Record numbers of young forced to live at home

MrRee_2

They are staying at home for multiple reasons:-

1. They are living rent free and saving like mad.

2. They are marrying much later.

3. They are having children much later.

4. The parents are also saving to pay their kids deposits of 25%.

It suits everyone all round ...... certainly I paid for my offsprings deposits of around 25% on the properties. I didn't have any help when I left home at 20 ..... but that was a different time.

Loughton_Monkey

It's nice to learn that house prices are unlikely to be the reason for living at home, because London has the lowest rate of 20 to 34-year-olds living with their parents, with the figure at 22%.

So maybe it's something about youngsters having rather more affinity with their parents and a sense of family cohesion.....

EchoLocation

MrRee wrote: »

They are staying at home for multiple reasons:-

1. They are living rent free and saving like mad.

2. They are marrying much later.

3. They are having children much later.

4. The parents are also saving to pay their kids deposits of 25%.

5. Extortionate rents.

6. Extortionate house prices.

7. Extortionate cost of living.

Masomnia

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

It's nice to learn that house prices are unlikely to be the reason for living at home, because London has the lowest rate of 20 to 34-year-olds living with their parents, with the figure at 22%.

So maybe it's something about youngsters having rather more affinity with their parents and a sense of family cohesion.....

I think London is the exception here because jobs aimed at 'young professionals' are likely to be there, so young people who do leave home will disproportionately be leaving for London.

Loughton_Monkey

Masomnia wrote: »

I think London is the exception here because jobs aimed at 'young professionals' are likely to be there, so young people who do leave home will disproportionately be leaving for London.

Maybe, but it's quite a large gap.

London does, of course, have a large population of 'indigenous' residents, who have children, and one would expect that if house prices were a key issue, this cohort would be miles higher than rest of UK, even after allowing for the number of younger professionals moving in.

But I guess we don't know.

wotsthat

EchoLocation wrote: »

5. Extortionate rents.

6. Extortionate house prices.

7. Extortionate cost of living.

Seems to affect young men much more than women.

Are young women wealthier?

Masomnia

wotsthat wrote: »

Seems to affect young men much more than women.

Are young women wealthier?

Lower unemployment rate. Tend to be better educated.

ruggedtoast

JencParker wrote: »

Choice is relative. If you do not have the income to either buy or rent then you do not have a choice.

Ruggedtoast, I think you may be wasting your time posting here - I doubt you'll find many that care, unless it gives them the opportunity to pontificate about how difficult they had it and how hard they work and how lazy anyone who hasn't done as well as them must be, and..... you get the picture.

Yes, they are a solipsistic lot alright. And rather keen on confirmation bias.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Seems to affect young men much more than women.

Are young women wealthier?

the report itself suggests that when men and women pair up, the women tends to be the younger, so more women move out of home younger than men.

wotsthat

Masomnia wrote: »

Lower unemployment rate. Tend to be better educated.

Not convinced - there's quite a gap to explain away.

According to this http://www.poverty.org.uk/59/index.shtml?2 there's little in the way of gender gap between the number without qualifications.

If the number of young people at home reflects costs then I don't see why men are really disproportionately affected.

The difference is probably social. It's more socially acceptable for young men to stay at home therefore young women are more effective at dealing with the pressures that young people face.

Young me should see what lessons can be learnt.