Parents should not allow young people to live at home again after graduating
The scope of Peter Mandelson in government has been steadily advancing as his department swallows others. He is now publishing advice for parents on how to persuade their children to move out and stop being dependents. In some cases persuading children to move out may be a good idea but in the middle of a recession it seems like a waste of effort. Those who have returned home would not have the resources to make their own home while burdened with student debt and without a job. So kick the kids out of the house to sink or swim?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Less strain on the parents.
Parents need to support themselves as well. Not all graduates come from backgrounds where their parents can financially support their child living with them indefinitely. This is going to become less likely as the financial situation gets worse. If the parent gets to relieve themselves of the financial burden and the young person lives in cheap accommodation that they can still afford, both people are in a position where they can support themselves. This will relieve stress and enable them to think more clearly when solving the problem of the young person's unemployment.
a child "living in the house" does not equate to "being supported." if the child is doing nothing but sitting around in the house then yes, but even if they can find a PT job for a couple days a week (even that's an accomplishment in this recession) they would be able to help out with utility bills, pay for their own general expenses (besides the rent), and do physically demanding chores around the house that their old parents may find increasingly straining.
this way living together may actually be less strain.
My parents never really had money. They've always struggled to get by, but i still live with my parents, but i do not depend on them. I pay rent, I pay for my cell phone, i pay for my car and its gas and insurance, i pay for my groceries, i do my own laundry, cooking, cleaning ect. ect. Whats so bad about that? In fact, it helps my parents because I'm paying them to stay there. Theyd struggle more without me.
Living independently teaches you vital employability skills.
There are certain social skills that young people develop through living alone or with their peers that they lose when they live at home for long periods of time, or never leave home at all. These social skills, understanding how to interact with colleagues as equals, tolerate their company in stressful situations where there will be conflict, negotiate and make compromises, are vital in a workplace. There are also problem solving skills that are necessary for cooking, cleaning, handling your own finances and generally looking after yourself that are necessary in any workplace.
Kids should have learned basic social skills (conflict resolving, respectfulness) in high school and college. If a college grad still has problems in this area (s)he will most likely never learn.
As for qualities that specificlaly appeal to employers (communicating clearly, positive outlook, interview skills), that is something they learn with conscious practice. You can't force a person to suddenly start giving out the aura of a killer job candidate. basically if a kid wants to succeed and is smart enough to realize what employers are looking for they will make necessary adjustments to their personality and behavior. if they dont want to change or are too dumb to realize what is going on, what can you do.
where they live makes little difference.
domestic skills: shouldn't they have learned that before going off to college? at least how to make an omelette and boil spaghetti?
Decreases the chance of graduates ending up in inappropriate family jobs or local work.
There is a chance if graduates live at home that they start just paying the parents back by doing menial jobs around the house or around the local area for cash in hand, or going into the family business or other local work arranged for them by the parents that is inappropriate for a graduate. Graduate placements doesn't happen locally, they happen in the head branches of major corporations and institutions, in London and other larger towns, where the management jobs are. A young person stuck in their parent's house isn't free to go where the work is, especially a young person who can't afford a car.
While expressing sympathy for college grads who have their dreams taken away by getting stuck in uninteresting local jobs where they can't utilize their education, the assumption that all local jobs are "inappropriate" is definitely biased.
there is no reason to think that a college grad can't contribute to his/her local community through their education, by getting a managerial position at a local business, starting a new business, addressing local community issues, etc.
granted it would depend on the student's chosen field; an astronomy or fashion design student may find it hard to contribute anything to a small farm town.
ultimately it is up to what the student wants to do with their life. if they want to stay in their local community and find ways to give back something, that is a fine thing; if they find this frustrating and want to move to the city they will have to set specific goals themselves to achieve that (such as saving up, buying a car, etc). incidentally, it is easier to save up when you are living with your parents.
Won't actually lead to a job.
If there aren't any jobs, there aren't any jobs. Leaving home won't change the fact that there's a recession. Young people who are living at home are doing so because they can't financially support themselves. If they are expected to pay for their own board and lodging they will just go onto benefits and it will not solve the problem of them being financially dependent on others.
An attitude that undermines higher education.
We should not just accept that graduating will not lead to a graduate job and that graduates will have to get a menial job. HIGHER education is just that – it shows that you have proved yourself to be a cut above the average person, you should have higher standards and expect a good job. To foist a menial job on a graduate is an insult. While this is not directly related to whether a graduate lives with their parents or not, the 'kick them out' attitude treats graduates as useless scroungers, not accomplished, skilled, intelligent people who should be rewarded for their achievements, not punished. The problem is that living with your parents also puts you in a socially lower position than you deserve – but this is not your fault and again you should not be punished for it! To constantly punish and undermine young people for their achievements will teach them not to bother achieving anything, it certainly won't encourage them to get a job!
Makes it more difficult for parents to provide useful support.
A young person graduating is going to find it easier to find a place to live in the same town they graduated, where they have already been finding cheap accommodation. This might be nowhere near where their parents live. If their parents want to give them useful practical support and morale-boosting, or to find them local contacts for jobs as Mandelson recommends, it is going to be very difficult if they aren't within a practical travel distance.
Sometimes young people need to live with their parents or vice versa.
It would be very wrong to force people out of their parent's homes , yes parents should encourage adults to be independent and move out when they're ready but sometimes parents have debilitating diseases that require care/support and do not want to move into an old-home. Sometimes young people have the same problem and need their parents to support and care for them.
Psychological illnesses are on the rise correlating with individualism. Older people are happier in the presence/company of younger people.
Grandparents(especially grand mothers) proximal to their children and/or grandchildren live happier/longer lives.
Family/emotional/filial support is good for a person's health.
The argument is not about whether elderly or sick people should be supported, of course they should, but the exception is not the rule. Besides, wouldn't a qualified carer be better than a young graduate who a) doesn't know how to look after sick people and b) has a bright future ahead of them?
How can individualism be psychologically damaging? People are supposed to have individual identities, it is a psychological problem to have your personality subsumed by a group or another person.
fall-back option in a bad economy.
joblessness is very common in Britain , living in the same house as your parents means overall lower expenditure. Young Adults feel useful running errands(getting groceries, helping around the house etc) and secure/safe talking/eating with their parents/family.
There is still ample motivation to look for work(unless you want your father/dad/pa/aba to taunt you about being jobless all the time) but no unnecessary pressure coming from the fear of ending up homeless or penniless or with no one around.
We all need support once in a while and if parents are robbed of the luxury of providing/obtaining it to/from loved ones then it won't be good.
only corporate firms benefit from this line of thought
Why are we ever expected to move out from our parents house? It is a societal norm in Britain, but why? Who serves to benefit? Corparate firms and the Government benefit. Without young people moving out of thir parents house, the property market would grow stagnant and sales of home goods would fall. So the only reason why we are being told that graduates should move out is so that the government can claim their VAT on these items and so that corporate firms can continue to make profits on home goods. For this reason, we should rebel against the commercial sector influencing our thoughts on how we live our lives and stay with our parents.
What do you think?