Kidults

[krisbarry]

Kid Adults (Kidults), The latest trend to hit the family structure. 20 to 30 year old still living at home. All due to three main factors...

1) Outrageous increase in house prices
2) Massive HECS debts
3) Increase in singles wanting to stay single.

Is this a burden or an assest to our society?

 

[tech/a]

Kris.

Housing prices are relative.
Try being a young adult in Sydney or Melbourne.
They will find a way as things wont alter dramatically.
(Often 3 or 4 share rent---the smart ones buy and rent out rooms!!).

HECS is linked to earnings to re pay---Kris My son is completing his Masters---then Doctorate in Physics---specialising in Photonics--Fibre optics is one aspect of this field.He is already being head hunted and has an initial offer of $85K a year---first year---not bad for a 21 yr old!

Those who complete ARTS degrees are the ones who will find re payment difficult!

Singles wanting to stay single isnt a bad thing but staying home when you can earn your own way is in my view.
This then becomes a responsible parenting issue I feel.

Unless of course the working sibling/s and PAYING their way is part of the FAMILY plan for home ownership..

 

[krisbarry]

Kris.

Housing prices are relative.
Try being a young adult in Sydney or Melbourne.
They will find a way as things wont alter dramatically.
(Often 3 or 4 share rent---the smart ones buy and rent out rooms!!).

HECS is linked to earnings to re pay---Kris My son is completing his Masters---then Doctorate in Physics---specialising in Photonics--Fibre optics is one aspect of this field.He is already being head hunted and has an initial offer of $85K a year---first year---not bad for a 21 yr old!

Those who complete ARTS degrees are the ones who will find re payment difficult!

Singles wanting to stay single isnt a bad thing but staying home when you can earn your own way is in my view.
This then becomes a responsible parenting issue I feel.

Unless of course the working sibling/s and PAYING their way is part of the FAMILY plan for home ownership..

* House prices are relative, sure, but wages are not relative to that, I am sure your wage has not increase by 100 in 4 years, mine hasn't! and neither has anyone that I know.

* 3-4 will share rent, sure, and will contine to share rent well into their late 20's, mid 30's and maybe by the time they reach 40 they might be HECS debt free and have save a $40K deposit.

* $85K a year, not bad for a 21 year old, for sure. But don't expect him to be moving out very soon, (Not unless the job is interstate), or even paying his way. He will be so flat out paying 47cents in the dollar in tax, then slugged another 6% HECS repayments so his wage (Take home will be something like $40-45k ish) ** Not lookin' too flash after-all ** Pretty average wage if you ask me.

Your son, would have been better off becoming a plumber or an electrician, they can earn that wage with no HECS debt.

 

[Milk Man]

22- bought and sold house already
20k capital gain, 7k grant
no tax (residence owned for more than 12mths)
income well below 85k

MOVE TO QUEENSLAND!!!

 

[Smurf1976]

I have been told and read on numerous forums etc. that over the long term a house is worth 3.5 to 4 times average earnings in the area in which the house is located.

So, either the average Sydney office worker is about to earn well over 100K with even shop assistants around $50 an hour (permanent staff) or something doesn't add up here. I don't see too many $100K bus drivers either...

I'll pass of judging other than to say that in my preferred living area I could now buy a house for about 14% less than it would have cost me 12 months ago. This is based purely on list price. I'm told that the discount below listing price has increased too so that is an additional saving.

Personally, I would encourage any young person to live cheaply (which may mean at home) and save as much as possible and learn about the world and the markets. The opportunities to take risks etc. decrease substantially once one leaves home and virtually disappear once there is a family to support UNLESS one already knows how to go about things.

 

[doctorj]

For most young people fulfilling the great Australian dream is a good financial move. I would encourage them to take advantage of being able to live at home to save your depoist and also to time your entry into the market.

Most parents would be quite happy to have their children at home for another year if it meant they were going to have a better start at life.

 

[mime]

House prices is not a major problem because rents didn't really increased during or after the prop boom.

What kind of everdence do you have of these people staying at home? Because I thought that age bracket had major money earning power.

 

[tech/a]

Kris.

Life's what you make it.

 

[Smurf1976]

I think we're missing the point here. The changes go far beyond economics.

30 years ago it was reasonably common that a 20 year old female would be married with kids. Most females of that age today wouldn't even consider marriage and kids simply aren't on the agenda.

30, now that is more like the time to START thinking about kids. Start thinking as in find a partner.

There is nothing "wrong" with this. Medical technology is such that life expectancy has greatly increased. The days of most being dead before 65 are gone.

It would be a disaster to see most young people tied down, married with kids at 20 or even 25 IMO. Obviously it suits some and I intend no offence to those people but clearly for many it is not the way to go.

We all make choices and I really can't see anything inherently "wrong" with someone living at home at age 25. Parents being a burden on their children is an entirely different thing (not at all acceptable IMO) but is strangely still accepted by most.

It's like religion. We all have our own beliefs and provided that we don't try and force those views on others there is no problem.

I do view house price increases as exactly the same as increases in the price of petrol or food however. They are all an increase in the cost of essential items. Personally, I choose not to own property but suffice to say that I'm not at all upset about petrol prices recently... Not that I want to see others suffer, but I knew full well what the oil situation was and chose to invest accordingly.

Incidentally, I most certainly wouldn't have known a damn thing about oil if I had left home at 18. Staying at home for a while provided me with lasting benefits due to the knowledge I had the time and money to acquire.

The role of investors is to take advantage of the opportunities which exist rather than to try and wish specific opportunities into existence.

 

[Fleeta]

i read a fantastic book recently called 'the barefoot investor'. it is a very informative and entertaining book about how people in their 20's and 30's can get ahead and what has changed from previous generations. while it didn't really add anything to what i already know, it was a very well written book, one that i would recommend to anyone in the age bracket. the author is scott pape.

