The Great Reset, sentences to ponder

One in five people in their 20s and early 30s is currently living with his or her parents. And 60 percent of all young adults receive financial support from them. That’s a significant increase from a generation ago, when only one in 10 young adults moved back home and few received financial support.

That is from Adam Davidson, interesting throughout.


The plans is to have more immigration to drive down the wages of American workers and drive up the cost of real estate. Then more people will live like immigrants, several generations under one roof. This is only a bad think if you are an old white person with Northern European cultural patterns. Everyone else thinks this is great.

People of Northwest European culture don't breed well in confined quarters.

David Willetts wrote in 2009:

“Instead, think of England as being like this for at least 750 years. We live in small families. We buy and sell houses. … Our parents expect us to leave home for paid work …You try to save up some money from your wages so that you can afford to get married. … You can choose your spouse … It takes a long time to build up some savings from your work and find the right person with whom to settle down, so marriage comes quite lately, possibly in your late twenties."

This makes Anglo-Saxon cultures devastatingly vulnerable to being exploited by mass immigration.

"The plans [sic] is to have more immigration to drive down the wages of American workers and drive up the cost of real estate."

So, according to this well thought out economic "model", homeowners should welcome lots of low-wage, non-white immigrants into their neighborhood because that increases property values, right?

Property values aren't very high in areas in which most people are living like sardines. Those neighborhoods aren't very desirable.

Evidently you mean that areas with a high population density are places where people do not wish to live. That's like the supposed observation by Yogi Berra that a certain restaurant is so crowded that no one goes there anymore.

Chuck's correct; depending on the real estate market you are targeting high density doesn't necessarily equate to lower price. Pick any place yuppies or dincs live as an example.

It would benefit current homeowners, of course it sucks for those who aren't homeowners, including the children of most current homeowners.

I didn't think my point was that subtle, but I guess I need to explain. Historically, people complained about non-whites moving into a neighborhood and lowering property values. Now, @8 posits a theory where non-white immigrants are bad because, apparently, they now raise property values. My thought is similar to Tyler's comment below: this issue of extended childhood and dependency of native born young adults has nothing to do with immigration. The fact that some try to link both rising and falling property values to non-white immigration shows that they are just trying to rationalize their anti-immigrant views regardless of facts --- whatever the facts are, somehow they will argue that it's the fault of non-white immigrants.

Dear BC:

You are being obtuse. The People's Republic of Santa Monica doesn't let massive numbers of poor immigrants move in -- they've got lots of laws to prevent that. Their property values benefit from huge numbers of poor immigrants moving into nearby Los Angeles and their children overwhelming the school system, thus making Santa Monica an even more desirable white enclave.

Santa Monica's property values benefit from being in a highly desirable, coastal area which is favoured by the rich and there is not much space to build on.

It's the same reason Hawaii has high house prices despite a pronounced lack of Mexican fruit-pickers.

The same applies to Vancouver and Toronto., popular cities next to water in a country which severely restricts low-skilled, illegal immigration. That doesn't stop Chinese investors from pouring their cash into Canadian real estate.

The same applies to Tel Aviv, another coastal city. Property prices are rocketing there despite the walls being built and promptly jailing and deporting any illegals they find.

What the rich are willing to spend and how much housing stock is around to sate demand are the key factors. The fact that unskilled immigrants cram themselves into homes in poor areas and have little capital to spend tends to make them an unimportant factor in bidding up prices.

"So, according to this well thought out economic “model”, homeowners should welcome lots of low-wage, non-white immigrants into their neighborhood because that increases property values, right?"

Mark Zuckerberg does not welcome low-wage, non-white immigrants into _his_ neighborhood of Palo Alto. They've got strictly enforced zoning, environmental, historical preservation, traffic impact, noise abatement, etc etc laws to keep them out. Mark Zuckerberg, in contrast, spends huge amounts of money lobbying Congress for more immigration into other Americans' neighborhoods.

Zuckerberg lobbies for more immigration of the global rich, many of whom will easily afford to live in his neighborhood.

But the population was growing muche faster in the 1950's and 60's.

Looking at Zillow, it seems you can buy a perfectly serviceable 2 bedroom apartment in Downer's Grove, Ill (which is where the article subject Annie Kasinecz resides) for as little as $60,000.

You can buy a house for as little as $100,000. Women in the village have a median income of $53,000 per Wiki.

