How Much Does One Owe....??

[PoliticalChic]

The WSJ has an article, cleverly entitled "Mother, Can You Spare a Room," about older children returning home to live....and the effects. The article sets up some particularly pertinent...and poignant...rules.


1. "Parents, meanwhile, are finding themselves stuck caring for children, sometimes for much longer than they planned, with no exit plan in sight—often damaging their own financial health and retirement savings.... hosting an adult age child back at home can cost between $8,000 a year to $18,000 a year....

a. U.S. Census Bureau figures, 22.6 million adults between the ages of 18 and 34 were living at home with their parents in 2012, about 32% of all people in that age group. That is up from 18 million, or 27%, a decade ago. The percentage of young adults between 18 and 24 years old living with parents has increased the most, to 56% in 2012 from 51% a decade ago.





2. Parents should be firm with their kids, say advisers, by making them pay for rent and other expenses if possible, setting a limit for how long they are allowed to stay, and avoiding the temptation to offer extra financial help, like loans.

3. All of this is weighing on parents' finances.... 26% of parents with adult-age kids living at home have taken on debt in the process, either to help their child with a loan or for their own spending needs. Thirteen percent delayed a life event like buying a house, and 7% delayed retirement.

4. When kids move back home with parents, it puts parents in the complicated position of wanting to support their children while trying to help them launch their own lives. The line between support and coddling can be blurry, experts say.





5. When an adult child says he needs to move back home, parents should come up with a financial plan that includes a detailed budget of the child's expenses and what the child is expected to pay. Those expenses typically include rent, utilities and food.

a. The best way to handle expenses outside of room and board is a weekly or monthly allowance,... a strict limit for how much the child will be able to spend.

b. ... parents shouldn't be paying for extras that a child can live without: new cars, trips or entertainment, for example, even if they can afford it. "Then there's the problem of kids having this entitlement and having no ambition to get off their butts,"

c. The biggest mistake parents make is failing to establish a time frame right away for how long their child is allowed to stay,... Without any kind of parameters, kids get comfortable at home and parents can find themselves stuck.

d. ...parents shouldn't allow their kids to live with them longer than, say, a year and a half, unless there are extenuating circumstances, many financial advisers say. Some advisers recommend no more than six months. The longer children stay, the harder it is for them to leave, and the more the cost to parents soars.



6. And here's how... a "glide path" approach to encourage their kids out of the house.... an initial allowance that will slowly decrease over time. Another way to do it: start by paying some of the child's expenses and then gradually stop paying them—

7. Often children move home directly after college with no job in the field they majored in. But children should at least find a part-time job, even if it means they're underemployed,... has to have a job, even if it wasn't in her field.
a. If the child is having trouble finding a job, he or she should find another way to contribute around the house by doing chores or cooking meals, ..." When Your Grown Children Move Back Home - WSJ.com


Great article?
In an effort at full disclosure...I would never set such a plan for my children. I've raised them to be a certain kind of individual...and would allow the fruits of their upbringing to be evident without such as contract.

But....
...it is the plan our nation should institute in place of the current welfare industry.


OK...here is the new welfare system:


"... with no exit plan in sight—often damaging their own financial health and retirement savings.... be firm, by making them pay for rent and other expenses if possible, setting a limit for how long they are allowed to stay,...help them launch their own lives. The line between support and coddling can be blurry,...having this entitlement and having no ambition to get off their butts,...The biggest mistake ... is failing to establish a time frame right away for how long their child is allowed to stay,... Without any kind of parameters, kids get comfortable... shouldn't allow ... longer than, say, a year and a half,... advisers recommend no more than six months.... ... a "glide path".... an initial allowance that will slowly decrease over time. Another way to do it: start by paying some of the expenses and then gradually stop paying them— find a part-time job, even if it means they're underemployed,... has to have a job, even if it wasn't in her field..."

 

[OnePercenter]

In an effort at full disclosure....The WSJ is owned by the parent company of faux news which makes everything they print questionable.

Additionally, it's nice that the WSJ publishes a story that the cause of the story has been exacerbated by the backing of the political regime they supported from 2000-2008.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In an effort at full disclosure....The WSJ is owned by the parent company of faux news which makes everything they print questionable.

Additionally, it's nice that the WSJ publishes a story that the cause of the story has been exacerbated by the backing of the political regime they supported from 2000-2008.

'Exacerbated...'.

Excellent.

I always look forward to educated folks augmenting the level of the message board.




And that is why I am so disheartened by the egregious errors in your post.

