Young adults in the U.S. are experiencing a very different trajectory than their parents, with more of them hitting key milestones later in life and also taking on more debt, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.

A majority of young adults say they remain financially dependent on their parents to some extent, such as receiving help paying for everything from rent to their mobile phone bills. Only about 45% of 18- to 34-year-olds described themselves as completely financially independent from their parents, the study found.

Not surprisingly, the younger members of the group, those 18 to 24, are the most likely to rely on their folks for financial support, with more than half relying on their parents to help take care of basic household expenses. But a significant share of 30- to 34-year-olds also need assistance, with almost 1 in 5 saying their parents provide aid for their household bills.

More broadly, the survey offers a portrait of a generation that’s struggling with debt in a way that their parents did not, with more of them shouldering student loans and, for those who own a home, larger mortgages than their parents had at their age. But the analysis also showed that young adults expressed optimism about their futures, with 3 in 4 who are currently financially dependent on their parents saying they believe they’ll eventually reach independence.

  • Dran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    Optional if self-sufficient, sure. I don’t believe that the taxpayer should subsidize the unhealthy eating choices of a family of four that are all each 50-150lbs overweight. A working family should be able to afford healthy foods in reasonable portions on their own. “Government cheese” should probably be gruel. We’d have a much healthier population, and the economic benefits of the taxpayer not also subsidizing the healthcare of the obese later on would be substantial. Heart disease is our #1 population killer by miles, and it feels like we’re all taking crazy pills about it.

    And I say this as a guy who was once simultaneously 375lbs and poor. I made bad choices, and the healthy choices were a lot cheaper than the bad choices I was making by the virtue of sheer volume. Society should not have been responsible for me should I have needed assistance to maintain that lifestyle.

    • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Optional if self-sufficient, sure.

      A working family should be able to afford healthy foods in reasonable portions on their own. “Government cheese” should probably be gruel.

      Your idea of is to limit the options of an already limited class by restricting their food choices/feeding them gruel? Considering the price of healthy food costs more, the limited options in food deserts, lack of time to cook for ppl working long hours, and everything else that affect poor ppl when it comes to food options your idea is to punish the poor instead of fixing the culture and systems that perpetuate the problem? Ppl don’t even get that much money now on WIC.

      Society should not have been responsible for me should I have needed assistance to maintain that lifestyle.

      Except that’s what the government is suppose to do. If you fit the parameters for aid regardless of circumstances, you fucking get it. If 1 fat lazy slob gets aid for every 5 who really needs it, im fine with that.

      A working family should be able to afford healthy foods in reasonable portions on their own.

      Except what you think should be doesn’t really matter when the reality is the opposite. This sounds like sound ass backwards right-wing libertarian bullshit.

      ONlY pPl I ThINk DeSErve AiD sHOuld GEt iT

      • Dran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        ONlY pPl I ThINk DeSErve AiD sHOuld GEt iT

        Only people who try to help themselves deserve help from others. Why should the government support someone’s bad eating habit when they don’t support someone’s alcohol habit, or cocaine habit? My argument is not that people don’t deserve subsidized help; my argument is that as a society, we should look at a mcdouble and see cocaine, not an apple. All I’m proposing is consistency.

        • myslsl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Why should the government support someone’s bad eating habit when they don’t support someone’s alcohol habit, or cocaine habit?

          I’m not a doctor at all, but for certain addictions, people can die from the withdrawls that occur if they just stop. I’d imagine in those cases rehab and treatment requires supporting the habit via the drug itself or a safer analog in order to keep the individual alive so that they are able to draw down and eventually quit whatever the source of their addiction is.

          For example:

          1. Administering benzodiazepines to alcoholics.
          2. Administering methadone to opiate users.
          • Dran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            I would support programs that weaned people out of unhealthy eating habits, and ones that accommodate for special dietary needs (fiber, insulin, etc). That seems totally reasonable.