How much of the struggles facing young and old people today is due to a broken family structure

[OSR stands with Israel]

Imo the whole idea of the norm of kids move out of the house after they graduate high school/college is something that really is dumb economically. One reason for this is that the 20s are supposed to be an age where people build up their careers, slowly accumulate capital and plan for retirement.

It also strains the housing market as it increases demand  far more than it would otherwise which makes it harder for young people to get homes and also results in rent prices for apartments going up which again makes it harder for young people to accumulate capital or build their careers. Fixing this issue doenst even require much but people deciding to stay at home during those years and that would save money to build up young people's career.

It is also similar problem for old people where without a job , many can struggle to afford basic essentials and eventually decide to go to a nursing/retirement home even if they dont have an urgent medical need . This problem would be much less if people were willing to let their parents live with them when they are older as doing that would take a lot of strain of senior citizens and let them enjoy their retirement more instead of being forced to work.


This also would save both the parents when their kids are starting out their careers and later their kids when their parents are past retirement age a lot of money too. Letting kids/parents lets some basic needs be provided for without you having to pay extra rent for them as well.

[Ferguson97]

I don't really disagree that this is a problem in and of itself, but aren't we at a historically high level of young people living with their parents?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The switch from large, multi-generational households to the nuclear family has probably been a very bad thing for society.

[Pres Mike]

Here's my opinion. Living in college dorms has screwed many young people. The biggest reason people get massive loan debt is housing, meal plans and living expenses.

We need to become a commuter society regarding college. I graduated from college in 2020 debt free because I lived at home. 

[Person Man]

We need to be open to the fact that the decline of the family is a real problem, isn't really anyone's "fault", that there's a solution to the problem, but that trying to restore traditions for their own sake isn't the answer.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Interesting read on this topic in The Atlantic from 2020:

The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake

[afleitch]

The switch from large, multi-generational households to the nuclear family has probably been a very bad thing for society.

Conservatives are responsible for the destruction of a generations old system of family shared spaces, child raising and care giving by touting a tight knit patriarchal indivisible 'nuclear family' as both an ideal and a moral standard that couldn't survive the 1970's intact.

Yet they still promote it.

Non 'traditional' and non nuclear families are picking up the pieces.

[Person Man]

Interesting read on this topic in The Atlantic from 2020:

The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake

That's the last thing I read on this topic.

Basically the key takeaways were:

*The Traditional Family had been in decline since plows and traditional land management techniques were being replaced by tractors and fertilizer.

*The nuclear family was designed for families to become neolocal in response to economic demands of industrialized life

*The nuclear family is failing because of further changes in production and technology and  increases in the costs and standards of living that make them no longer practical. It therefore makes more sense that a working class family has to have both parents work and get help taking care of the kids. 

* An example of this is a Middle Class family making 150,000 a year where one parent only works part time and the other one works from home and so there's always money coming in and someone home. They can afford the 400-500k house that has enough space and is where there are strong schools. Another example is that Working Class Family where both parents, both working full time, make about 70,000 a year (perhaps as low as 50,000 in rural areas, Coal Country, or in the Deep South) and as a result, many of them cannot afford to raise children on their own or can't even afford to have a home together so maybe there's a pattern of serial monogamy in these communities where grandparents or siblings of the parents are the ones raising the kids.

*There's growing trends in families to adapt to new economic realities, but none have really taken off.

[LabourJersey]

I don't really disagree that this is a problem in and of itself, but aren't we at a historically high level of young people living with their parents?

Historically high? definitely not.

The highest since the 1950s or so? Maybe. But before WWII it wasn't too common for people to live independently before marriage.

[Joe Republic]

I don't really disagree that this is a problem in and of itself, but aren't we at a historically high level of young people living with their parents?

Rents have increased 20% in just the past year.  This increasing trend of staying at home longer is driven more by necessity than by choice.

[President Johnson]

Really depends on circumstances in my opinion. Leaving parents earlier can also contribute to young people becoming more mature.

I was raised by a single mother and left home at 19, more than a decade ago. In retrospect, that was definitely a good decision and as I matured a lot and learned how to manage your own life (financially, household, etc.). However, as I was still in apprenticeship, I was glad for my dad to support me financially until I worked full time two years later.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Conservatives are responsible for the destruction of a generations old system of family shared spaces, child raising and care giving by touting a tight knit patriarchal indivisible 'nuclear family' as both an ideal and a moral standard that couldn't survive the 1970's intact.

The 1970s were a bad time, yes.

[MaximaEt_Illustratum]

A large percentage but less than most people think

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't really disagree that this is a problem in and of itself, but aren't we at a historically high level of young people living with their parents?

Historically high? definitely not.

The highest since the 1950s or so? Maybe. But before WWII it wasn't too common for people to live independently before marriage.

