Number Of Adult Americans Living With Their Parents Has Exploded (CHART)

Empty nest parents, be warned: the number of adults aged 25 to 34 who are living with their parents has exploded, according to this rather shocking chart put together by economist Tom Lawler and posted on Calculated Risk.

Earlier this year, a study published in the journal Transitions to Adulthood titled "What's Going on with Young People Today? The Long and Twisting Path to Adulthood" concluded that the economic downturn has caused an entire generation to delay adulthood.As ScienceDaily summarized the study: "In 1969, only about 10 percent of men in their early thirties had wages that were below poverty level. By 2004, the share had more than doubled. Overall, the share of young adults in 2005 living in poverty was higher than the national average."

Calculated Risk is slightly more sunny about the below chart: If the job market picks up, the adults living with their parents may transform into a new class of home buyers.

Check out the chart below and visit Calculated Risk for more information.

Comments

[Kenz300]

05:26 PM on 12/13/2010

This is exactly how it was after the Great Depression.

Multiple generations of a family lived together in single homes, 2 flats and 3 flats.
Most families could not make it on their own and stayed with their parent and
saved for their first home or apartment.

We are going back to what we once were - poor and struggling.

The share of total income going to the top 1% of earners was 8.9% in 1976.

The share of total income going to the top 1% of earners was 23.5% in 2007.

The average hourly wage has declined by 7% during the same period.

The once strong middle class of America has been decimated the last 30 years.

The top 1% want it all.

[Insanity rules]

03:15 PM on 12/13/2010

Look up "intentional communities" something we should think about.

[Denni]

01:30 PM on 12/13/2010

Before we were marketed into believing that we all had to have our own homes and lots of STUFF to fill them, many families lived together in multigenerational kinship groups. Maybe the silver lining in this economy is that people are realizing that they can live with less 'stuff' and live together without taking up more land, etc.

[torontojohn]

12:57 PM on 12/13/2010

I moved in with my parents "temporarily" while I moved back to my home city to find a job. My prior job was making approx. $60K/yr. After more than a year looking, I have intermittently given up on a few occasions. It's very discouraging and living with you parents as a 30yo adult is humiliating to say the least. Even tried to apply for a job as a baggage handler and was told there are no opening. It's ridiculous. I'm beginning to think the unemployment numbers are fudged and that the rate is actually a lot higher.

[shaun0h]

01:12 PM on 12/13/2010

the numbers are technically incorrect because they're based on people collecting unemployment benefits, not the actual # of unemployed people.

[Pilatunes]

11:46 AM on 12/13/2010

Welcome to today's round of 'What would Sarah say?', a show dedicated to recasting today's headlines into terms Sarah Palin and her supporters can understand.

Today's headline 'It's so sad that the children living at home with their parents are exploding' OR 'Increase in the number of children living at home with exploding parents'.

[MSROADKILL612]

09:43 AM on 12/13/2010

So soon after Thanks Giving. How did that work for y`all?

[graffitijoe]

08:56 AM on 12/13/2010

Junior! This is a pleasant surprise! What's with all the suitcases?

The Obama spin on this will be that Obamnomics is bringing families together.

[CPAwADD]

05:47 PM on 12/13/2010

From the article. "In 1969, only about 10 percent of men in their early thirties had wages that were below poverty level. By 2004, the share had more than doubled. Overall, the share of young adults in 2005 living in poverty was higher than the national average."

Blame Obama for something that occurred well before he took office. If that makes sense to you I'd really like to know what you're smoking.

[George Mateo]

01:26 AM on 12/13/2010

well things happen that it becomes necessary to live with parents every now and then.
www.plastictoolboxes.org

[barbra6237]

10:52 PM on 12/12/2010

WELL i MOVED IN WITH MY OLDEST DAUGHTER AS i CANT PAY FOR ASSITED LIVING ON MY SOC SEC CHECK NOT ENOUGHT TO COVE A WEEKS STAY, SO WHERE DO WE OLDER PEOPLE GO TO .HUSBAND DEAD ALL I HAVE KEPT IS MY CAR AND BEDROOM THINGS A TEMPUR PEDIC BED SO i AM HERE TILL i DIE i GUESS.
YOU TELL ME WHAT I COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENT AS I HAVE BEEN DISABLE ON SOC SEC SINCE 1982 AND HAVE HAD A TRIPLE BY PASS A YEAR AGO NEED ANOTHER NOW AGAIN