With property prices that low and a major employment centre being only half an hour away, I'm half-tempted to move there myself.

The real issue appears to be Kasinecz not knowing wha she wants to do with her life and drifiting from one unskilled job to another.

I doubt immigrants can be blamed for her lack of direction and dare I say it, heedlessness...

Hilarious. The apartments you see on Zillow are restricted to persons aged 55 and older. This helps proves the point that the deck is stacked against younger workers.

Also, the cheapest single detached family home listed in Downer's Grove is $169K, and it is only 864 square feet. You might want to overpay a real estate for guidance if you do decide to move. You don't seem to have a very good handle on the real estate market there.

I'm not sure why a single person like Kasinecz would need a detached family home. A small apartment would be fine. The prices for non-age-restricted dwellings is unlikely to be that much higher. In fact a search on Trulia shows plenty of foreclosures coming on to the market at Downer's Grove. Even providing for necessary repair costs, buying wuld be well within reach. Especially if Kasinecz does the sensible thing, goes to nursing school and develops a work ethic.

$169k for a family home is a laugh. I could pay off the mortgage for that within five years.

Is there a check box on Zillow to search for homes immediately adjacent to, but not in, communities expecting large influxes of poor, non-white immigrants? According to Steve Sailer, such homes are poised to skyrocket in value.

This model is common in Europe, at least south Europe that I'm familiar with, and in the Philippines as well. Welcome to socialism. The USA has nobody to blame but themselves. Yes I voted for Obama, since the Republicans are only in theory better, and in fact are just as bad at being populists that cater to the military (R. Reagan being one of the worst).

1. I don't even have myself to blame.
2. Reagan had the cold war as a pretty good excuse for a relatively bloodless period of catering to the military. Don't get Reagan mixed up with Republican cargo cult Reagan worship.

Thank goodness our elites assumed immigration was just free money and there'd never be a price to pay.

No matter what you may think of immigration, if you think this is due to immigration that is just plain, flat out wrong.

Immigration has no effect on wages. None.

Tax cuts do cut jobs and wages.

With lower taxes, hiring workers costs too much profit, so the drive is to cut labor costs. But low wage workers can't afford to buy as much as the workers they replaced, so demand falls and that requires cutting labor costs to drive up profits to drive up asset prices.

And if profits are offshored to a tax haven, hiring workers will cost 100% out of profits.

Milton Friedman complained back in the 60s about the distortion in the labor market of high tax rates. Hiring your deadbeat in-law or drinking buddy cost very little because the tax deduction cut taxes owed by 50% to 70% of the wages and benefits. Eliminating taxes was supposed to ensure that workers were only hired when they produced immediately more than they cost in profits. As profit margins have fallen on gross revenue, that becomes harder and harder. Better to export the work to a low wage nation with lots of state support of worker training and education.

That other nations support employers killing workers, bystanders, and building nothing of consequence makes the costs even lower.

Bringing those workers into the US does not help lower costs for global corporations, They might be attractive for firms who have not figured out how to outsource the work, like farmers and construction. Drought is driving some farmers to move to Mexico to get water and workers and then bring into the US cheaper. And construction has been way down because of low wages not supporting low wage housing construction, and tax cuts have killed the high wage infrastructure construction jobs.

The perils of being a hedgehog.

You should debate the Law of Supply and Demand with Ben Franklin:

C'mon, Tyler, do you really want to stake your reputation on _that_?

I've never said immigration is the whole story, but it sure is a part of the story, a part that almost never ever gets mentioned in the New York Times. It's Econ 101 that a national elite consensus in favor of policies boosting the supply of labor and boosting the demand for land will, all else being equal, result in a deterioration of the wage to land price ratio. Ben Franklin figured that out in 1754. Isn't it time we be allowed to discuss supply and demand economics in the national press?

Mr. Sailer has an interesting point. In California, 61% of workers are blue collar. The higher the % percentage of blue collar jobs the higher the impact of immigration on local poor. SF and Silicon Valley jobs are only a drop in the sea. Technology advance has not produced enough white collar jobs. You have the well-off and below the mexicans and poor whites competing for menial and construction jobs.

Nevada 64%, Mississipi 65%, Lousiana 65% blue collars.......on the other side DC 45%, Maryland 54%, Massachusetts 54%. Perhaps the one-size-fits-all approach to immigration in the US is not the optimal.

