Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sancho Panza

One In Four Over-50S Have Grown-Up Children Living At Home

Recommended Posts

Telegraph 3/10/14

'A quarter of British people over the age of 50 still have adult children living at home – almost half of them without making any contribution to household bills, new research shows.

Parents are paying out the equivalent of just over £3,700 a year to feed and accommodate their offspring over the age of 18, who are struggling to spread their wings because of crippling housing costs or university debts.

Others are helping out by lending money to those who have already flown the nest, with firstborn children most likely turn to the so-called “bank of mum and dad” for a loan, the research, commissioned by the insurance company MetLife, found.

But financial experts warned that members of the baby-boomer generation could be jeopardising their own retirement prospects with their generosity to their grown-up children to make a contribution

Official figures published earlier this year show that 3.3 million people their 20s and early 30s are now living at home – a figure which has risen by a quarter since the mid-1990s.

The number of young adults living with their parents has increased by five per cent – or 175,000 people - in a single year.

Polling by the research company Consumer Intelligence for the MetLife study found that 25 per cent of over-50s have offspring over the age of 18 living with them, 43 per cent of them without making any contribution to household expenses.

The parents estimated that they were spending an average of £72 a week on food and other household bills directly related to their adult offspring.

But a majority of these living with their parents did make some contribution, paying £51 a week on average or £2,652 a year. Only one per cent said their children paid as much as £300 a week.

One in five of the parents, including those whose children had already left home, said they had also lent money to them.

For most this amounted to less than £500 but in a small number of cases the figure was up to £30,000 to fund deposits on properties or other new ventures.

Dominic Grinstead, managing director, MetLife UK, said: “Helping out family is a powerful motivation for parents and it is understandable that many over-50s are happy to allow adult children to live at home for free.

“The financial pressures on young adults from the need to save for a house deposit while finding a job and in many cases paying off university debts make it almost inevitable that millions of young adults have to live in their family home.

“But parents need to think carefully about how they combine helping family with ensuring they are maximising their own retirement saving.”

The study also challenges the popular caricature of the oldest children in a family are often more self-reliant than their younger siblings.

While 34 per cent had lent money to their firstborn child, only 25 per cent had done so for their second child and 20 per cent of third children – once the figures had been weighted to accommodate different family sizes.'

Spamming the Telegraph as ever.

Ever Yours

Sancho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

The boomer generation were given everything on a plate, they have no idea how to teach their kids to fish as they never learnt that important skill themselves.

Throwing money at kids without teaching them how to earn money themselves is a complete waste, that includes keeping them at home into their mid 30's. Best intentions and all that, but clearly giving people money and free accommodation is not achieving the desired effect.

It may buy the parents a little happiness knowing that their children are not struggling, but if they never make any mistakes, never down to their last £1 and have to make the decision to buy for tea they will never learn anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother when you can sit on your ass then when mum and dad die you inherit a house which has earned more than you ever will. I really dont blame any young adults for giving up.

Or you could go to uni get into debt and slave you ass off to spend your life paying for a contemporary urban lifestyle bedsit.

******** to it, if I was young I wouldn't bother either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

The boomer generation were given everything on a plate, they have no idea how to teach their kids to fish as they never learnt that important skill themselves.

Throwing money at kids without teaching them how to earn money themselves is a complete waste, that includes keeping them at home into their mid 30's. Best intentions and all that, but clearly giving people money and free accommodation is not achieving the desired effect.

It may buy the parents a little happiness knowing that their children are not struggling, but if they never make any mistakes, never down to their last £1 and have to make the decision to buy for tea they will never learn anything.

Give a man a fish an he will feed himself for a day, teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat bobbing up and down drinking beer all day :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

The boomer generation were given everything on a plate, they have no idea how to teach their kids to fish as they never learnt that important skill themselves.

Throwing money at kids without teaching them how to earn money themselves is a complete waste, that includes keeping them at home into their mid 30's. Best intentions and all that, but clearly giving people money and free accommodation is not achieving the desired effect.

It may buy the parents a little happiness knowing that their children are not struggling, but if they never make any mistakes, never down to their last £1 and have to make the decision to buy for tea they will never learn anything.

