I deal with a lot of 18-19 year olds as my primary job is teaching first year engineering students.

I will tell you it is a LOT more complicated than this. This type of single point simplification and pronouncement about 'coddling' is decidedly unhelpful.

For starters, if you grow up in two working parent household, both parents can easily come home completely exhausted and unable to provide the extended engagement necessary to help a child develop. Add in the social pressures of school where EVERYONE has an iphone and games where it is socially isolating not to do these things - which carries its own set of risks. Add in a public education system that doesn't focus on development and instead focuses on learning material. Add in an economy designed to optimize extraction of capital from individuals through psychological programming and ads and more stuff to buy.

None of this has to have a single source of blame, much of its realistically structural and cultural. It isn't one bad actor or one failed thing...it is a large number of individuals, groups, and organizations individually performing Goodhart's law and the result is some get cast aside.

If the parents don't provide for them, what do you think would happen to the nephews? Do you think they would be homeless? I certainly don't.

The fact that the parents are providing a roof over their head and paying for their food/water/electricity/internet/clothes/games/etc is why they haven't had a job nor any desire for one well into their 30s.

Honestly, because the parents keep providing for them, there's no impetus for them to change, so they may as well do this into their 40s or 50s.

Minimum wage is enough to survive, and almost anyone that's not severely mentally/physically disabled can do most minimum wage work. In this case, it's not a matter of lack of ability, but lack of willingness.

That said, I have nothing against parents willing to provide housing/support if the child is working, still furthering their education, or need some help getting their feet back on the ground. But at this point, this is none of that, and just enabling their behavior.

The parents certainly can be enabling, but I think you're ignoring that there are plenty of people that are homeless, that do wind up with dependencies on alcohol, drugs like meth, etc, and your implication that anyone (especially people in their 30s with no real work history) can get full-time, minimum wage work doesn't seem realistic. Many of those jobs are both minimum wage and few enough hours per week (to avoid having to give you benefits, of course) that it would be extremely difficult to live independently, while still requiring a schedule that makes it nearly impossible to take on other jobs.

I'm in my 30s and have now seen several high school classmates with similarly poor prospects eventually succumb to drug overdoses.

Spiked rich kids are spoiled. If they weren't spoiled rich kids the parents would be risking homelessness by supporting a layabout who isn't paying rent.

1) don’t assume these are the rich kids…because they are not. Not even close.

2) don’t assume rich kids don’t opt in to homelessness

What does this have to do with the parent comment?

Fully agree with this for 18-19 year olds, but at some point (25? 30?) it really does seem like coddling, or enabling at least. At some point you have to move out and support yourself.

Why does it seem like coddling? What do you mean by coddling?

"Pamper, pander to". Perhaps it's a loaded word but as a parent who may some day be facing this situation (from the parent point of view) I feel like I'm justified in my judgement.

FWIW I do have friends that were forced out of the house at 18. At the time I was the same age and I thought it was harsh. Many years later though, I can see that it worked out just fine.

I think the term 'coddling ' is not the best. I grew up during the 90's in a hyper-controled environment by a macho dad and a passive mom. I was told to not become an artist, to not travel when I am young (waste of time), to learn how to drive a car, to get a job, get a degree, all that jazz. The thing is, at 32, I still have no sense of purpose in life.

When all the goals are chosen for you, it does not matter if you were over-protected or not. You cannot build true self esteem and confidence if you don't succeed and/or fail at a dream of your choice. There is no point learning to drive a car if you do not know where you want to go, to earn money if you don't know what you want to buy, and to get into a career if you have no sense of purpose.

Videogames are addictive not only because they are fun, they provide you with a goal and 'achievements'. In my humble opinion, sex for the sake of sex (real or porn), promotions for the sake of promotions or else are all caused by the same emotional male problem ; the inability to feel emotions and learn from them what is truly important for yourself. The % of young men in the labour force is just a symptom of that.

Having a purpose in life is optional. Supporting yourself as a functional adult in society is mandatory.

I was told that ''fiding your passion is stupid'', and that ''its better to become an unhappy physician than a happy artist''. Since I've hit the job market I've spent thousands of $ in therapy and many weekends in various spiritual activities to reorient my life. And I still my first burnout at 30.

My opinion now is that sense of purpose AND being able to support yourself are essential; you have cash balance to keep in check with the tribe, and an emotional balance to keep in check with yourself. An adult should be able to do both. I think that people who do the former without doing the later may succeed economically, but on the long run they drain everybody and subconsciously expect others to take care of their own emotions. My father was like that, and his own children don't call him 'daddy'.

I also think its a very male difficulty, because boys learn to suppress emotions at a young age. It makes it harder to find meaningful careers, but also to sustain relationships and to evolve in your spirituality. Men drop out of school, do not enter the workforce, and lament that tinder is unfair. In my humble opinion, it is a purpose problem, not a ''how do I clean my room'' problem.

It's mandatory, but it doesn't mean it's appealing enough to convince people to voluntarily make that decision.