The New York Times runs several deep think pieces per week on How Did We Get in This Mess? A fun thing to do is to his CTRL-F and type in "immigra" to see if the NYT has dared mention the I-Word. You can try it with this one and get the same results as probably over 90% of the NYT articles that give a laundry list of explanations, but almost never mention the obvious impact of immigration in driving up land prices relative to wages.

Does this have anything to do with Carlos Slim, who profits exorbitantly off calls between illegal immigrants in America and their families in Mexico, being the financial savior and second biggest owner of the New York Times?

I suspect that it predates the Slim buy-in by a good deal.

A larger fraction of people in there 20´s are single than a generation ago and that may have greater effect on the number of people who live with their parents than the economy.

But the arrow of causation works both ways: a greater percentage of people in their 20s today also can't afford to start a family because of low wages and high land prices.

This shouldn't be an unfamiliar concept to American economists. The single most brilliant essay in the history of American economics was Benjamin Franklin's 1754 paper "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind," which as Thomas Malthus was forced to concede almost a half century later anticipated much of his 1798 argument. Franklin pointed out that in America a higher percentage of people got married, and at a younger age because wages were higher and land prices lower here than in England.

Franklin went on to argue that America, being restrained to a narrow Atlantic coastal region by the French and Indian coalition dominating the rest of North America, should restrict immigration to better preserve the common Americans' wage and land price advantage.

Granted, Franklin lost interest in immigration restriction after the outbreak of the French and Indian War in 1756, followed by the Revolutionary War in 1775, opened up the possibility of adding to the supply of American land via military conquest, ethnic cleansing, and colonization of the vast Midwest.

But, since military conquest, ethnic cleansing, and colonization isn't acceptable anymore, shouldn't we at least be cognizant of Franklin's ground-breaking logic?

Does Canada have a higher fertility rate than the US?

How about dirt cheap North Dakota relative to, say, Rhode Island? I'd imagine North Dakota's rate is higher, but not overwhelmingly so.

Surely they're not running short on space just yet.

Looking at the map of population density makes me think that what the world needs is some global warming.

Also, one wonders how families in Calcutta are able to raise three children on $1000/yr. Surely Americans can "afford" to have three children on twenty times that pay - even if our rents are higher.

The problem in the U.S. is living near poor people leads to a lousy quality of life. Trying to have children when one is middle or lower middle class means one's changes of living near poor people goes up. Thus, middle class white people in the coastal states like Rhode Island have very low fertility rates.

It's a question of values. Post-modern Americans value, and have access to, cable and dish TV, fuel-efficient automobiles, Caribbean cruises, cell phone contracts and designer jeans more than they do children.

Post-modern Americans value, and have access to, cable and dish TV, fuel-efficient automobiles, Caribbean cruises, cell phone contracts and designer jeans more than they do children.

Or it could be that people who don't know if they're going to be employed next week tend to not breed as much. At least the ones who are capable of future-oriented thinking.

This is on the money. People get married late in the West for a whole variety of cultural reasons that add up to "the sort of culture people have in developed countries". If I had to pick a #1 factor it would be that young women do not have to marry straight out of their teens just to avoid penury.

It's called a third world lifestyle.

"Also, one wonders how families in Calcutta are able to raise three children on $1000/yr."

Sleeping on the sidewalk?

High housing prices, sure. But Texas and North Carolina have TONS of immigrants, both foreign and domestic, and cheap housing prices.

The expensive housing prices that keep kids at home are the result of policies that restrict housing growth, not immigrants.

North Carolina only recently has attracted large numbers of foreign-born immigrants, and many of them are agricultural workers living outside the main cities. This is changing and I would expect that as North Carolina transitions from a state with a relatively small foreign born population to a state with a large foreign-born population, competition for scarce resources will increase significantly.

Nope, not unless liberals push for housing restrictions, just like they do in California. Texas is proof of that.

The impact of immigrants on housing prices is trivial. The impact of supply restrictions (esp. zoning, permitting, etc., which is far, far more relevant than available land including in coastal states, as Ed Glaeser and others have shown) on housing prices is enormous.

