Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 13 2015, @02:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the mom's-basement dept.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Melbourne, concluded that the changing nature of family living situations often led to avoidable conflict. Associate Professor Cassandra Szoeke and Katherine Burn, from the University's Faculty of Medicine, Health and Dentistry Sciences, examined both 'boomerang kids' (those who return home) and 'failure to launch' kids (those who never left).

The project reviewed 20 studies involving 20 million people worldwide was published in Maturitas. The research shows:

The shifting economic climate and changes in social norms were driving the phenomenon of kids staying at home for longer.

The main reasons for young adults choosing to remain at home were for stability and additional support while they transition to university or employment.

Divorce, unemployment and health problems often led to children returning. This return under negative circumstances can heavily impact on the wellbeing of everyone in the household.

Parents who are well-educated, married and well-off tend to have children who stay home longer, whereas children who grow up in households with a single parent, or step-parent, or didn't finish high school, tend to leave early.

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-young-adults-boomerang-home.html

[Also Covered By]: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/uom-mya111115.php


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday November 13 2015, @04:30PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday November 13 2015, @04:30PM (#262725)

    The story in a nutshell:
    1. Median incomes have been basically stagnant in the US since 1979. That means that the purchasing power of American families has not kept pace with the costs that they are expected to bear, nor with the productivity of American workers.
    2. From 1992 to the present, the US government policy has been in favor of manufacturing and other low-wage jobs moving overseas. This caused a lot of formerly middle-class Americans to lose their often unionized middle-class jobs, throwing them into the service McJob market.
    3. Everyone not involved in setting US government policy responded in every way they could to try to make ends meet:
      - They sent mom into the workforce, going from being 1-worker households to 2-worker households.
      - They went to college in record numbers, trying to retrain themselves to do the jobs that were supposed to be readily available (they weren't, of course).
      - They cut their expenses by adding people to households (e.g. another family moving in with them), buying basically no luxuries, eating cheaper food, and so forth.
      - They used every instrument of debt at their disposal to try to delay the crash that they knew was likely coming. This included home equity loans, student loans, car loans, credit card debt, payday loans, and of course illegal loan sharks.
      - When that all ran dry, or some crisis hit that they couldn't manage (e.g. a major medical problem), they filed for bankruptcy.
    4. When 2008 hit, what was left of the job market crashed along with the stock market. That left even more workers, many of them educated, looking for any work they could get.
    5. That job loss trickled down to new graduates, because if I'm a hiring manager and have the choice between hiring somebody with 25 years of experience and a new graduate that's asking for the same amount, I'm going to take the experienced person. 20 years ago, the experienced person would have been more expensive and harder to find, so I would have considered taking on the new graduate and training them, but now that they're easy to find and cheap to hire I don't have to do that.
    6. End result: 20-somethings and many 30-somethings are either unemployed or underemployed, and live with their parents because the alternative is living on the street.

    All parts of this story fit in perfectly with the available evidence, anecdotal data, and numerous studies.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Thexalon on Friday November 13 2015, @04:34PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday November 13 2015, @04:34PM (#262728)

    And that's when I RTFS and notice that this is about Australia. But no matter: The situation there isn't quite as bad as in the US, but the trends aren't that different either.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @06:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @06:00PM (#262777)

      The trends are just upside down.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @05:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @05:15PM (#262749)

    That doesn't sound like a conservative version of economic history. This one has no magical thinking.

    Is this part of the "gay agenda" I keep hearing about? They weren't part of the jobless recovery, were they? I thought working girls were in the service industry...

    reconciling all of these propagandic lies will be time consuming.

    At least the message is still to blame the homeless and jobless for being lazy or mentally ill, since the 1%ers still have jobs and are neither homeless nor have had their medical records leaked to demonstrate how ill they are.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 14 2015, @01:02AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 14 2015, @01:02AM (#262940)
    Some other factors I can think of:
    • The rent is too damn high. There are so many "luxury condos" being stood up by both small-scale speculators, as well as large-scale ones like Avalon, which drive up the average rent in cities and towns.
    • Buying a house is too expensive, now that you have to have 20% upfront to get a loan, and house prices are rising in yet another bubble (not quite as outlandish as the 2004-2007 bubble, but it's approaching that rate).
    • The converse of number 5 above also applies, to an extent: ageism. Tech companies are starting to look at applicants who are 30 to 35 years old as "too old", because they don't fit the Silly Valley stereotype of "disruptive innovative Stanford dropout". This is becoming particularly pervasive in Fortune 500 companies, who are desperately trying to masquerade a "startup attitude" to freshen around the cobwebs and Windows XP workstations. In some cases, it's possible for an applicant to simultaneously "not have enough experience", AND "be too old".

    Add to all of this the feckless indifference of a government too comatose and octogenarian to understand how to regulate a 21st Century country. They're still gushing about TPP, which tries (and fails) to solve problems from 20 years ago, which were brought about as aftershocks from NAFTA. It makes me want to emigrate, "retire" prior to reaching 40 years old, and live out the rest of my days in a way that ensures I won't have to worry about saving for a "real retirement"... because I'll end up dying working anyway.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday November 14 2015, @02:14PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Saturday November 14 2015, @02:14PM (#263250)

      The thing is, if your income had kept pace with productivity, then the rent wouldn't be too damn high, because you could afford to pay it and/or save money for a house.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.