40-Something Dependent Child

The pieces are pretty good, but I'd have been pleased if there'd been a bit more acknowledgment that the 1960s weren't the beginning of time. Yes, there was a generation there where children grew up, got a job, moved out, and started taking care of themselves--but it's pretty near-sighted to figure that was the natural order of things. Is what we're doing now something new? Or is it more of a return to the way things had always been until the industrial revolution?

[Ms. Ferret]

The idea that kids should move out at the first possible opportunity seems to be tied to the idea of the nuclear family. Requiring every adult member of the family to maintain their own separate household is the most expensive way to live, so it's really not surprising that people are less able to do this during lean times.

Back in HI, between the high cost of housing, sucky job market, and the fact that more people still follow an extended family setup, it's pretty common for kids to live with their parents well into their 20s/30s. Even if some of the kids get married and move into their own places, usually at least one kid will get married and raise their own family in the family home -- three generations under one roof. My aunt and uncle did this -- raised all of my cousins at my grandparents' house (not that my grandparents would have had any peace and quiet if they hadn't, since basically ALL of us kids were over there all the time anyway). My aunt & uncle also looked after my grandparents once they became too old to fend for themselves.

[starshard0]

I'd love to move back in with my mom, but my wife would never go for it. I would love to have that opportunity to save money though.

[BuildMyBudget]

Sure, it's a great way to save money...but anyone who still has their kids living with them at the age of 40 is definitely NOT helping them. It's much more likely that they are enabling their child and doing substantial damage. I know of a few specific cases of this and the child has no shot of ever being able to be independent and able to take care of things on their own. It's quite sad...

[Xin Lu]

In China it is pretty common for sons to move back in with their parents and bring their wives along. The grandparents take care of the grandkids usually, and the whole family shares expenses. The expectation is that the sons' families take care of the parents when they're older. I don't think there is anything wrong with that because China is pretty crowded and the cities are pretty expensive for young people. The social norm in America is just different I guess. You are expected to move out upon reaching adulthood and most people don't think they have an obligation to take care of their parents later on.

[Philip Brewer]

Originally Posted by BuildMyBudget

Sure, it's a great way to save money...but anyone who still has their kids living with them at the age of 40 is definitely NOT helping them.

Maybe, if by "still" you mean an adult child who has never moved out, or maybe one who may have moved out briefly but always came back. Otherwise, I think it's an over-generalization to say that the parent is "definitely" not helping.

To let an adult child to move back in an emergency does seem like helping to me--letting an adult daughter move back home to escape an abusive husband, for example, seems like a clear win. But other, less drastic, cases can also be reasonable. Letting your adult son move back after his business fails and leaves him bankrupt doesn't seem harmful. Letting a child move back for a time if a marriage breaks up seems like it could do more good than harm. I could even see letting a child move back long enough to get a new degree, if his first one didn't provide him with what he needed for a career.

None of these seem like they'd be "definitely" doing more harm than good.

[kaitlyn142]

My SO wants us to move in with his parents to save money so we could eventually buy a house. I countered with moving in with my dad. Yeah, we're still living on our own.

[kenyantykoon]

kids should move out as soon as possible. I was reading thrrough forbes at one time and they said that the best way to make sure that your kids stay home for as long as possible is to make the home environment as comfortable as possible for the kids. i promise you that in this case, you will never have to worry about them flying out of the nest. i have an inkling that this is what the said parents are guilty of

[starshard0]

Why are people so eager to get their kids "out of the house" in the first place? In other countries children continue living with their parents, even after they're married! I had a teacher from Egypt who told us about how him and his siblings did that. It saves money for everyone, so what's the problem?

[gt0163c]

I'm not convinced that the generalities of all kids leaving home as soon as possible are correct. I can definitely see the benefit of families continuing to live together. Parents get support needed as they age. Children get continued contact with their parents and help raising the grandkids. Grandkids get grandparents as a bigger part of their lives. Everyone saves money and has a bigger support system. Now, there are definitely issues with children continuing to be financially dependent upon their parents rather than having a job and being able to provide for themselves. But for families who are able to "do life" together and under one roof, I think there are some definite benefits.