More Parents Are Moving In With Adult Children—at Younger Ages
Housing costs, child care and shifting ideas about family are driving a new rise in multigenerational living
Housing costs, child care and shifting ideas about family are driving a new rise in multigenerational living
More parents are moving in with their young adult children, and they are doing it while they are younger, healthier and often still working.
One in four Americans aged 25 to 34 lived with parents or older relatives as of 2021, the fastest-growing segment in multigenerational households, according to data from Pew Research Center. Most of this group is adult children moving back in with their parents, but a significant number of older adults are moving in with millennials, said Richard Fry, a senior researcher at Pew. In 2021, 9% of multigenerational households were headed by a 25- to 34-year-old, up from 6% in 2001.
Some parents aren’t waiting for retirement or urgent healthcare needs to move in with adult children, the Pew data suggests. Known as the reverse-boomerang effect, the move is often driven by changing attitudes about family life, high housing costs and challenges in finding affordable child care, the researchers said.
Nearly one in five Americans lived in multigenerational homes in 2021, which are defined as two or more adult generations living under the same roof. Such arrangements were more the norm in the first half of the 20th century. But they fell out of favor as housing centered on the nuclear family and older Americans stayed healthier longer and had more money.
After bottoming out at 12% of Americans in 1980, multigenerational living has made a comeback in recent years, particularly after the 2008 financial crisis and during the pandemic, according to Pew.
The challenges of the housing market are also a factor. In 2022, 14% of all home buyers set up multigenerational homes, up from 11% in 2021, according to the National Association of Realtors. The pandemic drove an increase in demand for homes designed for multigenerational living, with separate living areas for older parents.
Having more generations in one household allows first-time millennial buyers to pool financial resources with older relatives, says Jessica Lautz, the NAR’s deputy chief economist and vice president of research.
Though the hallmark of independence was once living on your own, adults who asked older relatives to move in say it has advantages.
Last year, Darin Freeman, a 30-year-old who makes a living promoting home appliances, clothes and makeup on social media, bought a 3,300-square-foot home in Tampa, Fla., with her husband. The couple spent a year trying to convince her dad, Daniel Kane, and his wife and stepdaughter to move in with them and their two children.
Mrs. Freeman wanted to be closer to Mr. Kane, who lived in Safford, Ariz. She offered him a job managing her and her husband’s Amazon reselling business. They would pay him about $5,000 a month to communicate with manufacturers, keep track of inventory and test new products.
Mr. Kane, 48, says he was hesitant. His job in radio communications for a mining company paid $120,000 a year, but meant 12-hour shifts, a two-hour commute and crawling through narrow spaces.
“I’m turning 49. I’m tired of beating myself up to make someone else money. I’d rather beat myself up making my daughter money,” he said.
He also wanted more time with his daughter and his grandchildren beyond yearly trips, he said. He wanted to cook them breakfast and watch their soccer games and gymnastics practices. Mr. Kane and his wife have their own bedroom and separate bathroom, which he calls “his own little apartment.”
The Freemans pay the mortgage. Mr. Kane shops for groceries, his wife cleans the house, and they watch the Freemans’ 7-year-old daughter and 6-year-old son. Groceries and utilities go on one shared credit card, which they split down the middle.
“For the first time we have endless amounts of help,” Mrs. Freeman said. “We have more time to do things that we enjoy.”
But with most of the adults working from home, it can be hard to find a quiet place to work, says Mrs. Freeman. She works from her bedroom, where she shoots videos and social media content.
As a child, Mrs. Freeman, who is half Filipino and half white, lived with her mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She says that made her more comfortable with the idea of living with her father as an adult.
Mrs. Freeman’s husband also grew up in a four-generation household. She says he understood her desire to have her family closer, since many of his family members also live in Florida.
The majority of adults in multigenerational households say living with adult family members has been at least somewhat positive, according to Pew, although nearly a quarter said it was often stressful.
Since 2018, Simon DoQuang, 31, and his wife, Alexis DoQuang, 28, have lived with his father in a four-bedroom house in Ellicott City, Md. Mr. DoQuang’s father, Louis DoQuang, made the down payment and the younger DoQuangs pay the $2,425-a-month mortgage. Louis, 62, has Parkinson’s disease and often needs help. And Simon and Alexis, who are working parents with two children, found themselves looking for child care.
In the summer of 2020, they convinced Simon’s mother, Anna DoQuang, to move in, too. She had been living in Las Vegas, apart from her husband. The younger DoQuangs’ oldest son is 4 and goes to daycare, but they needed someone to watch their youngest. Simon offered to pay his mother every month to move in and care for their 2-year-old.
“It’s a blessing to see my grandson grow up,” Anna said.
Simon said his multigenerational living experience is bittersweet. His parents cook, clean and babysit on date nights. But what they are saving in child care and time is costing them in privacy.
“Sometimes I feel like we can’t really be ourselves as a family of four,” Simon said.
His mother says she also misses the privacy of living by herself but that it is too expensive. She says because Alexis’s work schedule changes every week, they need someone to look after their toddler and Louis.
Simon says he and his wife feel they have to keep public displays of affection around the household to a minimum.
“There’s a lot of pros and cons to it,” Simon said. “We’re thinking about possibly selling this house sometime next year so we can separate from my parents.”
Borrowers cannot control the Reserve Bank, but they can control how exposed their household budget is to its next decision. The RBA meets on 29 September with inflation concerns still elevated and major-bank economists increasingly bringing forward their rate-rise calls. Fixed mortgage rates have also been moving, reducing the value of waiting for perfect certainty. …
Continue reading “What mortgage holders should do before the next RBA decision”
Australian shares finished higher on Tuesday, September 22, as a technology rally and lower oil prices outweighed weakness in energy companies and continued anxiety about domestic interest rates. The S&P/ASX 200 closed 25.9 points, or 0.30 per cent, higher at 8,757.8. The All Ordinaries gained 0.36 per cent to 8,951.0, while the All Technology index …
Continue reading “ASX Wrap: Technology lifts the ASX as falling oil relieves inflation pressure”
AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
A luxury lifestyle might cost more than it used to, but how does it compare with cities around the world?
From office parties to NYE fireworks, here are the bottles that deserve pride of place in the ice bucket this season.