Housing prices have a huge effect on people moving out and having space to start a family. They just have very little to do with immigrants, and a whole bunch to do with "liberals" who want to preserve things exactly as they were when they moved in, and end up making housing prices expensive. The effect of "liberals" raising housing prices harms the lower middle class far more than any of their policies designed to help them, as any of those maps about how long one has to work at minimum wage to afford a house will show.

Franklin had a brilliant idea......Einstein too and he wrote an article on the hypothesis of relativity. Some years later, some people measured data during a solar eclipse, then compared the data with Eintein's hypothesis and there was some eureka moment. Is there some data to back brilliant Franklin's hypothesis? Debating based on ground-breaking logic is great for college-dorm discussions, outside you need data.

These are the kinds of statistics that make me crazy.

Our American way of life is being destroyed bit by bit and the people in charge refuse to notice.

They do seem to believe that the rest of us can be destroyed with debt, low wages and endless frustration with no harm coming to them.

Yet how can the parasite survive without its hosts?

"Yet how can the parasite survive without its hosts?"

The same way they do in Latin America.

It's hard to avoid the impression that the American experiment is waning. Robust self sufficiency and frontier mentality are giving way to the fuzzy cocoon of the state.

I'm an atheist but I wonder how much of this trend toward dependency - in the US and elsewhere - follows from the decline of religion, particularly Protestantism.

With the comfort of god and the church community, people are willing to tolerate dislocation in their lives that arises from a dynamic and creatively destructive economy.

Without this support, they seek it elsewhere - in govt. And with more govt involvement comes more taxes and regulation, a slower economy, more uncertainty and then more dependence on the state.

Has an increasingly secular people ever become less dependent on govt?

The countries that rank ahead of the US in economic freedom [] don't seem to be generally more Protestant. Hong Kong and Singapore top the list.

"The countries that rank ahead of the US in economic freedom don’t seem to be generally more Protestant. "

"more Protestant" is a little hard to quantify, but the countries at the top of the list certainly tend towards Protestantism. And you seem to be cherry picking data.

3. Austrailia 4. Switzerland 5. New Zealand 6. Canada (4 of the 6 ranked Best have a Protestant heritage)

14 of the 16 richest countries speak Germanic languages.

It is hard to quantify. I assumed that Switzerland, like the rest of Europe, was actually more secular than the US. Is that not the case? I would also assert that Canada is not more religious than the US. I had no view on Australia and New Zealand. I highlighted #1 and #2 because they were obviously non-Protestant. I viewed the remaining 4 as not obviously less secular than the US.

Chip's question was, "Has an increasingly secular people ever become less dependent on govt?" I think it's fair to say that libertarianism is rarely associated with theocracy.


"The percentage of Christians among Singaporeans increased from 12.7% in 1990 to 14.6% in 2000.[3] whilst the latest census as of 2010 has showed the Christian population increased again, to 18.3%. [4]"

Historically and today, most of Singapore's top schools were Christian. And of course the country's legal system and free market policies are continued from those of an older more Protestant England with classical liberal values.

I should explain too that by Protestantism I'm referring to the Reformation, in which individuals broke away from the church (read state) as the intermediary between themselves and god.

Through this personal relationship with god they would prove themselves worthy, through personal achievement, hard work, thrift etc - rather than as sheeplike supplicants to a church (state).

Where this change in the relationship between an individual and the church occurred - Germany, Holland, the UK - we find the rise of the free market, decentralized decision making, personal responsibility and other roots of classic liberal values.

But as religion declines, we see the individual drift back to a comforting authority. Now the state.

Just a picky point, it is a very strong tenant of most reformed Christian denominations that you cannot be saved by works.

Of course,there was a work ethic for Calvinist-inclined communities where people worked hard as an indicator that they had been saved, not as a way to prove personal worth, since we are not worthy and don't earn grace. Same difference in the real world, of course.

I'll let all that sheep stuff pass! ;)

Those are cities who happen to be countries. Almost nothing that Hong Kong or Singapore does can be applied to a country. Maybe to a city within the country.

More kids receiving "financial support" from parents could actually be a sign of parents' increasing wealth rather than economic distress, although more kids living with parents would not be. Regardless, it should certainly make us rethink the wisdom of an entitlement state that transfers wealth from lower-wealth young to higher-wealth seniors. It shouldn't be surprising that a welfare system designed 80 years ago in the 1930s may not match the demographics of today.