[floydian101]

08:25 PM on 12/12/2010

Not surprised by this at all, although I'm skeptical about the new class of homebuyers bit at the end. Before he married my mother, my stepfather worked at a hardware store and had sufficient income to afford a decent house, car, and to raise my two stepsisters. I have a college degree in a respected and stable field, and buying that same house he had would be a stretch. Buying that house and raising two kids as he did would bankrupt me. I'm not a big spender. My monthly bills consist of a cell phone, cable Internet, car insurance, nothing extravagant. I eat out perhaps once a month. This is why I tend to think that income inequality is a legitimate problem in this country.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

08:00 PM on 12/12/2010

This chart is a classic example of the kind of visually distorted, though mathematically accurate chart the Huff debunked in his classic 'How to Lie with Statistics" (a book I regard as required reading for any thinking person, its even more relevant now than when it was first written.)
The chart lops off the much larger bottom portion of the chart which shows no change and amplifies the visual appearance of the change. It's a classic example of the 'gee-whiz' graph.
Look at the actual numbers. Basically it shows the change in living-with-parent amounts to 1 in 25 of the cohort being measured.
Given that this is basically a poll, and polls commonly have error factors of +-2-5% and given that we are in the worst recession since the end of WW2 I don't think this result qualifies all the hand wringing.
And even if it's accurate, it isn't at all surprising. Stagnant wages for almost 2 generations, housing costs still well above post ww2 norms and a dearth of jobs, no wonder people have to band together with their families.

[BishopMyriel]

08:55 AM on 12/13/2010

When I saw this graph I considered printing it off for my fifth grade class to discuss how misleading it is.

[spassmeister]

10:14 AM on 12/13/2010

Exactly.

Reading this chart indicates that the percentage of young adults living with their parents declined by 2% between 1994 and 2004, but since that time has increased just over 3%. That's 3% of the total sample population in the age group. Apparently that's an "explosion": a 1% increase between 1994 and 2010. With this sort of journalistic hyperbole it no wonder that the millionaires and billionaires could argue that a 3% increase in their maximum tax rate was "an outrageous increase" when it really was a small bump in their wide super-freeway of life.

My own 18 and 20 year old daughters are struggling (with my help) to make ends meet as all of the Starbucks jobs have been snapped up by people in their 30s and 40s here in Southern California. They are learning first hand how to live lean and I'm quite proud of them. Even if they end up living with me again out of economic circumstances, I would never conclude that they have a "delayed adulthood" any more than having my parents come live me could be called "accelerated retirement" but rather economic adaptation.

[girly girl xo]

06:37 PM on 12/12/2010

I'm a recent college grad with a biology degree and having the hardest time finding a job. I work part time at a coffee shop and don't make enought to live on my own so I now live and make my home with my parents =(

[Cuds]

06:07 PM on 12/12/2010

Not everyone will cough up to living with their parents and I think this trend is going to become a lot more common.

[johnmartin]

03:49 PM on 12/12/2010

I love listening to people discuss things and " talking " long term meaning the last 30 years .
Since R.R. was Pres. - He started spending on credit and spent more then all pres. before him - combined. He started the republican BS of talking about being responsible while all the while spending and racking up debt. Citi traded at $1.14 in 1991 it went to ridiculous $55 and in 2009 was at $1.50 The market is a scam ,it is not saving it is BS . Property was over inflated in prices compared to wages - These kids will buy eventually after the Parents lose everything and are gumming bread off the street . America land of the free home to the biggest scam on the planet . Whats next--- " Buy China " --- the next big scam .

[underdog1]

03:20 PM on 12/12/2010

If you love your kids and have the money, buy them a house and have them pay it back interest free. That's what my parents did after I graduated from college. They didn't want me dealing with 30 year mortgages and making a dent in my credit history.

[Wuud52]

06:17 PM on 12/12/2010

If you love your kids and can afford to buy them a home you mean... Right? The fact is, most people are having enough trouble holding onto the one house they can afford, and do not have enough money to buy 2 or 3 more for kids.

Lovely idea, if you have the resources.

[frizzlefry]

10:07 PM on 12/13/2010

That's pretty awesome of you! Totally not being sarcastic either. A very smart move that will pay off in the long run. Your children will genuinely appreciate that in the long run. I would love that resource. Unfortunately as hard as I save I think homeownership will be out of the question for me, but hopefully I can take your idea and do that with my kids.