They've also run off with the fishing rods and won't let a younger generation get access to them.

Or sold them off abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother when you can sit on your ass then when mum and dad die you inherit a house which has earned more than you ever will. I really dont blame any young adults for giving up.

Or you could go to uni get into debt and slave you ass off to spend your life paying for a contemporary urban lifestyle bedsit.

******** to it, if I was young I wouldn't bother either

Fewer opportunities for far more young people today to attain independance.......dependency is the growing new lifestyle. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H-76W9Umh8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother when you can sit on your ass then when mum and dad die you inherit a house which has earned more than you ever will. I really dont blame any young adults for giving up.

Or you could go to uni get into debt and slave you ass off to spend your life paying for a contemporary urban lifestyle bedsit.

******** to it, if I was young I wouldn't bother either

Bingo, the article has it the wrong way round. All around the world and through history, people live in families, not as self-sufficient individuals. I feel bad for infantilised young people who've been sold a pup by successive governments and media but a return to this norm isn't bad at all.

If you're a fish on a hook stop struggling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

The boomer generation were given everything on a plate, they have no idea how to teach their kids to fish as they never learnt that important skill themselves.

Throwing money at kids without teaching them how to earn money themselves is a complete waste, that includes keeping them at home into their mid 30's. Best intentions and all that, but clearly giving people money and free accommodation is not achieving the desired effect.

It may buy the parents a little happiness knowing that their children are not struggling, but if they never make any mistakes, never down to their last £1 and have to make the decision to buy for tea they will never learn anything.

Who's to say they need to? What's wrong with just living at home - a nice large house, food, comfort etc. Lots of efficiency as well, with people putting spending power together etc.

Worth noting as well that living at home is actually the norm. Most people around the world do it.

Edited by Errol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the lyrics of this song.......

''I'm thinking either way I'll be moving back in with mama.

But the cooking's good.

And I think she'll drive me to work.

Save money on groceries and gas.

You see I don't have much job security.

I'm an internet comedian.

I'm not even sure if that's technically a job.''

Probably sums up the predicament of millions of twenty and thirty somethings. Meanwhile the £2,600 looks generous but it may well be scraps off the table in comparison to the parent's 7 figure equity. And it's the parents who have contrived to hang onto their wealth at the expense of their kids. Market discovery was never allowed to happen.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give a man a fish an he will feed himself for a day, teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat bobbing up and down drinking beer all day :D

Except the government have monopolized the teaching of fishing which now costs £9k a year, and they need to get out a huge mortgage to have access to any of the decent fishing waters. Perhaps a closer analogy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother when you can sit on your ass then when mum and dad die you inherit a house which has earned more than you ever will. I really dont blame any young adults for giving up.

Or you could go to uni get into debt and slave you ass off to spend your life paying for a contemporary urban lifestyle bedsit.

******** to it, if I was young I wouldn't bother either

Exactly. Save the tiny violins, but I was out on my own at 16, estranged/non existent parents and no place to call home and definately no inheritance coming. Anyone living at home, at any age, has hit the jackpot as far as I'm concerned. In that situation I'd kick back, do some nice low level hobby/vocation type job for pocket money, pension, and savings, and relax. I know plenty of people that do. Only risk to that is if the house goes on care fees etc you're truly fcked.

Anecdotally I was talking to a woman, in her late 50's, who lives with her husband in Hampton (Richmond area). Throughout their lives she was a SAHM and he was an Engineer. They bought a 3 bed victorian terrace, had 2 kids, both in their 30's now and both living at home. She said their house is now worth in the region of 700k and HPI has been a nightmare for them. At this stage of their lives they wanted to be kid free and kicking back, instead both kids (adults) are at home, no sign of leaving as rents are too expensive, house prices not even worth thinking about and consequently they don't have enough money to give them for deposits. I don't blame the kids for staying at home, it's by far the best option financially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the government have monopolized the teaching of fishing which now costs £9k a year, and they need to get out a huge mortgage to have access to any of the decent fishing waters. Perhaps a closer analogy?

If it ever was actually about learning and really a rite of passage and a boost to debt and GDP.

