Jump to content

Menu

Age of adulthood - 25?


Katy
 Share

Recommended Posts

My idea is that those who are ready for independence should still be able to have it, but that parents or the state should step in and provide support when it is needed for young people to be able to launch well. The sink-or-swim because you're 18 mentality needs to go. Let them fly, but keep a net under them. Right now, we have a problem of too many young people being shoved out of the nest with no net--or being criticized for not flying without being constructively helped with launch. Neither is good.

 

I joined the military just before my 18th birthday. They kept a net under me while still treating me more or less like a responsible adult. 

 

I agree.  I'd add that parents are often criticized for providing support beyond 18 and/or college, mostly by people whose kids were ready to fly then. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was 21, I was a single mom who’s job offered no insurance. I was making less than $10 an hour. Of course, DD’s well child visits were only $150 self pay instead of $300 or $400

When my husband was 21, his health insurance cost about $15/week in payroll deductions from a job that paid him $15/hr plus bonuses and was flexible scheduling around his college schedule. When I was 20, my health insurance was, gasp, a 100% employer paid benefit of the job that I had in college. Our portion of the rent for 3 bedrooms in a 4 bedroom house (my teenage brother lived with us) was $800 a month.

 

We all know those health insurance premiums wouldn’t be common today. The job my husband had was paying the state minimum wage less than 5 years after he’d moved on until the city bumped up their mimimum. In retail jobs like the one he had now, scheduled hours are constantly shifting and they expect employees to have “open availability†making working there plus going to college or having a second job almost impossible. Most of the jobs I had then pay less or the same (so less adjusted for inflation). Some of the jobs I had then are now positons that “require†a college degree. Yesterday I saw shared rooms (not rooms in a shared house, a room that you share like a college dorm) listed a few blocks away from that house for $795. That means the landlord is getting $1590 PER ROOM plus utilities.

 

 

Any discussion of a lengthening of adolescence or prolonged dependence on parents that doesn’t take into account these very real and not isolated economic changes is pointless. So yes, I graduated from college without meaningful debt, has a baby at 23 and we had bought our first house in a HCOL area when I was 26 but I’m not so sure that where I live, that arc is feasible now coming from my childhood economic class background.

 

If I were 17 now, I have no idea what I would do. I sure the heck could not afford to get my first apartment the summer I turned 18 even if I was working all the same jobs I was back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NZ dealt with that problem by lowering the drinking age to 18.

I think she meant dry high school campuses, not dry college campuses. In the US, the federal government tied raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 to federal highway money to induce states where the drinking age was 18 to bump it to 21. This was designed to reduce drinking and driving deaths among high school students. Many high schoolers are 18 and they could easily supply at high school parties.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got scaffolding from the time I finished high school at 16 until I moved into an apartment at 22.  The scaffolding was partly my mom helping me get student loans and letting me live at home to age 21.  During that time I had various part-time / temporary jobs, finished college, started and ran my own business, and had responsibility for most of the housekeeping and child care responsibilities in my parents' house.  At 21 I moved away to grad school, but I had student loans that meant I didn't have to maintain a full-time job yet, though I did need to get practical experience so I could get a good job when the student loans came due.  I had many opportunities to fail without being completely devastated.

 

I also taught a number of grad students how to survive without their parents present, as they had not experienced some of the things I consider most basic, e.g., how to do housekeeping tasks I did in elementary school, or how to write a check or what their tax filing obligations were.

 

By contrast, my eldest brother was out of the house by 18 if not sooner.  He wasn't in a comfy life, but he had a job and didn't want to have his parents in his day-to-day business any more.  That said, he brought his work uniforms "home" for washing for a while.  :P

 

So, I don't disagree that many people will need scaffolding past age 18, but it's going to look different for different people.  I'm not for making any of it mandatory, either for the parent or the "child."  It's a good time for young people to learn about give and take if they want something they can't get on their own.

 

I'm also sensitive to the fact that some people need to be away from their parents in order to be safe and/or learn things their parents don't let them do.  My mom got married at 17 in order to legally be controlled by my dad instead of by her mom.  Hanging out "at home" until even high school graduation would have been too much.

 

Do they still have emancipation at age 16?  I knew some people who did that and it seemed to be right for them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was 21, I was a single mom who’s job offered no insurance. I was making less than $10 an hour. Of course, DD’s well child visits were only $150 self pay instead of $300 or $400

My point is that most everyone is slipping down the economic ladder. I think it’s harder now economically for 20 year olds IMO. Regardless of if those 20 year olds are college students, for single parents or some other demographic. I’m only 37, so this wasn’t that long ago.

Edited by LucyStoner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work for a company where health insurance is a 100% employer paid benefit and it hires a lot of guys who don't go to college -- I work in the trades and we have a strong apprenticeship program for guys (mostly) willing to work.

The number of jobs with fully paid benefits is at a low, regardless of the companies here and there that do offer benefits.

 

ETA: Also, the job I had then with fully paid benefits was actually a part time job. It was fully paid benefits for anyone working 20 or more hours a week. That wasn’t super common then but today I think it’s basically not something that exists. I was able to work 20 hours there around more than a full class load at college and usually 2-3 other random side hustles or very PT jobs. Had I not had my brother in my charge, I could have very easily gotten by on just the 20 hour a week job paired with college.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My idea is that those who are ready for independence should still be able to have it, but that parents or the state should step in and provide support when it is needed for young people to be able to launch well. The sink-or-swim because you're 18 mentality needs to go. Let them fly, but keep a net under them. Right now, we have a problem of too many young people being shoved out of the nest with no net--or being criticized for not flying without being constructively helped with launch. Neither is good.

