Is it okay now to be a 'boomerang kid'?
To be sure, we can’t say precisely what goes on in the social circles of parents.
By parents, of course, we mean Boomers with children of an age with certain expectations: 22-34, let’s call it, the time in a life when professions often begin and flourish.
No parent would outright admit it, but there must be a great measuring of offspring success among them, each boasting that their kid was “just made VP of his firm” or, while diverting their eyes to the floor, admitting that he’s “between jobs right now and moving back home.”
It must be a cruel exercise, my own extreme cynicism projects, but perhaps there’s a legitimate defence for boomerang kids – those who leave home only to come right back after the real world has slammed and pounded them.
New York Times blogger Randye Hoder argues a valid case on behalf of boomerangers, noting that at least one study tosses the perception of kids moving back in with their parents on its head.
*Bing: What is Canada’s youth unemployment rate?
According to the Pew Research Center, the number of people between 25 and 34 living with their parents nearly doubled between 1980 and 2008, and certainly your own conclusions can be drawn as to how many more youths are back at home since the recession hit in ’08.
Further, and this may come as a surprise, the Pew study found that the “vast majority” of boomerang kids say living once more with their parents has been good for them, and parents of such kids have been “just as satisfied with their family life and housing situation as are those parents whose adult children have not moved back home,” Pew notes.
Such findings have brought other boomerangers out of the woodwork, certainly, using that age-old reasoning that, well, who wouldn’t want to live rent-free while building a career in a tough economic climate?
“Think about it – how many of you would rather be in debt up to your eyeballs instead of having the ability to put money away in the bank?” writes boomeranger Amanda Abella of the Grad Meets World blog. “How many of you would rather struggle, and I mean really struggle, during a Recession (sic) rather than taking it easy and trying to do things the smart way?”
Yeah, yeah, okay. In such an economic climate, perhaps these opinions hold a little more weight. Yet the Pew study, for instance, points out that many boomerangers today are angels, who pitch in for rent and groceries and other living costs. Surely, this flies in the face of the freeloader, non-starter stereotype we currently associate with boomerang kids.
Still, the critics will not relent: “Today’s generation is literally going nowhere,” two parents write in a separate NYT op-ed. “This is the Occupy movement we should really be worried about.”
Whose side are you on? Has there never been a more appropriate time to be a boomerang kid, or should parents still encourage their kids to make it on their own without the safety net of moving back home?
By Jason Buckland, MSN Money
Posted by: Mr. Negative | Apr 2, 2012 1:57:10 PM
Good for the kids and parents who are happy to make this situation work. It will happen more as the cost of living rises. Some parents would like this as it gives them some freedom and a better chance to retire and become mortgage free. Kids will like this as they can save money. (they just don't have the freedom and independance they would like)
I personally don't see anything wrong with this, it makes sense. From my understanding our parents did this back in the day when times were tough and the cost of living was too much.
Posted by: Mr. Negative | Apr 2, 2012 2:02:49 PM
and if the kids really do help out, most parents wouldn't want to kick them out, as they then become assets as they do the chores, and pay portions of all expenses. If i was the parent, i would only kick my kids out if they were leaches and disrepectful when asked to do something. Other than that, stay and contribute as long as you would like!
Posted by: wait a minute | Apr 2, 2012 2:31:35 PM
People today, especially young people who are trying to get started, are having a way harder time doing that than their parents ever did. And while that means delayed adolescence for some, only a truly lame parent would let that continue. Don't forget that multi-generational homes were the norm during the past century. It was not unheard of to have 3 or 4 generations in one home. For boomers and bomerangs, it's a question of cooperation, mutual respect, and shared values.
Posted by: Ty | Apr 3, 2012 3:53:47 AM
Maybe the big story should be about how the Baby Boomer generation had everything go there way while every other generation before and after has had to struggle harder than they have?
Posted by: allan | Apr 3, 2012 8:03:14 AM
Or maybe the big story should be how there would be a lot more jobs for this generation, if the baby boomer generation would stop going back to work after they retire. Taking jobs away from the youth, just so they can double dip and collect a pension, and a paycheck.
Posted by: tj | Apr 3, 2012 8:39:39 AM
one problem is some retired people have extremely small pensions so they need the extra income. and some of the childeren returning home choose to sit in the basement and play video games and just not do auything.
Posted by: Jim | Apr 3, 2012 9:48:06 AM
In MY day we were responsible with money. We didn't give old people good pensions or waste healthcare money on any old people.
If the younger generation wasn't so careless with money they would be better off. If they could just see how much money has been transferred to the older generations and to the wealthy they might get some money for their generation to invest in business and job creation but they don't because they are LAZY.
Instead they just lounge around their parents houses refusing to riot or cause anarchy on the streets.
