Young adults in the U.S. are reaching key milestones, such as marriage and having children, years later than their parents

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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    181·
    10 months ago

    If you watch old educational and industrial movies from the 1950s (yes, some of us here on Lemmy are, amazingly, weird), you find out that people living on a single income of a father working at a service station could afford a house and a decent dinner for their family.

    That may not be 100% accurate, but the fact that they even show it as plausible would be seen as utter nonsense today.

    Even going back to the 1980s- Both Roseanne and Dan in Roseanne have trouble holding down a job, but they can still afford a house for their large family and they don’t go hungry. Even on Married With Children, they are poor, but they have a house for their four-person family and don’t go hungry on a single shoe salesman’s salary and no one thought, “how ridiculous! A shoe salesman? With a house?” at the time.

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      81·
      10 months ago

      You do have to factor in race, that a lot of what you see on tv was idealised even at the time, and that we now also have unimaginable luxuries that we take for granted. Proper insulation, phones, computers, unlimited music, etc.

      In 1950 you could buy a median US house for $20k. A fridge/freezer cost $400, a tv cost $300 and a washer and dryer would cost $500.

      Now a median house costs $400k. If the cost of household appliances and electronics had risen as much as houses had, a freezer would cost $8000, a tv would cost $6000 and a washer + dryer would set you back $10000.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        9·
        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
          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
          3·
          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
            1·
            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
              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.

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
        6·
        10 months ago

        It’s also worth noting the quality of the items you were receiving. Those washers and dryers never broke, and if they did, they were easily repairable.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        41·
        10 months ago

        Obviously it was idealized, but no one looked at it and thought “this is absolutely ridiculous and unachievable.” And definitely race is a factor, since all the families I mentioned were white, and in the 1950s also benefited from the whites only G.I. Bill, but the idea that it was achievable for anyone on a low income as plausible rather than so idealized as to be impossible shows that it wasn’t as ridiculous as it is today.

        I mean you also had poor families, both white and black, on TV- The Honeymooners and Good Times both come to mind. But even there, they did mostly okay. And Good Times took place in the projects.

    • nicetriangle@kbin.social
      6·
      10 months ago

      Don’t forget the Simpsons. Dad, 3 kids, a homemaker spouse, and two pets in a 2 story home with 4 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, a garage, basement, and a huge yard in a safe neighborhood. All that on a blue collar salary.

      Used to seem totally normal but now that I type that all out it sounds insane