33% of Irish men aged 34 live at home

phantom_lord

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Well I'm very sorry you feel that way. It's not as if people get fired now and can barely make ends meet or the dole is higher than it has been in years. Or you know... we're generally fu*ked.

The situation of some people living at home longer than they should isn't something new it predates the present economic situation by quite a few years.

Chaotic_Forces

phantom_lord wrote: »

The situation of some people living at home longer than they should isn't something new it predates the present economic situation by quite a few years.

You wanna tell me where the law fobidding that is mentioned?

gurramok

Merch wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean here? is it that someone might think they would have some priority over someone else in a family over a will if they lived in the house, in essence waiting for their parents to die, like waiting it out? thats a gruesome way to think, if a person thinks that way.

If a person (relative) has that mindset, I'd get them out in case they tried to hurry the process.
The idea some one might try undermine a will and dispute it with family because they have somehow weathered the storm? or mabye thats not what you meant.

Last child in the house who is there to look after the elderly parents.

starbelgrade

Dudess wrote: »

Being laid off, unable to afford to rent/unable to afford to pay the mortgage so having to rent out your property.

Fair enough. Hadn't thought of that.

Wagon

I'd say the recession plays a big part in it now. I can't imagine many lads wanting to live at home past the age of 18, and most stay at home because they haven't got the means to leave. I've never lived on my own in Ireland because i could never afford it. Did live abroad though for about a year and will be leaving again soon.

Also, people stay at home when they're older sometimes to look after an elderly parent who would be living on their own otherwise. There's all kinds of reasons for it. Saying someone is an overgrown child for not being rich enough to leave is just being a prick.

mikom

Find success away from mammy like thousands of Irish before.......... http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/Lost-in-London-seven-young.6141719.jp

I-Shot-Jr

Just thinking now, I suppose a lot of it comes down to the relationship you have with your parents as well as personality. Myself and my father are very independent people, I myself value solitude a great deal which is probably a big factor in my reasons for moving out. I guess I just felt like I had to move out for my own sake. Perhaps for many people this just isn't the case and they feel completely comfortable with the situation. No?

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

You're either self sufficient or you're not. It's a pretty basic measure of success.

Erm, have you moved the goal posts again? First you're a failure if you live at home over the age of 20. Are you now saying you're a failure if you're not self sufficient over the age of 20?

You do realise it's completely possible to be self sufficient while living at home?

I don't think you've really thought this through have you?

So, going back to the question that you ignored. Why am I a failure now that I've moved back home?

HarryPotter41

Having read through this post I have to say there are some very self righteous people here who seem to think that everyone should move out of home because they did or they think some one should because its their opinion.

First of all the survey is between the ages of 25 and 34, so work out the basic math, if 50% of 25 year olds live at home its means a smaller percentage of higher age groups have to live at home to drive the average down, so nobody can say that a third of 34 year old men saty at home, thats nonsense.

Secondly as other posters have pointed out everyones circumstances are different. I am 41, lived at home my whole life, my Dad died when I was 8, my mother struggled hard to bring us up and had to do without herself to do so. The other lads moved away, I was the youngest and stayed at home, carried my weight, gave her some of the comforts in her later life that she never had when she was struggling to bring us up, gave her the security of having someone in the house in case anything ever happened up until she died 3 years ago. I am not the least bit embarassed about doing that, in fact I am quite proud of it, I find my life no poorer for it but was sick of defending it to nonsensical muppets who thought my life should be like theres.

A little less judgement on other people would be great.

fonecrusher1

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Having read through this post I have to say there are some very self righteous people here who seem to think that everyone should move out of home because they did or they think some one should because its their opinion.

First of all the survey is between the ages of 25 and 34, so work out the basic math, if 50% of 25 year olds live at home its means a smaller percentage of higher age groups have to live at home to drive the average down, so nobody can say that a third of 34 year old men saty at home, thats nonsense.

Secondly as other posters have pointed out everyones circumstances are different. I am 41, lived at home my whole life, my Dad died when I was 8, my mother struggled hard to bring us up and had to do without herself to do so. The other lads moved away, I was the youngest and stayed at home, carried my weight, gave her some of the comforts in her later life that she never had when she was struggling to bring us up, gave her the security of having someone in the house in case anything ever happened up until she died 3 years ago. I am not the least bit embarassed about doing that, in fact I am quite proud of it, I find my life no poorer for it but was sick of defending it to nonsensical muppets who thought my life should be like theres.

