|
|
Post by Joker on Sept 30, 2012 15:08:38 GMT -5
Agree with Komori - while I've certainly known people who manage to pay their way through community college without their parents' help (and man, is it tough) I wouldn't call it the norm in any way. Parents are expected to pay for their kids' college in the American system, which is why financial aid is based on the parents' income. Of course, if your income is low enough, you can get the situation I'm in: my mother pays for nothing, my school pays for almost everything, and my part-time campus job/a few modest government loans pay for the rest. But there's no question that if my mom made more money, she would pay for whatever my college expected her to, and might even give me some kind of "allowance" for spending money (though I'm not so sure about that).
Although actually I can't say that my mother pays for nothing - she does buy me food when I'm staying at home and let me live with her free of charge, which again, is very much the norm. Overall I think it's pretty normal for American parents to support their kids, more or less, while they're in college.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kai on Oct 5, 2012 10:55:33 GMT -5
I still live at home with my mom, I'm 21, but I still pay rent and bills. My mom doesn't work anymore, so I'm kind of helping her out, but I do plan on moving out on my own sooner or later, or maybe even move in with my boyfriend. He's 22 and living at home while he's going to college, but he still pays rent also and bills. His parents are paying for college, and he's almost done. His parents did set up some sort of funds for him that he can access at 25, he'll have I believe a quarter of a million dollars, which would probably be used to get a house or something.
I pay for my own things, and work, but with the economy the way it is, if I was out on my own, I wouldn't be able to keep an apartment because I make so little money (but I got a new job and will be hopefully getting a second job too), so I'm kind of glad my mom is allowing me to still live at home. My sister was more independent and moved out pretty much right after graduating high school.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coaster on Oct 5, 2012 15:47:24 GMT -5
My family is a bit of a strange case. My older sister worked for a year and went to music college for 2 years, and for most of it she ended up living at home (we ended up following her to the city she was studying at, haha), and still does a year after finishing. Our nuclear family is 100% Christian and coming off a rather large debt. My sister is working full-time in local missions for no income. So, there's a delicate balance of mooching off parents (because she makes no income), while helping the family enough to compensate and "sharing homes" with similar families (because we're not particularly well-off).
On the other hand, I recently started first year at university back in the city we were in before moving, renting with a family we used to know and paying for my own food, but I worked for the summer and got a full student loan (Canada's pretty good for that, I guess). However, my parents, in an effort to be fair, are extending as much hospitality to me in university as they did to my sister in college, which means whenever they visit they buy groceries and things like that. But since I'm intending to go into co-op (which would entail working summers in town), there's still a greater chance for independence.
What I'm basically trying to say is, volunteering full-time versus working to earn your own living complicates things a bit, as does being the second child.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Feb 2, 2013 2:28:38 GMT -5
As one who is fairly adult and living with parents, I can say it's a better option to live with family and assist in living than live in separate homes with separate bills and expenses that slowly bleed both parties dry. If anything, moving back home made things easier for family. In my case, my mom had medical expenses and was without work throughout the year, and the rent and assistance I give them (much less than if I living on my own) allowed them to live a little better. I can say I would like my own place, but I would need to live with another anyway, be it more family or roommate. I find that to be the case with a lot of folk these days, because the cost of living can not be held up by one person alone. And I mean alone as in happy, because they have social and creative outlets. No one has the time or money for such things anymore, yet everyone wants to rush out of their home and become in debt to banks, working jobs that don't make them happy, and unable to get the social outlets they need to balance even that. Why leave home if there's no home you could make outside of it? Just wanted those words in quick before reading the rest of the posts, cause I wanted my mind to be fresh of prejudice.  |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Feb 2, 2013 22:28:44 GMT -5
No one has the time or money for such things anymore, yet everyone wants to rush out of their home and become in debt to banks, working jobs that don't make them happy, and unable to get the social outlets they need to balance even that. Well, that's sort of a sweeping generalization, no? I have the time AND the money to live on my own, in a job that makes me happy, with the time on weekends and evenings for socialization. .___. Which isn't that I'm trying to brag here, but it's totally possible to have a job you love and the ability to afford an apartment sans-roommate. |
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Feb 8, 2013 5:53:37 GMT -5
