Adult Children and the Open Door Policy By Candice Daquin
Still wondering when you’ll partake in the joys of the "empty nest syndrome?" Are you a victim of the boomerang generation? You’re not alone. Adult children are returning to the nest in record numbers in the U.S and around the world. The key is to set a few ground rules to keep this new family dynamic from disaster.
We saw it in Moonstruck. That’s the movie where Cher plays Loretta, a good Italian woman still living at home while she waits to be whisked away to a new life of wedded bliss. Perhaps not that much of a cultural stretch in the Italian community but years later in Failure to Launch, Matthew McConaughey perfects the concept of never living home long into his adulthood. Why would he? The perks are way too good.
In 2006 there were 22 million adult children living in a household still run by one or both parents. In Canada, 14 percent of adult children return to live at home for one time or another. The reason? Choose one. If you think about it, our children have lived in privileged times and are quick to realize that staying home reaps all the benefits without the responsibilities.
A hundred years ago an unmarried woman would live at home she married. If the family were large, certain siblings were considered unmarriageable. Those who were deemed fittest to marry were groomed for that inevitability early in life, whilst others were groomed for work, the clergy or the role of caregiver. In a large family this may have been unfair but it was the way; Prettiest girl was married off and given the family dowry; strongest boy stayed home to replace an aging father by working the land; and the most intelligent sibling left for the big city in hot pursuit of a career, while the rest were sent off to do ´God´s work´.
Of course such stereotypes are exaggerated vestiges of reality, where hard choices were made for the good of the family nucleus, with little freedom afforded each child in decision-making. In the modern world, many girls are not prohibited from making their own way in life, and more choice is available. We can go to school and train to be anything, we can travel, marry, stay single, do anything we like... or can we? There is a pervasive idea in modern culture that we individually hold the key to freedom but for some this remains untrue. Cultural mores and expectations continue to dictate many sub-cultures within Canadian society. We can still find examples of divorced women feeling they have nowhere to go but home, unmarried women acquiescing to the pressure to remain home rather than live with friends. Not all homebound adult-children chose to be so.
In 1996, the Canadian Population Census recorded 74% of unmarried men and 67% of unmarried women between the ages of 20-24 is still living at home. More surprisingly 48% of unmarried men and 36% of unmarried women were still living at home between the age of 25-29 and 32%/19% respectively at age 30-32.1 Rather than abating, this trend of living at home longer is on the rise. In 2001 the Canadian General Social Survey found 32% of parents whose youngest child was between 20 and 34 years old had at least one child at home.2
A host of reasons can explain why adult children stay or return (known as ´boomeranging´) home. The increased cost of living, non-traditional family structure and lack of care in the community may be at the top of the list, with adult children unable to pay for private care facilities for parents with Alzheimer´s or early-onset dementia, opting to live with a parent rather than send them to a State run facility. In the largest cities in Canada and worldwide, adult children stay at home longer because the cost of renting or buying is prohibitively expensive. By supporting an adult child until he or she can afford to purchase their own home, parents make an invaluable contribution and gain extra time with adult children not experienced when children fly the nest.
While in modern times living at home in your late-twenties is something many adult- children would be embarrassed to admit, it certainly has its advantages. Is it fair to say that such individuals are simply freeloaders waiting to amass enough savings to take responsibility? Or is that another redundant stereotype that insults the often negative reason a person returns home, such as the breakdown of a marriage. Perhaps social institutions do not adequately provide for sudden loss of income or marital breakdown as readily as the family? Another consideration is the gender gap, with more men staying at home longer than women, and more women returning home later in life. Women return home with greater frequency if a parent is ailing than their male counterparts. Perhaps men are less well equipped (or believe themselves so) to venture out and stay out of the parental home, the stereotype being that a mum will do their laundry, clean their room, leave them with no household responsibilities and make dinner. Stacked against the complaint many women have that men do not share their half of household responsibilities, this seems a fair assumption.
But ´easier living´ alone does not explain why many adult-children return to the family home. Parents, rather than being imposed upon, report that such a move benefits the relationship with their adult-child, and helping their child, irrespective of age, is of paramount importance. Perhaps parents today, the baby boomers with a modicum of a pension and some nice assets, are financially able to give to their children in greater numbers than their parents before them? Certainly with pensions and savings down in recent years, the future parents of the world will have little assets to pass on to their children in comparison. Such nurturing later in life is ridiculed by some but when examined, is perhaps a sign that society in general is finding new ways to bring the family together, extend its ties and bonds, to help one another through the journey of life.
