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

[Anonymous]

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/

Just read the article and how I read it is it’s Williams, who is a psychologist and financial planner, who is saying she is doing this with her kids not Michelle Singletary. Michelle Singletary does not say she has 3 adult children living at home.

OP why come here and start mess when you clearly didn’t read the article completely? Looking for someone to trash? It’s not a good look.

[Anonymous]

I couldn’t care less what other people do.

But for me, I would be fine with my kids coming back for a bit after college while they got settled. Maybe a year or so. But no more than that. It is time to be independent. Nothing wrong with sharing a house with a bunch of other young people your age like most of us did when we were young.

[Anonymous]

OP is misquoting the article which does not say that Michelle Singletary has 3 adult children living at home. The article is an online conversation with a financial planner psychologist who says she has 3 adult children living at home. Please read folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like a reasonable and responsible set-up. Taking what she says at face value, they contribute to the household and are saving. I assume she lives in the DC area - rents are ridiculously high.

I find this set up a whole lot less off-putting than parents helping their adult MC kids with a down payment or daycare expenses.

That's interesting because I think this is the less-rich version of the same idea. DH lived with his dad for 6 months and took the train in to work every day from the outer burbs to save up his down payment. His dad wanted to help him out, but also didn't have tens of thousands to give him for the down payment. If he were a richer supportive dad, he would have probably written a check, and if he were unsupportive he wouldn't have opened his home to him.

Same with daycare expenses - I know lots of lower-income families where grandma watches the kid/kids for free, a *lot*. They can't afford to subsidize a nanny, but they know how hard it is on their kids and help how they can.

PP here. Agreed. I should have clarified that I meant in the case of 30-something adults wanting to live in a nicer home than they could afford or so they could have more fun money - effectively skipping over a starter home or budgeting when starting out. I realize it might seem silly to have to go thru that if your parents are willing to subsidize you, and I can’t put my finger on why I think it’s off-putting in a way adult children still living at home isn’t.


And I agree that it’s a lower-income version of this.

I came back to say, this is how families without intergenerational wealth start generating intergenerational wealth.

I wonder how many of the posters who are sneering at it had parents who helped set them up for adulthood in other ways (no/low student loans, generous annual gifts, covering cell phones and insurance etc - all of which I had, so no shade).

The 30 somethings having parents help is most likely "more off putting" because you are jealous and wished that you could have someone help. For many families, why would we make our kids and grandkids "struggle" if we can easily help out. Why do you need the starter home and live in it for 5-7 years, when you can start in a better home (not talking luxury) that can be your 25+year home, with space for 2-3 kids, a guest room/office and with decent schools? As long as the kids are not living extravagantly, why would a parent who can afford it not help with a $100-200K/downpayment so they can live in a somewhat nicer home?
For us, our kids will get 10-15M each when we die. So why not give them $200K for a home downpayment (or more) when they are ready to get into real estate? Let them live closer to their job and in a good school district so our grandkids (future in our case) have better things in life?

Maybe? Although my husband and I did okay without parental help for a down payment and could have bought a more expensive house than we did with our own money?

I don’t think it’s jealously really - it’s more the smugness that some of these “kids” have about being better parents because they live in a better school pyramid and don’t have their kids going to school with kids who live in townhomes and apartments…which I admit is my own issue that it bugs me. I’m working on it!

It would be like me being smug about my financial situation without acknowledging that a large part of the reason I’m doing well is I don’t have any student loans thanks to my parents (undergrad) and merit scholarships (grad school).

[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.

+1. Bingo!

Read the article folks. It’s not Michelle saying this!

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of reasons to disregard Singletary's "advice." This isn't one of them. Her suggestion that people in dire financial straits continue to tither, on the other hand, demonstrates that she has no business giving financial advice. Also, she can't do basic, middle school math.

[Anonymous]

I don't think the job market is nearly as good as advertised for "good" jobs (good pay, good benefits).

It took our college student a year of applying to get that first fast casual restaurant job. Applied everywhere, and kept trying. This is an honor's college kid, high grades, well behaved, reliable, but not as much work experience. The big coffee shop wanted at least 2-3 years of prior experience just to apply. Message: don't bother.

And that's for jobs at restaurants that serve food on trays and keep straws at the counter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP is misquoting the article which does not say that Michelle Singletary has 3 adult children living at home. The article is an online conversation with a financial planner psychologist who says she has 3 adult children living at home. Please read folks.

Please re-read. The "My Take" answer is Singletary. And I'm not surprised. She is cheap and thinks she has to be controlling everything in her family. Easier to do when the adult children live at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live at home with my parents. I make $180K, pay $40K in taxes, spend $10K, and save $130K.

I'm always amazed when I read the posts from the couples here making $800K and saving $160K (i.e., effectively saving $80K each). Living with your parents is such a cheat code to skyrocket ahead in life that I am surprised it's scorned instead of being the norm.

With housing prices what they are, it’s sure not a bad way to be able to buy a home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is misquoting the article which does not say that Michelle Singletary has 3 adult children living at home. The article is an online conversation with a financial planner psychologist who says she has 3 adult children living at home. Please read folks.

Please re-read. The "My Take" answer is Singletary. And I'm not surprised. She is cheap and thinks she has to be controlling everything in her family. Easier to do when the adult children live at home.

Yes, and in that section is a link to this article by Singletary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/05/13/inflation-housing-moving-home/

"My husband and I have taken a different tack with our children. We have begged them to live at home. We want them here at least until their 30s. Hear me out before you claim we’re just coddling them.

A year after getting her master’s degree and doing an internship in Texas, our eldest moved home and is saving the vast majority of her yearly income. At 27, she’s plowing 15 percent of her gross pay into her 401(k). She’s saving up to pay cash for an electric vehicle in about three years.

Our son graduated from college last year and is still living at home. He’s working two part-time jobs while studying to enter the actuarial field. We are in no rush to see him go. He’s lovely to have around — plus he’s the main dog-walker."

[Anonymous]

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/

This is entirely consistent with her advice and columns. They aren't failure to launch. They are contributing to her home and saving money while working.

Totally agree. They are in their 20s, have to save, have household responsibilities. I see it more like they are getting training on saving and living frugally. Good for them. This is good parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like a reasonable and responsible set-up. Taking what she says at face value, they contribute to the household and are saving. I assume she lives in the DC area - rents are ridiculously high.

I find this set up a whole lot less off-putting than parents helping their adult MC kids with a down payment or daycare expenses.

I guess I feel the complete opposite. Parents helping with downpayments and daycare promotes independence and living on their own. It also lets their kids have the grandchildren quicker. Most people have no trouble paying the day to day expenses of kids but those daycare years are impossible. I pay 4k a month in daycare for my kids.

An adult kid living at home costs the parents little--paying downpayments and daycare is a major expense. So you're basically saying it's better to be rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the job market is nearly as good as advertised for "good" jobs (good pay, good benefits).

It took our college student a year of applying to get that first fast casual restaurant job. Applied everywhere, and kept trying. This is an honor's college kid, high grades, well behaved, reliable, but not as much work experience. The big coffee shop wanted at least 2-3 years of prior experience just to apply. Message: don't bother.

And that's for jobs at restaurants that serve food on trays and keep straws at the counter.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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!