Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Singletary’s children are lucky she lives in a thriving major metropolitan area and can work where they grew up. Many young people cannot live where they grew up, because the jobs are not there, or are not plentiful enough. These young people have no choice but to spend money on rent.

+1
That said, they are also less tied to a big metro area and may be more likely to start their lives in a mid-sized city with more reasonable costs. It's hard for our DMV kids to pass up the opportunities here and live at home to save money. They develop their social and professional networks here and it becomes a little harder to decide to move to a city with lower costs. A kid from a rural area who has to move where the jobs are might be more likely to choose a city where the balance of salaries and cost of living are strong out of necessity and then it pays off financially in the long run.

In the long run, I'd say your kid who grew up and has connections in the DCUM/large metropolitan area has an advantage. They can make the choice to go somewhere smaller or stay quite easily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the headline of this post is obnoxious and honestly it’s incredibly smart to allow the kids to come home and save for a few years after college. Just like a kid graduating without any student loans is going to have a leg up so is one who can save a few years of rent staying in what would be an unused basement.

By coincidence the best job offer my kid got after college was back in this area. I’m happy to have him move to my basement (not back into his old bedroom). He can be my roommate. No expectation of me behaving like his mom. He can have people stay overnight and he can live his life and I can do the same. He just won’t have to spend one paycheck on rent at a crappy apartment or house. I think Michelle Singletary is doing her kids a huge favor by allowing it and it’s a financially savvy decision.

Land the heli, and let go of that man child.

It is NOT helicopter parenting to let your just graduated adult kid live in the basement/area of the house as an independent adult for a few years. As long as they are saving, it is just another perk to launch them well. First perk is no student loans, then another 2 years or so of no rent/etc. and your kid will have many advantages over most kids.

I may not have $50K to just give to my kid, but I do have a 4K sq ft house that now has just the 2 parents living in it, as the youngest just went to college. Had the one who just graduated college found a job in our area, they most certainly would be given the choice to live in the basement (ironically where there room was---walk out basement with full bath, living room and mini kitchen (small fridge and microwave) ) and have full access to the full kitchen and laundry upstairs. 1 bedroom rents in our area start at $2100 for an adequate place, 1800 will get you a dump. Why would we make our kid waste that $25K per year just to say they are "not living at home". When we have tons of space (new empty nesters)? In reality, the smart independent kids will take advantage and save save save and have $60-80K in the bank before they move out after 2 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know very few single adult college grads who are DC metro natives and actually rent. Makes more sense to stay at home and repurpose that basement for a while, until you can build up savings. The rent is too high.

I am a black dc metro native about 10 generations and I haven’t lived at home since 22. Work in corporate America and I make six figures. Still rent but buying a home soon. Rent is only $2k and I bring home $10k. Maxed out all accounts for years. For many years rent was only $1100 for me.

Great for you! However, had you "lived at home" for even just 2 years while the rent was $1100-1200, you would have $25K+ saved from those 2 years and might be a homeowner already, perhaps even before interest rates skyrocketed

Anonymous wrote:I think what Michelle does is fine. She clearly has ground rules and I agree with that.

However, I know a lot of people around my age mid thirties STILL living at home. There is no way they are saving substantially because they are often in jobs that are low paying. They are going on trips, buying expensive cars and extracurriculars. I personally feel if you stay at home in your 20s you need to be aggressively saving! There’s just no reason you should be living at home from childhood to mid thirties/forties. Only exception to me is the child has mental health problems or is responsible for taking care of their family.

This 1000%! If you are living at home, you should be actively saving as much as possible, with a plan for moving out on your own. You don't go on tons of trips or buy expensive cars. You save, save save.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Singletary’s children are lucky she lives in a thriving major metropolitan area and can work where they grew up. Many young people cannot live where they grew up, because the jobs are not there, or are not plentiful enough. These young people have no choice but to spend money on rent.

+1
That said, they are also less tied to a big metro area and may be more likely to start their lives in a mid-sized city with more reasonable costs. It's hard for our DMV kids to pass up the opportunities here and live at home to save money. They develop their social and professional networks here and it becomes a little harder to decide to move to a city with lower costs. A kid from a rural area who has to move where the jobs are might be more likely to choose a city where the balance of salaries and cost of living are strong out of necessity and then it pays off financially in the long run.

I don't find this to be true. IME graduates end up in expensive major urban areas, because that's where the jobs are - Boston, NYC, DC, SF, LA. They aren't more likely to start their lives in a mid-sized city.

Anonymous wrote:I think what Michelle does is fine. She clearly has ground rules and I agree with that.

However, I know a lot of people around my age mid thirties STILL living at home. There is no way they are saving substantially because they are often in jobs that are low paying. They are going on trips, buying expensive cars and extracurriculars. I personally feel if you stay at home in your 20s you need to be aggressively saving! There’s just no reason you should be living at home from childhood to mid thirties/forties. Only exception to me is the child has mental health problems or is responsible for taking care of their family.

Or it is a set up that the adult child and parents are happy with. Why do you get to decide how every single person should run their lives??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is Michelle Singletary. I object to the headline. If you read my columns, you will see our children's choice to live at home is not a failure to launch but a financial triumph. As a family, we discussed what was the most economical way for them to launch. And living at home rent-free in exchange for saving thousands a month will be a game changer for them. One daughter is saving 15% of her income for retirement while also investing in a non-retirement account. She plans to save most of her salary for a downpayment on a home. Our son is on the autism spectrum and he's saving for the time he will also be able to leave and go right into home ownership. The same for our youngest child, who is an educator. Right now, all three of our children have more saved than many people we know who are making six-figure salaries. They are very money-savvy. In many cultures, it is not a sign of failure to live at home. It's being money smart.

