The UK is facing a crisis of young adults and independency

[Zython]

If Boomers wanted their children to be financially independent, then why did they vote for Margret Thatcher?

[Kaleredar]

The notion that someone is going to move out of their parent's house at 18 and immediately be gainfully employed is... really, really outdated. You know how many people I knew who moved out at 18 and into self-sustained financial solvency? Zero.

Perhaps that's predicated on this old notion that you should be able to be financially stable by being able to hold down some pissant job, and if you can't do that it's not because the job pays terribly or that rent is too expensive, it's just that "you weren't trying hard enough." The impetus is placed wholly on the individual to meet metrics that the parents met when situations were far easier, rather than any sort of attempt to return that situation to being easier for the worker to prosper in.

The typical line is "my parents only had to do XYZ to move out and afford their own house in 1990". Well it's like who cares, you aren't your parents and we live in 2020 so how is that relevant anymore.

That's true, but in the exact opposite way you think.

Their parents had easily obtainable goals for an 18 or early 20 year old person in the 1990s or 1980s or whenever. With wages stagnating over the past three+ decades but prices rising on everything else, what has become "easy" for those people to do is not easy for their children, nor is it obtainable in remotely the same time span.

To prove that MST3k is always relevant, here's one of their shorts wherein they mock a training film for bread delivery... that's right, there's a full grown adult man whose job is... a wholesale bread delivery guy.



A whole fucking job just driving around all day delivering fucking bread. That ostensibly allows him to support a family (he comments that he's married and it, being the 1950s, means there's a real chance she was a stay-at-home wife.) Can you imagine a job that simple and cushy with which you can presumably afford to support at least two people, potentially even owning a home doing so?

[PC2]

If Boomers wanted their children to be financially independent, then why did they vote for Margret Thatcher?

Margaret Thatcher didn't cause any of these people to be financial dependants. Also there are many Boomers who did not support Thatcher so you shouldn't lump them all into the same basket.

[Elegiac]

The nuclear family is not sustainable without a class of unpaid laborers doing domestic work and certainly not sustainable at current wage levels.

Also people really be out here repeating anti-Asian stereotypes by claiming the extended family model leads to “weakness”, lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Margaret Thatcher didn't cause any of these people to be financial dependants. Also there are many Boomers who did not support Thatcher so you shouldn't lump them all into the same basket.

The Thatcher government dismantled a huge number of social and public assistance programs that have now paid dividends in the UK having a problem with rampant poverty and poor education.

Oh, and union busting. Union busters always create financial dependents, so thanks conservatives.

[PC2]

The Thatcher government dismantled a huge number of social and public assistance programs that have now paid dividends in the UK having a problem with rampant poverty and poor education.

Oh, and union busting. Union busters always create financial dependents, so thanks conservatives.

If they are dependent on programs that are publically financed then they would still be financially dependent under that route as well. All you're saying here is that you want them to be financially dependent on the government instead of being financially dependent on their parents.

[Daedius]

people have to work and individually pay their bills. That is life. That is reality. Can you imagine how unfair it is for less fortunate people already doing both to see someone cushily living with their mommy at age 25? Especially if they have no choice in the matter.

lol, this post is so ridiculous...

[Jonnusthegreat]

Pretty sure it's like this in most western countries because there's not enough done in terms of wealth redistribution. The ultrarich don't need the money, but have all of it.

[Kaleredar]

If they are dependant on programs that are publically financed then they would still be financially dependant under that route as well. All you're saying here is that you want them to be financially dependant on the government instead of being financially dependant on their parents.

Except the government can be pretty well assured that it can afford to support people that need it, seeing as it generates tax revenue from millions of people.

"Everyone's parents" are not. It's the height of "I never had to struggle in my life" if you think that "well your family should have just helped you financially on that" is a viable solution to...

...anything.

Perhaps you need to take your own lesson of "dealing with things as they are, rather than as they were or you think they should be" that I addressed in an above post.

[Elegiac]

If they are dependent on programs that are publically financed then they would still be financially dependent under that route as well. All you're saying here is that you want them to be financially dependent on the government instead of being financially dependent on their parents.