 

I joined the military just before my 18th birthday. They kept a net under me while still treating me more or less like a responsible adult.

i don’t know that it was ever all that present to begin with. My parents both lived with their parents until they got married, and I think that was pretty common. I already mentioned bridal showers, baby showers. Commonly parents paid for the wedding specifically because it wasn’t expected for a young couple just starting out to have that kind of money.

 

At the same time though, the opportunities to take on responsibilities were available. Kids weren’t prevented from taking on a paper route at like age 10, whereas today most routes are “driving†routes. Or they could walk to the corner store and get a job sweeping the floor and taking out the trash and stuff at like 14. Today the work restrictions make that sort of thing so hard for kids. And then that’s how we end up with 18 yr olds who have never had a job and have to start out at the bottom making $7 an hour.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that most everyone is slipping down the economic ladder. I think it’s harder now economically for 20 year olds IMO. Regardless of if those 20 year olds are college students, for single parents or some other demographic. I’m only 37, so this wasn’t that long ago.

i am not that much older than you, just turned 40. At 24, I was teaching for $27k a year. But my rent for my 2 br apartment was only $465. Today that same apartment is still only about $550.

 

On the other hand, my 22yr old is making $11 and change an hour and her rent is $295. She has roommates but then so many folks do at that age.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am not that much older than you, just turned 40. At 24, I was teaching for $27k a year. But my rent for my 2 br apartment was only $465. Today that same apartment is still only about $550.

 

On the other hand, my 22yr old is making $11 and change an hour and her rent is $295. She has roommates but then so many folks do at that age.

I paid more than $295 for rent in 1998. Cost of living is a factor. Older 2 bedrooms apartments here in not great areas can’t be found for under $1500. There are some ads, but they lead to scams. The 23-27 year old teachers I know are married or living with with SO who also works FT, have roommates, live with family or are commuting close to 3 hours a day round trip. On one new teachers salary, a 2 bedroom apartment would be hard to pay for. Edited by LucyStoner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am not that much older than you, just turned 40. At 24, I was teaching for $27k a year. But my rent for my 2 br apartment was only $465. Today that same apartment is still only about $550.

 

On the other hand, my 22yr old is making $11 and change an hour and her rent is $295. She has roommates but then so many folks do at that age.

 

Wow. When I moved into my first apartment in my area, rent was $650. Now they start at $1290. And we're the cheap option, compared to the next county over. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we should encourage less responsibility for young adults today, but it really is a different world than what many of us grew up in. I'm 51, and in my day, a young couple under 20 could find a job that would support a family with or without higher education. They wouldn't have had much money, but it would have been possible. I know that it is possible to some extent today, but I think it is much harder for 18-25 year old young adults to be completely independent today ( I am including health insurance as part of the problem today.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we’ve extended adolescence by extending the time required for formal education, on both ends. ( I realize it’s part necessity as there is now more recorded history and more advances in science) Pardon me for saying, but what passes for an average liberal arts bachelors degree is roughly equivalent to what teens came out of high school with in the not too distant past. Now we need college degrees for almost every decent paying job, and masters for a growing number. We do very little practical training in professional spheres and leave it up to the artificial environment of the university. Is it any wonder kids aren’t learning to be adults? They are capable of so much more.

Absolutely.

 

My 24 yo is a supervisor and he was by yesterday talking about his frustration with the 18-25 year olds working for him. He has an employee who is 22 and every time he asks him to do his job this guy says "no, I'm not doing that" and spends much of his shift on his phone. He disappears and is found on Facebook or playing on his DS. My son finally told him he could not decline a request from his supervisor and then this guy requested to speak to my son's boss. Luckily his boss laid into this guy and said this wasn't his mommy's home and he would either do his job or be fired. The guy hasn't shown up for work all week.

 

This is not an uncommon occurrence it is the norm at this place for this age bracket. My son said his absolute best workers are the 40 and above range. He says his younger workers cannot make decisions, think for themselves, they cry at work alot. I mean his stories floor me. He gets so frustrated. They burn through people just looking for anyone competent.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure different areas have different costs of living. That’s function of location, not of times changing. In the last 22 years, I don’t know that any LCOL areas have suddenly morphed I to HCOL areas on par with like LA, DC, and so on.

My area was pretty affordable for the prevailing wages at the time 20 years ago. I have 50 year old friends were able to buy decent, livable houses here then on grocery clerk or similar wages. Now, I have friends who are dual income college educated professionals who can’t afford to buy a house anywhere in the city. So at least IME, cost of living can ramp up dramatically. My city is not alone in this phenomena nationwide. You don’t have to be in DC, LA, SF or NYC to earn the HCOL tag for sure.

