Young U.S. Adults Flock to Parents’ Homes Amid Economy

Quote from 124nic8 : I moved back home for a few months before I found a job after graduating, too. Big whoop....

The class of 2008 has been there for 4 years.

I guess its bad Karma for voting wrongly.

Quote from Krazen1211 : The class of 2008 has been there for 4 years. I guess its bad Karma for voting wrongly.

Yeah, they proly shouldn't have voted for Bush in 2004....maybe then the economy would not have collapsed in 2008.

Quote from 124nic8 : Do you know the meaning of "at least"? My rent covered food and more. Or maybe rent covered "shelter expenses" and the food was free.

You said you paid "at least" enough rent to cover your food. In order to help you avoid an egregious misuse of language, I pointed out that "rent", by definition, doesn't typically cover food. Those are two different & distinct expenses. It would be like claiming that you paid "at least" enough rent to cover your car insurance.

Market is over saturated with useless degree graduates.

We need a communist style intervention in the education market where the government matches student skills with an appropriate field of study.

Quote from 124nic8 : I moved back home for a few months before I found a job after graduating, too. Big whoop....

Seems like the story is the trend, not the act of living with mom and dad, but I think you already knew that.

Quote : Last year, the number of 18- to 30-year-olds living with their parents grew to 20.7 million, a 3.9 percent gain from 2010.

Quote from Lilian : Market is over saturated with useless degree graduates. We need a communist style intervention in the education market where the government matches student skills with an appropriate field of study.

How do you expect the government to get indentured servants cheap labor looking for student loan forgiveness?

Quote from 124nic8 : Yeah, they proly shouldn't have voted for Bush in 2004....maybe then the economy would not have collapsed in 2008.

doubtful, since it was Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagal allowing financial entities to grow too big to fail, and it was Clinton who signed the CRA, forcing banks into questionable mortgages...

sure Bush wasn't planning on fixing those two major contributors to the meltdown, so he gets some blame for that, but it wasn't his doing.

OTOH, we have Obama who added $6T in new debt in 4 years, and the FED under his watch is printing money like mad and will ensure a future, larger, collapse than 2008

Quote from 124nic8 : Yeah, I had to pay rent, too. At least enough to cover food.

Unless the home owners are in the habit of renting otherwise, most of times "rents" like this is to cover out of pocket expenses, i.e. mostly food in this case.

Quote from Radeck : doubtful, since it was Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagal allowing financial entities to grow too big to fail, and it was Clinton who signed the CRA, forcing banks into questionable mortgages... sure Bush wasn't planning on fixing those two major contributors to the meltdown, so he gets some blame for that, but it wasn't his doing.

You're right, Clinton and a bi-partisan Republican Congress repealed Glass-Steagall and Bush did not even try to fix that.

But the CRA did not FORCE banks to do anything about "questionable mortgages."

FNMA1999 and CFTMA2000 were Republican agendas. Just cause Clinton did not veto them, does not mean they weren't Republican policies.

Quote : OTOH, we have Obama who added $6T in new debt in 4 years, and the FED under his watch is printing money like mad and will ensure a future, larger, collapse than 2008

"Ensure"? Now you're blaming Obama for imagined future problems?

Is there no limit to which you will not go to bash Obama?

Quote from 124nic8 : You're right, Clinton and a bi-partisan Republican Congress repealed Glass-Steagall and Bush did not even try to fix that. But the CRA did not FORCE banks to do anything about "questionable mortgages." FNMA1999 and CFTMA2000 were Republican agendas. Just cause Clinton did not veto them, does not mean they weren't Republican policies. "Ensure"? Now you're blaming Obama for imagined future problems? Is there no limit to which you will not go to bash Obama?

So are you going to take credit for all of the policies incurred under the democratic house under Reagan?

Quote from 124nic8 : "Ensure"? Now you're blaming Obama for imagined future problems? Is there no limit to which you will not go to bash Obama?

is your love for Obama blinding you to historical fact? Can you give me an example of when currency debasement has succeeded in making things 'better'?

I can give you several where it has not.
http://dailyreckoning.com/fiat-currency/
and
Hyperinflation: The Story of 9 Failed Currencies (the link gets mangled by SD, so copy/paste the below)
These are pretty depressing stories to read through.

Quote : The history of fiat money, to put it kindly, has been one of failure. In fact, EVERY fiat currency since the Romans first began the practice in the first century has ended in devaluation and eventual collapse, of not only the currency, but of the economy that housed the fiat currency as well.

Fiat Money -Rome — The Denarius
Fiat Money -China — Flying Money
Fiat Money -France — Livres, Assignats, and Francs
1922. Weimar Germany — Mark
1932, 1975, 1992 Argentina
1945, Hungary (At the time of this replacement, the Pengo to Forint exchange, was Four Hundred Octillion (That’s 29 Zeros) to one.)
1971, Chile
1988, Peru
1991, Angola
1992, Yugoslavia
1992, Finland, Italy, and Norway
1994, Mexico
1994, Belarus
1997, the Thai baht fell through the floor and the effects spread to Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and South Korea.
1998, Russia
2000-Today, Zimbabwe

A pictorial history of failed fiat currencies. [waspsnest.com] Pictures are worth a 1000 (pre-inflated ) words, as they say.

and among the worst of them all (but not as bad as Hungary's Four Hundred Octillion).

Quote from Xygonn : So are you going to take credit for all of the policies incurred under the democratic house under Reagan?

Like what? The House is only one branch of government.

AFAIK, Reagan was fairly unique in that many legislators were afraid to cross him when his popularity was so high. At least that's what I remember hearing at the time.

Quote from Radeck : is your love for Obama blinding you to historical fact?

What "fact"? That the Roman Empire dominated Europe for over 4 centuries after they adopted fiat currency?

wiki [wikipedia.org]

Quote : Beginning in the late 4th century, the Empire began to disintegrate as barbarians from the north overwhelmed the control of Christian Rome. Most chronologies place the end of the Western empire in 476, when Romulus Augustus was forced to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer.[19] The empire in the East—known today as the Byzantine Empire, but referred to in its time as the "Roman Empire" or by various other names—ended in 1453 with the death of Constantine XI and the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks

Just cause many or even most fiat currencies failed eventually, that does not prove that Obama as precipitated a disaster.

Much of what happens will have depended on what came before and what comes after Obama's Presidency. The near collapse under Bush being of significant importance.

Everything old is new again. You used to see multiple generations living under one roof far more often going back in history. The middle class is going to shrink and become more impoverished generally. I don't think this is news to most of the people in this forum.