1.6m people aged 20-40 'living with parents'

System

It all really comes down to wealth, house size and cultural tradition.

My victorian great grandparents lived in a large house and had ample room for all 10 of their children to live comfortably at home for as long as they liked. Even after they had left, they all still regarded the house as "home" even if, like my grandfather, they married and had their own house. Several of the unmarried daughters never left home, and looked after my great grandmother in old age. The others dispersed around the world, but went home at Christmas etc, and kept their own rooms for occasional use.

We don't live anything like so grandly as that now, but it wouldn't bother me if any of our children wanted to live at home if that made more sense from a job location point of view. I get on well with my children and enjoy their company, so it's just not a big deal.
They can inherit the house if they like, jointly or just one. It's a family asset, available for anyone who wants it.
I just don't see things in these rigid generational terms that other people seem to.

Percy1983

I really don't see the problem, it depends very much on the relationship between the parents and there offspring.

If the relationship stays as child/parents then yes you need to get out.

If the relationship can change into a adults sharing relationship then all is fine.

Both myself and my now wife lived with our parents until we where 28 and it really has helped us massively, but in both cases the relationships with ours parents moved on enough that we didn't feel a need to get out as soon as possible.

Interestingly out of ours friends of similar ages the split is about 50/50 living with parents or not with parents right now, a couple have rented and ended up back and most have never moved out.

wymondham

Moved out of home when i was 16 and rented a room in a shared house for £30 a week. My wage from work was .... £30 a week. I got housing benefit of about £60 a month for food but that was it.

Best days of my life....

Daedalus

If I stay at my parents I could afford to buy in a couple of years. Renting would double how long it would take. To me, owning your own property is more independent then living in rented property, especially with non existent renting rights.

It is a nice place to sleep and spend Sunday afternoons.

Loughton_Monkey

wymondham wrote: »

Moved out of home when i was 16 and rented a room in a shared house for £30 a week. My wage from work was .... £30 a week. I got housing benefit of about £60 a month for food but that was it.

Best days of my life....

Don't tell Mr Cameron. You're exactly the type of person he's aiming at next.

How did you feel about 10 of your workmates, all earning £30 and paying £6 tax - every penny of it going to you?

wymondham

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Don't tell Mr Cameron. You're exactly the type of person he's aiming at next.

How did you feel about 10 of your workmates, all earning £30 and paying £6 tax - every penny of it going to you?

at 16 you don't tend to care about these things..... especially if your circumstances dictate you have to get out...

fyi at £30 a week they dont pay any tax (at that time anyway..) it would have been those better off assisting....

Loughton_Monkey

wymondham wrote: »

at 16 you don't tend to care about these things..... especially if your circumstances dictate you have to get out...

fyi at £30 a week they dont pay any tax (at that time anyway..) it would have been those better off assisting....

Don't know what time that was. Seems you were either very low paid, or lived in a luxurious place!

I started work mid 1972, and my starting salary was £1,350 a year - equivalent to £26 a week. My National Insurance was £7.50 a month, and tax around £16 a month. That's £5.40 a week equivalent. My rent was £19.50 a month (£4.50 a week) for a 1 bed flat (I was married) but in 1973, I bought my first house at £6,200 - about 3X our joint salary.

Best thing I ever did! From 1974 onwards, give or take the very odd year, my "profit" exceeded my gross salary. ["Profit" defined as gross salary, plus increase in value of house, pensions, life assurance, and savings, less spending].

It proved conclusively (to me anyway) the sheer compounding power of starting to invest early, and spending only about 75% of gross income. After 34 years working, my annual total income was three times gross salary. Net assets (House, Pensions, Savings etc.) were 40 times spending. Time to hang up the suit and retire!

I remain sure that this sort of equation would still work pretty much the same for today's younger generation, but I am not sure that they would put up with the 'discipline' of not having things until you can afford them.

nollag2006

Percy1983 wrote: »

..
Interestingly out of ours friends of similar ages the split is about 50/50 living with parents or not with parents right now..

Your friends are similar ages to whom? Denis the Menace?

lostinrates

I first 'moved out of home' aged eight when I went to boarding school. I returned and was still living there (part time husband in tow) in to my thirties. (just).

Many circumstances lead to it, none of which made me a sponger, or my parents hard done by.

When dh and I bought my parents (who were separating) they bickered over which of them got to live with us. ( the one who lost plans to move closer to us next year).

My parents found having adults at home was useful and gave them (particularly my mother) freedom to travel content in the knowledge her pets were safe and looked after and her home was not empty and benefitted from the sort of security continued occupation gives.

I have always known that care for one or both parents might fall to me (youngest child of one, only child of the other) and have no difficulty offering that in my home, but nor would I have done if they had been in their home. This way is obviously nicer for dh and I as its more 'socially' acceptable, plus, more importantly, our house meets ..or will meet, our needs and wants from a home.

Multigenerational living is more beneficial than it is detrimental ime. People are forced to think of others in their actions, and the younger generation get the benefit of wisdon and experience, while the older ones get the benefit of vigour and enthusiasm.

Both my parents were at some points in life brought up with grandparents and benefitted tremendously from that. If we had children I would consider such easy access to grandparents a tremendous advantage for them.

mystic_trev

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I remain sure that this sort of equation would still work pretty much the same for today's younger generation, but I am not sure that they would put up with the 'discipline' of not having things until you can afford them.

I'm not so sure Loughton, they won't benefit from the rapid increase in inflation through the 70's and 80's we had. This had the benefit of discounting House Prices.

I started work around the same time as you, late 1972. I worked for Post Office Telephones, now BT, earning the princely sum £600 a year:rotfl:. It was dull and I left after a year getting a Job in London.I didn't buy my first house until 1982, aged 28 for £34,000 with a 25% deposit, which I sold 5 years later for twice the price, moving steadily up the 'Ladder'.My bit of 'luck' was being able to retire at 42 thanks to the proceeds of an MBO. Few people would be lucky to achieve that.

Never looked back