Of course for those who left home for university and never returned, it may be a bitter pill to see ones colleagues at work dressed better, with a new car and all the accoutrements because they lived at home for three years while you paid an exorbitant rent and struggled to afford groceries. Not all parents subscribe to the open door policy and many young people find maintaining solvency through the early years of low wages, unreliable jobs, social expectations and student debt very challenging. Indeed, those who leave school earlier, not attending college, initially experience a better standard of living until their university-bound peers harness the power of their degree and over-take them in the job market.
For Asian and Latin American families, these families have the highest number of adult-children living at home in Canada with likely reasons including cultural mores, the value given to education and thus, the financial practicality, expectation of a child living at home until marriage and the increasing time adult children spend in education and training before beginning their careers. Likewise, new immigrant families without the social networks of established families are more likely to see their children remain in the family home for longer. This trend underscores the importance of the family as a safety net, and refuge from the world. As it has always been in some form or another, and in times when we fear the fragmentation of family and the loss of family structure, there are still enduring networks, perhaps adapting to the changing demands of our culture at large and individual subcultures.
However, culture and immigration cannot fully explain the radical social shift in the last 20 years, seen not only in Canada but across the globe toward staying at home longer. In 2001 57% of men and women aged 20-24 were still in the family home, compared to 41% in 1981.3 Canada´s influx of Asian immigrants within the last 20 years may explain this in part, because for cultural reasons, Asian families are most likely to have adult-children in the home, but for it to be a world trend, the rising cost of living is the best over-all explanation for this increase. Young adults leaving University in the 1970´s were able to rent and eventually purchase a residence, sometimes on a single income.
Increased cost of living affected the cost of housing and thus led to one reason many households became dual-income, balancing childrearing and a full time job. The dramatic increase in property prices has eclipsed the value of a dual income household, making it hard for many young people to afford to live in accommodation that isn´t a two hour commute from their place of work, or the size of a broom closet. With a decent- sized family home, it made sense for parents to invite their adult-children back and support their endeavors to save for their own home, whether married or not. Another consideration is the increase of adults wishing to live alone without a partner, making it harder yet to afford accommodation.
Speaking of socio-economic divides, it is interesting to note that a parent´s socio-economic status does not influence whether a child returns home. Perhaps this is because more than one socio-economic reason exists for a child´s return. Financially comfortable parents are able to offer fiscal support, but could equally purchase a home for an adult child, as many do for investment purposes. Less affluent parents may open the family home because whilst they do not have funds necessary for a down payment, they can make a bedroom available. In short, the economic divide finds different reasons for doing the same thing; taking care of their own.
It´s easy to laugh at an adult whose mother still irons his shirts, but if we´re honest, there´s a part of us that´s probably also jealous. The fine line between relinquishing freedom and responsibility and getting much needed family support may become blurred but there is no doubt that living at home, if you can stand it and they can stand you, has its benefits and as such, is on the rise. How will this impact our culture? Perhaps it simply obviates dealing with the real problem, the rising cost of living and student debt, mollycoddling future generations into a codependency that will end up leaving them stricken when parents are no longer able to bail them out? Alternatively it could be dividing the wedge between those who ´have´ and those who ´do not,´ even wider, making it harder still for future generations whose parents are not financially solvent or supportive to have that competitive edge. All change brings good and bad fall-out, it remains to be seen what living at home for longer will give and take away from today´s "stay at homers".
1 Statistics Canada, Canadian Social Trends (Spring 99): "The Crowded Nest: Young adults at home" by Monica Boyd and Doug Norris. Data from the 1996 Census of Population
2 Statistic taken from The Daily: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060321/d060321c.htm (2001)
3 Statistic taken from http://www.statcan.ca/english/studies/11-008/feature/11-008-XIE20050049124.pdf
28.11.2007
Print Version»
Tell a Friend»
All articles » Subscribe»
French by birth, Candice Daquin first trained as a professional dancer and had a career in publishing in the UK before relocating to the US to pursue her Masters. She has worked in crisis centers as a Psychotherapist. Now a resident of Canada, Candice lives in London, Ontario, writing and editing for publications and websites. She has published two books of her own poetry and is an active campaigner for immigration inequality reform particularly pertaining to women.
|