 

One example I often use is a friend who grew up here in a working class family. Dad was a bus driver, mom was a cater waiter. They bought a modest 4 bedroom house that today would easily be 1.2 million dollars. One of their daughters is my age, single, no kids, college educated professional and recently had to move from what used to be a cheap area because the rent got too high. Without a second person’s income, even buying a condo here isn’t in the cards for her. Adjusted for inflation, she makes more than her parents did combined. So I reject your idea that things haven’t changed cost wise. When wages are more or less the same, benefits tend to be less and living expenses have climbed by a factor of 2 or 3, we can’t act befuddled that 21 year olds are more likely to live at home.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely.

 

My 24 yo is a supervisor and he was by yesterday talking about his frustration with the 18-25 year olds working for him. He has an employee who is 22 and every time he asks him to do his job this guy says "no, I'm not doing that" and spends much of his shift on his phone. He disappears and is found on Facebook or playing on his DS. My son finally told him he could not decline a request from his supervisor and then this guy requested to speak to my son's boss. Luckily his boss laid into this guy and said this wasn't his mommy's home and he would either do his job or be fired. The guy hasn't shown up for work all week.

 

This is not an uncommon occurrence it is the norm at this place for this age bracket. My son said his absolute best workers are the 40 and above range. He says his younger workers cannot make decisions, think for themselves, they cry at work alot. I mean his stories floor me. He gets so frustrated. They burn through people just looking for anyone competent.

I worked with (and fired) some of those 20 year olds when I was 20-26ish. I’m not sure immaturity is a new phenomena for young adults. Heck, there were times then I came home and cried or was unduly upset over something at work that today wouldn’t faze me in the least. Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the time I hit 25, I'd graduated college, bought a rental house, got married, bought a house, and had my first kid. When pushed into it, people that age are definitely ready to be adults. When society doesn't require it, however, childhood can stretch a looong time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My idea is that those who are ready for independence should still be able to have it, but that parents or the state should step in and provide support when it is needed for young people to be able to launch well. The sink-or-swim because you're 18 mentality needs to go. Let them fly, but keep a net under them. Right now, we have a problem of too many young people being shoved out of the nest with no net--or being criticized for not flying without being constructively helped with launch. Neither is good.

 

I joined the military just before my 18th birthday. They kept a net under me while still treating me more or less like a responsible adult. 

 

I agree that sink-or-swim is a bad idea, generally.  But I also don't see this, and didn't growing up.  It may be related to income or geography, don't know, but I don't know of any person who just got a boot in the pants at 18.  I think parents have a moral obligation to do their best to launch their children successfully, but I don't think the government should step in and make it a *legal* obligation to do so.  It would be great if we could encourage this as a society, as we do already, by keeping insurance premiums lower for adult children still finishing education, etc.  But to legally name adults as minors seems like a really bad plan.  

 

Americans are obsessed with independence (I say this as an American who struggles/struggled with that living abroad).  We'd do well to not see inter-generational homes as a "failure to launch" but rather see them as families being... well... families.  Our seniors would be better off, our young adults would be better off, and the middle generation would probably be better off too if they aren't being pulled to provide out-of-home assistance to supposedly independent seniors and young adults.  Of course not everyone has the space to accommodate inter-generational living, but it certainly could be seen as a positive option, rather than a failure.  

 

But I'm also of the opinion that the world is tilting towards instability (I'm not a good ol' days person, I just think we're on the wrong swing of the pendulum right now) and living near family is probably a really, really good idea for people with healthy family relations.  If we can't depend on society, we should be able to depend on family.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying costs haven’t changed. Of course they have, neither costs nor incomes are ever static.

 

I just don’t think the changes are all that dramatic for most areas. And that’s at least partly because I don’t believe is was really was all that easy in the past. The cliche of the broke single person living on ramen isn’t a new one. Lots and lots of people got roomates back 20, 30, 50 yrs ago just like they do today. Times were tough back in 1976, when my dad graduated college and started working as an aircraft mechanic and my parents couldn’t afford to buy house. And then he got transferred to LA from Illinois, unpaid. They had to sell their car to put a deposit on their apartment, and then the day mom found out she was pregnant with my younger sister, dad got laid off.

 

And that kind of stuff happened all the time to all generations. Things weren’t easy for young people then. Which is again, why so many had the help that they did.

 

 

Generally speaking, I think there’s a whole lot of, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying costs haven’t changed. Of course they have, neither costs nor incomes are ever static.

 

I just don’t think the changes are all that dramatic for most areas. And that’s at least partly because I don’t believe is was really was all that easy in the past. The cliche of the broke single person living on ramen isn’t a new one. Lots and lots of people got roomates back 20, 30, 50 yrs ago just like they do today. Times were tough back in 1976, when my dad graduated college and started working as an aircraft mechanic and my parents couldn’t afford to buy house. And then he got transferred to LA from Illinois, unpaid. They had to sell their car to put a deposit on their apartment, and then the day mom found out she was pregnant with my younger sister, dad got laid off.

 

And that kind of stuff happened all the time to all generations. Things weren’t easy for young people then. Which is again, why so many had the help that they did.

 

 

Generally speaking, I think there’s a whole lot of, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

Things in my area absolutely changed.  Factory work was big for many years and it was a decent paying job that one could learn on the job.  One could fairly comfortably raise a family of 4 on it.  Now?  PAH..no.  There is nothing like that anymore.  My grandparents moved from Maine to seek factory opportunities.  My father worked in a factory.  Now there are no factory jobs.  No on the job training jobs. 

 

Costs continue to climb whereas salaries are remaining stagnant. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that sink-or-swim is a bad idea, generally.  But I also don't see this, and didn't growing up.  

