I have seen in many US shows where they portray guys who are living with parents as losers, or there are jokes or memes about it, I never get it.

  • Shadow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Implication is that you’re incapable of being self sufficient.

    Too broke to move out, your parents still cook for you / do your laundry, can’t bring a girl home without your parents hearing you get it on, etc.

    • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Implication is that you’re incapable of being self sufficient.

      Holdover stereotype from when living on your own with a service job was realistically doable. Which just flat out is not the case in most cities now.

      Although not wanting your parents hear you bang is totally fair.

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Traditionally, being self sufficient enough to move out of your parents house and live on your own was considered a major, basic, and early benchmark of growing up, adulthood, and success. Sort of like taking your first steps, it was just considered a “bare minimum” benchmark.

    That impression, the idea of moving out on your own being the bare minimum start to being a successful adult, has not kept up with the modern age and the economy we’ve grown up in. The idea that anyone should be able to move out on their own came about in an age when a single adult working a basic job full time could afford a house and support a family on their income alone. That just is not even close to the case now, but some societal memes take longer to change than others.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    It isn’t anymore. That’s dead.

    It was, like 25 years ago. Well, maybe 15 years ago.

    Pre-2007.

    Because back then people were making good money out of college, and they were able to buy a house for themselves. Shit, they didn’t even need to go to college. As long as you were working hard before 2007, and you were going to be able to find a down payment on a house as long as you didn’t have some kind of financial affliction.

    That’s not to say that gen X had it easy as compared to those before them, but there’s a clear separation.

    Millennials tried their hardest not to live at home, just because of the social stigma.

    Gen Z is feeling that stigma less. That’s why you’re probably here questioning why it’s even a thing. You’re probably Gen Z.

    Jen alpha won’t see it as strange.

    • z00s@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I really hope the stigma goes away because unless the world economy improves, a lot of people will have to stay with parents until a lot later in life.

      It is a cultural thing though. It’s not an issue at all in most of SE Asia.

      • nutsack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        American culture values independence and individualism. The perception is that if you don’t “move out” it’s because you are dependent. If you decide to take care of your parents later, they move in with you and not the other way around.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    It depends on your age. Living with your parents at 10 is different than 20 and is different than 40.

    Ever since I was older than 25 or so, if I was going to go on a date with someone, if they lived with their parents that’s a huge complication. How’re we going to fuck? What if their parents don’t have good boundaries? How can I gauge if they know how to be an adult? Like, what if their mom still does their laundry and they don’t know how to take care of themselves?

    It’s a proxy measurement for independence and being able to take care of themselves.

    It’s a little different if they’re taking care of their parents. Still not great, but doesn’t have the “Do they even know how to take care of themselves?” problems.

  • s_s@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I assume you are American, and probably not Hispanic?

    Because these assumptions are extremely cultural.

    Anyways, for white Americans “Self-sufficiency” (or Self-reliance as Ralph Waldo Emmerson called an extreme version of it) is an old Puritan value, like hardwork and lifelong monogamy.

    • pedestrian@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. You’re not off base. My family is Hispanic and my mom would love it if I lived with her till I’m 40.

  • Breezy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    So i started living back with my mom when i was in my late 20s, i lost a 70k job due to bullshit. Then i got back to working hoping to move out… and… covid hit… i was laid off after a year, and i just havent got back to working. I live with my mom who is disabled and in very bad health over conditions i dont know how to spell. Then i got a dui after my old boss died, i wasnt even driving just sitting in the car drunk by a lake. So now i cant drive for another couple years and am finding it hard to work some whete close that i can get a ride that also doesnt make me be around a shit ton of people who i might get sick from and then bring it back to my mother.

    No i didnt answer your question, but i tried to outline the why of someone living back with their parents.

  • UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    It can be a bad thing for your parents if you are not contributing in any way. Humiliation doesn’t always help in promoting self-improvement but it is a social tool that establish social expectations. Producing value is expected in most societies. What changes is what value ought to be defined.

    • Urist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why is being economically disenfranchised corrolated to not producing value? I could understand an inverse corrolation however.

        • Urist@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Producing value is expected in most societies.

          How did you not connect producing value with ownership of property?

            • Urist@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Art has value and needs to be produced. What is the conclusion you want to make about it with regards to ownership of property?

                • Urist@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You are right that you did not mention being a home owner anywhere, but the inability for people to be so is a very fair reason to want to be living at home. That young people cannot be financially independent is a problem made by the older generations. The same young people may be working and contributing at home, without having said economic freedom.

  • brb@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    In Finland it’s very easy to move on your own because the government will basically pay your living costs if you don’t have any money. So very few people live with their parents past 20 years.