A little less judgement on other people would be great.

I don't think anyones having a go at someone in your unusual circumstances.^

Heres my last contribution to this thread. Theres people talking about being a failure & being a success?...thats a kind of how long is a piece of string argument imo.

There are different definitions of success. Is the guy who's lived in the same town all his life, known the same clique all his life, never travelled, never taken any chances but has a good solid boring job successful?? Not for me its not, thats a bit of a failure in my view.
Not saying im indiana Jones but ive travelled a little, worked in other countries, met great people. Came back home, had no work, lived with my folks for a while, had to go on dole for a while till i found another direction/goal.

I think if you can look back on the last ten years & agree that yeah you've had a fairly varied, not too boring life then thats success in a way.

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

Erm, have you moved the goal posts again? First you're a failure if you live at home over the age of 20. Are you now saying you're a failure if you're not self sufficient over the age of 20?

You do realise it's completely possible to be self sufficient while living at home?

I don't think you've really thought this through have you?

So, going back to the question that you ignored. Why am I a failure now that I've moved back home?

I haven't changed my position. If someone is still mooching off their parents in their midtwenties then they're a failure. I find it peculiar you find such a position odd.

Is moving home for financial reasons not the definition of failure? It's not something successful people do.

HarryPotter41

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I don't think anyones having a go at someone in your unusual circumstances.^

Heres my last contribution to this thread. Theres people talking about being a failure & being a success?...thats a kind of how long is a piece of string argument imo.

There are different definitions of success. Is the guy who's lived in the same town all his life, known the same clique all his life, never travelled, never taken any chances but has a good solid boring job successful?? Not for me its not, thats a bit of a failure in my view.
Not saying im indiana Jones but ive travelled a little, worked in other countries, met great people. Came back home, had no work, lived with my folks for a while, had to go on dole for a while till i found another direction/goal.

I think if you can look back on the last ten years & agree that yeah you've had a fairly varied, not too boring life then thats success in a way.

They are having a go at everyone, without any knowledge of anyones circumstances, thats the sad part about it, everyone has different circumstances. people should basically mind their own business and live their own lifes, not other peoples.

Agricola

The vast majority of 25 - 34 yr old men living at home are more than likely pulling their weight at home and contributing to the running costs of the house. As long as they pay their way and help out with bills, whats the problem. It would be a different matter if a fella is still living at home like a dependent 14 year old.

Fcuk societal norms. If we've learned anything over the past 2 years its that societal norms can lead to some truly monumental fcúk ups. How many people, in the clamour to assert their independence, ran off and got themselves huge mortgages they couldnt afford during the boom? In other country's where there is a culture of living at home later and then renting till you are into your 40's, there wasnt anything like the massive property crash that occured here. Its this Irish attitude of "I must be shacked up in my dream home before Im 21" that has partially contributed to the mess we are in.

erogonamalu

well so far i have failed in life and guess what im still living at home im in no rush apart from when the heat gets turned up but its to b expected and learn how to deal with it (my parents are still young too :>)

Austerity

Why do you care if adult men live with their parents?
It's not your problem is it?

phantom_lord

Agricola wrote: »

The vast majority of 25 - 34 yr old men living at home are more than likely pulling their weight at home and contributing to the running costs of the house. As long as they pay their way and help out with bills, whats the problem.

i just think it's likely to lead medocrity you're cushioned by living at home.

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

I haven't changed my position. If someone is still mooching off their parents in their midtwenties then they're a failure. I find it peculiar you find such a position odd.

Is moving home for financial reasons not the definition of failure? It's not something successful people do.

What I find odd is you saying everyone who lives at home is mooching off their parents, when this is quite clearly not the case.

And no, moving home for financial reasons is not the definition of failure, how can you show such a level of ignorance?!

So again, why specifically am I a failure?

RayM

phantom_lord wrote: »

You can rationalise it in a way to make you feel better but you know you don't have to purchase a house in order to move out right?

