Michelle Singletary - WAPO finance expert has three failure to launch kids in their 20's living at home - RENT FREE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still like her advice. I’m ok with her kids living at home.

It seems opposite to her advice for raising independent children. Advice for thee, not me.

She’s a financial advice columnist, not a parenting coach. And her children are saving serious amounts of money on rent. I guess you’d rather have your kids rent fancy apartments and eat avocado toast in the name of independence LOL.

+1

I moved in with my DHs family to save up for a house and the timing couldn’t have worked out better. I got low rates and refied into the record 2% rates. Rent from paying $2500 for rent to saving $30k+ a year. No brainer. And a good idea for parents who don’t have savings to pay for your kids’ college; let them have free rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else read Michelle Singletary's article in the WAPO about her three young adult children who are still living at home - rent free? She claims they are saving for retirement, good grief. She has lost all credibility. I can't take her seriously.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/14/financial-cut-off-adult-children/

I feel like you don't know her style/mindset at all. She is incredibly conservative financially. Basically no debt ever except a mortgage that you should not stretch to afford. Doesn't matter if interest rates are negative and you can have roommates for a few years or live on beans and rice until you don't have to stretch. She'd still tell you not to do it.

She was being interviewed on some NPR show in the last month and talked about this - saying that they had a sit down conversation and this plan was thought through/it was a conscious decision and not because the kids couldn't live anywhere else.

We have close friends who are pretty financially well off and always were. Yet they lived with his parents their first year of marriage to save for a down payment.

NP here. She is incredibly controlling, in ways I believe triggered by her own childhood. I have followed her for years and have enjoyed her column but her method would not have always worked for me. I remember her columns about her own daughter applying to college and how she allowed her to apply to her "dream school" knowing that she (Michelle) would refuse to pay for it (school was OOS Chapel Hill). Her daughter got rejected and ended up at the only school Maryland residents should ever attend according to Michelle, College Park. The entire situation was sad and manipulative. What if the daughter had been accepted, why wasn't Michelle more upfront about the costs with her daughter and was just hoping she'd be rejected and why did she write about it all and have it published.

She is not financially savvy, she is just terrified about being poor again, and I get that. I was poor as a kid too. But she doesn't offer leveraged advice, just save every penny, under your mattress.

I used to read her articles years and years ago. This assessment is correct. She is also isnt a parenting coach. No different than Dave Ramsey. Financial advice to the lowest common denominator. Definitely ignores opportunity costs, stock market gains and compounding. I always cringe when I hear the advice to prioritize debt repayment over retirement even with an employer match and considering the tax savings.

Kids living at home to save money is fine. From a financial perspective it's a great strategy.

When my kids are older I will insist that they live on their own for a bit to gain independence, get to know themselves and so I can ensure they can stand on their own two feet not just financially. Personally, I lived with roommates, came home for a year and saved money, moved on my own.

I do not regret the time I spent living solo before I was married. I learned a lot about myself and my own standards. I knew who I was before I was married and that person was different than the kid who still lived with parents.

Go ahead and cringe in the corner all you want - no one gives a shit, and many of us despise debt and have been able to become millionaires without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people on DCUM always so worked up about what other people are doing with their lives?

This topic is about someone who gives other people financial advice for a living, but doesn't take her own advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there are cultural differences at play here as well—I bet OP is white.

+1
Such a Karen.

Yeah, I don't get what the issue is. As long as the kids are either full time employed or full time in school and contribute to upkeep, what is wrong? Seesh, rent is 2K these days. This seems smart. It isn't like they are unemployed and sit in the basement all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people on DCUM always so worked up about what other people are doing with their lives?

It’s not just people on DCUM. It’s boomers.

I just called my mother and she attacked me when I answered a question she asked about how my job works.

Common Boomer high. Always on the attack/judgement train.

Troll response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people on DCUM always so worked up about what other people are doing with their lives?

This topic is about someone who gives other people financial advice for a living, but doesn't take her own advice.

How is she not taking her own advice?

[Anonymous]

I don't see the problem here. Each of our kids lived at home for a time after graduation to save money. One saved enough to have a solid cushion in savings and enough for rent/deposits. The other stayed with us and saved for a house downpayment. They wouldn't have had the money for a home otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people on DCUM always so worked up about what other people are doing with their lives?