Today's young adults were the first ones to play baseball games as children where no score was allowed to be kept, the natural and symptomatic result of a philosophy that places self-esteem and equality of results above competition and meritocracy. The inequalitistas' parental philosophy does not seem to have worked out that well, but that doesn't seem to be deterring them from trying to extend that philosophy to people of all ages.

it should certainly make us rethink the wisdom of an entitlement state that transfers wealth from lower-wealth young to higher-wealth seniors.


"it should certainly make us rethink the wisdom of an entitlement state that transfers wealth from lower-wealth young to higher-wealth seniors. "

Instead we are going in the opposite direction. A significant component of Obamacare is a premium transfer from the young to the old policy holders.


Generation K - Kangaroo.

From the article:

"working a series of unsatisfying jobs"

"is nowhere closer to figuring out what she’s going to do with her career"

"moved in with his parents after graduating from art school"

"a rational response to a radically different, confusing postindustrial economy"

"Today, about a third of young adults will earn a four-year-degree, and many of them — more than a third, by many estimates — are unlikely to find lifelong secure employment sufficient to pay down their debt and place them on track to earn more than their parents"

- - - -

The horror!

In the 1970s and 80s, after finishing high school or college, most young people

- took whatever job they could find: paying the rent and bills came first; a "satisfying job" was not at the top of the list (many lawyers were told in law school that although you may WANT to be a ____ lawyer, but when you start working one of your firm's major clients may need a (different kind) of lawyer, and that will set your career path)

- life and work and career are a series of serendipitous events that make sense looking back, but there is no way many of us could have predicted they would happen looking forward

- the artists lived in the least expensive parts of town, beginning a process of gentrification

- being "poor" in one of the wealthiest countries in the world was nothing to be ashamed of

- the article reflects the angst of the credentialed elite and the credentialed near-elite

We are becoming a nation of wage slaves, seeking security in "employment".

Mancur Olson was right - we need fresh faces to shake us out of our lethargy and increase innovation.

Were you alive during the 70's and 80's? That description fits what I remember in Canada. What happened was those people eventually grew up and are now running the various dysfunctional government departments.

It is partly parental expectations. The same parents that mortgage the house and overpay for an 'education' will have encouraged this type of behavior. There are jobs to do, the problem is that they don't pay enough to make your student loan payments.

There are a few large families that I know personally. One fellow had 5 children. He is a tradesman, reasonable wages but not rich. His kids are all working doing various things from pursuing a phd in some sports medicine of some kind, another is in medicine, another runs the office of his company. They are married, he has a few grand children. As soon as the kids were able, they were working with him and the all had responsibilities.

Another was a victim himself of a disappearing industry. He had a home and property in an area where an industry closed. He had to move for work and lost badly on his home. He is the classic middle aged retrainee, and has managed ok. His two boys are not at home, but out working, getting trades, married. One of the boys likes working for me because I'm less demanding than his mom.

I could go on.

I also know folks who can't seem to get things together, and it is rarely external situations that are the problem. They make bad mistakes in relationships, nurture dependencies of some kind. Often they come from divorced parents, etc. Life throws them a curve and they duck or grab the wrong end of the bat.

Booming economies employ even the useless. In my dealings with US companies (who by the way seem extraordinarily poorly run, almost designed to do the exact opposite of what generates revenue) when times were good there seemed to be unlimited numbers of useless and annoying people wanting this or that. All employed but pure overhead. I got the impression that they had some education, who knows in what. When things got tight, these folks disappeared. Probably to move back home.

The President called a 28 year old man a kid the other day. Maybe the definition has to be changed. Only if you are living with your parents after 30 would be considered exceptional or notable.

On the plus side this means that at least some Boomers are paying for cutting all the ropes after they made it over the wall.

My favorite sig line:

While I was working, my kids grew up and moved out on their own.
I never had a plan that worked so well.

"One in five people in their 20s and early 30s is currently living with his or her parents" But is this not what Milton and Rose Friedman advocate in their Free to Choose: children rather than the state taking care of parents ? They argue that the institution of the family was weakened since children felt they need not look after their parents since the government is looking after them . The Friedmans may have welcomed this trend

Absolutely. The multi-generational American family has been torpedoed by the government. At the same time as a parent is legally responsible for their children for the first eighteen years of their life, these same offspring have zero legal obligation to their parents. While the child support enforcement agency makes an effort at roping in "dead beat dads", there's no similar attempt to get kids to assume any responsibility for their parents in their dotage. This is beyond immoral.