 

This is a common attitude in my family.  My mother told me her mother kept saying she could not wait until her kids were 18 so they can get the hell out (my mother ran away at 16 because she was so tired of hearing it).  My mother had the same attitude towards me.  I didn't move out until I was 25, but I barely lived at home either.  I basically limped along until I could manage being on my own.  I had no help though so it was pretty difficult.

 

My feelings towards my kids are completely different.  They can count on me to help them as needed until I drop dead. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time though, the opportunities to take on responsibilities were available. Kids weren’t prevented from taking on a paper route at like age 10, whereas today most routes are “driving†routes. Or they could walk to the corner store and get a job sweeping the floor and taking out the trash and stuff at like 14. Today the work restrictions make that sort of thing so hard for kids. And then that’s how we end up with 18 yr olds who have never had a job and have to start out at the bottom making $7 an hour.

A lot of jobs that teens used to do are now mostly done by adults with limited employment prospects. Between the ages of 12 and 18 at different times, I’d worked in a daycare (as a legal employee), scooped ice cream, worked as a file clerk, worked at the YMCA, did a lot of babysitting, worked for the parks department and received a pretty generous stipend for reviewing youth grant applications from the city. I don’t see teens under 18 doing many of those jobs now, other than babysitting. The grocery store across the street barely even hires courtesy clerks who are under 18.

 

ETA:  Come to think of it, file clerk is an occupation that may have gone away completely.   :lol:

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many of you married and/or had kids so young.

 

I am not for extending or decreasing childhood. 18 is a good age to start going to college, and I don't think 16 is a better age.

 

I finished undergrad at 22, got my first job and worked full time for 7 years before marrying at 29. I really enjoyed being single and carefree and in my 20s and hanging out with a lot of friends. I had a great single's group in my 20s.

 

But that was me. I wouldn't presume everyone would want that. And I very well might have married earlier had I met the right person.

 

I honestly don't understand why an adult can't have a drink though. If you can vote and go to war, you can have a glass of wine. My opinion of course. I know WHY they raised the age, but it just seems that if you are an adult, you can make adult choices.

I want to clarify that I don't believe everyone or even most should go to college at 16. I just think it should be an option to get an apartment and also that the state should take care of truancy after that, not the parents.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder if it’s the word “comfortable†that shifted a bit. Houses were often built a lot smaller in years past, and people made due with less. I live in a home built in 1963 and it’s driving me crazy how little space there is on the counter. But, I have a microwave, a bread machine, and 2 crockpots on the counter, things that were not around back then. The kitchen feels so cramped with little floor space, but that’s because the owner stuck a dishwasher in the space originally designed for the fridge, the house wasn’t designed for a dishwasher. Which means the fridge is in a corner taking up space that it’s not supposed to.

 

The garage is a single car, with a single car driveway, as are most in the neighborhood. Needing a two car garage was very uncommon back then. Today, I go crazy if I don’t have my van home with me, even if I don’t drive it anywhere that day. And squished in that single car garage is a big old chest freezer, DH has a smoker AND a grill, a giant work bench etc etc. And there is basically no room to actually fit a car in.

 

I think “comfortable†has looked very different in the past. I know I am not at all comfortable in this house now, but I suspect many people back when it was built would have called it very comfortable.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that sink-or-swim is a bad idea, generally.  But I also don't see this, and didn't growing up.  It may be related to income or geography, don't know, but I don't know of any person who just got a boot in the pants at 18.  I think parents have a moral obligation to do their best to launch their children successfully, but I don't think the government should step in and make it a *legal* obligation to do so.  It would be great if we could encourage this as a society, as we do already, by keeping insurance premiums lower for adult children still finishing education, etc.  But to legally name adults as minors seems like a really bad plan.  

 

Americans are obsessed with independence (I say this as an American who struggles/struggled with that living abroad).  We'd do well to not see inter-generational homes as a "failure to launch" but rather see them as families being... well... families.  Our seniors would be better off, our young adults would be better off, and the middle generation would probably be better off too if they aren't being pulled to provide out-of-home assistance to supposedly independent seniors and young adults.  Of course not everyone has the space to accommodate inter-generational living, but it certainly could be seen as a positive option, rather than a failure.  

 

But I'm also of the opinion that the world is tilting towards instability (I'm not a good ol' days person, I just think we're on the wrong swing of the pendulum right now) and living near family is probably a really, really good idea for people with healthy family relations.  If we can't depend on society, we should be able to depend on family.  

 

I for one have not suggested naming legal adults as minors. Rather, creating a third category.

 

I agree that inter-generational living can be a good thing and is not consciously utilized for the benefits (as opposed to out of necessity) enough in the U.S.

Edited by Ravin
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The youth of today. Blah blah blah. The youth I know are pretty good kids who work hard and are sweet natured. I like them.

 

Back in my high school days, I knew of no one who took on the academic loads many have nowadays. Just getting into college is ridiculous. It is very stressful for so many youngsters. Then, there is the high cost of colleges which limits many students’ freedom to explore. Add to that the effect of technology which lures many adults away (look at your own usage) so why do we expect adolescents to do better? There are many factors that affect adolescents and it’s not all their fault.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but just because jobs are harder to find or healthcare expenses are ridiculous (for everyone not just young people) you are willing to take away young people's autonomy is ridiculous.

