Why Do Parents Allow Their Adult Children To Move Back In?

And that's what parents do but sometimes, shit happens. The kind of shit that happens when you're not employed by your parents and you lose your job.

The day I left my parents' home, my mother told that I (and my brothers) was the most important person in their life.
That was just a way to tell me that if something bad happens, they would be there.
Having parents is a nice feeling, I miss mine

 

Shitty job market + shitty housing prices.

As long as the "child" is pulling their weight in some way shape or form, and otherwise being a responsible adult, I won't judge too harshly.

 

It's really unfair to pass judgement on someone when you don't know the full situation. People move back home for a variety of reasons, usually extreme financial hardship. My sister almost did when her f**ked up husband played financial torment with her, barely providing enough to make up for her meager income that she had to resort to from being a full time mom for a long stretch. But thankfully she worked it out.

I moved in with my parents after being in the US Air Force for 5 years, as a temporary measure until I found a job. It took about 4 months but I did and moved out, never to return again other than as a guest. But I feel very badly for people who have to do this. Some parents are relentless at being nosy, while others have the courtesy to give ample privacy. In any event, the boarding should only be temporary. Yet, I've known some parents that acquiesced and let one of their adult children live at home nearly indefinitely... which wasn't really fair to them. The guy was effectively leeching. But one day one of his siblings got through and helped motivate him to move out.

So... reasons can be numerous. But for those that have moved back in with their parents, they are lucky to have the option. There are plenty of people who have ended up homeless because of no family support structure they could rely upon.

 

That's what I see, pretty much everywhere. It's the parents who allow it to happen, who cannot draw up a list of expectations for the arrangement and insist on it. Rent is enormous where I live and it's common to not move out, but from what I've read and from talking to people in this situation living at home is often not helping people. No rent, no savings, spend all your money going out and buying crap. Suddenly they're in their mid 20's or older and they still have absolutely nothing, maybe a car.. and living rent free has not given them a head start rather it has kept them in teenage mode for years. And then the parent is trapped, how can they ask them to leave when the "kid" has no savings? Why would the kid ever leave when they have to go from no rent and free food and laundry to shelling out 4/5th of their wage on that?

As I said though, parents are just as responsible for this trend.

 

Infraction for trolling. That post served no purpose except to try and provoke an insulting response. Comments to PM.

 

QFT

The single family home (meaning just young kids and two parents) is a historically recent development even in the U.S. It was part of a marketing bonanza post-WWII promoting a particular type of suburban lifestyle.

 

Also, many families in the US still have multi-generational homes.

 

You should disclose your own living and working situation since your generalizations and insulting rhetoric are making others feel obligated to defend themselves and their choices to you.

He's already mentioned that he works for the family insurance business (which he personally never had to build into a success), so he didn't have to struggle to find a well-paying job with security like so many others do.

What he failed to mention is that he never needed to move back into his parent's home because of that job and because his in-laws built a brand new house for him. It takes a very special brand of cognitive dissonance to judge others negatively for moving back in with their parents when you moved into a home built for you by one side of the family while the other provided you guaranteed job security. But that seems to be the norm for some people of your political persuasion (more on that later).

You're judging people negatively regardless of the circumstances (Are they paying their own way? Are they helping their parents? Are they paying off college debts? Are they unable to find a job or lost one? Do they have kids of their own to take care of, and thus have to trade a little bit of lost pride moving back home to provide for them?), absent of considerations of other cultural norms (multiple generations living together is considered standard around much of the world, used to be here, and is becoming so again) and forgetful of the fact that children --especially now with the baby boomers rapidly aging-- will take care of their poor and infirm parents in ever growing numbers, because that's what families who love each other do.

I also feel that it's important to mention that you have cheered politicians (Alan Keyes) who kicked their own children out of their home for being gay, and have insinuated that you would do the same, so there's a general lack of empathy playing a role here as well and not just a desire to teach children a lesson in independence.

Now, back to the politicians whose hypocrisy and attitude you seem to emulate and admire.

One of the overriding narratives of the RNC (and the DNC too, but without the judgment of those who were poor) was that we all had to struggle in our lives, but that Republicans never accept that as their lot in life. We were regaled with stories of Mitt and Anne Romney's saw-horse and door desk and ironing board dining room table and how they were eeking out an existence without jobs while going to school. Except, oh yeah, they were living off Mitt's stock options, and his father was an auto executive and famous politician. Because every college student has stock options, right? Romney was an ardent supporter of the Vietnam War while he didn't have to serve since he was on a mission for his church (of which his father was a top member). Romney grew up in this house, but he wants to tell people that being poor is just a state of mind.



