in 2020, there were massive layoffs across the world and in india, workers from the city simply moved back to their native homes to weather the storm.

why didn't americans do that and decided to penny pinch/take more loans rather than saving costs?

In the world of remote-first, do you really think geography matters as much?

Americans also often don’t have the same relationship with their nuclear families. In India, and from what I’ve heard Europe and AUNZ, it’s not uncommon to live at home and commute to university and sometimes after. That’s anathema to the American model. 18 and you’re out the door.

Many of my friends’ parents financially cut them off when they graduated high school, and/or immediately moved out of their town to a lower tax area (and these are upper middle class folks). So that safety net of weathering the storm in a hometown may not always be there IME.

so, you are saying, because of social reasons, entire generations are literally wasting money because "muh child is past 18?"

wait, let me get this straight. i don't get "Many of my friends’ parents financially cut them off when they graduated high school," i've read this a lot of times. does this mean the parents force the children to stand on their own feet and not extend to them financial support or do you mean they cut them off of their money as is. don't these people know about inheritance?

>and/or immediately moved out of their town to a lower tax area

this one, specifically in india is literally never a concern. taxes are same across the entire country so no one even considers this

>So that safety net of weathering the storm in a hometown may not always be there IME.

correct me if i am wrong but i suppose there are two things at play here. parents' insistence on always being right and not taking care of their children however old (when they have the resources nonetheless) as a sign of "american way" and the children thinking "i will stay at a homeless shelter rather than go back to my parents home because muh privacy, independence"?

Disclaimer that it's a spectrum, so what's true for one family isn't true for another.

But yes, historically a large proportion of WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) families in the US are very individualistic, and of the mindset that once when you graduate college, (barring a grace year or two), you're expected to rent/own your place. Apartments exist as a place that are more affordable than condos or homes. Inheritance exists, but that's considered as only a "when the oldest generation dies" sort of thing.

I do find this trend feels like it dovetails with a greater percentage of estranged kids/adults, and isolation for the oldest generation. Quite a lot of estrangement is necessary; this isn't a judgement on that choice, merely commenting there may be more friction under the surface leading to that mindset.

I mention the first line because (quasi-) immigrant families (like mine) are a lot more of your mindset. Makes far more sense to save, and there's less cultural taboo with multi-generation households.

some raw data: https://www.boredpanda.com/young-adults-moving-from-parents-...

> does this mean the parents force the children to stand on their own feet and not extend to them financial support or do you mean they cut them off of their money as is. don't these people know about inheritance?

More or less, yeah. In America, you are expected to be your own person when you turn 18. That almost always means having a job and paying for a place to live, even if it means flipping burgers and renting a room at mom and dad's house.

Though, I've been reconsidering that expectation with all these articles over the past few years of parents helping their kids with down payments on their kid's houses. Now there's parent plus student loans.

Inheritance? Many older adults also live paycheck to paycheck and are drowning in debt, and might explain how eager some parents are to kick their kids out. In America, inheritance usually only happens when both parents die, but many kids won't see a penny of inheritance.

One thing to note is that there is no “one” American culture. What’s true in one place may not be the reality 50 miles where you but can be true 100 miles where you are.

And fights over inheritance often causes deep family rifts.

Unless your parents own a home or some asset or pay into life insurance there is nothing to inherit as most of the middle class is in debt

Exactly, I could have inherited the family business but my dad wouldn't let me, in his words I'd be "inheriting debt".

even remote first workers in tier 1 and 2 tech markets are going to have better developed networks than those in relative backwaters. i think few europeans appreciate how geography influences outcomes in north america. if you live in mobile alabama or toledo ohio you have to really work to compete for jobs with someone in new york or san francisco or even a second tier city like raleigh durham or toronto.

> why didn't americans do that

They did. In 2020, 52% of young adults in America were living with their parents. The number is lower now but not by a lot.

Many jobs, like mine, are not able to be fully remote.

And yes, geography does really matter now that half of the US is making basic women's Healthcare illegal. No amount of money would drive someone to move their family to a place where basic Healthcare is denied for every woman.

Do you think this was a worthwhile trade-off? Would life be that much worse back home near family, with a stagnated career owning your own cheaper home?

I didn't for a while, now I think it was.

you can earn 100k, blow 90% of that for rent/mortgage and general living expenses in a big city or get to live with your parents and earn half while saving much more.

maybe that doesn't appeal to a lot of people, they look at the CTC as opposed to your net savings