Record Number Of Young Adults Living With Parents

0 Shares
polly

A Pew study released late last week reveals more young adults — 21.6 million — are living at home with their parents than at any time in America’s history.

Perhaps that’s to be expected, since the Nation’s overall population continues, gradually, to grow. But the study also found that a higher proportion of the young adult population is living back at home than at any time immediately before, during or after the 2008 recession.

In fact, the 36 percent of young “millennials” living with parents represents the highest ratio in more than 40 years, when the culture of the nuclear family in the United States was far more dominant. Live-at-home data reaching farther into the past than 1968 doesn’t exist, so there’s no way to know if today’s statistics reflect a true all-time high for the Nation.

The study, which analyzed information drawn from a March follow-up survey augmenting the 2010 census, found that 32 percent of millennial adults lived with parents in 2007. That’s a number that had remained relatively consistent since 1968.

By the “official” end of the recession in 2009, the number had risen to 34 percent. In 2012, despite repeated chirpy proclamations from the White House that the economy is in recovery mode, the number had climbed past 36 percent.

The economy heads a list of three key factors the Pew researchers credit for fueling the “crash-with-mom” trend.

The steady rise in the share of young adults who live in their parents’ home appears to be driven by a combination of economic, educational and cultural factors. Among them:

  • Declining employment. In 2012, 63% of 18- to 31-year-olds had jobs, down from the 70% of their same-aged counterparts who had jobs in 2007. In 2012, unemployed Millennials were much more likely than employed Millennials to be living with their parents (45% versus 29%).
  • Rising college enrollment. In March 2012, 39% of 18- to 24-year-olds were enrolled in college, up from 35% in March 2007. Among 18 to 24 year olds, those enrolled in college were much more likely than those not in college to be living at home – 66% versus 50%.
  • Declining marriage. In 2012 just 25% of Millennials were married, down from the 30% of 18- to 31-year-olds who were married in 2007. Today’s unmarried Millennials are much more likely than married Millennials to be living with their parents (47% versus 3%).

Comparing today’s family demographic trends with those of 1968 also revealed that singles with children and cohabitation between unmarried partners are both way up (from 5.5 percent to 26 percent), and the number of married spouses sharing a home is way down (from 56 percent to 27 percent).

See the survey overview here. The full report is here.

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Progressive Republican

    But, but, but Pres. Ronnie PROMISED us that none of this could POSSIBLY happen! Of course economists (Y’know? REAL experts?) warned us at the time that these results were likely if not inevitable. But Ol’ Ronnie ASSURED us that the experts were wrong and that HE was right. I mean, convincing poor people they can become rich by giving rich people more money; what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

    This is the Reaganomics Rethugliconomy in full swing.

    Oops.

    I’m astonished that the author failed to blame Obama for this too. But I’m sure that some upcoming reader will.

    Wait for it…

    • Don 2

      But, but, but 9 million jobs have vanished since Pres. Obama took office. Hussain PROMISED us that he was the one we were waiting for. I mean, convincing people that government dependence would make them prosper; what could POSSIBLY go wrong?
      America is becoming a nation of unemployed and part-time workers. This is Obamanomics in full swing.
      Oops.
      I’m astonished that a Dumocrat is calling themself “Progressive Republican” in an attempt to deceive other readers, but wasn’t smart enough to leave out the plug for Obama.
      Wait for it…

      • Vis Fac

        Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith. Ronald Reagan
        WORDS THAT LIBERALS TAKE LITERALLY EXCEPT FOR THE FREE PART AND THE EVERYTHING THAT COULD PART AND THAT ARE ABOUT TO PUT THE FINISH TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

        Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You will have opportunities beyond anything we’ve ever known.- Ronald Reagan

        AND THEY ARE USING EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER ERADICATE OUR CONSTITUTION — FURTHER RUIN THE ECONOMY — FURTHER DESTROY OUR REPUBLIC– AND FURTHER DROWN US IN DEBT
        Semper-Fi

        • Progressive Republican

          You’re quoting a man who committed treason in order to win the Presidency. Nice going.