 

Are you willing to take away every welfare recipents autonomy? Maybe some of the answers could be fixing the health care system so it doesn't bankrupt everyone, young and old alike.

 

My sister moved in with my mom when she was 40 for almost 2 years. She was helping my mom get her new house fixed up while living there and it gave her and her child after it was born and her husband a place to crash while they built their house. Adults can help each other. It doesn't make them children. If a large number of middle aged folks decide to move in with their parents to save costs then we extend the age of adulthood to 40?

 

 

If my children stay here past 18 that doesn't mean I should have a say over their personal affairs and if things aren't working they should have the freedom to leave. This is especially true in dysfunctional homes. It's not fair but it's worse to keep children under their parents thumbs longer. That in no way keeps you or others from helping your own child, or in some cases the neighbor's child, or arguing for better access to school and healthcare.

 

Edited because my crazy phone posted when I was halfway through a sentence.

Edited by frogger
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of jobs that teens used to do are now mostly done by adults with limited employment prospects. Between the ages of 12 and 18 at different times, I’d worked in a daycare (as a legal employee), scooped ice cream, worked as a file clerk, worked at the YMCA, done a lot of babysitting, worked for the parks department and received a pretty generous stipend for reviewing youth grant applications from the city. I don’t see teens under 18 doing many of those jobs now, other than babysitting. The grocery store across the street barely even hires courtesy clerks who are under 18.

i think a lot of those jobs are being done by adults because employers aren’t comfortable hiring young people. They hire adults to drive paper rounds because they can get more papers delivered with fewer employees. Parents get VERY uncomfortable with the idea of having a 12, 13, or 14 yr old babysit their 2 or 3 yr old. Fast food places want to hire adults because they don’t have to deal with hour restrictions and responsibility restrictions like they don’t with 15 and 16 ur olds. And the mention earlier of the young people who don’t want to work, spend all their time on their phone...it’s a stereotype, but one many employers buy into and don’t want to deal with.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying costs haven’t changed. Of course they have, neither costs nor incomes are ever static.

 

Actually you said:

 

"Sure different areas have different costs of living. That’s function of location, not of times changing. In the last 22 years, I don’t know that any LCOL areas have suddenly morphed I to HCOL areas on par with like LA, DC, and so on."

 

That is just objectively speaking not true.  A great many areas that used to more affordable for the prevailing wages are considerably less affordable for the prevailing wages.  

 

 

 

I just don’t think the changes are all that dramatic for most areas. And that’s at least partly because I don’t believe is was really was all that easy in the past. The cliche of the broke single person living on ramen isn’t a new one. Lots and lots of people got roomates back 20, 30, 50 yrs ago just like they do today. Times were tough back in 1976, when my dad graduated college and started working as an aircraft mechanic and my parents couldn’t afford to buy house. And then he got transferred to LA from Illinois, unpaid. They had to sell their car to put a deposit on their apartment, and then the day mom found out she was pregnant with my younger sister, dad got laid off.

And that kind of stuff happened all the time to all generations. Things weren’t easy for young people then. Which is again, why so many had the help that they did.

Generally speaking, I think there’s a whole lot of, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

It does not follow that "It is harder now for 20 year olds, in general" means that it was ever easy.  I never said it was easy.  It wasn't easy for me to work several jobs, carry more than a full-time load at school and raise my brother.  But it was doable.  The math worked out ok at the end of the month, even if that meant buying noodles by the case (it did).

 

Relatively speaking though, things were more workable economically for more people.  I grew up very poor and we were homeless at more than one point when I was a child.  I know first hand times have been hard for a long time for a lot of people.  

 

I also know that when we were homeless, we weren't sleeping on the side of the freeway.  Which, judging by what I see every single day, is no longer the case for homeless people in my area.  Most every green strip along the freeway in the heart of the city is dotted with people sleeping outside.  IME, for all but a few on the top, most people are slipping down the economic ladder in very real ways.  I know a great many people who earn less now than they did a decade or so ago for the same or even more work.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but just because jobs are harder to find or healthcare expenses are ridiculous (for everyone not just young people) you are willing to take away young people's autonomy is ridiculous.

 

Are you willing to take away every welfare recipents autonomy? Maybe some of the answers could be fixing the health care system so it doesn't bankrupt everyone, young and old alike.

 

My sister moved in with my mom when she was 40 for almost 2 years. She was helping my mom get her new house fixed up while living there and it gave her and her child after it was born and her husband a place to crash while they built their house. Adults can help each other. It doesn't make them children. If a large number of middle aged folks decide to move in with their parents to save costs then we extend the age of adulthood to 40?

 

 

If my children stay here past 18 that doesn't mean I should have a say over their personal affairs and if things aren't working they should have the freedom to leave. This is especially true in dysfunctional homes. It's not fair but it's worse to keep children under their parents thumbs longer. That in no way keeps you or others from helping your own child, or in some cases the neighbor's child, or arguing for better access to school and healthcare.

 

Edited because my crazy phone posted when I was halfway through a sentence.

 

I can't speak for the OP and perhaps my post derailed her thread. 

 

I'm not arguing for taking away anyone's autonomy.  I just said that any discussion of an extended period of dependence on parents can't realistically be divorced from the economic realities that is driving this increased dependence on parents for longer periods in young adulthood.  