So better give him some pills and put him back in line with the rest of society. Right. There is nothing mandatory in life except of course death.

I agree with your sentiment except for the « men unable to feel » thing. Emotions and sentiments are a fundamentally human thing and men feel too. However there is a social pressure on men to not show emotions and sentiments. We fight patriarchy so that women are less pressured into being fragile and pretty housewives but we should also fight it so that men are less pressured to be emotionless hardworking robots who have to provide for their family.

At the same time, I see people leave home in their teens or 20s and work a series of crappy minimum wage jobs and never get a decent one with benefits, because they're busy surviving or don't see a better option.

An ideal situation requires pressure to succeed, while also providing resources and guidance to be successful.

Yep, I dropped out of school my sophomore year because I was working a job and I was prioritizing a social life I didn’t have in high school. 7 years later and I’m too busy surviving crappy jobs to go back to school, or I think that I would be too busy working to succeed in my coursework.

Doesn't always work, video games are probably the cheapest addicting entertainment out there. Doesn't take much income to just survive and play video games all day long.

I highly doubt that video games are solely to blame.

I was quite addicted to video games until my early 20s, but I eventually understood that gaming falls down the priority list as you take on more responsibilities in life. My friends were the same.

Definitely a symptom and not a cause. Like people that drink heavily in university then don't later once they have obligations.

My university roommate played video games nonstop. Then he graduated, got a job (as a video game developer) and has a wife and three kids. It's like any addiction, its filling a void, but the object of abuse is not what's to blame.

Gaming is just good escapism and a way to pass time. Before gaming, it’d be TV, or reading fiction.

But at least they would be working, probably know how to drive a car, and may consider furthering their education/career when they realize how little they make for their time.

This is maybe a ridiculous question, but why is that so much better? If someone is able to live cheaply, why is it better for them to work in some menial, low-wage job versus being supported by a relative? I think something you have to consider is that if you have low social standing and are poorly educated, your options in life are not necessarily super appealing.

Who's to say that they'd remain in low-wage job? They may be wildly wealthy in the future. It's hard to know, since their potential is being squandered by the parents enabling this behavior.

What avenues would they have to realize their potential? College is obscenely expensive, a degree from a community college is afaik useless, rent prices are bonkers, and the job market for those without a degree is wage slavery.

I am suspecting that because of the lack of full employment a degree is just a hack to get first in line for the jobs that the economy is resentfully providing. If companies couldn't find enough workers they'd lower standards and offer training. It's precisely because they can find all the workers they could hope for that we have put the burden of training onto workers.

Yeah, one of my fears is we simply have too many people and too few jobs in this kind of economy. The lower birth rates are a gaia consciousness response to overpopulation in this respect

It's interesting that you don't mention trade schools and then apprenticeship. That's where I'd look, personally, and my impression is that people in the trades can make bank, especially if they eventually set up their own business.

not really, there's only so many tradesmen an area can support, and only union members get any real standard of living. Plus, there's the whole "destroying your body" thing; it's not computer scientists behind the opioid crisis, for example. Its drudgery, extremely hard work, and with a side order of ill health for the rest of your life.

Contractors are doing extremely well right now/are in extremely high demand, and I’m pretty sure union membership isn’t a requirement there…

If you have time to play video games then you have time to improve your education and social standing. Wealthy relatives don't live forever.

Consider that the limited resource may be mental, not temporal.

We don't expect everyone to be able to run a 10-minute mile, even though most people can. Likewise we shouldn't expect everyone to be able to hold down a 40+ hour-a-week job and "functional adult" life, even though most people can.

You might have the time, but probably not the money.

In most places community college tuition is cheaper than video games.

... or commit suicide.

or most likely meet other marginalized people from society who are their first endearing support system

not so different than runaway teenagers, or ex-Mormons that escape Utah

James Dobson once said about a similar scenario, "your son doesn't have a problem, _you_ have problem." Meaning providing lodging and meals for someone who refuses to work is actually enabling on the part of the parents.

>> If they kicked them out at 18, the nephews would definitely need to work and may realize the importance of having a better job/career

It worked for me when my parents kicked me out. Took around a decade though.

I agree with this. I think it has something to do with my sister (their mom) being a single mom from the time they were 6, 8 years old till she remarried when they were teenagers and their stepfather not wanting to interfere too much in the parenting department.

As you noted, it is likely that something went seriously wrong with raising them (coddling, over-helping, etc.). But you don’t need to be “kicked out” to start working on building your life and your career.

I meant being kicked out if the parents clearly see 0 desire from the child to further their education or get a job. I don't think there's anything wrong with people living with their parents if they're going to school or working.

But there is definitely something wrong with paying gaming computer for son who is old enough to work and dont. Or son who is old enough to clean and never does.

None of these stories have issue that started at 24. They all have parents enabling the kid ever since kid was 6.

Possibly.

Or they end up as homeless drug addicts.

Both outcomes have a none neglible likelihood.