It’s not just people on DCUM. It’s boomers.

I just called my mother and she attacked me when I answered a question she asked about how my job works.

Common Boomer high. Always on the attack/judgement train.

Troll response.

Do you call everyone you disagree with a troll?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently?? Both our kids got multiple good job offers in their social science fields before graduation (22 and 23) As did all their friends. Are you in the DMV? We literally do not know a single recent college grad around us who didn't find a good job with benefits here.

New grads are always in demand because they work for cheap. The rest of us, in our 40s, have too much experience and won't work for $50k, so we're less in demand.

+1

Also, basically all of the jobs created in this supposed "booming employment market" have been part-time jobs. We've all heard of the rounds and rounds of layoffs, yet employment reports are strong - how can this be? Here's what's happening: someone with a full-time job is laid off, tries to piece together a living by taking on 2-3 low-paying, part-time jobs, and voila, net job creation!

You don't actually understand how income reports are generated and are making up something to suit a narrative. There are plenty of full-time positions unfilled. Those are actually what are counted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else read Michelle Singletary's article in the WAPO about her three young adult children who are still living at home - rent free? She claims they are saving for retirement, good grief. She has lost all credibility. I can't take her seriously.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/14/financial-cut-off-adult-children/

Can't read article, behind paywall.

But are her kids gainfully employed? If so, why would you not let your kids live at home rent free if they are actually saving majority of their income and are working at least 40+ hours per week? My kid pays 1500/month to rent an apartment, because they live 2K miles from home with their job. But if they had a job in our town, I'd certainly let them live at home, saving majority of their earning for a few years. Imagine putting an extra $18K into retirement/savings per year in your 20s. By time they are 30 they could have what will become over $2M at retirement and an amazing downpayment for a house/TH/condo.

Sounds like they are employed. She’s letting them live at home to save $$. She says when she sees they aren’t doing that appropriately, she will start to charge rent.
Sounds like a very smart set up to me.

+1
Most Indian parents let their adult kids stay at home as long as they are gainfully studying or gainfully employed. Parents do not charge rent as well for other communal costs, but yes, the kids have to sock their money in investments and retirement funds.

MS sounds like an Indian mum. Bravo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still like her advice. I’m ok with her kids living at home.

It seems opposite to her advice for raising independent children. Advice for thee, not me.

She’s a financial advice columnist, not a parenting coach. And her children are saving serious amounts of money on rent. I guess you’d rather have your kids rent fancy apartments and eat avocado toast in the name of independence LOL.

+1

I moved in with my DHs family to save up for a house and the timing couldn’t have worked out better. I got low rates and refied into the record 2% rates. Rent from paying $2500 for rent to saving $30k+ a year. No brainer. And a good idea for parents who don’t have savings to pay for your kids’ college; let them have free rent.

+1000

Living at home for a few years after college to save $$$$ will not stunt most 20 somethings from "fully becoming an adult". If anything, it take maturity to recognize the financial benefits to doing this and giving up living fully on your own to do it. But saving $1500+ per month is a huge thing. And can change the trajectory of your future. It's actually quite mature to recognize the benefits of it.

Where we live rent is over $2K/month for an adequate 1 bedroom. 2 bedrooms are over $3k, and then you have issues of "what if my roommate leaves and I'm stuck with the full lease" or having to move every year if the roommate leaves. Saving $25K for 2 years (plus actually more as I wouldn't' require my kid to pay for food when eating at home if they live with us). Bank $75K+ after 2 years and you will be well set for the future

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else read Michelle Singletary's article in the WAPO about her three young adult children who are still living at home - rent free? She claims they are saving for retirement, good grief. She has lost all credibility. I can't take her seriously.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/14/financial-cut-off-adult-children/

I feel like you don't know her style/mindset at all. She is incredibly conservative financially. Basically no debt ever except a mortgage that you should not stretch to afford. Doesn't matter if interest rates are negative and you can have roommates for a few years or live on beans and rice until you don't have to stretch. She'd still tell you not to do it.