          • Vis Fac

            Prove it I dare you. You won’t reply because you can’t. All you people can do is malign and abase people because you have nothing but hatred of others that are better than you could ever dream to be and no solutions to the problems you liberals have caused. Each post you make further demonstrates how dumbed down and brainwashed you are. It is sad seeing a person as moronic as you continue to make a fool of themselves.

          • Progressive Republican

            Ronald Reagan committed treason when he paid the Iranian’s to not release the hostages in order to prevent the re-election of Jimmy Carter in 1980.

            During the summer and fall of 1980, the Reagan-Bush campaign conducted secret negotiations with Iran’s Islamic fundamentalist government, which was holding 52 Americans hostage. Bush, (future CIA Director) William Casey and other Republicans flew to Paris (and Casey also to Madrid) to negotiate the terms of the hostages’ release in exchange for materiel to repair arms that had been supplied to the Shah before his ouster. This according to Iranian officials, foreign intelligence agents and international arms dealers involved in the supplying of the aforementioned materiel.

            New evidence has shaken the confidence of former Rep. Lee Hamilton in his two-decade-old judgment clearing Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign of going behind President Carter’s back to frustrate his efforts to free 52 U.S. hostages in Iran, the so-called “October Surprise” case.

            Most Iranian officials wanted a quick end to the 1980 U.S.-Iranian hostage crisis, but Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign struck a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini to delay the hostages’ release.

            The Carter administration offered the Iranians supplies of arms and unfreezing of assets for a pre-election release of the hostages. One important meeting had occurred in Athens in July 1980 with Pentagon representatives agreeing in principle to deliver a significant quantity of spare parts for F-4 and F-5 aircraft and also M-60 tanks … via Turkey. The Iranians discussed a possible step-by-step normalization of Iranian-American relations and the provision of support for President Carter in the election campaign via the release of American hostages.

            But the Republicans were making separate overtures to the Iranians, also in Europe. William Casey, in 1980, met three times with representatives of the Iranian leadership.

            At the Paris meeting in October 1980, Robert Gates, then a staffer of the National Security Council in the administration of Jimmy Carter, and former CIA director George Bush also took part. In Madrid and Paris, the representatives of Ronald Reagan and the Iranian leadership discussed the question of possibly delaying the release of 52 hostages from the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

            The hostages were released as promised as Reagan was sworn into office. Reagan then gave weapons to Iran.

            Then in early 1981, a secret agreement was reached in London in accord with which Iran released the American hostages, and the U.S. continued to supply arms, spares and military supplies for the Iranian army. The deliveries were carried out by Israel, often through private arms dealers. Spares for F-14 fighters and other military equipment went to Iran from Israel in March-April 1981 and the arms pipeline kept flowing into the mid-1980s.

            Through the Israeli conduit, Iran then in 1983 bought surface-to-surface missiles of the ‘Lance’ class plus artillery of a total value of $135 million. In July 1983, a group of specialists from the firm Lockheed went to Iran on English passports to repair the navigation systems and other electronic components on American-produced planes. Then, in 1985, the weapons tap opened wider, into the Iran-Contra shipments.

            Apparently one case of treason wasn’t enough. Either that or he figured that since he’d gotten away with it once, why not again?

            Your transference of self-loathing and hatred of your betters is as typical as it is pathetic. you vote for Rethuglicons who lie to you saying that ruining the country is patriotic. Their solutions are to duplicate the conditions that created the problems meeting Einstein’s definition of insanity.

            I don’t know which is sadder: a person as idiotic as you continuing to make a fool of yourself, or the fact that you likely have bred.

            Either way, dealing with something as stupid as become as big a waste of the little free time I have as you are of skin.

            We’re done, traitor.

          • Vis Fac

            Your problem is your liberal one dimensional thinking. You only believe what the media tells you. Just so you know I worked covert operations when in the service I made and still maintain contacts I established years ago, and these contacts denied these allegations when they first emerged. I am very politically active keep in touch with key people n the know and you are so wrong you could never be right enough to see the light of day. I can say I had been much closer to events than you can imagine.

