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.

+1. Bingo!

Her adult children are gainfully employed, save for retirement, and help out around the house. Seems like a great, financially sound relationship that does raise your children to be independent adults. Would you rather them shell out money for rent in a HCOLA and then not adequately save for retirement?? It's a great commonsense arrangement that doesn't conflict with her adult kids' independence.

Point to a place where this is opposite to her advice. Now if she was letting adult kids stay at home rent-free while they were not seeking employment or spending all their money, that would go against building financial independence.

If you follow her you know very well she’s not taking this lightly or without forethought or explanation to her readers.

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 find her to be of sound frugal mind. She may have lost credibility with you and she’s doing it her way. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong. A different perspective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting that you used the term “cheat code.” Maybe you are cheating yourself out of learning to be a more responsible and reliable adult.

Money isn’t everything: character is more important in the long run.

Can a person develop character while living at home?

I’d say yes, but structure is required.

Difficult to develop adult responsibility and reliance on oneself if someone else is paying for the roof over your head and many other of your living expenses.

Not really, if you are saving 95%+ of your salary. Many can be responsible people without actually being forced to live in poverty.
Very fiscally smart to do it for a few years. Especially if you have a great relationship with your parents.

Sorry, it is very different to live at home with parents rather than one’s own or with roommates. Relying on someone else to pay for your housing, electricity, water, internet is essentially living as a child. Adults pay their own way.

A responsible adult in their 20s, just out of college who is living at home with a financial plan to save save save (80%+ of their salary) is still an adult. In fact, it shows they have a great relationship with their parents and are financially smart enough to recognize how far ahead they can get by choosing to do this. They most likely know they can budget and pay for themselves, but then they might not have enough for 7K Roth and another 8-10K in 401K and wont' be able to save for a downpayment while living in a HCOL. So they make the sacrifice to live at home in order to save. If anything, it's a sign of independence and being a smart adult.
Even smarter choice if they do it to also rapidly pay off any student loans. Money isn't everything but living at home with minimal expenses to you can give you a huge leg up in life. IN reality, it doesn't cost your parents much to have you there...just food and electricity/gas.

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?

Anonymous wrote:Mathematically, it makes a lot of sense. If her kids could save aggressively for retirement while living at home (say more than 50% of their earnings), in 3-5 years their retirement accounts would pretty much be set (or at least light years ahead of peers who didn't have free rent).

Realistically though, living with your adult siblings and parents is not the same as living independently. There is more to life than money, and depending on the kid, they may not develop those other skills you need to independently run a household someday.

But it is very simple for the adult kid to develop those same skills while living at home and saving. It can be done, and often happens. I'd argue a kid living at home saving 90% of their income, paying for their cell, car, auto insurance, medical bills (okay to be on parents if that's better/cheaper than thru their job), fully funding retirement all while saving for a downpayment is extremely independent and responsible. As long as the kid helps with cleaning the house, yard work, etc and is aware of the costs of running a household (food, utilities, internet, streaming for watching tv, etc) I think they can fully understand that while not actually having to pay for it. Heck, they are saving 90% of their income, they are fiscally responsible and looking to get ahead in life. Way more mature than many 25 yo are.
If parents treat them like adults (they can be out until whenever, just please let us know if you will/wont be home for dinner and if you won't be coming home tonight so we don't worry---just like my spouse lets me know when they have to work late/have a business dinner, common courtesy). Parents can give them full independence and should.
But then again, we started gradually giving our kids more independence when they were much younger. By time oldest was 14, we could leave them for 2 nights at home with their sibling (10 yo at time) while we "got away for a weekend" less than 2 hour drive from home. They knew how to handle emergencies, and had adult friends within a mile to help if needed. By age 15 same kid was left "home alone" for a full week while we were off house searching on the other side of country for a move. They got themselves up for school each morning, got meals for themself and touched based with the adult watching their sibling daily and us. By time they could drive, we could then actually leave them for a week while we flew to a vacation (all with adults nearby to help if needed). It taught my kid independence and responsibility. So by time they went to college, they were already leaps and bounds more mature than most kids. Because they had been given the opportunity to be an adult and responsible. Now imagine how much more responsible/independent they were once graduated college.

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.

+1 I'd be happy to have my kids live at home for a couple years, assuming they are actually saving money and being good contributors to the household. I did a short stint home with my parents right after graduation, moved out to an apartment that was really too expensive, moved back home for a bit to save money, and then moved out for good. My sister did the same.

The scorn for this is similar to how some people react about students living at home during college. It works for some people. No, it's not the same experience as living on campus and you need to be more intentional about getting involved but can be the smart financial choice.

My BIL and SIL had their three grown children living with them into the kids' mid-20s and I know it drove them a little crazy. But they are now all late 20s/early 30s and all own their own homes, two are married with kids, one has his own business. A few extra years to get established help launch them to solid adult financial lives, didn't hinder their independence.

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).

Shared suffering, maybe? DH still talks about how frustrating it was to be treated like a teenager for those six months, so I guess he feels like he had some skin in the game.

Hah! My brother and sister had the same complaints when they lived at home as employed adults for a few years. My brother would complain my parents wanted him to help with yard work and threatened to move out and my parents complained he treated it like a hotel and wanted him to move out. 😂😂

I did it for ~6 months and loved it, actually. As did my mom and dad. I ran errands, cooked dinner at least once a week, and helped out with chores. But then it was a finite period of time and I had already lived on my own in crappy apartments. And I was quite happy when I moved out.

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.

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

I am surprised you talk to your Mom.

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 problem is the "lower class" version doesn't lead to wealth--it leads to tired and poor and sometimes abused parents and grandparents. The grandparents in the hood watching their grandchildren deserve better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting that you used the term “cheat code.” Maybe you are cheating yourself out of learning to be a more responsible and reliable adult.

Money isn’t everything: character is more important in the long run.

Can a person develop character while living at home?

I’d say yes, but structure is required.

Difficult to develop adult responsibility and reliance on oneself if someone else is paying for the roof over your head and many other of your living expenses.

Not really, if you are saving 95%+ of your salary. Many can be responsible people without actually being forced to live in poverty.
Very fiscally smart to do it for a few years. Especially if you have a great relationship with your parents.

Sorry, it is very different to live at home with parents rather than one’s own or with roommates. Relying on someone else to pay for your housing, electricity, water, internet is essentially living as a child. Adults pay their own way.

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.

PP you’re quoting- like another poster who quoted me - this is a class difference.

And I have noticed that DCUM skews towards double standards of what is acceptable family help - rich parents giving money to adult children who are also making healthy salaries is economically sensible. But a grandmother living with her adult children to help out with grandkids with the expectation that she will be taken care of when she is older is a leech.

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).

Shared suffering, maybe? DH still talks about how frustrating it was to be treated like a teenager for those six months, so I guess he feels like he had some skin in the game.

I think living at home after college and helping kids with a down payment for their house are morally equal.

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).