Consider a school leaver who lives in Nottingham and is offered a place at roughly equal institutions...Nottingham and Liverpool. Where does the student choose to go....£50,000 debt Liverpool, £27.000 debt living with mama...well Liverpool of course.

Kind of proves it is all a circus and a rite of passage...nothing to do with learning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's to say they need to? What's wrong with just living at home - a nice large house, food, comfort etc. Lots of efficiency as well, with people putting spending power together etc.

Worth noting as well that living at home is actually the norm. Most people around the world do it.

Epic fail for the econmy. Deman dries up and almost none of the young in this situation are near where they are wanted for employment, their parents already having fled those locations for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the fact they portray still at home as 'dependant'.

I pay my own phone, food, vehicle and fuel bills. I have my own business.

However, I could only afford a room as I'm single and not willing to shack up with some bird purely for cheaper accommodation.

I'd rather my parents have the money than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the fact they portray still at home as 'dependant'.

I pay my own phone, food, vehicle and fuel bills. I have my own business.

However, I could only afford a room as I'm single and not willing to shack up with some bird purely for cheaper accommodation.

I'd rather my parents have the money than anyone else.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it ever was actually about learning and really a rite of passage and a boost to debt and GDP.

Consider a school leaver who lives in Nottingham and is offered a place at roughly equal institutions...Nottingham and Liverpool. Where does the student choose to go....£50,000 debt Liverpool, £27.000 debt living with mama...well Liverpool of course.

Kind of proves it is all a circus and a rite of passage...nothing to do with learning.

Nothing to do with learning for another reason too, more like a fishing license that learning to fish when not having that license automatically bars you from going fishing as it is now a pre-requirement to do so.

Quite a few are going to local institution, more so now with the tuition fees. For the others maybe that 3 year period out is the only time those youngsters feel they will be free from the parental home for the forseeable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with learning for another reason too, more like a fishing license that learning to fish when not having that license automatically bars you from going fishing as it is now a pre-requirement to do so.

Quite a few are going to local institution, more so now with the tuition fees. For the others maybe that 3 year period out is the only time those youngsters feel they will be free from the parental home for the forseeable!

The Government and the University VIs may want school leavers to believe no Uni debt, no fishing. And indeed so might some students want to believe it on the basis they aren't to be denied that rite of passage, especially if their parents are graduates and have sold the dream on.

Let's face it at 18 it's probably more about the parent's aspirations than the kids.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have parents who live near decent job prospects, and who are willing to put you up, you are lucky beyond imagining.

This trend is just yet another manifestation of modern fedualism, where your parent's wealth and position in society matters more than your own efforts. If this is a reversion to a natural state of 'happy families supporting each other' then it is one that should be resisted most strongly, lest we end up back in the Dark Ages.

Not all families are happy and grown-up children rightly want their own space. Those of us without compliant parents or with parents living in sleepy isolated villages are forced to try our luck with the BTL brigade.

These over-50s could leave school at 16 and go out and get a job (probably one both permanent and with paid overtime, and perhaps also pension provision), and have managed over the last three decades to build up levels of capital and equity that are all but unimaginable for their children. The old system was good enough for them.

Why don't their children have the same opportunities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all families are happy and grown-up children rightly want their own space.

Basically this is just tough luck. Life isn't fair. Children have no right to their own space. Nobody has a right to own a house (or even a room).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically this is just tough luck. Life isn't fair. Children have no right to their own space. Nobody has a right to own a house (or even a room).

No, life isn't fair. But it's a bit much to expect today's losers to shrug their shoulders and accept their reduced lot in life when just one or two generations ago there's a counter-example - one that's staring them in the face every time they visit their parents.

If our parents managed it, why can't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of doing business is too high. If a young person could buy a small shop and live up stairs, work running during the day in the shop, they would. Thats how the mom and pop businesses worked. They are all gone now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I and my partner are 50+ me 55+ and our two kids still live at home.

Daughter is 19 and doing a Nursing Uni course (NHS) (no tuition fees) Lives at home (commutes to and from daily) to keep her debt right down.

Lad is 16 and in his first year of compulsory education at college and has just started an electricians course with a view to pursuing an apprenticeship.

Always took the view the best start we could give them was to allow them to move on with as little debt as possible when they decide to go their own way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   222 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.