 

I was out of my parent's home before my 18th birthday.  Today?  I'm not sure I could manage that or the financial responsibilities I shouldered from a very young age to help care for my sibling.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think a lot of those jobs are being done by adults because employers aren’t comfortable hiring young people. They hire adults to drive paper rounds because they can get more papers delivered with fewer employees. Parents get VERY uncomfortable with the idea of having a 12, 13, or 14 yr old babysit their 2 or 3 yr old. Fast food places want to hire adults because they don’t have to deal with hour restrictions and responsibility restrictions like they don’t with 15 and 16 ur olds. And the mention earlier of the young people who don’t want to work, spend all their time on their phone...it’s a stereotype, but one many employers buy into and don’t want to deal with.

 

Or employers can get adults to do them.

 

The employment laws for those under 18 haven't changed dramatically since I was working (on a waiver) at 12.  But there were a lot of jobs for those under 18 then.  What is a big change is that similar employers (retail, fast food) are demanding and getting: 

 

-open availability (they won't schedule you around your second job or schoolwork)

-totally flexible scheduling on their end- it's not uncommon for retail employees to not know their schedule until the same day and employers routinely send some workers home after their shift starts based on current volume (there is a term for this sort of scheduling system but I am forgetting what it is).  

-adults for jobs that teens could do

-degrees for jobs that really do not need them

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for the OP and perhaps my post derailed her thread.

 

I'm not arguing for taking away anyone's autonomy. I just said that any discussion of an extended period of dependence on parents can't realistically be divorced from the economic realities that is driving this increased dependence on parents for longer periods in young adulthood.

 

I was out of my parent's home before my 18th birthday. Today? I'm not sure I could manage that or the financial responsibilities I shouldered from a very young age to help care for my sibling.

Sorry LucyStoner, my post came after yours but wasn't directed at you specifically. I'd just read a lot of posts and your last one was probably being typed as mine was being typed.

 

A lot of what is being discussed was in reference to the idea of extending childhood through legal means. That has nothing to do with families helping each other out because of economics. The health care situation is ridiculous in and of itself and should be fixed separatly.

 

In fact, children were aged to responsibility faster and required to give more while still sharing homes etc with their families even later, often until marriage, in the less prosperous past.

 

I'm not saying we should live in the past but I do not believe we should restrict young people entering contracts etc. more. In fact, I think we should have less restrictions on young people.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder if it’s the word “comfortable†that shifted a bit. Houses were often built a lot smaller in years past, and people made due with less. I live in a home built in 1963 and it’s driving me crazy how little space there is on the counter. But, I have a microwave, a bread machine, and 2 crockpots on the counter, things that were not around back then. The kitchen feels so cramped with little floor space, but that’s because the owner stuck a dishwasher in the space originally designed for the fridge, the house wasn’t designed for a dishwasher. Which means the fridge is in a corner taking up space that it’s not supposed to.

 

The garage is a single car, with a single car driveway, as are most in the neighborhood. Needing a two car garage was very uncommon back then. Today, I go crazy if I don’t have my van home with me, even if I don’t drive it anywhere that day. And squished in that single car garage is a big old chest freezer, DH has a smoker AND a grill, a giant work bench etc etc. And there is basically no room to actually fit a car in.

 

I think “comfortable†has looked very different in the past. I know I am not at all comfortable in this house now, but I suspect many people back when it was built would have called it very comfortable.

 

I would love to buy the house that a single full time wage earner at my husband's professional level could buy in 1963.  I can rent that house (with minimal upgrades) for +/-$36K a year.  Or I could buy it, if I only had a budget of a half million dollars for a non-fancy suburb where they are just now paving some of the roads. But without me able to work FT, we seriously can not afford that house.  And that's with me bringing in $45-55/hr for side gigs as I am able.  

 

All of the home-buyers I know under 40 are buying very modest homes.  My friends who make well into the six figures are buying 65 year old concrete block houses where that 1 car garage has been turned into a 3rd or 4th bedroom and the kitchen is one where 1 person can barely turn around in.  

 

This story shows the house that an assistant math professor bought in the 1960s along side the house that a math professor could buy now. My husband is in a different field but earns about what the math professor does/did. Note that the house that the math professor could buy now is a working class suburb that was built for factory workers.  We'd happily by that house too, but we actually do need 4-5 bedrooms as we are now a family of 7 (3 adults, 2 girls, 2 boys) so those little 2-3 bedroom houses aren't feasible for us at this juncture.  The factory workers (there are still some) can't buy houses here at all.  I know one manufacturing worker who lives in her sister's garage.  That's what she can afford.  

 

http://kuow.org/post/can-middle-class-lifestyle-my-seattle-grandparents-had-ever-be-achievable-again

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One detail about the FL school shooter that emerged today is that he was legally permitted to cease mental health services upon his 18th birthday. THAT is one area where I absolutely support raising the age of legal majority to 21. If schools are required to educate students until age 21, then they should have the legal right to require those students to continue mental health treatment until the same age.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One detail about the FL school shooter that emerged today is that he was legally permitted to cease mental health services upon his 18th birthday. THAT is one area where I absolutely support raising the age of legal majority to 21. If schools are required to educate students until age 21, then they should have the legal right to require those students to continue mental health treatment until the same age.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

But wasn't his mother dead?  If she'd been living, at least here, she could have received guardianship.  As it is, schools don't have the right to insist on mental health treatment.  Parents or guardians do but kids here ages 13-17 do have some say in their healthcare.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but just because jobs are harder to find or healthcare expenses are ridiculous (for everyone not just young people) you are willing to take away young people's autonomy is ridiculous.