            I had separated from service and attempted to start my business when I was recalled to active duty as a member of one of several teams to come up with a rescue mission for the hostages held in Iran.

            I can assure you that Reagan did not need to pay Iran anything to keep hostages. Iran was deathly afraid of Reagan but at the same time wanted to embarrass Carter You are a victim of liberal brainwashing so you believe this and any garbage they feed you.

            You are infuriated because you are not as prosperous as those who work and apply themselves so to compensate for failure by embellishing lies for your fellow liberal cronies. Therefore anything you post on these forums is BOGUS!!!

            You drank the government Kool Aid and are now upset you didn’t get enough freebies to satisfy your glut and now attempt to spread your prevarications to try and get even. Hence I will not give an iota of credence to ANYTHING you post from this point forward. I gave you the benefit of doubt and now all doubt has been removed

            I want you to get a grip on what is happening here in America follow the link to a video the video was prompted by a government commissioned mural at the Denver airport Have you ever been to Denver airport?

            Among the baggage handlers, flight attendants and bored passengers, something very creepy is going on.

            You will fail to be shocked, appalled and terrified by what’s going on there because you and the rest of the population are walking around with your eyes closed

            The video explains it all. http://www.itsgoingtoendbadly.com

      • Progressive Republican

        Your claim of, “9 million jobs have vanished since Pres. Obama took office.” cannot be verified by a credible source. The only sources I found that mention figures like that are FRWNJ disinformation sites. Oh, and America’s favorite drug-addled pedophile.

        “Hussain (sic) PROMISED us that he was the one we were waiting for.” Yes he did and he’s been a HUGE disappointment with his choosing Clinton people to run the show (initially), executives from the corporations whose malfeasances resulted in a near economic meltdown, and his constant capitulations to Rethuglicons who tell him what they want and when he says, “Okay, we’ll do it your way,” effectively give him the finger and then lie about what they said and what happened. Hey Barry! Figure it out, man! You’ve barely got three years left!

        “…convincing people that government dependence would make them prosper…” When did he say that?

        “America is becoming a nation of unemployed and part-time workers.” This has been going on for decades; long before Obama was ever elected to anything. Not only is it not his fault, only a liar or an idiot would claim, “This is Obamanomics in full swing.” An economic policy that is not in force cannot have an effect on anything. Except, possibly, the manufacturer of the paper it was printed on.

        “I’m astonished that a Dumocrat (sic) is calling themself (sic) “Progressive Republican” in an attempt to deceive other readers, but wasn’t smart enough to leave out the plug for Obama.” I’m no Democrat, nor am I a shill for Obama as I am no fan of his, as an astute reader of my response might have noticed.

        Hope you don’t feel you waited too long. Um, actually that’s not true. I don’t care if you feel you did or not.

        • Don 2

          Yo dummy…..70% of jobs created in 2013 were part-time. Employers are looking to hire employees to work less than 30 hours per week specifically to avoid ObamaCare. Obama has been in charge for almost 5 years. If you don’t blame Obama for the current situation, you’re just too stupid to bother with.

          • Progressive Republican

            Yo Dummy! The trend towards part-time employment has been going on for DECADES! Are you trying to tell me that this is Obama’s fault too?

            What Rethuglicons and the Rethuglicretins stupid enough to vote for them ignore is the fact that what they derisively refer to as “ObamaCare” was authored by the extremely right-wing Heritage foundation in the early ’90s as an alternative to the Clintons’ proposal of a universal health care system. Kind of a “Medicaid-for-all”.

            Obama floated the same idea, except that his proposal was to have the government and private insurers compete for new clients. Rethuglicons, of course, said no to that since the government plan would cost significantly less as there was no profit motive involved on the government’s side.

            So Obama capitulated and signed on to the Heritage Foundation’s proposal. All if the delays are merely the Rethuglicons’ milking out the effects of their own proposal.

            The only thing I blame Obama for is not having the ethical backbone necessary to stand up to the thugs running the party of Greed Over Principle. Unless he’s really been a right-of-center Republican all along and it’s finally beginning to REALLY come out.

