The subject of boomerang kids has been in the news a lot lately, even making its way into the election hyperbole as a way to draw some blood on the economy. The story we're being sold is that poor, brave youngsters with new diplomas in hand have no choice but to move back into their old bedrooms at Mom and Dad's house.
All sorts of numbers have been bandied about, some say a quarter of recent grads are unemployed or underemployed, others say half, and one completely unscientific study proclaiming the preposterous idea that 85 percent of all recent college graduates have been forced to move back in with their parents was repeated as fact by no less than CNN, TIME magazine and The New York Post. It would seem that any visit home counts as moving back in when there's an assumption to sell.
The reality is that many of the young adults who have returned to the nest do so by choice, not necessity. Free room and board with none of those pesky responsibilities that come with being an adult can be pretty enticing. Often the parents, or at least one of them, encourage the decision, not ready to let their little one go.
We firmly believe that having adult children living at home on a long-term basis is bad for both the kids and their parents. It prevents the child from making a full transition into adult life, and robs the parents of the chance to return to the couple they were when they first fell in love.
Some may disagree, and if they think having Junior holed up in his old bedroom until middle age is a good idea, then that's certainly their right. But many parents are not happy about their adult children still living in their home. What they thought was short term and helping their offspring get on their feet, turned into a boomerang "kid" that settles in indefinitely, shows no sign of going anywhere and uses the economy as an excuse to stay. Time and again Mom and Dad hear their boomerang baby say, "I'll move out as soon as I find a job, but there aren't any."
We are not trying to push the notion that it's not tough out there. We know it is. Having recently sent three newly-minted adults out into the world we have first-hand experience of how the recession has affected recent graduates. Our youngest just graduated in one of our most economically-strapped states. He scrounged for several months to find anything that paid during his sophomore year in 2009, in the depths of the recession. He found a job delivering pizza, which he still has, along with three others. Two of those are in his chosen field, but they are entry level and part-time. He'll have to work his way up. Imagine that, not starting at the top.
So The Boomerang might have to take whatever job he can find, and maybe more than one. Then when he starts earning some money he will move out, right? One would think so, but maybe not.
We first heard about the boomerang phenomenon when our oldest was about to graduate, which was years before this current economic crisis, and she explained that many of her friends were moving back home because they couldn't afford a place as nice as their parent's house.
What? They're not supposed to!
Parents, ask yourselves: Where did you live when you were first starting out? Generally not the Taj Mahal. Our first place was a one-bedroom converted screened-in porch that had all the weather-proofing of the average wiffle ball. It was a veritable private zoo of urban vermin. And we were thrilled to have it, proud and happy to be self-sufficient. It was also a great incentive to work hard enough to afford a better place. Should we deny this generation that opportunity for growth?
So The Boomerang might not get to live in the manner in which he has become accustomed, the style that his parents worked decades to attain. But he may become responsible, take care of himself, learn some valuable life lessons and even feel some pride in his accomplishments. Not a process that is likely to take place in the old childhood bedroom.
It may not be easy, life often isn't, but it most certainly is possible, even in this economy. We've found that most of the time the kids who don't want to live at home, aren't living at home. They find a way to make it, struggle, work really hard, find a roommate or three and start building their own lives.
You want the boomerang kid out of the house? You'll probably have to give him a push.
Earlier on Huff/Post50:
But that's just my two cents. I'm sure people are going to yell at me for being a wiseass kid/using the word "butthurt" in a sentence. But I look forward to it, and welcome the engagement. Let's stop being passive aggressive and talk about the real issues, here.
In no way was "the assertion of this article that my generation are entitled ne'er-do-wells." It specifically addresses parents who have kids living at home that aren't working and use the economy as an excuse. From what I can tell you aren't in that category. We are very impressed with many in your generation, especially the three that we contributed to it.
"Maybe your kids are staying at home because, in fact, *you* were entitled and lazy, too, by expecting their lives to be an easy ride. " You missed the point of the article entirely, our kids are all busting their butts in a bad economy and getting by. Two of them on Manhattan, no less. We were extremely involved and gave them great opportunities through education, then expected them to use them. They knew the deal and fought hard, struggled, lived in dumpy apartments with multiple roommates and will be more self confident adults for it.
-David
I do, in fact, have a full-time job in education. A job in my chosen field that, because I did not go to graduate school, does not pay enough. The cheapest apartment in my area would cost me an entire week's salary to rent, before utilities, food, and travel to and from work. There are five other young women who hold the same position I do, and all of them have other jobs just to support themselves.
So please, think before writing something like this. We're trying our hardest, we really are, but most of us sadly have the odds stacked against us. It's not fair to judge our generation for something we have no control over. But you're probably just going to just imply that I'm a dumb kid, so I don't know why I bothered writing all of this. Oh there I go, being lazy again. Just like everyone else my age.
We have great faith in your generation, that was what prompted us to write this article. Quite a bit of thought was put into what we wrote, as was the decision to not allow our adult children to boomerang home. All three of our twenty-somethings have struggled, have felt uncomfortable. We feel that through these struggles they have learned the valuable lessons young adulthood teaches. It sounds like you are well on your way, the general rule of thumb is one week's salary = one month's rent.
CJ, you certainly don't come across as a "dumb kid" (your words) to me. Your points are well crafted and I love your passion. Thanks for contributing to the conversation. -Veronica
Two points from your article -
In some markets (DC, NY), the only apartments recent grads are able to afford without outside support arent in safe areas (even with multiple roommates). I don't think taking this into consideration has anything to do with being a helicopter parent. For example, DC has one of the highest rental markets in the country but a starting Congressional staffer makes $24k a year.
Secondly, not all "boomerang" situations are tenuous ones. I know many of my friends regularly contributed to the household, whether through paying utilities, making dinner, buying groceries for everyone, etc. Just because you're living at home doesn't mean you can't be proud of what you're contributing. I know my relationship with my parents when I moved back home was stronger than ever - I was past my arrogant high school phase and while working 60+ hours a week, I finally got *it* - how hard they've worked for my well being.
I am not happy with the situation, nor is she, but at this point we are all making it work.
The idea that it is mandatory to live away from parents is financially wasteful, environmentally destructive (people living separately take up more resources), culturally imperialistic and goes against real family values.
Of course, the statement isn't meant to be logical so much as passive aggressive, which isn't helpful in the least.
Multi-generational households were common in the past. I don't see it as such a bad thing, depending on the dynamics in the household. I respected my parents and therefore didn't give them a play-by-play of the weekends I spend with my boyfriend at a middlepoint halfway across the state. I contributed to household expenses, though not as much as I should have in retrospect.
I would be happy to have my kids come back home for awhile after college, and hope that they would use the opportunity to save money for things like a downpayment on a future home.