 

Are you willing to take away every welfare recipents autonomy? Maybe some of the answers could be fixing the health care system so it doesn't bankrupt everyone, young and old alike.

 

My sister moved in with my mom when she was 40 for almost 2 years. She was helping my mom get her new house fixed up while living there and it gave her and her child after it was born and her husband a place to crash while they built their house. Adults can help each other. It doesn't make them children. If a large number of middle aged folks decide to move in with their parents to save costs then we extend the age of adulthood to 40?

 

 

If my children stay here past 18 that doesn't mean I should have a say over their personal affairs and if things aren't working they should have the freedom to leave. This is especially true in dysfunctional homes. It's not fair but it's worse to keep children under their parents thumbs longer. That in no way keeps you or others from helping your own child, or in some cases the neighbor's child, or arguing for better access to school and healthcare.

 

Edited because my crazy phone posted when I was halfway through a sentence.

 

Oh I do agree it would be nuts to change any legal definitions of adult.  Especially that massive of a jump.  There are tons of things my 16 year old wants to do that he cannot do because he's not 18.  If he had to wait until 25?!  Oh man....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder if it’s the word “comfortable†that shifted a bit. Houses were often built a lot smaller in years past, and people made due with less. I live in a home built in 1963 and it’s driving me crazy how little space there is on the counter. But, I have a microwave, a bread machine, and 2 crockpots on the counter, things that were not around back then. The kitchen feels so cramped with little floor space, but that’s because the owner stuck a dishwasher in the space originally designed for the fridge, the house wasn’t designed for a dishwasher. Which means the fridge is in a corner taking up space that it’s not supposed to.

 

The garage is a single car, with a single car driveway, as are most in the neighborhood. Needing a two car garage was very uncommon back then. Today, I go crazy if I don’t have my van home with me, even if I don’t drive it anywhere that day. And squished in that single car garage is a big old chest freezer, DH has a smoker AND a grill, a giant work bench etc etc. And there is basically no room to actually fit a car in.

 

I think “comfortable†has looked very different in the past. I know I am not at all comfortable in this house now, but I suspect many people back when it was built would have called it very comfortable.

 

 

I would love to have the counter space for a microwave, a bread machine, and 2 crockpots. I have literally 4 feet of counter space in the kitchen (and yes, it drives me nuts). I also have zero garages and zero dishwashers. Point being, I'm sure there are many people TODAY who would call what you have very comfortable. 

 

(I do have 3 bedrooms and 1 bath for $700 rent/month, so, it's not all bad... just saying that this is not just a past vs present issue)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, my question for you is.....do you believe that young people having these economic difficulties is a reason to change the legal age of adulthood-the age at which people can sign up for the military, get married, sign contracts, etc etc....to age 25?

 

 

Oh gosh no.  I just don't see 22 year olds living with their parents or on their parent's health insurance as a sign that those 22 year olds are lazier, dumber or less educated than 22 year olds 22 years ago. I don't think we can talk about "kids these days" without discussing the largely very different economic realities that these young adults are facing.  College is more expensive and admissions are more competitive.  More and more jobs require degrees.  Wages have not, in most areas, kept up with the cost of living.  Wages that support a small family are harder to find.   

 

I'm not in favor of extending adolescence indefinitely.  Legally, I would like to see a return to a juvenile justice system that doesn't treat 15-year-old kids like adults.  Some sort of diversion programs for young people into their 20s for most crimes doesn't seem like a terrible idea to me.  But in absolutely no way am I prepared to change the age of majority.  

 

I don't think kids and young adults have changed that much.  I do think that the economic landscape is tighter.  I think that is well supported by data.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh gosh no.  I just don't see 22 year olds living with their parents or on their parent's health insurance as a sign that those 22 year olds are lazier, dumber or less educated than 22 year olds 22 years ago. I don't think we can talk about "kids these days" without discussing the largely very different economic realities that these young adults are facing.  College is more expensive and admissions are more competitive.  More and more jobs require degrees.  Wages have not, in most areas, kept up with the cost of living.  Wages that support a small family are harder to find.   

 

I'm not in favor of extending adolescence indefinitely.  Legally, I would like to see a return to a juvenile justice system that doesn't treat 15-year-old kids like adults.  Some sort of diversion programs for young people into their 20s for most crimes doesn't seem like a terrible idea to me.  But in absolutely no way am I prepared to change the age of majority.  

 

I don't think kids and young adults have changed that much.  I do think that the economic landscape is tighter.  I think that is well supported by data.  

 

Ok then.  We agree that turning 22yr olds into kids (legally speaking) isn't a great idea.  I can agree to disagree regarding our opinions of the current economy.  :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of this discussion is because we think differently now ourselves vs. how we thought at 18.