 

[RodC]

Parents being a burden on their children is an entirely different thing (not at all acceptable IMO) but is strangely still accepted by most.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Smurf1976]

What do you mean by this?

There seems to be a growing tendency on the part of those of retiring age to (1) spend all their money thus leaving no inheritance and (2) seek financial support and/or accommodation from their own children.

The concept of reverse mortgages seems to be becomming somewhat more popular. This is, in practice, a way of spending all your money whilst still alive thus leaving nothing behind. If an individual wishes to do this then that is their right, no problem with that. But if they then turn around and expect to move in to their children's home (along with their adult children's wife, kids etc) once their money's gone "living the high life" then to me that is pushing it too far.

Their children have a right to their own life. They didn't leave home to find themselves back living with their parents at age 45. If that happens then the only difference is who owns the house, other than that they might as well have never left home since the end result is exactly the same.

Anyone who has ever had long term "visitors" in the house will know exactly what I mean when I say that, no matter how much you like them, there comes a time for them to go. More to the point, when the "visitors" are related or known to one partner there eventually comes a point where "they go or I go...". I simply do not consider it fair that anyone places undue pressure on the personal relationships and family life of their own children in this way. The word "burden" comes to mind.

If you look at the valuation of real estate relative to earnings then it is quite clear that in practically all major population centres the present younger generation has it tough. I'm not sure what the average earnings are to the $ but if we take $50k as a reasonable estimate then that leads to reasonable houses in Melbourne, Brisbane etc. being worth under 200K in reasonable working class suburbs. 3.5 to 4 times average weekly earnings is the historic multiple for houses according to several reports I have read, forums etc. Until very recently this did not change greatly and is similar in other countries (eg UK).

Reality is far from this. We have a situation where young people are taking on what can only be described as dangerous mortgages in order to support the high house prices from which their own parents are so greatly benefiting. A simple return to normal interest rates (10%) would literally break many young families. With inflation low, this risk will remain for many years. For the parents to blow their own windfall gains, which have come largely at the expense of their own children, and then want more is simply immoral to me.

This is not a personal gripe, I am not in this situation. I do, however, know of several who are, have been or probably will be. It destroys the life of those affected - broken marriages, lost friends, sometimes loss of career (since relocation is totally out of the question), full scale war with their own children. There may be happy examples, but certainly not the several that I have seen.

 

[dutchie]

Extended families living together is a cultural aspect. It certainly is not an Australian trait. However I think we should learn from other cultures as there are many benefits of having close family ties.

Sure there are the problems of privacy/ own space etc. but this type of living should not be discarded outright.

As Australian's we do not understand this system because we have never had it but I am sure that if it became more popular (maybe out of necessity) then we would understand the benefits better.

 

[tech/a]

Then there are those who are burdens but never intended to be.

Celia's Mum has Altzhimers----the cruelest disease I have ever witnessed both for the sufferer and her Daughter who would relish the opportunity to share her Mum's twilight years---but both have been robbed!

Im lucky to have both Parents still here both 80-----if they spent every cent and were happy to stay with us-------I'd be there and so would Celia.

BURDEN----????

 

[Smurf1976]

Then there are those who are burdens but never intended to be.

Celia's Mum has Altzhimers----the cruelest disease I have ever witnessed both for the sufferer and her Daughter who would relish the opportunity to share her Mum's twilight years---but both have been robbed!

Im lucky to have both Parents still here both 80-----if they spent every cent and were happy to stay with us-------I'd be there and so would Celia.

BURDEN----????

That situation is very different to the one to which I am referring tech. I have personally lived with the consequences of a person (grandparent) going slowly downhill over a period of around 7 years due to this terrible disease.

Of course I do not classify such people in the category of being a burden on others. Neither do I consider those aged around 80 who live with their children with the mutual agreement of both parties.

What I am referring to are those who "live the high life" while their children struggle financially. Those who won't offer any assistance but then, once the money's run out due to their luxury lifestyle with frequent overseas trips and so on, expect their own children to increase mortgages, buy a bigger house or whatever to accommodate them. These are people who were more than capable of supporting themselves financially but choose to depend on their own children. To me that is very, very wrong.

 

[tech/a]

Fair enough ---didnt know such selfish people existed.

 

[dutchie]

Those sort of parents must be a very small minority.
I don't know anyone like that nor heard of anyone like that.

 

[Smurf1976]

Those sort of parents must be a very small minority.
I don't know anyone like that nor heard of anyone like that.

Totally agreed that it is a small minority although I am aware of individual cases so it does exist.

I think my original post probably wasn't clear on that point and might have upset a few people. No harm or offence intended to anyone other to point out that such people do exist, albeit in relatively small numbers, so the argument about kids staying at home "too long" can sometimes apply similarly to a small number of parents.

No intention of causing any ill feelings amongst anyone.
I might have to make my posts a little less confusing in future...

 

[RodC]

Thanks for the clarification Smurf,

Fortunately it does seem that these type of people are in the minority.

regards,

Rod.

 

[DTM]

Those sort of parents must be a very small minority.
I don't know anyone like that nor heard of anyone like that.

I did see a news item on TV a few months ago about retired parents who weren't saving their money or houses to pass on to their children. They had liquidated their assets and had bought mobile homes and were driving around the country, spending their money and enjoying life. They were also taking their trips overseas and the catch cry for the day was live it up now. It seems to be a new phenomena.

Personally I can't see the point in it unless they had a good income flow coming in for the rest of their lives. Maybe they're hoping to win the lotto?? Or maybe in 20 years time, their children might take them back in??

Couldn't see the sense in their views then and can't see it now.