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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.