Posted by Karol at 11:29 PM
It is interesting, indeed – in its self-centeredness. Not once in his article the author thought about the parents to whom a 28yo financially stable son is sponging off. Yes, they welcome him back in -because they love him; yes, they praise his achievement – but it is THEIR achievement too, not just his: they paid (usually, for the most part) for his education, they struggled being new-comers to the country, through years of financial strain and adaptation so their son can have a better life – and now when he’s 10 years older than the age he can earn his living, he still uses their resources? And doesn’t feel bad about it?
And about the author and his wife – not only they are pair of free-loaders (well….the guy writes for NYT, what else to expect), they are ungrateful free-loaders. Of course the grandparents “get to give the baby back when he is cranky”. Because he is his parent’s responsibility, not theirs! They fulfilled their obligations already – by raising their son, the father of this baby. Who is not even ashamed to admit he and his wife together make less money than his mother-in-law – then why the hell they had that baby if they couldn’t afford to raise him?
What irresponsible, infantile people.
Article say nothing about sponging off. Both young adults sell to be well establish.
I am 35 year old, I live alone. Been for a while. My father still do not step into my apartment. It is still a great disappointment to him that his unmarried son would choose to move away from home.
It have only be recently that single people, male or female would live away from their parents. One of the old advantage of marriage is set up a separate household from the parent. At least in Western cultures. In other cultures males would set up their family under their parents’ roof, or built a little hut next door on the family’s plot of land.
Minh, what do you think this paragraph means (I quote):
“He can afford to live on his own, but he doesn’t see the point. He’s putting the money he would have spent on rent toward…”
How do you interpret it?
I’ll tell you how I do: it means that parents of this ADULT MAN pay his housing expense. They could, as parents from 2nd example in the article, sell their house when it became too big for them and move into a smaller dwelling. And they would be the ones who could “put the money” they freed this way towards something useful for them – their retirement (which is getting more and more expensive), or their hard-earned vacation, or their own “capitalist schemes” – after all, they might be middle-ages, but they are not dead yet.
I noticed, you didn’t say anything about care for grandchildren. I wonder if you think this is, too, a “recent development” and your mother or father should take care of you child (when you have one) while you selfishly consume some entertainment, doing double duty.
The fact that your father would prefer to share his house with 35yo’ you speaks about his generosity, but also of inability of let the son to grow up and to be a head if his own household.
I only lived at home for 3 months after graduating college and never went back again. I think it was a mistake. I should have moved back home and saved and avoided myself a lot of debt when I went to grad school.
Tatyana, I take your point that it is a generosity of parents but I don’t know any, and I mean any, Russian-born parents who don’t want their kids living at home as long as possible. They reluctantly accept when they move out, and unlike Minh’s parents they do visit, but the preference is to have them under their roof as long as possible. I know this is true for other immigrant communities as well but I don’t have as deep a knowledge of them to make the kind of generalizations I feel comfortable making about Russians. You are an anomaly!
(And further sidenote: neither my mom nor my husband’s mom ever want to give the grandchild back. They would be happy–thrilled–if we’d let them take custody while we, say traveled the world or something.)
Well, now you know one: me.