            If you don’t place the blame for the current situation where it actually belongs and insist on continuing to be stupid enough to blame Obama for the Rethuglicons’ machinations, then YOU are just to stupid to continue bothering with.

            You’ve proven yourself to be as big a waste of what little free time I have as you are of skin.

            We’re done.

            Idiot.

          • Don 2

            We’re done. Are you going to take your ball and go home little man? Too bad that you are so uninformed that you didn’t know that the Heritage Foundation retracted support for that idea a long time ago, before ObamaCare.
            Hey d-bag, by all means, feel free not to waste your free time here. You won’t be missed by anyone.

    • Vigilant

      “But, but, but Pres. Ronnie PROMISED us that none of this could POSSIBLY happen!”

      Care to source that idiotic lie, sonny?

      The Reagan revolution, which ushered in the longest period of prosperity in the nation’s history, would have continued if it hadn’t been fiddled with by Dems and Repubs alike. It was the wealth redistribution schemes of the progressives that killed it.

      • Bill

        Very good analogy, Vigilant

      • rbrooks

        it was bonzo’s neo socialist distribution of created wealth that has created the problem.

        • vicki

          Who is bonzo?

          • rbrooks

            lol. really?

            bonzo goes to washington.

            obviously you have never seen the movies.

        • http://batman-news.com samurai

          Lies, lies, lies! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

      • vicki

        It was the spend spend spend mentality of much of Congress that killed it for sure.

      • Progressive Republican

        Pres. Ronnie promised an economic utopia. He just didn’t mention that it would only be for the top 2%.

        Actually America’s longest period of prosperity was ushered in by Pres. Eisenhower’s post-War stimulus that many GOP were against. With a 127% debt-to-GDP ration they fell into their usual whine of, “We can’t afford it!” Fortunately, Ike was savvy enough to stimulate the economy with things like the G.I. Bill, new roads, new hospitals, new highways, new airports, improving and expanding water and sewer lines, and a little thing called the Interstate Freeway System.

        Had the current Rethuglicon b.s. held sway, America would’ve become a third-world nation before 1980. As it is America pretty much finished paying off the WWII debt by the time the traitor took office in 1981.

        Not to mention that Pres. Ronnie’s tenure suffered TWO recessions. By the end of 1982, the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression.

        Oops.

        The guy after him had one of his own, and his idiot son had one in 2001, one in 2006, and the Big One starting in 2007. All were successfully dealt with through government stimulus packages. The most recent was ultimately handled with a too-small stimulus which worked (sorta) anyway, but was far short of the amount actually needed.

        The “Reagan revolution” was doomed from the start as it was never designed to truly enrich America; unless by “America” you mean the aforementioned top 2%.

        Ronnie’s much ballyhooed tax cuts were a deceit. No sooner was the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 passed and taxes cut, then Reagan started right away to raise taxes, often in sneaky ways.

        >He reduced and eliminated tax deductions, effectively raising taxes.

        >He adopted the Alternative Minimum Tax, which by 2007 brought in more tax revenue that the regular tax.

        >He increased Social Security payroll taxes. Highway taxes were increased.

        The truth is the reduced tax burden as a share of GDP from tax bills enacted under Reagan came to less than one percent, with the middle class paying more and the rich paying less. In short, taxes were not really reduced.

        This played the major role into putting America into the first recession of Ronnie’s tenure. What to do? Restore the previous effective tax rates and try something else?

        Nope.

        He kept the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and jacked up the tax rated for everyone else including the unemployed. Yup. For the first time, people without a job had to pay taxes.

        Brilliant.

        Finally, he ran a Keynesian deficit just over a trillion dollars dumping huge sums of money into the economy. Recovering from the recession, the economy grew by about three trillion dollars, for a Keynesian/Samuelson multiplier of about three. Because of that pump priming and getting the economy going in classical Keynesian style, even with taxes rates on average about the same, revenues went up as we were coming out of the recession. The deficit as a percentage of rising GDP dropped, but not in absolute terms.