She was being interviewed on some NPR show in the last month and talked about this - saying that they had a sit down conversation and this plan was thought through/it was a conscious decision and not because the kids couldn't live anywhere else.

We have close friends who are pretty financially well off and always were. Yet they lived with his parents their first year of marriage to save for a down payment.

NP here. She is incredibly controlling, in ways I believe triggered by her own childhood. I have followed her for years and have enjoyed her column but her method would not have always worked for me. I remember her columns about her own daughter applying to college and how she allowed her to apply to her "dream school" knowing that she (Michelle) would refuse to pay for it (school was OOS Chapel Hill). Her daughter got rejected and ended up at the only school Maryland residents should ever attend according to Michelle, College Park. The entire situation was sad and manipulative. What if the daughter had been accepted, why wasn't Michelle more upfront about the costs with her daughter and was just hoping she'd be rejected and why did she write about it all and have it published.

She is not financially savvy, she is just terrified about being poor again, and I get that. I was poor as a kid too. But she doesn't offer leveraged advice, just save every penny, under your mattress.

I used to read her articles years and years ago. This assessment is correct. She is also isnt a parenting coach. No different than Dave Ramsey. Financial advice to the lowest common denominator. Definitely ignores opportunity costs, stock market gains and compounding. I always cringe when I hear the advice to prioritize debt repayment over retirement even with an employer match and considering the tax savings.

Kids living at home to save money is fine. From a financial perspective it's a great strategy.

When my kids are older I will insist that they live on their own for a bit to gain independence, get to know themselves and so I can ensure they can stand on their own two feet not just financially. Personally, I lived with roommates, came home for a year and saved money, moved on my own.

I do not regret the time I spent living solo before I was married. I learned a lot about myself and my own standards. I knew who I was before I was married and that person was different than the kid who still lived with parents.

Go ahead and cringe in the corner all you want - no one gives a shit, and many of us despise debt and have been able to become millionaires without it.

Well you could be even "richer" if you at least did the minimum to get company match. There's no getting around the fact that is "money left on the table that is yours" Also the benefits of maxing a Roth and the 401k up to the company match amount is "the best financial advice". After that then you direct money to paying off debt. Never again will you be paying low taxes and able to do a Roth. When you are 65 you will appreciate the early investments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there are cultural differences at play here as well—I bet OP is white.

+1
Such a Karen.

Yeah, I don't get what the issue is. As long as the kids are either full time employed or full time in school and contribute to upkeep, what is wrong? Seesh, rent is 2K these days. This seems smart. It isn't like they are unemployed and sit in the basement all day.

Apparently many on DCUM believe you cannot fully become a responsible adult if you "live at home after college". When in reality, making that "sacrifice" is a very mature and fiscally responsible decision. You can still be adulting while doing this if the parents are not helicoptering. But those 1-2+ years of saving rent (and likely other expenses) can put you on a much stronger financial path at a very young age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a fed and got a fed job in a Department Honors program that recruited from my college. I got my job in May but my clearance didn’t come through until November. I had a paying internship until August in a bit city. From August until November I lived with my parents. My mom lost her mind. I was called a deadbeat. She locked me out one day and told me to not return until I had a job. Maybe I could have gotten a minimum wage job, but honestly after college and law school, I was exhausted. It took years for me to talk to my parents again after how I was treated. They locked up my stuff, didn’t give me kitchen access, I had to buy my own food, I always did chores.

Looking back I wish I had backpacked through Europe instead. Never again will I have 2.5 months of free time until I’m retired. My mom had threatened to throw all of my belongings away though if I left them in my room.

I didn’t know how long the clearance would take and the agency was constantly telling me it would be soon.

My mom is disappointed I don’t visit more now. Ha

Wow! This was an abusive situation from the people who should have had your back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What? No, her kids work FT in good careers. The fact that they want to live at home makes me think she’s a good mom! She always gave me a good vibe of being the kind of parent who somehow manages to hold her kids to high standards but have a warm relationship at the same time.

NP—yeah this is not “failure to launch”. Failure to launch is no school, no training, unemployed, still living at home.

This is just someone who gets along well enough with her adult kids to let them live at home in order to avoid them paying out the a*s for rent. And the kids get along well enough with their parents to take them up on that offer.