I remember reading that José María Olazábal (one of the best professional golfers in the 90's, with millions of dollars in earnings) was still living with his parents into his early 40's (though to be fair, he was traveling for half the year on tour).

I often think that the "move out from home" pressure is a ploy by the real estate industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Olaz%C3%A...

Privacy of course suffers, but then again I with multiple kids like a lot of US households have, there isn't that much privacy anyway.

-----------------------------------------------------------

> I often think that the "move out from home" pressure is a ploy by the real estate industry.

I think it's any commercial entity, right? When you move out of your parents' house, now you collectively have to pay/buy

- Extra rent

- Extra money for furnishing

- Probably more money for transport (could have carpooled with family or neighbors)

- More money for groceries (living on your own you will likely waste more groceries)

- Extra money for insurance (since it isn't a family pool)

etc.

So you're right, but possibly underestimating it. There is a lot of vested interest in convincing young people that living with their parents somehow makes them "losers" etc.

Clearly not. Any money you save by staying at your parent's home will be spent in other commercial entities. Even people who save eventually spend it. Conversely, all that cash going to landlords, grocers, insurance, etc is not being spent on something else.

Sure, but I'd rather be in a house with extended family than with roommates.

So are you referring to all of Italy or are you saying this doesn't apply to Sicily (or other islands)?

"Italy's boot" here corresponds to this Southern Italy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Italy

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/15/world/north-south-divide-i...

Look at how Harry Truman lived. My uncles all lived at home until they moved, either for military service or because they got married. Age range roughly 1915 to around 1945 or so.

People lived in boarding houses if they didn't have a family.

My sister has a "boomerang" Millenial; the house is probably 3-4000 sq feet and the "kids suite" upstairs is probably 1200 sq ft. or so.

While this was anti-socialist material, given its greater focus on individualism, it was rumored to also be intended to break up powerful family clans, as well as prevent future rise of the same.

Before these times, it was a lot more common for extended family to live together.

I'm not sure about that. Parents siphoning their children's (or children's spouses') "excess" income as a substitute for emergency and retirement savings seems pretty destructive. Rather than a self-perpetuating cycle of wealth transfer forward (i.e. paying for college), children start out less advantaged and, once they have earning power later in life, are expected to contribute it backwards. Of course, what you are expected to "reciprocate" here is not usually free housing as an adult, but your upbringing in general.

I'm very grateful that my parents have been fiscally responsible, and have taught me to do the same. While I will of course take care of them as medical situations arise (as they're currently doing with their parents), I very much appreciate that we're not in a tradition of tithing to our elders like so many other families seem to be. I can only hope that my eventual spouse would feel the same way. I certainly would not expect it from my children. But if my parents demanded it, then I'd have no choice but to demand it.

Taking care of children and the elderly are of course one-sided cases, but when two generations are both adults (pre-elderly parents, adult children), and among siblings, a healthy relationship and taking care of each other goes a long way in times of struggle on otherwise equal footing.

The reciprocation comes later in life, when parents aren't able to be self sufficient anymore.