Young adults in the U.S. are experiencing a very different trajectory than their parents, with more of them hitting key milestones later in life and also taking on more debt, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.

A majority of young adults say they remain financially dependent on their parents to some extent, such as receiving help paying for everything from rent to their mobile phone bills. Only about 45% of 18- to 34-year-olds described themselves as completely financially independent from their parents, the study found.

Not surprisingly, the younger members of the group, those 18 to 24, are the most likely to rely on their folks for financial support, with more than half relying on their parents to help take care of basic household expenses. But a significant share of 30- to 34-year-olds also need assistance, with almost 1 in 5 saying their parents provide aid for their household bills.

More broadly, the survey offers a portrait of a generation that’s struggling with debt in a way that their parents did not, with more of them shouldering student loans and, for those who own a home, larger mortgages than their parents had at their age. But the analysis also showed that young adults expressed optimism about their futures, with 3 in 4 who are currently financially dependent on their parents saying they believe they’ll eventually reach independence.

  • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    I dont know a single person who wouldn’t be happy to buy a 8k freezer, a 6k tv and a 10k washer+dryer if it meant they could buy a 20k house.

    • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      The appliances were adjusted for inflation, but not the house. $20k in 1950 is $250k today. Median home price in the US is $450k today. So your point still stands, I think.

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Average wage in 1950 was something like 5k. So that 20k house is four years wage.

      Average wage now is over 50k. Would you be happy to buy a house for four years wage at 200k? Of course you would.

      But would you be happy to buy a typical 1950s house with lead pipes, lead paint, asbestos insulation, no central heating and perhaps not even warm water? Questionable. It’s the same thing as with cars. 1950s cars were far more affordable. They were also death traps and a recent diesel VW golf can easily outperform many an 80s ferrari.

      Of course, it’s not 1950. The world is far richer and more technologically advanced. Anyone should be able to afford a small home and the basics on a minimum wage job. If that’s not possible anymore, then society (and the government) is failing.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Youre aware a living fuck ton of houses are the same 1950s ones that they bought back then, right? Likely with a few decades of miscellaneous updates, but surely not enough to make a 200k house worth the 400-450k they go for on average now.

        Basically, a house now costs 8yrs wage, not 4. Many of those houses are the same ones that used to go for 4yrs wage.

        You think because someone paid 10k to update the electrical and tossed in 20k for hvac over the decades its just a wash though, eh?

        • Hyperreality@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I used to work in the building industry. Removing asbestos, lead pipes, lead paint, replacing the electrics, replacing windows and insulation, etc. isn’t going to cost you 10k. It’s obviously also not going to cost you half a million. Just saying that the past wasn’t all peaches and cream. You’re comparing apples with oranges.

          But as I said, it’s not 1950. We’re richer and more technologically advanced. (Safe) housing should be relatively affordable, and it’s a choice that it isn’t. Example off the top of my head: Vienna, Austria. Beautiful city in a rich country. Government owns over half the housing stock, so rental prices stay relatively affordable. AFAIK it doesn’t cost them much, if anything it makes them money. Not that it matters. Like public transport or roads, they don’t need to be profitable.

          e: also, it’s a huge waste that so much capital is stuck in housing for decades, rather than being used to fund other stuff.