No one has the time or money for such things anymore, yet everyone wants to rush out of their home and become in debt to banks, working jobs that don't make them happy, and unable to get the social outlets they need to balance even that. Well, that's sort of a sweeping generalization, no? I have the time AND the money to live on my own, in a job that makes me happy, with the time on weekends and evenings for socialization. .___. Which isn't that I'm trying to brag here, but it's totally possible to have a job you love and the ability to afford an apartment sans-roommate. I am happy for anyone that can manage it, because my experience shows most folk live with at least one other person, work all the time, and are miserable. I consider happiness to be a key component to actually having a stable living situation, and you don't get it being broke and lonely. It IS possible to make it work, just improbable.  And oh dear, after reading some posts, realized I didn't explain how I've come to be in this current situation. Well, I moved back home and have been building up funds since the end of 2011. Before that, I was living in Milwaukee since the middle of 2008...after moving away from home. Funds were good at the start, then dwindled, becoming paycheck to paycheck, till I had no other option left BUT family. It was an experience, living on my own (with roommate of course), though the upkeep (and poor job choices) did me in. Will get it right in the long run.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Feb 8, 2013 10:23:57 GMT -5
Well, that's sort of a sweeping generalization, no? I have the time AND the money to live on my own, in a job that makes me happy, with the time on weekends and evenings for socialization. .___. Which isn't that I'm trying to brag here, but it's totally possible to have a job you love and the ability to afford an apartment sans-roommate. I am happy for anyone that can manage it, because my experience shows most folk live with at least one other person, work all the time, and are miserable. I consider happiness to be a key component to actually having a stable living situation, and you don't get it being broke and lonely. It IS possible to make it work, just improbable. And oh dear, after reading some posts, realized I didn't explain how I've come to be in this current situation. Well, I moved back home and have been building up funds since the end of 2011. Before that, I was living in Milwaukee since the middle of 2008...after moving away from home. Funds were good at the start, then dwindled, becoming paycheck to paycheck, till I had no other option left BUT family. It was an experience, living on my own (with roommate of course), though the upkeep (and poor job choices) did me in. Will get it right in the long run. Interesting. That's not my experience at all. I live on my own, my brother stays with me for financial reasons on his end. I cover the rent, utilities, etc, all on my own and still have plenty of income left to live comfortably. But maybe I'm not miserable because I have a higher income and can make it all work without the stress? My brother lives paycheck to paycheck and is putting himself through college while working a part time job. He's long been happier since getting out of my parent's place and coming down here with me. Okay, but maybe that's just the family situation at play for him and not the independence? I have many friends from my college years in this area, all living on their own/with roommates now. They all love it and aren't miserable at all. And most of them aren't making very high wages. I'm not saying that there aren't benefits to living around home and providing with family (instead of just mooching from them). There definitely are. But the living on your own and being a responsible adult, covering your own bills, etc, doesn't have to lead to being broke all the time or just miserable. And it's far from improbable for people to find happiness in it. I know a far greater number of people who feel happier and more fulfilled by not living at home and by providing for themselves than I do ones who want to just stay home. And (again in my experience) the ones that want to stay home are usually the ones that don't want to grow up, don't want to face responsibilities, and be able to loaf around on their own without putting much effort into things. Maybe your experience is different, but I'd say it's highly skewed. I have to hunt to find examples of your generalizations in my own circles. Whereas what you say is improbable seems to be in abundance therein. |
|
|
|
Post by Fj0rd on Feb 8, 2013 10:50:49 GMT -5
This is an interesting thread for me, because I will be graduating from college at the end of this semester, and I really don't want to live with either of my parents. Part of this is because they're divorced but living in the same city, so I feel like I could never just live with one of them, and I am so over moving frequently between their houses. I want to get somewhere of my own that I can turn into home, and I want to live in one place for more than a year, because I haven't gotten to do that for, what, seven years? So I am doing everything I can to try to figure out how to not move back in to my parents' houses.
...hopefully it won't end up with me not being able to earn enough to have my own place/pay for grad school/etc. and moving back, but I'm going to give it my best try.
(My dad has been helping me out with loans for college--we've been splitting them--but I don't have any expectation that he'll keep giving me money/take out loans if I go to grad school.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 13:59:17 GMT -5
If you raise independent children, the 'leaving the nest' thing will happen naturally. On the other hand, if you raise your kids in fear of the world, full o paranoia and wrapped in cotton, of course they're going to want to stay home in a safe environment as long as possible.
There are even extreme cases where parents -force- their kids to stay, not even wanting them to take an education.
Well, here's what I'm going to do with Cookie.
When she turns 13 she can start having a job if she wants (tax free until she turns 18). Once she turns 18, she'll have to pay 'rent' to live at home if she still chooses to stay.
But I'm going to save that 'rent' to go towards paying for her first big thing (eg. apartment, drivers license, etc.).
If she's still around by the time she's 21, I'm gonna start poking her to get out.
But I'll be honest... if Cookie continues down the path she's on right now.... she'll be out of this household when she turns 18 xD
When I lived at home it was very different.