 

I recall often after a fuss with my mom, I would mutter to myself that I was going to move out and get a job and live in an apartment above a storefront.  I always got over myself, but point is, my ideas of what was "possible" were a lot different.  My list of likely deterrents to my goals was shorter.  What I felt I had to lose was almost non-existent.  Now as a "mature" parent, I think of my kids leaving at 18 and I picture all the thousands of things that could fail and have them back on my doorstep within a week.  But am I giving them, and young people generally, enough credit?  My mom used to tell me "necessity is the mother of invention," and it always proved true for me.  I was super shy and afraid to go asking for work, but when I HAD to, I had a job within hours.  It was a stupid job, but boy did I learn some things.  :P  So many times I've felt like I was on the verge of disaster, but I called on all my personal resources and disaster was kept at bay yet again.  There's no reason to believe the same won't happen for my kids, if they are pushed by necessity to try, try again.

 

Yes, I know some things are a lot more expensive now.  But there are so many things that are easier and cheaper now, too.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then.  We agree that turning 22yr olds into kids (legally speaking) isn't a great idea.  I can agree to disagree regarding our opinions of the current economy.  :laugh:

 

If I could live in as cheap of a place as you do, perhaps my opinions of the economy would mirror yours.  Unfortunately, I really can not.  And my impressions are more true than not for the population centers where most people live.  

 

In 1996, my parents moved from our city to a smaller city a little more than 30 minutes north of here to afford rent.  I've been looking for 2+ years an hour south to an hour north of here to an hour east of here, and it is just not affordable for moderate income families.   I honestly don't know how I would make it if I were 19 today, in college, working and caring for a sibling.  I know some people do it without parental help, but they are doing it in ways that don't afford them the same overall level of opportunities that I enjoyed.  

Edited by LucyStoner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could live in as cheap of a place as you do, perhaps my opinions of the economy would mirror yours.  Unfortunately, I really can not.  And my impressions are more true than not for the population centers where most people live.  

 

In 1996, my parents moved from our city to a smaller city a little more than 30 minutes north of here to afford rent.  I've been looking for 2+ years an hour south to an hour north of here to an hour east of here, and it is just not affordable for moderate income families. 

 

Ok :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we should encourage less responsibility for young adults today, but it really is a different world than what many of us grew up in. I'm 51, and in my day, a young couple under 20 could find a job that would support a family with or without higher education. They wouldn't have had much money, but it would have been possible. I know that it is possible to some extent today, but I think it is much harder for 18-25 year old young adults to be completely independent today ( I am including health insurance as part of the problem today.)

I think one of the reasons for this is that the *standard of living* for young adults is so high. Most young adults are used to having their parents pay for their cell phones, internet, brand name clothes, etc, because teens do not have jobs where they can pay for some of this. My parents bought me a certain number of clothes each school year, but anything extra I had to buy myself. I could not imagine having them pay for a cell phone for me as a teen! I babysat and earned all of my gas money (I used their car, but had to put my own gas in it) and money for any entertainment I wanted to go do (movies, bowling, food, etc).

 

Also, most young adults want the *nicest* of everything - houses, cars, furniture, home decor, jewelry, clothes, cell phones, laptops, etc. When my husband and I got married 16 years ago, I was 18 and he was 20. We rented a small house, had lawn chairs in our living room and a card table in our dining room. We did not have credit cards, cell phones, and we bought what we could afford regardless of how it looked. And we were HAPPY. We were 100% independent. We struggled some, we had to work hard, we had to make it work, but we learned so many life lessons! And now that my husband literally makes 10 times a week what he used to, we appreciate things. I still don't buy expensive things, we don't buy our kids cell phones or just give them money. We will help them when they leave home at 18/19 years old, but I want them to learn the valuable lessons we did. Life is not easy, but an easy life is not what makes life good. Struggling a little is NOT a bad thing.

 

I hope this makes sense.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucy - I think I remember you're in Seattle? I grew up there, was born in Skyway, actually. Yes, things have changed drastically there. My dad worked for Boeing in the 80's and my mom stayed at home. We lived in Kent and Covington in good neighborhoods and reasonably nice homes on his one income (he was in management but didn't have a degree). Five years ago, my cousin and his wife bought a small but nice home in Bothell and paid almost half a million dollars for it. It's gone up quite a bit since then. He's a PR consultant and she's a PA and there's no way they could live there if one of them quit their job to stay home with the kids. So your experience may be a bit colored because Seattle is somewhat on the extreme end of inflation. 

 

But it's true everywhere. When DH and I got married in 2000, I worked as a receptionist and he worked as a pastoral assistant and we were able to rent a one bedroom apartment for $600/month which included all utilities - even cable! We bought new furniture, took on a car payment, went on a Disneyland vacation for our first anniversary. Not really great financial choices, but all doable even though together we made less than $20/hour. Now I have a 16 yo DD and I have no idea how she'll make it on her own. A one bedroom apartment here starts around $1200, no utilities included, and everything from groceries to gas has gone up, not to mention insurance. Without a degree I can't fathom where she'd get a job paying more than $15/hour, and to live on her own she'll need a roommate. And I now live in Minnesota, so not exactly HCOL. 

 

Things really have changed a great deal. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any signs that this would ever become "law".  Extrapolating from insurance coverage to legal age doesn't seem to be a logical straight line. 

 

I don't either.  It's already "kinda" like this.  Our kids will be covered on the insurance until 26 (or they get married or their own insurance).  Financial aid looks at our income until then I believe. 

 

Not quite sure what the hubbub is about TBH.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...