Paul Ryan wants us to know that he worked at McDonald's in high school and that he never considered it a dead end job. Well, why would he when he had a stake in his family's major 100-year old construction business? While overcoming the loss of a father at 16 is certainly difficult and worthy of sympathy, it's strange when there is little sympathy for others surviving on government benefits when he paid for college using social security survivor's benefits. Paul Ryan had already held political office (on the school board) while in high school. He interned for one Senator and worked on the political campaign of a Representative (John Boehner) while in college. He served several others afterward, went back to work at his family's corporation, and was elected to the House at 28. This guy was a child of privilege groomed for political office from his teens and he's praising himself for not considering McDonald's a dead end job? Here's his childhood home, by the way.



People who are the children of privilege in wealth and opportunities should be the least judgmental of others for their status in life, not the most, yet somehow we've wound up with things being ass backwards here with a bunch of Ayn Rand worshipers who are somehow unable to grasp the difference between the situation they grew up in and the situation which most other Americans and people around the world did. No one is envious or looks down on you for wealth and privilege; no one wants to take it away from you. Hell, the Democrats are mostly filled with people from similar upbringings, but at least they recognize that they should try to extend those opportunities to others wherever possible instead of just hoarding everything for themselves.

Now, I'm not saying your situation is comparable to Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan obviously. While your privilege is a more modest one, it's still quite a bit more than what the average American has. Most people don't get guaranteed job security in the family business or have a home built for them. All I ask is that you take the blinders off and recognize that you shouldn't be judging people for not having the same opportunities which fell into your lap through a combination of luck and the hard work of others. That doesn't mean you don't work hard yourself, by the way, but the gist of your argument seems to be that children who move back into their parents homes for whatever reason aren't working hard or pulling their own weight or have failed in some way, and that's not a fair or accurate assessment in most cases.

 

I'd imagine if people had parents that would build them a brand new home and give them a decent paying job, you wouldn't get a lot of people living with their parents.



From his argument, I'm not seeing any evidence of what he was saying; that he was willing OR capable of making it on his own. Hasn't tried either one, it would seem, but talks down to others for the same (difference being that they didn't receive the handout he did)

To short-circuit the rebuttal: Got a job right out of college, and an apartment (later bought a house), never moved back home OR worked for a family business (although I do work for Uncle Sam)

 

The rest of this thread might as well be QFTing Locutus.

 

I would totally kick my kid's ass if he/she wanted to move back. "What, you have financial problems and are homeless and need help for a while? Fail! Go fuck yourself!"

 

You seem to be implying that just because I have avoided some misfortunes in life means that I can't understand or be sympathetic to those who have suffered them.

I spent weeks in a hospital along with people who had suffered quite a bit of misfortune you know.

 

^ Not at all. Locutus is simply pointing out that your lack of empathy and open-mindedness in this matter, which would be objectionable no matter your background, is particularly egregious given your own situation.

 

No, quite the opposite of that, and I'm not even sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm implying that by your words here and your actions that you are rarely if ever understanding and sympathetic of others, even when the privilege and luck you've enjoyed so far should make you so, because you were able to avoid those pitfalls. If by some miracle you're the Gandhi of Oklahoma in your private life, you sure don't make any effort to give that impression online.

So have I. What has that got to do with anything?

You're doing that Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan thing again. It's not the Olympics of Suffering. It's not a race to see who's had more bad shit happen to them and how you can use that to relate to the common man. If you have had bad shit happen to you and you learned nothing from it and developed no greater appreciation for others who have suffered, then the experience was wasted on you.

So, to recap:

1) Avoiding suffering and misfortune should equal sympathy and empathy.

2) Experiencing suffering and misfortune should equal sympathy and empathy.

3) Not having either sucks.

4) Profit.

 

I don't get what you're saying. It seems like a "heads I win, tails you lose" type of argument.

You're saying basically that no matter what I should have more sympathy and empathy.

In other words, you assuming that greater sympathy and empathy are inherently good things. You are making it a foregone conclusion.

 

There you go, champ. Don't sell yourself short, you got it.

You know who else thought sympathy and empathy were good things? SPOILER Alert!

 

I worship Jesus but I'm not him Locutus.

 

Im guessing He's not particularly pleased with people who worship him, yet completely miss his orders about judge not, and help the poor, and turn the other cheek, and, oh yeah, Do unto others.

 

Damn. I was really hoping that I was arguing with Jesus, because the story potential alone would be tremendous. The resemblance to you was uncanny, btw. And by that I mean, not something I can ever believe, not the usual definition of the word.

What does that even mean, anyway? Since when do you have to live up to the impossible goal of being a deity in order to practice what he preaches? That just sounds like a poor excuse to get out of following the spirit of his teachings, which you are clearly doing here.

 

Lol. Someone really has the gall to judge people for moving back home, when they themselves were handed a job by their family AND had their house built by family? Humans are funny.