1. When one calculates both the errors of omission, as well as errors of commission, Fox News is clearly the lest of the cable news networks likely to be called 'faux.'

2. "...backing of the political regime they supported from 2000-2008."

Even worse,....you clearly have no understanding of either economics or politics.
You see, and you should jot this down, it is the illegality of FDR's insertion of politics into the private market that is the provenance of the financial crisis.

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to manipulate the housing market, and therefore, Fannie and Freddie are ill-advised. Here, take this down:

a. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.
He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

b. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy

c. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA
Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.
Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

c. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.


That's the CliffNotes version.

So, you can see, these are not culprits endorsed by the WSJ.
They are Democrats.



So, I appreciate your writing....it is your education that requires....'brushing up.'

Don't hesitate to ask for more help in understanding the world.

 

[OnePercenter]

So it's your contention that when the constitution was written there was a housing market?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So it's your contention that when the constitution was written there was a housing market?

A-ha!

We are on our way to a diagnosis of your problem!

It's reading!

1. Now..focus like a laser: see if you can find any reference in my post to "... when the constitution was written...."
(If you mean the United States Constitution, it deserves a capital 'C.')

See...you couldn't.
That's because I didn't content any such thing.

2. But I do contend that the Emperor, Franklin the First, ended the view that the Constitution is the law of the land.

He believed he was....and his minions, the Democrats, believe they are.

Otherwise, there would have been no Fannie nor Freddie.


3.Bare bones your post is....

....but I see that you haven't continued to case aspersions at Fox News, nor the Republicans as responsible for the financial crisis.


See, we're making headway.

 

[Mad Scientist]

In an effort at full disclosure....The WSJ is owned by the parent company of faux news which makes everything they print questionable.

Additionally, it's nice that the WSJ publishes a story that the cause of the story has been exacerbated by the backing of the political regime they supported from 2000-2008.

I used to subscribe to the WSJ during that time frame. Based on what they report I can tell they love two things:

1. Business in all areas and levels. Business can do no wrong.
2. Use of Illegal Aliens to drive down wages. They're all ways runnin' Illegal Alien sob stories.

I want Illegals here for a different reason: So they can vote more Socialism that will bankrupt the US and then eventually vote away Private Gun Ownership.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In an effort at full disclosure....The WSJ is owned by the parent company of faux news which makes everything they print questionable.

Additionally, it's nice that the WSJ publishes a story that the cause of the story has been exacerbated by the backing of the political regime they supported from 2000-2008.

I used to subscribe to the WSJ during that time frame. Based on what they report I can tell they love two things:

1. Business in all areas and levels. Business can do no wrong.
2. Use of Illegal Aliens to drive down wages. They're all ways runnin' Illegal Alien sob stories.

I want Illegals here for a different reason: So they can vote more Socialism that will bankrupt the US and then eventually vote away Private Gun Ownership.

I'd love the WSJ to do a story about me...just so they'd do one of those pen-and-inks.....

...ever notice how much better they look than the person being drawn?

 

[Granny]

It's almost amusing (in a sick sort of way) how things work out. Beginning at least in the mid to late 50s - early 60s, society/law began taking away parental rights as to how they could raise their children, how children would be educated, some controls as to health care "secrets" (i.e., minors getting abortions without parental notification), and other things that have steadily broken down and/or almost eliminated the basic family nucleus that once was the backbone of this country and its standards ... only to come around to what parents now OWE their adult children just because they are the parents. I find it ludicrous that parents are now put in a position (thanks to ObamaCare) of having to keep their children on their health insurance policies until at least age 26. At what point do adult children start taking responsibility for themselves?

Yes, I have helped my children out from time to time and have had them living with me from time to time but, on the other hand, my children have done the same for me when the need arose.

 

[Sunshine]

Wow. I know how lucky I am to have two overachieving children. When I was first diagnosed with PH, they were going to move me into my dauhter's master suite and my son was going to give me $2,000/month. Neither of them has asked me for one red cent since they got out of college.

Any time I have a patient who is looking at having to take in adult children, I advise them to sit down and look at alternatives. Do they have enough resources and property to put the child and family in a mobile home? Or do they have a plan to set limits on the arrangement, say for 6 months? Sometimes they want the child and family there to take care of them, and in those cases the agreement is if they child will stay and help out the or she will inherit the house. In any case, regardless the answer it is never a comfortable arrangement.