My mother forced me to give her all the money I earned, because she was in a tight spot financially, and she wanted me to live with her until she'd grow old.
Ah... no. Not happening.
Of course, over here college/uni is free, so that factor doesn't really count.
Speaking of...
It reminds me of debate on whether or not kids should have allowances.
In my world, you don't get allowance if you don't intend to earn it.
And you only get what is appropriate for your age. Cookie will get allowance if she does chores.
Getting money for doing nothing just isn't a realistic preparation for the real world, in my eyes.
... hope that doesn't sidetrack from the topic. I just thought it was worth mentioning, since most kids over here get allowances up until they get their own job or move out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Feb 11, 2013 20:50:38 GMT -5
That's interesting. The States don't allow 13-yr olds to get a job, with the odd exception of delivering newspapers or working in TV/movies. XD Even at 14 and 15, there are some big restrictions for getting a job. (No more than 18 hours on school weeks, can only be in retail or food services, etc)
|
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Feb 12, 2013 9:24:48 GMT -5
Here it's I think from age 14 onwards, with a whole lot of laws and restrictions in place until you're 18. Plus good luck actually finding time to have a job, summers aside. And if you find that time, you'll also need to find that employer who doesn't mind the paperwork and flexible scheduling xD
I've never been sure about causation and correlation between an allowance system and what kind of a spender the kid grows up to be. I mean, if things were as simple as "kid works for their allowance, kid grows up to be responsible with money - kid gets given money, kid grows up thinking that money grows on trees", wouldn't the latter allowance-giving system have died out ages ago?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 11:55:02 GMT -5
Oh, but there are laws and restrictions here, too. xD We've got about 56 paragraphs that ensures the rights of teenagers under 18. They're not allowed to work for more than two hours on a school day, and 7 hours on a non-school day. And not allowed to work between 8 pm and 6 am. And about the allowance thing, Hunty. Yeah, you'd think so. But it's scary how many parents just 'buy' their kids' affection, or pay them because it's the easy solution. Having a conflict with your child is something far too many parents are avoiding. I once knew a kid who got $100 a week for doing nothing. He just got them, and his parents didn't care what he spent them on. To me and to everything I've been taught during my years at uni, this just screams 'neglect'. It may be great for a while, that your parents don't really care. But at some point it's going to backfire. So might as well start while they are young and teach them how the world really works. On the flipside, they also gotta learn that not every action should be repaid with money. Sometimes the grattitude is enough. But! I'm rambling  Ask me about kids and cake... and I can go on for hours xD |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Feb 12, 2013 12:16:24 GMT -5
I once knew a kid who got $100 a week for doing nothing. He just got them, and his parents didn't care what he spent them on. To me and to everything I've been taught during my years at uni, this just screams 'neglect'. Edit: Neglect is a kind of abuse. It took me a long time to learn to accept that. I'd personally be slow to label something like that neglect. Distant, sure. A bad idea, maybe. But please realize that can come with some pretty serious connotations. To whether or not working for your money makes you appreciate it, I think there is a lot more to it than that. My older sister grew up in a similar situation to me, but has a big problem with spending on silly stuff and building up debt. I don't know what made us so different, but we both had to work to get money as kids. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Feb 12, 2013 13:45:49 GMT -5
My allowance was never connected to the chores I did (though that's not to say I did no housework--I did plenty). My Dad gave me and my siblings $5, then later $10 every paycheck he received (twice a month). So it really wasn't that big a deal. I'd blow it pretty quickly, having such hobbies as books and card games. <.< He never cared what we spent it on, it was our pocket cash to do with as we pleased. And it prevented "will you buy this for me!" pleas. Certainly wasn't neglect.
Of course that allowance stopped once I got a paycheck as a teen. Which was fine because even making $150/ish every couple weeks was pretty big to me. And then I was in absolute full control of my finances. I kept my ledger, balanced my check book, paid my bills, etc. Parents didn't keep an eye on it for me. If I was going to make the money, I was to be responsible for it and handle it myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Feb 12, 2013 15:57:06 GMT -5
My allowance wasn't earned, either, although I had to buy my own lunches and there wasn't much of it. As an adult, I'm not incredibly responsible with money (I don't usually pay attention to how much I spend or what I spend it on). I make sure that there's enough in my checking account to prevent an overdraft, pay my bills on time, and then I just ignore it. I've always had enough... sometimes just enough, but always enough. The main reason I was a miser with money as a child was because I had to buy my own books. There was never enough allowance to go around, never. |
|
Ask me about kids and cake... and I can go on for hours xD