I don't think their 50s and 60s are when they need their kids living with them to take care of them

freethinker has misunderstood Tyler's post. the children are not taking care of their parents; it is the other way around! however I agree the Friedmans would have welcomed it because family members are supporting each other instead of the depending on the state.

I have no references, but I heard a report about a year ago that noted part of the housing bubble driven by a largely governmental push to get everyone in his or her own (well, bank-owned) house was a strong decrease in apartment complex building. Singles leaving college or entering the workplace after high school came to expect that they would own a home in their early 20s. In "my time" you figured you'd live in an apartment for many years after you graduated, accumulating a down payment, and that you'd probably start looking for a house after you got married.

The dearth of available, affordable apartments is part of what drove housing prices into stupidity. The market had a hard time following the incentives when that happened because of government regulation and the super high cost and risk of building large complexes. For a long time out here, renting had become far, far more expensive than mortgaging a home, in part probably because of the large number of folks who had bankrupted and so were forced into the rental market where they had to pay what was asked, but I think in part because you didn't see a rise in apartments becoming available when there were more (foreclosed on) renters.

I would guess this heavily impacted the trend of young people moving back home.

There's also certainly a lot of chronic illness and folks having fewer kids and at an older age, so while I doubt the stats are specifically about kids taking care of their parents, it's a lot more palatable to have the kids move in when you can also say they are helping out. Also, I know some situations where the young people pay rent to the parents, not because the parents are trying to "teach responsibility" and all that jazz, but because the parents can use the money. If both parties are short, parents and adult children, you might as well pay each other.

Consider the bell curve distribution of IQ in the general population. Now consider a curtain being drawn across that graph from stage left. As that curtain, which represents technological advance, blankets a population segment, it renders them useless in terms of economic competitiveness.

We didn't much care when this impacted those with an IQ < the mean, but the curtain's leading edge is now at 1 σ above the mean, and accelerating to the right. How long till you and your family are also rendered useless? You will mistakenly overestimate that value.

"but the curtain's leading edge is now at 1 σ above the mean"

You are saying that 85% of the population is "useless in terms of economic competitiveness.". That seems like a completely unsupportable statement.

Average is over, afterall

If that's true, what's going to happen to mental giants like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi?

In other news, since 2008 20% of the US economy exists only because the big daddy, the US Federal Reserve along with the Treasury bailed them out and continue giving them financial support.

If it works for Goldman Sachs, it works for me.

As a member of the oft-cited 'previous generation' I have to say that many of the statistics and generalizations ascribed to it just don't match up with personal observations. The idea that non-married adult children, even those gainfully employed, should all move out of their parent's houses seems a very new concept to me personally. I remember it much more common for children to remain living at home if they were employed in the local area. The many young men and somewhat fewer young women who traveled to and between large cities, construction areas, oil fields, etc for work often lived in temporary arrangements at boarding houses or company barracks while the work was available then returned home until they found the next job. An interesting by-product of this was that a larger percentage then seemed to have built up some financial reserves before permanently leaving the nest.

There are a couple of strands of interest here. The first is--obviously--sex. A significant reason for independent living for those in the recent past was freedom from supervision of one's sexual activities. The supervision of non-married young adult sexuality is significantly lessened with changing views of morality, and that means living at home is less costly than it was. As the slide show related to the article shows, it's not that there's no cost in this respect--the lack of privacy seems to still impose a cost, but a much-lessened one. A 20-something at home isn't relegated to fucking only in cars or parks, or only rarely. Discreet seems to be the measure.

Some of these young adults owe really fantastic amounts, sometimes with no prospects (given the marketability of their skills) for ever paying those off. There seems to be some confusion among this generation as to the difference between investment and consumption. Much of the educational experience they've gained is consumption. Based not on this article but on some interactions I've had with those of this generation similarly situated, it seems that they often insist on living a relatively normal life, consumption-wise, while living at home. (I say insist because I find it difficult to fathom.) That is, they go to nice restaurants and concerts, they travel, etc., while living at home.

Finally, articles like this spark me to be clear about expectations with my children. I have too many to continue supporting all of them into their middle age. At least some of them will need to become adults earlier than they might otherwise be planning. Parents, have this talk with your children before it's too late.

Comments for this post are closed