Just like employees are "financially dependent" on employers. Hint: Living with your family does not mean you have no income, and being on public assistance doesn't mean you aren't employed either.

It's almost as if we live in a society and notions of individualism are largely invented by the propertied to support what is in effect an ethical system built on "fuck you, got mine".

[PC2]

Except the government can be pretty well assured that it can afford to support people that need it, seeing as it generates tax revenue from millions of people.

Sure but you can make that same argument about anything. Using that logic there is nothing that citizens should be responsible for paying for because the government is the most "assured" financial source.

Zython's post implied that if Thatcher didn't win then these folks wouldn't be financially dependent because the government would have helped them become financially independent. The only problem is that there's no reason to think that increasing government aid decreases overall financial dependence and if that was true then ironically enough you would find that as government aid programs grow then less and less people would need and use those programs, which that doesn't happen in reality.

[Elegiac]

Sure but you can make that same argument about anything. Using that logic there is nothing that citizens should be responsible for paying for because the government is the most "assured" financial source.

Cool, no one's making that argument about "everything" and we're pointing out that the ratfucking of public assistance programs created deficits in particular areas that the private sector is not capable of solving by its nature.

Stop strawmanning.

Zython's post implied that if Thatcher didn't win then these folks wouldn't be financially dependent because the government would have helped them become financially independent. The only problem is that there's no reason to think that increasing government aid decreases overall financial dependence

Aside from all the evidence that those public assistance programs increase social mobility and reduce intergenerational poverty.

and if that was true then ironically enough you would find that as government aid programs grow then less and less people would need and use those programs, which that doesn't happen in reality.

It's almost as if the current economic system we employ puts an upper limit on how effective these programs can be without a basic restructuring of the approach to resource distribution.

You're literally just pointing out that capitalism is a broken system, nothing more.

[Grimbold21]

I think it was said before, but my issue with that had to do with the US. In the UK, too many young adults at the age of independency apparently like to live with their parents until their 30s at best. With COVID on the rise, it's getting even worse. There are allegedly people that never even tried to find independency to begin with (as described in the post), which is more chilling than people that tried and seemingly failed

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...s-rising-study

"Around 3.5 million single young adults in the UK are estimated to live with their parents, an increase of a third over the past decade, and a trend that is likely to accelerate as the economic and social impact of the coronavirus pandemic deepens."

How do you feel about this, personally? Before I suggested some kind of law/rule that forces parental figures to kick out their children against their consent if they're far past the age of non-independence (20 at least) and people got upset or baffled at the notion. The article presented is going into the previously mentioned concerns of how this is detrimental to society and we need to motivate people into working.

Some of the excuses here are baffling like a relationship breakup apparently shattering people's minds into hiding from reality.

"life shocks such as relationship breakups."

Stop being a dishonest idiot.

The quoted text says why they stay with their parents whereas you're framing it as something they enjoy doing.

Also southern europe from forever years ago says hi. Adults from the age between 23 and 30ish were staying or going back to live with their parents back in 2010s.
It's called an economic crisis and losing your job.

You see, only in countries where jobs are plenty and the economy is strong is where there's the cultural expectation that once you hit 18, you're out

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

The idea that you should move out and live on your own at 18 is pretty much a post-WWII fantasy that never really had any reasonable basis in social psychology or socioeconomic balance. It's a bad idea that serves essentially no positive gains, and there's really no reason to keep pushing it.

On the contrary, it was a reality enabled and logical within the context of the industrial revolution pre-WWII, which saw its Swan Song right after it, before cultural and socio-economic changes gnawed at it.

1&2 : Living in a cramped lodging with a large number of siblings provided a strong incentive to become independent as soon as possible.
3 : This was made possible in the industrial revolution era by the availability of low-skilled wage jobs.
4 : Additionally, there was a strong drive to marry as soon as possible (the only sanctioned way to deal with raging hormones), an outcome that became more and more desired and incentivized by employers and governments alike (family men busy with kids and garden being preferred to the troublemaker alternative).