Before WWII it was uncommon for young people to go to college and obtain degrees that would take them far from home, professionally.

[Badger]

I don't really disagree that this is a problem in and of itself, but aren't we at a historically high level of young people living with their parents?

Historically high? definitely not.

The highest since the 1950s or so? Maybe. But before WWII it wasn't too common for people to live independently before marriage.

Before WWII it was uncommon for young people to go to college and obtain degrees that would take them far from home, professionally.

 Before World War I was uncommon for young people to go to college period.

 Beyond that, you are making the same mistake most conservatives do and you're stupid and interchanging cause-and-effect.. The breakdown of middle class economic economic support has broken down by the family. Loss of middle class paying Union jobs has made many young men frankly unmarriageable. It started in black communities with the advent of deindustrialization, then went through other communities of color just as readily, And finally then with Appalachian and poorer white communities, and now into the "traditionally middle class" white community.

If you want to reverse it, OSR comments gonna take a lot more than tisk tisking more than tisk tisking and finger wagging from right wing intellectual is, but a fundamental rechanging of the economy and ways that would be utterly abhorrent to you and yours.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't really disagree that this is a problem in and of itself, but aren't we at a historically high level of young people living with their parents?

Historically high? definitely not.

The highest since the 1950s or so? Maybe. But before WWII it wasn't too common for people to live independently before marriage.

Before WWII it was uncommon for young people to go to college and obtain degrees that would take them far from home, professionally.

 Before World War I was uncommon for young people to go to college period.

 Beyond that, you are making the same mistake most conservatives do and you're stupid and interchanging cause-and-effect.. The breakdown of middle class economic economic support has broken down by the family. Loss of middle class paying Union jobs has made many young men frankly unmarriageable. It started in black communities with the advent of deindustrialization, then went through other communities of color just as readily, And finally then with Appalachian and poorer white communities, and now into the "traditionally middle class" white community.

If you want to reverse it, OSR comments gonna take a lot more than tisk tisking more than tisk tisking and finger wagging from right wing intellectual is, but a fundamental rechanging of the economy and ways that would be utterly abhorrent to you and yours.

So you're saying that someone who is poor is not worthy to marry?  Or are you saying that all potential brides are money-grubbers?

Two people who graduate high school, get married, go to work, and keep their jobs are far, far more likely to have functional (and reasonably happy) families than people who have children out of wedlock.  The outcomes for children in terms of stability of income, educational achievement, and pro-social behavior and interactions are all better.  There are many reasons for this, but the basic reason is that the most significant determinant of a child's happiness is the condition of the relationship between the two (2) parents.

[Indy Texas]

I don't really disagree that this is a problem in and of itself, but aren't we at a historically high level of young people living with their parents?

Historically high? definitely not.

The highest since the 1950s or so? Maybe. But before WWII it wasn't too common for people to live independently before marriage.

Before WWII it was uncommon for young people to go to college and obtain degrees that would take them far from home, professionally.

 Before World War I was uncommon for young people to go to college period.

 Beyond that, you are making the same mistake most conservatives do and you're stupid and interchanging cause-and-effect.. The breakdown of middle class economic economic support has broken down by the family. Loss of middle class paying Union jobs has made many young men frankly unmarriageable. It started in black communities with the advent of deindustrialization, then went through other communities of color just as readily, And finally then with Appalachian and poorer white communities, and now into the "traditionally middle class" white community.

If you want to reverse it, OSR comments gonna take a lot more than tisk tisking more than tisk tisking and finger wagging from right wing intellectual is, but a fundamental rechanging of the economy and ways that would be utterly abhorrent to you and yours.

So you're saying that someone who is poor is not worthy to marry?  Or are you saying that all potential brides are money-grubbers?

Two people who graduate high school, get married, go to work, and keep their jobs are far, far more likely to have functional (and reasonably happy) families than people who have children out of wedlock.  The outcomes for children in terms of stability of income, educational achievement, and pro-social behavior and interactions are all better.  There are many reasons for this, but the basic reason is that the most significant determinant of a child's happiness is the condition of the relationship between the two (2) parents.

A married couple that is poor is still going to be stressed about money, leading to fights and arguments and probably resulting in the end of the marriage.

Being poor has always been difficult, in all eras and in all societies; it isn't something that magically became hard because of neoliberalism and Ronald Reagan becoming president in 1980. The difference is that prior to the Baby Boomer generation, nobody thought it was reasonable to end a marriage just because you didn't think you were "happy" enough. Marriage was about fulfilling your duties as a husband and wife, and your obligations to your children and (moreso in Asian cultures) to your parents. And, on a more basic level, it was about survival: one person generating income from wage labor while the other person managed food preparation and childcare was economically efficient and practical.

