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

[Anonymous]

[google]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her advice makes sense for people who grew up poor, made it to the middle class, and are terrified about being scammed or wasting/losing their money. Which makes sense based on what she's shared about her background. And it is good advice for a lot of people. But it would not work for everyone. Things like paying off her low-interest mortgage early are emotionally comfortable but not economically wisest. Having kids live at home is good for some families, but not all.

It's a really sad state of your relationship with your kid if "it's not good for you" to have your 23 yo kid living at home, if you have space.

We don't have the space (downsized to a 2 bedroom condo as soon as last kid went to college---had been planning that for 6+ years). So it's tight when kids are home from college. If one gets a job in our area (VHCOL) we will help them with rent, if needed, the first few years. We would even rent them a place in our luxury condo building (one of the top 3 buildings in the city) if it works with job location---so they are close by yet independent. But if we had a 3-4 bedroom place we would let them live with us. All while giving them their independence and encouraging them to save $$$.

I guess I just don't understand why you wouldn't want to let your kid live at home if you could. They can still become independent adults, and are well on the way to doing that if you let them.

Sure is easy to judge when you deliberately moved into a 2 bedroom condo as soon as your last kid went to college. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Op is just envious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

That's different---you want people to acknowledge the "privileges" they have over the years.
We raised our kids better than for them to be smug. They are still very down to earth, extremely frugal and appreciative of everything they get. The one out of college is also fully adulting on their own. They can afford their own 1 bedroom, all expenses, and to save some for retirement. However, they appreciate the "gifts" they have received. Such as fully paid for college education, the Roth IRA match since they first had income (we gift them the full amount so they max the ira and can keep the rest to invest otherwise). However, that kid is still really frugal, hardly spends $$ and loves to save/invest. They know they have the privilege to invest more for retirement and that they got their first car given to them (hey it was 10 yo but only 60 K on it so will last awhile). So they are fully adulting and living within their means. They recognize their privilege and know they will never struggle like many do. But that doesn't mean they are not full adults.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

DP: Yes life is easier if you are Rich. We are rich and will do either approach for our kids. They can live at home or live nearby us and we will help with rent if needed (we live in a VHCOL area--worse than NoVA) or we will help with downpayment or rent wherever their job is. However, for first apartments, they kids will live in something they can afford on their own if they had to as long as they are in a MCOL area. However, our gifts/supplements will allow them to fully max out retirement (Roth and 401k). It's an incredible gift and they are thrilled we can help and they understand the privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[google]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her advice makes sense for people who grew up poor, made it to the middle class, and are terrified about being scammed or wasting/losing their money. Which makes sense based on what she's shared about her background. And it is good advice for a lot of people. But it would not work for everyone. Things like paying off her low-interest mortgage early are emotionally comfortable but not economically wisest. Having kids live at home is good for some families, but not all.

It's a really sad state of your relationship with your kid if "it's not good for you" to have your 23 yo kid living at home, if you have space.

We don't have the space (downsized to a 2 bedroom condo as soon as last kid went to college---had been planning that for 6+ years). So it's tight when kids are home from college. If one gets a job in our area (VHCOL) we will help them with rent, if needed, the first few years. We would even rent them a place in our luxury condo building (one of the top 3 buildings in the city) if it works with job location---so they are close by yet independent. But if we had a 3-4 bedroom place we would let them live with us. All while giving them their independence and encouraging them to save $$$.

I guess I just don't understand why you wouldn't want to let your kid live at home if you could. They can still become independent adults, and are well on the way to doing that if you let them.

Sure is easy to judge when you deliberately moved into a 2 bedroom condo as soon as your last kid went to college. Seriously.