Now :
- families have grown smaller as houses have grown larger, making it more comfortable to stay, and often the only choice, as a corollary to being bigger, housing is becoming more and more expensive.
- low-skilled wage jobs have ceased to be the dominant form of employment, and on the contrary long studies followed by harduous professionnal insertion have become the norm.
- society has become much more open, as well as fragmented, do note that this has also fueled the need for housing units, conpounding the hike in real estate prices and scarcity.

[Very Tired]

Years of stagnant wages, college educated grads unable to find decent paying jobs in their field, rent going up, automation slowly becoming a thing, a pandemic that's damaged the economy for years to come... but sure OP, it's these darn YOUNG ADULTS who are the problem here. Let's paint with a broad brush and make a law to kick them all out of their parent's house. Problem totally solved.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

There is a whole lot of "it depends" in all this.

A good example is my daughter. Lives with me still while going to Univercity and is currently 22. If after next year she stays with me to find a job and stash some money away I would be ok. If she just plays video games and smokes weed all day for that year I will look differently at it. Really as long as I see her trying to move forward and out I got no problem with it.

Its different from when I was a kid and moved out at 18. You could find appartments for 500 a month that weren't in the ghetto. A car payment was like 150 bucks. Jobs were availiable making 12 to 14 bucks an hour for 40 hours a week. But now it's 1500 a month for rent, 300 for that car, everything requires layers of insurance, and the jobs still only pay 12 to 14 bucks an hour but only give you 30 hours a week. So it sucks. Costs have skyrocketed and pay is mostly the same with reduced hours.

[Dhrizzle]

people have to work and individually pay their bills. That is life. That is reality. Can you imagine how unfair it is for less fortunate people already doing both to see someone cushily living with their mommy at age 25? Especially if they have no choice in the matter.

Ooooooh... so you were forced to move out not long after reaching adulthood and you're jealous of people with stronger family bonds who stick with their parents longer.

[dextersmith]

I used to be friends with a number of people like that in their late 20s and beyond. Some had allowances despite working casually or not at all and even had their parents buy them clothes. They didn't contribute financially or around the house, and all had some degree of shame and embarrassment as some tried to use my place for dating. They never understood why they couldn't keep girls.

Friendships can't last with these losers because they try to turn you into a surrogate parental figure and it's gross. Demanding I pay for fast food or cook and pick up after them at my place. Two asked to live here for free since I already paid all the bills. My former best friend asked me to help him buy clothes and underwear. Fuck that! It's sick. He got grounded at 28 and his xbox was locked away for not cleaning his room too. Adults shouldn't act like kids and parents shouldn't allow it.

[Draco-Onis]

I think this explains it better than the OP

[Themius]

Strange how living with your parents suddenly becomes weird when you're white and live in a country obsessed with landlordism like the UK or US

For real... among Latinos, Caribbean peoples, Asian, East Asian, south Asian, Arab, middle eastern, Most Africans people it isn’t weird or odd.

In any case I think the poster is ignoring the financial state of the world and how things have changed

[crewskater]

I think it was said before, but my issue with that had to do with the US. In the UK, too many young adults at the age of independency apparently like to live with their parents until their 30s at best. With COVID on the rise, it's getting even worse. There are allegedly people that never even tried to find independency to begin with (as described in the post), which is more chilling than people that tried and seemingly failed

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...s-rising-study

"Around 3.5 million single young adults in the UK are estimated to live with their parents, an increase of a third over the past decade, and a trend that is likely to accelerate as the economic and social impact of the coronavirus pandemic deepens."

How do you feel about this, personally? Before I suggested some kind of law/rule that forces parental figures to kick out their children against their consent if they're far past the age of non-independence (20 at least) and people got upset or baffled at the notion. The article presented is going into the previously mentioned concerns of how this is detrimental to society and we need to motivate people into working.

Some of the excuses here are baffling like a relationship breakup apparently shattering people's minds into hiding from reality.

"life shocks such as relationship breakups."

Why do you care? I hope you don't support laws enforcing this..