A big misconception is the common trope that "before the 1980s, you could raise a family on a single income." No, you could raise a family on a single income with a spouse who stayed at home and provided all kinds of in-kind childcare and personal services.

Nowadays, most single-income families are single-parent families. They are spending exorbitant amounts of money on childcare, for one. Lack of access to childcare and/or lack of people to watch your kids at the last minute can often put an implicit ceiling on your career advancement because you can't work the long hours that are basically a requirement in any white-collar office job nowadays to be promoted to "associate" and then "director" or whatever.

My uncharitable advice to anyone who finds themselves pregnant/by their SO is that your options are to either have an abortion or marry that person before the baby comes. If abortion is unacceptable to you, then you need to accept that you will marry that person and stay married to them until that child is 18. It doesn't matter if you can't stand each other. Sleep in separate bedrooms. But you never argue in front of your child. I'm sorry if that doesn't make you happy. Adults don't get to be happy all the time. I'm sorry if you don't have a life. When you have children, they are your life. You can do something that makes you happy once they're an adult and on their merry way to college/work/etc. If you had a kid when you were 18, that means you'd be 36 at that point, which is hardly "old" by contemporary standards and still leaves you with plenty of time to find a partner who's a better match or get a different job or whatever it is you want to do.

[WPADEM]

It's part of it.

A lot of young people are not well prepared for adjusting to the post High school life. It's nothing new, but has really become a problem over the last 15-20 years. Economically, it's gotten harder for young people to attain the economic independence that their parents and grandparents enjoyed. Especially those looking to go into the trades and blue collar industries.

Here's one of the biggest disagreements that I have with the arguments about the broken families. Families do not do well when times are tough, especially when it involves their economic situation. Countless families fall apart when one of the Spouses lose their work. Communities collapse when jobs disappear. It's been a pretty common occurrence in the Rust Belt. So it seems that families require an economic environment that allows them to succeed.

[Ferguson97]

So you're saying that someone who is poor is not worthy to marry? 

No, but people typically do not marry outside their social class for obvious reasons.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I would simply build more houses.

[Santander]

So you're saying that someone who is poor is not worthy to marry?  Or are you saying that all potential brides are money-grubbers?

Obviously. It's okay to be poor as a phase in life when you're starting out, it's not okay to be poor by lifestyle choice. Poverty means you have been greedy with your time and effort. That does not mean I endorse marrying for money, but it is important that both partners are capable of supporting themselves and if they plan to have kids, that they can be a good role model on leading a productive life.

[Badger]

I don't really disagree that this is a problem in and of itself, but aren't we at a historically high level of young people living with their parents?

Historically high? definitely not.

The highest since the 1950s or so? Maybe. But before WWII it wasn't too common for people to live independently before marriage.

Before WWII it was uncommon for young people to go to college and obtain degrees that would take them far from home, professionally.

 Before World War I was uncommon for young people to go to college period.

 Beyond that, you are making the same mistake most conservatives do and you're stupid and interchanging cause-and-effect.. The breakdown of middle class economic economic support has broken down by the family. Loss of middle class paying Union jobs has made many young men frankly unmarriageable. It started in black communities with the advent of deindustrialization, then went through other communities of color just as readily, And finally then with Appalachian and poorer white communities, and now into the "traditionally middle class" white community.

If you want to reverse it, OSR comments gonna take a lot more than tisk tisking more than tisk tisking and finger wagging from right wing intellectual is, but a fundamental rechanging of the economy and ways that would be utterly abhorrent to you and yours.

So you're saying that someone who is poor is not worthy to marry?  Or are you saying that all potential brides are money-grubbers?

Two people who graduate high school, get married, go to work, and keep their jobs are far, far more likely to have functional (and reasonably happy) families than people who have children out of wedlock.  The outcomes for children in terms of stability of income, educational achievement, and pro-social behavior and interactions are all better.  There are many reasons for this, but the basic reason is that the most significant determinant of a child's happiness is the condition of the relationship between the two (2) parents.

 No, you've completely misread my post.  Modern economic developments have made working class individuals increasingly unmarriageable because it is so difficult to have an economic structure which sustains Is a family structure long term.

 You kind of hit on Is my point unintentionally with the implicit assumption that the only way a couple who are both high school graduates are going to be able to make it as if both are working full time, and let's face it even then that's hardly likely.  Some guy in the last couple months posted an extremely insightful tweet 8 noting that perhaps perhaps we need to phrase the question chin as to how can we make it so an economy produces  Jobs where a high school graduate can buy at least a modest house on mortgage, send our kids to a State College without backbreaking debt, And have one parent stay home to take care of the kids the kids and household time period and if we can't do that, perhaps we have to shift the paradigm.

Jobs like that are few and far between anymore, and that is what's truly Diminishing Is a family structure, not "permissive sexual mores" or the like.