IN MY DAY leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Mussulini were elected and put great job creation modernization programs in place! Our leaders nowadays still launch the wars, but only to benefit the really rich.
Dang lazy kids today, refusing to vote in leaders who will lead to real change what do they expect? Perhaps the next generation will be less lazy and we will see some 'exciting' CHANGE !
Posted by: TL | Apr 3, 2012 9:53:05 AM
I am 27 year olds. My husband and I put ourselves through school without help from our parents, without student loans, while paying a mortgage. How? We worked our butts off! We both always had full time jobs on top of going to school, and during school breaks, we took second jobs. We also did without. There was no extra money, we were on a very, very tight budget. By the time we graduated, we were still debt free (other than our mortgage) Now, 6 years later, we are in a house and have two children, and still no debt.
I realise that this is not possible for everyone, especially not without student loans. But I do not see why so many people "need" to move back in with their parents, "need" so much help from their parents. If we can do it, starting at 19 & 20, I don't see why other people can't as well.
Posted by: Lisa | Apr 3, 2012 11:54:38 AM
I thiink it is OK to live with your parents as long as you help out with the chores and pay a portion of the household expenses. Just think of your parents as roommates you trust to live with and who want to help you succeed in life. There is nothing wrong with that. The ones who make fun of those who live at home are the ones who are jealous because they wish they had that too..Plus, nowadays, it is hard to find a good jobs. So remember, your parents are helping you out now because you are living at home and in the future when they are older, you help them out because they need your help.
Posted by: LOL | Apr 3, 2012 12:48:35 PM
@ TL
I hate to burst your bubble but not all people choose to get married young and suffer at such a young age when they are better options. Or maybe you both come from homes where your parents cannot or will not help you. I took out student loans and I left home for 2 yrs after graduating and I decided of my own volition that in order to pay this debt off faster it would be wise to move back home. Not only is my debt shrinking rapidly, but I'm also albe to save money for a house. A house that belong to ME not me and my husband or whoever it will be MY asset and all this would not have been possible without my parents, weel it would have been but it would have taken longer and I'd have to rely on some man to get what i want..now I dont have to rely on any man and HE will have to sign the pre nup when the time comes!
I also find it funny that you dont count your mortgage as a debt...thats is one of life's greatest biggest debts,,,YOU DONT OWN THE HOME YOU LIVE IN so dont kid yourself that you have no real debrt because you do! And with that kidn of debt if you default on it you're homeless with 2 kids, that a very real very scary debt in my opinion. Not to mention just the fact that you have kids will put you into some debt...kids are expensive and Im sure both you and your husband have credit cards you actively use...which..guess what? Its still debt even if you pay off the monthly balance right away you still spent money that wasnt yours to begin with.
So unless your house is bought and paid for and unless you pay for everything in cash..you have debt not fool your self and dont thumb your nose at people who have loving families who want to help them and OPTIONS that you dont have cos you chose to get married at 19...
Posted by: Kris | Apr 3, 2012 2:01:59 PM
Speaking as a 'boomerang kid' my parents down payment on their house was $50 and they didn't graduate high school while I'm expected to have degree that costs up to $50,000 to make $35,000 a year. I think times have changed and therefore so should people’s attitudes.
Posted by: @Kris | Apr 3, 2012 2:46:45 PM
Your parents put $50 down to buy a house...lets imagine that was a 5% downpayment minimum...they bought a house for $1000? Did you grow up in a cabin in the 1920's? Are you a 90 boomerang child living with your 110 year old parents?
At least be honest with yourself, no house could have been purchsed in canada in the 1980's with $50.
Posted by: David R. | Apr 10, 2012 1:53:57 AM
I was a boomerang kid, and so was my wife. I'm telling you right now, its not good. When you reach a certain age and maturity going back home doesnt work. Parents will treat their kids as kids, no matter how old you are.
What made us boomerang back was the high debt load of school, inability to obtain jobs that paid well enough to support repayment plus living expenses. We tried for almost 4 years after graduating from university to make it on our own. But the student debt totally ruined us, we never could pull ahead, and struggled financially because it. The rising costs of living, food, etc, just pushed everything over the edge.
Its really sad, we probably will not be able to afford our own home until we are in our 40's, if we are lucky. And I agree with some of the comments, if the baby boomers would actually retire and free up all the well paying jobs for the post-secondary grads, and free up all of the lower paying jobs for the students it would fix this whole mess. If they continue to work, they will completely demolish their retirement and pensions because the youth are not pumping the money into it ... and by the time we reach the age of retirement there really will be nothing left since no one was able to contribute much into it. The government needs to step in, and start pumping money to th pensions and retirement so they can get these baby boomers into retirement early to free up the jobs.