I agree 1,000 percent!

+2000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is Michelle Singletary. I object to the headline. If you read my columns, you will see our children's choice to live at home is not a failure to launch but a financial triumph. As a family, we discussed what was the most economical way for them to launch. And living at home rent-free in exchange for saving thousands a month will be a game changer for them. One daughter is saving 15% of her income for retirement while also investing in a non-retirement account. She plans to save most of her salary for a downpayment on a home. Our son is on the autism spectrum and he's saving for the time he will also be able to leave and go right into home ownership. The same for our youngest child, who is an educator. Right now, all three of our children have more saved than many people we know who are making six-figure salaries. They are very money-savvy. In many cultures, it is not a sign of failure to live at home. It's being money smart.

Thank you for this response! I think the headline on this thread is really awful and ignorant. I lived at home for a couple of years out of school and it was great. It's such a smart choice if it's feasible.

Exactly, her adult kids are lucky to have a parent who lives in a metro area with a thriving job market and room to let them live at home and save money in a super expensive real estate market. Most middle class families I know who live here do something similar for a while.so their kids can save up a down payment for a condo or house.

Anonymous wrote:This is Michelle Singletary. I object to the headline. If you read my columns, you will see our children's choice to live at home is not a failure to launch but a financial triumph. As a family, we discussed what was the most economical way for them to launch. And living at home rent-free in exchange for saving thousands a month will be a game changer for them. One daughter is saving 15% of her income for retirement while also investing in a non-retirement account. She plans to save most of her salary for a downpayment on a home. Our son is on the autism spectrum and he's saving for the time he will also be able to leave and go right into home ownership. The same for our youngest child, who is an educator. Right now, all three of our children have more saved than many people we know who are making six-figure salaries. They are very money-savvy. In many cultures, it is not a sign of failure to live at home. It's being money smart.

YES.

OP is an idiot.

Anyone who can ascribe Ms. Singletary’s children as failed to launch is ignorant. A decent portion of late 20s, early 30s kids living at home have failed to launch but not here. At all. And it is actually enjoyable to everyone’s life to have this arrangement. I miss my kids, similar ages, who live pretty far away with their early career jobs. But I do feel lucky that they were able to launch, which is not a function of where they live. It is an accountability for their future, which Ms.Singletary’s children have. Good luck to all of us parent of children this age that our kids can continue down a successful path.

I’ve always enjoyed reading Michelle Singletary’s column. She is brilliant and humble. The stories about her family are a portrait of resiliency and living a life of dignity.

Many years ago she wrote a column about dividend reinvestment plans. This was pre-internet and she talked about getting started using The Moneypaper. I subscribed to The Moneypaper and began investing small amounts in individual stocks on a monthly basis.

I will be forever grateful for her advice and hope she sees this post.

One more thing, my adult child is a recent college graduate and is living at home and building a portfolio and emergency fund.

Anonymous wrote:This is Michelle Singletary. I object to the headline. If you read my columns, you will see our children's choice to live at home is not a failure to launch but a financial triumph. As a family, we discussed what was the most economical way for them to launch. And living at home rent-free in exchange for saving thousands a month will be a game changer for them. One daughter is saving 15% of her income for retirement while also investing in a non-retirement account. She plans to save most of her salary for a downpayment on a home. Our son is on the autism spectrum and he's saving for the time he will also be able to leave and go right into home ownership. The same for our youngest child, who is an educator. Right now, all three of our children have more saved than many people we know who are making six-figure salaries. They are very money-savvy. In many cultures, it is not a sign of failure to live at home. It's being money smart.

I agree 1,000 percent!

Anonymous wrote:Singletary’s children are lucky she lives in a thriving major metropolitan area and can work where they grew up. Many young people cannot live where they grew up, because the jobs are not there, or are not plentiful enough. These young people have no choice but to spend money on rent.

+1
That said, they are also less tied to a big metro area and may be more likely to start their lives in a mid-sized city with more reasonable costs. It's hard for our DMV kids to pass up the opportunities here and live at home to save money. They develop their social and professional networks here and it becomes a little harder to decide to move to a city with lower costs. A kid from a rural area who has to move where the jobs are might be more likely to choose a city where the balance of salaries and cost of living are strong out of necessity and then it pays off financially in the long run.

Anonymous wrote:This is Michelle Singletary. I object to the headline. If you read my columns, you will see our children's choice to live at home is not a failure to launch but a financial triumph. As a family, we discussed what was the most economical way for them to launch. And living at home rent-free in exchange for saving thousands a month will be a game changer for them. One daughter is saving 15% of her income for retirement while also investing in a non-retirement account. She plans to save most of her salary for a downpayment on a home. Our son is on the autism spectrum and he's saving for the time he will also be able to leave and go right into home ownership. The same for our youngest child, who is an educator. Right now, all three of our children have more saved than many people we know who are making six-figure salaries. They are very money-savvy. In many cultures, it is not a sign of failure to live at home. It's being money smart.

Thank you for this response! I think the headline on this thread is really awful and ignorant. I lived at home for a couple of years out of school and it was great. It's such a smart choice if it's feasible.

Singletary’s children are lucky she lives in a thriving major metropolitan area and can work where they grew up. Many young people cannot live where they grew up, because the jobs are not there, or are not plentiful enough. These young people have no choice but to spend money on rent.