        It was a perfect example of Keynesian economics at work. The laughable Laffer curve had virtually nothing to do with it. Taxes were not really cut on balance and not even much at the outset. Tax revenues grew substantially because the economy came roaring back under the Keynesian stimulus program.

        There was no trickle down. In fact there was trickle up because the taxes of the rich were dropped and the taxes on the middle class were raised to produce about the same revenue, other things equal. The rich did not suddenly decide because of the tax break to increase their economic activity. Economic activity was broadly increased and recovered quickly because of the Keynesian stimulus program and its multiplier effect.

        It was that simple and, indeed, after Reagan, when the deficit sharply dropped, aggregate demand and national income both fell with it a bit, as did per capita income by about $1,500, even though the rich were still getting their continuing tax cut each year. Nothing trickled down. Well, something did, but it wasn’t money. It did have kind of a gold-ish color to it, though. pretty watery too.

        It was nothing more or less than a wealth redistribution scheme and for you to claim that, ” It was the wealth redistribution schemes of the progressives that killed it.” makes you either an idiot or a liar.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are rather stupid since young people moving in with their parents is nothing new in any time in history or any country in the world. Population wise this is not a deluge but is an indicator that things are not going good economically contrary to what we are told.
      If poor people are poor then where is all that money coming from to pass on to the rich? You are repeating something you were told by a bigger idiot than yourself, it also may be beyond your capacity to think something through.

      • Progressive Republican

        True, young people moving in with their parents is nothing new, but the numbers and rate currently being seen are unprecedented in modern times.

        I have neither the time nor inclination to give you the economics lesson you so clearly need. But in a nutshell, the money is essentially being passed around among large corporations and financial institutions. No real or new wealth is being generated. Ultimately of course, this will collapse. It is inherently unstable and unsustainable. But if you’re sufficiently wealthy, so what?

    • Bill

      PR
      What drugs are you taking? Under Reagan, we experienced GDP’s of 6-8%. Under your people in power right now, they have never gone above 2%. But you probably do not know what that means
      You just created a name with “Republican” in it so you could sound cool and then you just made a bunch of stuff up to push a political agenda.
      Are you one of those that still lives with mommy and daddy?

      • Vis Fac

        The GDP is in minus territory only bolstered by the printing fiat money and lame stream media’s manipulation of figures.

      • Progressive Republican

        True that under pres. Ronnie’s tenure GDP did grow at 6 – 8% for a while. However, ALSO during his tenure median income failed to keep pace with GDP growth for the first time in American history. In fact not only did it level off, it has since dropped (when inflation is taken into account).

        I created the name as an homage to the original Republican outgrowth from the ashes of the Whig Party when their founding precepts were fiscal and social responsibility; concepts they quickly abandoned by the mid-1880s when they sold out to the robber barons.

        Nothing I wrote was “made up”.

        No, I don’t. Could you be jealous at the thought that someone’s parents parents might care enough about their offspring to help out when yours refused?

        Btw, these are not “my people”.

        • Bill

          PR,
          So you do live with Mommy and Daddy. Which means you were probably sucking you thumb when Reagan was president. None of your opinions are based upon your experiences, just what you read somewhere.
          Leave the womb, go out and support yourself and learn how to stand on your own two feet. And quit making things up that you have no experience with

          • Progressive Republican

            I’m old enough to have asked my parents to vote for Barry Goldwater. My age is CLEARLY higher than your I.Q., but then I only need be two to accomplish that feat.

            I also remember the 1980 GOP run-off when Ronnie let loose his spiel about how poor people giving rich people their money would eventually enrich them and I thought to myself, “Who the [hell] is gonna be stupid enough to buy THAT load of [crap]?” One of his opponents labelled it “voodoo economics” He got my vote.

            As for you, quit eyeballing your colon. Just because it looks like it’s staring back at you doesn’t mean it’s actually looking at you. But it is smarter. Then again any bit if matter (real or imaginary) is.

            Feel free to respond, dumb[ass]. You’ve proven yourself to be as big a waste of what little free time I have as you are of skin and are unworthy of further interaction.

            We’re done.

          • Bill

            PR,
            So, you have always had your head up your backside. It is a shame you have not learned anything from all of those years.