 

[Freemason9]

Although I generally agree with you on this one, PC, I disagree with your attempt to blame this on your so-called "liberals." America has become ever more right-wing and "conservative" since the end of the 1960's--and subsequent generations have become less and less independent. That's a hard one to explain, isn't it.

Having a full employment economy with good paying jobs would solve most problems, I would think--so our ONLY FOCUS should be in creating jobs and increasing pay rates. Right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although I generally agree with you on this one, PC, I disagree with your attempt to blame this on your so-called "liberals." America has become ever more right-wing and "conservative" since the end of the 1960's--and subsequent generations have become less and less independent. That's a hard one to explain, isn't it.

Having a full employment economy with good paying jobs would solve most problems, I would think--so our ONLY FOCUS should be in creating jobs and increasing pay rates. Right?

I don't recall mentioning 'so-called "liberals"' in the OP.
Is there a reason for your super-sensitivity on the subject?




This is the essence of the OP, and why I posted it:

"But....
...it is the plan our nation should institute in place of the current welfare industry.


OK...here is the new welfare system:


"... with no exit plan in sight—often damaging their own financial health and retirement savings.... be firm, by making them pay for rent and other expenses if possible, setting a limit for how long they are allowed to stay,...help them launch their own lives. The line between support and coddling can be blurry,...having this entitlement and having no ambition to get off their butts,...The biggest mistake ... is failing to establish a time frame right away for how long their child is allowed to stay,... Without any kind of parameters, kids get comfortable... shouldn't allow ... longer than, say, a year and a half,... advisers recommend no more than six months.... ... a "glide path".... an initial allowance that will slowly decrease over time. Another way to do it: start by paying some of the expenses and then gradually stop paying them— find a part-time job, even if it means they're underemployed,... has to have a job, even if it wasn't in her field..."

 

[Freemason9]

Although I generally agree with you on this one, PC, I disagree with your attempt to blame this on your so-called "liberals." America has become ever more right-wing and "conservative" since the end of the 1960's--and subsequent generations have become less and less independent. That's a hard one to explain, isn't it.

Having a full employment economy with good paying jobs would solve most problems, I would think--so our ONLY FOCUS should be in creating jobs and increasing pay rates. Right?

I don't recall mentioning 'so-called "liberals"' in the OP.
Is there a reason for your super-sensitivity on the subject?




This is the essence of the OP, and why I posted it:

"But....
...it is the plan our nation should institute in place of the current welfare industry.


OK...here is the new welfare system:


"... with no exit plan in sight—often damaging their own financial health and retirement savings.... be firm, by making them pay for rent and other expenses if possible, setting a limit for how long they are allowed to stay,...help them launch their own lives. The line between support and coddling can be blurry,...having this entitlement and having no ambition to get off their butts,...The biggest mistake ... is failing to establish a time frame right away for how long their child is allowed to stay,... Without any kind of parameters, kids get comfortable... shouldn't allow ... longer than, say, a year and a half,... advisers recommend no more than six months.... ... a "glide path".... an initial allowance that will slowly decrease over time. Another way to do it: start by paying some of the expenses and then gradually stop paying them— find a part-time job, even if it means they're underemployed,... has to have a job, even if it wasn't in her field..."

Whoops, my apologies. You are correct, you did not specifically blame those nasty "liberals." Someone else alluded to the 1960's as a source of blame (although I fail to see the connection with the relatively conservative youth covered in the article).

I really think the central problem is the lack of motivational "cookies," such as good pay and shiny things. Just like why rich people shouldn't have to pay higher taxes, right? Because then they lose all motivation to achieve.

LOL

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although I generally agree with you on this one, PC, I disagree with your attempt to blame this on your so-called "liberals." America has become ever more right-wing and "conservative" since the end of the 1960's--and subsequent generations have become less and less independent. That's a hard one to explain, isn't it.

Having a full employment economy with good paying jobs would solve most problems, I would think--so our ONLY FOCUS should be in creating jobs and increasing pay rates. Right?

I don't recall mentioning 'so-called "liberals"' in the OP.
Is there a reason for your super-sensitivity on the subject?




This is the essence of the OP, and why I posted it:

"But....
...it is the plan our nation should institute in place of the current welfare industry.