Yes, we wanted to live in the city, that was always our plan for retirement. By the time we implemented this, first kid was out of college and in a job 2K miles from home, so not coming back to live with us anytime soon. Younger kid lives with us on all breaks and over the summer. We also have a 2nd home, but it's also different than where the kids grew up. It's in a calmer/more rural area that is only 45 mins from us. However the kids don't want to live there.
However, if either of our kids ever decide to come live in same area as us, we will help them rent a place nearby, ideally in our building. We would have to do that because there is no way a 22/24yo could afford to live in our building on their own. But we would happily welcome our kid back to live with us if there was space. Unfortunately, I'm not purchasing a 4 bedroom condo in the VHCOL area/city we live in on the off chance my kids want to live with us for a few more years. Cheaper to help them rent a place in our building should the situation arise that the kids are working in our city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all are assuming the non-launched adult kids are saving the money they aren't paying in rent. That would be great if they are but I know of families where they aren't. Instead they spend way too much money on their car and their night life and are in for a rude shock if they ever do have to pay rent.

If I had this arrangement with my adult kid I would require proof that they are saving the money and if they aren't I would charge them rent.

You’re obviously not familiar with her advice and perspective on how to manage money.

[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.

I don’t see what advice it conflicts with that she’s given. I assume she’s taking all the steps she outlined in the article linked in the OP. I don’t think she ever gives advice that says your kids can’t live at home.

She hasn’t. This is the woman that was clear that college would only happen if the kids could live at home and commute. She has never advocated for kicking kids out of the nest.

[Anonymous]

I like her. This doesn’t change my opinion. DD is moving home after graduation. It’s too expensive to rent in the DC area. It will be a gift to have the time with her. She’s a joy to be around. While here, she will be setting aside “rent” that she can later use as a deposit/down payment and starting her retirement. My feelings might change if I see her wasting money on clothes, dining and travel but I’m happy to help her save a nest egg. I prefer that to parents paying their kids’ rent which is what a lot of people I know are doing.

[Anonymous]

1. The "Let your kids/relatives live with you" is her shtick and it does get tired after you've heard her repeat it so many times. If that works for your family, great, but it doesn't work for everyone for their own reasons.

2. Somehow she thinks she and Eugene Robinson are equal professionally. They aren't.

3. During the pandemic she had several "Karen" posts on her what was then called Twitter feed. I think it's pretty pathetic how Black Americans unload their anger towards white men onto white women. She dropped a lot in my estimation after that, and I did complain to On Point about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all are assuming the non-launched adult kids are saving the money they aren't paying in rent. That would be great if they are but I know of families where they aren't. Instead they spend way too much money on their car and their night life and are in for a rude shock if they ever do have to pay rent.

If I had this arrangement with my adult kid I would require proof that they are saving the money and if they aren't I would charge them rent.

That’s exactly what MS says in her column. Trust, but verify!

[Anonymous]

I think it’s a testament to her if they can all get along living together as adults. Nice that they are so close.

Kids do eventually need to branch out, so I hope her kids also value getting out in the world. I’m sure they have been raised to understand the importance of saving, but money isn’t everything, and there is also a lot of value to making your way and all that entails!

[Anonymous]

Thanks OP. I didn't know this woman existed but ow I have a great columnist to follow. Great to hear someone advocating for being smart with money and having strong family relationships, instead of going into into debt to try to save face in front of a holes like OP.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't be thrilled by kids moving home right after college because I'd want them to learn to become established and independent adults in their 20s. But the reality of today's modern economy and the high cost of living, especially in the areas with great jobs, means I may need to be a bit more realistic and practical.

Allowing a child to stay at home for three years post college as long as they took all that potential rent money and saved it for a down payment can result in 50-75k. Help buy the first property when they're 25 or 26. Then they can finally be on their own, or in their own place with a roommate for a few more years. This may be the way forward for the hard working but not rich kids in the expensive markets. And there's virtue to it. The more you save in your 20s, the far more it pays off down the road. I will definitely be helping out with IRA roths to complement their 401ks and helping with the first down payment.

[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 say it op it's at the top of your tongue

[Anonymous]

Americans are fixated on adult kids not living with parents yet it’s common to do so in other countries.