    • Vis Fac

      That is UNTIL the liberals took over.

      • Progressive Republican

        Try making sense. Good luck with that.

        • Vis Fac

          I don’t need to make sense of that because liberals pursue and implement nothing but NONSENSE. All one needs do is observe and the evidence is clearly obvious, that is unless you are a freeloading brain dead liberal.

    • vicki

      Where, and be precise (that means cites to support your claims) did anyone but a liberal democrat (see obamacare or is it a tax) promise that nothing bad would happen?

    • http://batman-news.com samurai

      Reagan had nothing to do with this and take your lying lib/prog/secularist backside and leave. Obama bin Laden was the one who was talking about change, so what is your point? Care to site a source on this or is this just a blatant attempt at misdirection? Here is an article showing how Obama bin Laden is attacking the middle class.
      http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2013/08/obamanomics-kills-middle-class/#more
      It seems that you are drunk on the kool aid. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
      You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
      “Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.”
      Daniel Webster
      American statesman
      “Defender of the Constitution”
      Devout Christian
      *He was a real patriotic American, but what is your poor excuse?

      • Progressive Republican

        Ronnie had EVERYTHING to do with it. The whole point of Reaganomics was to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. His convincing poor people they can become rich by giving rich people more money just shows him to be a great huckster.

        As for the remainder of your drivel, you’ve posted most of it before. Get some new material.

        Which reminds me, I asked you some time ago if only Christians can meet your ridiculous criteria, “You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot.”

        I’m still waiting for the answer.

  • Elton Robb

    It’s not just the disappearing opportunity. It’s also fear that keeps people at Home.

  • Bill

    KG,
    Here is an article about you

  • laura merrone

    These are terrible statistics that show the continuing deterioration of society. I know many twenty-year-olds and early-thirty-year-olds that can’t find good jobs. Some work two part-time jobs. Only a few have gotten married and some are still living at home. My own two have left home to join the military and one is in college right now on the GI bill and one is still in the military, married and has four children. But they had two committed parents and we raised them right. I’m afraid a lot of kids today are not being raised to take on responsibilities of adulthood and can’t handle the pressures of that so they chose to stay home and not leave the nest. Who knows what the future bodes for them…and for our country.

  • Vis Fac

    All of my children chose to be professionals they are an independent lot but have strong family ties. The economy is not what it was when they were small and they have managed a respectable income.
    I had been in business for most of their lives retiring some 15 years ago. Because I chose a career which allowed me a measure of flexibility and earn a fair income I was able to purchase a goodly amount of ultra rural real estate in the 80’s with the purpose of retirement and eventual development for my children.

    The economy being as it is and things being as they are my children have become aware that they might have to move close to their parents. I find this comforting as it is inevitable that age will take its toll on ones body and at some point assistance will be necessary. Thankfully I have a few good years left and have prepared for the eventual economic collapse.
    We will have a place to live far away from any major metropolis relatively obscured form society. We try and be as self sufficient as possible and try and blend in so as not draw unwanted attention. I fully expect and welcome family when they decide to settle in.
    Semper-Fi

  • Free at last!

    I have to chime in on this one. I just don’t get this. I started plotting my escape at age 16 in 1973. I left home at the earliest possible moment and joined the military, with the encouragement of my parents. I stayed out of my parent’s house and never went back. Nowadays, I know of too many grown adults locked into situations where they must live at home. It is pathetic to see these grown men at ages 25, even 35 still abiding by parental rules and answering to their elders. I once watched a 34 year old man trying to sneak beer in through a bedroom window so his dad wouldn’t find out! I have seen parents take control of a 45 year old’s credit card and bank account because they believed he was wrong in his spending choices. It is my belief that staying at home while well into one’s adult years is about the most psychologically damaging thing that a person can do to themselves. Not only does this kill any independence or autonomy, but also it acts to erode self esteem and self confidence. I have always believed in a “sink or swim” philosophy and remaining under the watchful, hovering, protective eyes of a controlling parent when a person is in their 20’s or 30’s should be something to be avoided, at all costs.