OK...here is the new welfare system:


"... with no exit plan in sight—often damaging their own financial health and retirement savings.... be firm, by making them pay for rent and other expenses if possible, setting a limit for how long they are allowed to stay,...help them launch their own lives. The line between support and coddling can be blurry,...having this entitlement and having no ambition to get off their butts,...The biggest mistake ... is failing to establish a time frame right away for how long their child is allowed to stay,... Without any kind of parameters, kids get comfortable... shouldn't allow ... longer than, say, a year and a half,... advisers recommend no more than six months.... ... a "glide path".... an initial allowance that will slowly decrease over time. Another way to do it: start by paying some of the expenses and then gradually stop paying them— find a part-time job, even if it means they're underemployed,... has to have a job, even if it wasn't in her field..."

Whoops, my apologies. You are correct, you did not specifically blame those nasty "liberals." Someone else alluded to the 1960's as a source of blame (although I fail to see the connection with the relatively conservative youth covered in the article).

I really think the central problem is the lack of motivational "cookies," such as good pay and shiny things. Just like why rich people shouldn't have to pay higher taxes, right? Because then they lose all motivation to achieve.

LOL

"the central problem is the lack of motivational "cookies," such as good pay and shiny things."

If the welfare industry allowed folks to work, your wish would be fulfilled.


The results of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act:

"In the past decade, welfare rolls have dropped substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. At the same time, caseloads declined by 54 percent. Sixty percent of mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts. Through the Welfare to Work Partnership,...more than 20,000 businesses hired 1.1 million former welfare recipients. Welfare reform has proved a great success, ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html


Of course, the above is obviated by the mistake-in-the-White House, who changed the law to allow welfare without the work requirement.


BTW....you might be surprised at who authored the quote I provided.

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

2. Parents should be firm with their kids, say advisers, by making them pay for rent and other expenses if possible, setting a limit for how long they are allowed to stay, and avoiding the temptation to offer extra financial help, like loans.

Yeah.....

3. All of this is weighing on parents' finances.... 26% of parents with adult-age kids living at home have taken on debt in the process, either to help their child with a loan or for their own spending needs. Thirteen percent delayed a life event like buying a house, and 7% delayed retirement.

Really?

4. When kids move back home with parents, it puts parents in the complicated position of wanting to support their children while trying to help them launch their own lives. The line between support and coddling can be blurry, experts say.

Really x2?




I am not afraid to say I live at home and have my parents help me out with college. I own $0 in school loans and my parents do not have any loans taken out in my or their names. My family is NOT rich either, so no smart remarks about that alright? It's just common sense. My parents are going to kick me out of the house with no job and no money for a place of my own? I am going to live on my college campus which is a 7 1/2 minute drive from my house? Yeah, makes real sense.


I think people, kids and parents, have to sit down and be logical about this. There is WAY to many stereotypes out there that parents have to do this and kids got to do this. This is how we end up with these numbers then.

 

[Skull Pilot]

One more reason to be glad not to have kids.

Although if i did have kids there is no way in hell they would be unable to be on their own at the age of 18 and i sure as hell wouldn't let a "child" of 22-30 live with me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems both of you guys missed this in the OP:

"In an effort at full disclosure...I would never set such a plan for my children. I've raised them to be a certain kind of individual...and would allow the fruits of their upbringing to be evident without such as contract.

But....
...it is the plan our nation should institute in place of the current welfare industry."

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

One more reason to be glad not to have kids.

Although if i did have kids there is no way in hell they would be unable to be on their own at the age of 18 and i sure as hell wouldn't let a "child" of 22-30 live with me.

Can you expand a bit on the latter part?

 

[Skull Pilot]

One more reason to be glad not to have kids.

Although if i did have kids there is no way in hell they would be unable to be on their own at the age of 18 and i sure as hell wouldn't let a "child" of 22-30 live with me.

Can you expand a bit on the latter part?

What's to expand upon?

If I had kids they would be taught and expected to be able to live independently by age 18.

 

[Rshermr]

One more reason to be glad not to have kids.

Although if i did have kids there is no way in hell they would be unable to be on their own at the age of 18 and i sure as hell wouldn't let a "child" of 22-30 live with me.

Can you expand a bit on the latter part?

What's to expand upon?

If I had kids they would be taught and expected to be able to live independently by age 18.

Said by a person who never had a kid. Funny. But then, when he kicked them out at 18, they could continue on the skull pilot stupidity.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In an effort at full disclosure....The WSJ is owned by the parent company of faux news which makes everything they print questionable.

why questionable when Fox supports limited government as our Founders did??

Additionally, it's nice that the WSJ publishes a story that the cause of the story has been exacerbated by the backing of the political regime they supported from 2000-2008.

If Bush was the proximate cause of the housing bubble you would not be so afraid to present some evidence of it. What does your fear tell us about the liberal IQ and character??