You seem to have completely misunderstood my post (given the strange, inconsistent nature of your own posts, I'd guess that any misinterpretation probably wasn't wilful). I used the 'buying overpriced houses' example to illustrate the very thin line between 'success' and 'failure' (or rather, people's perception thereof).

Don't get me wrong (well, at least try not to anyway) - if you feel that your own decision to move from your parents' house in your late teens or early twenties automatically makes you a success, then... you know, well done, etc... Just try not to take such an ignorant, black & white view of other people's lives.

phantom_lord wrote:

Is moving home for financial reasons not the definition of failure? It's not something successful people do.

I know of quite a few people who, even during the 'boom years', moved home for financial reasons. Suckered into believing that renting was 'dead money' (and that anyone who doesn't own their own home mortgage beyond the age of 30 is a failure), they moved home (rent-free) for a year, so that they could save enough money for a deposit on a shiny new semi-detached. Success or failure?

Latchy

Wagon wrote: »

I'd say the recession plays a big part in it now. I can't imagine many lads wanting to live at home past the age of 18, and most stay at home because they haven't got the means to leave. I've never lived on my own in Ireland because i could never afford it. Did live abroad though for about a year and will be leaving again soon.

Same here, apart from sharing a flat for a year . it was difficult back in the 80s for single people wanting to live alone .There was no housing allowence and single persons dole was about £35 per week , not a lot to go on when to rent your average bedsit was about £25 , £30 per week so it was a case for many to live at home with parents and not much room for way of independence ...until one secured a good job and could afford to rent or buy of course

Also, people stay at home when they're older sometimes to look after an elderly parent who would be living on their own otherwise. There's all kinds of reasons for it. Saying someone is an overgrown child for not being rich enough to leave is just being a prick.

That's my 37 year old brothers situation were he is working full time but also caring for our mother and I think has resigned himself to a life of singldom but it is his choice

sombaht

If someone is still mooching off their parents in their midtwenties then they're a failure.

Living at home (regardless of age) and contributing financially is not the same as mooching. If you are fortunate enough to have a job in the same location as your home then I honestly cannot see the logic in moving out of home and dropping €600 a month or more in rent on an apartment. Why leave the comforts of your home for something smaller, most likely less comfortable and costly. You should certainly contribute financially when living at home.
Speaking as a parent I would love the idea of my two sons still living at home when they are in their 20's, I wouldn't consider them "failures", I certainly dont believe it would impact on mine or my wifes independance (its not as if we will be spoon-feeding them everyday!).
I'll just never understand the rush to leave home and the dread it holds for some people at the thought of ever having to move back?

Cheers,
sombaht

sombaht

Is moving home for financial reasons not the definition of failure? It's not something successful people do.

At the start of the Celtic tiger I moved from Dublin back to Limerick to start a new job. I moved back in home with my parents, for the simple logic outlined above, both my parents and myself could not see rhyme nor reason in paying rent in the same city when the family home is available.
I spent 12 years in that company as a "failure" despite the fact that I received performance related bonuses, was promoted, was selected for expat assignments all whilst living at home. Not to blow my own trumpet but I dont regard that as the definition as a failure.

Cheers,
sombaht

Agricola

phantom_lord wrote: »

i just think it's likely to lead medocrity you're cushioned by living at home.

Mediocrity in what way? Career, relationships, quality of life? Thats all subjective. One persons mediocrity is another person's dream life!
You said before that a basic barometer of success was the ability to support yourself. So if a person is supporting themselves fully, while living at home, they are not a failure. So case closed imo.

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

What I find odd is you saying everyone who lives at home is mooching off their parents, when this is quite clearly not the case.

Moving home for altruistic reasons is one thing, moving home to save money is effectively mooching.

MagicMarker wrote: »

So again, why specifically am I a failure?

I don't understand why you're making this personal, I don't recall calling you personally a failure?

MagicMarker wrote: »

And no, moving home for financial reasons is not the definition of failure, how can you show such a level of ignorance?!

How is it not? I think not being able to support yourself passed a certain age is a fairly basic requirement of not being a failure.

If the reason why you're at home is because of the above then I think you have the answer to your earlier question.

RayM wrote: »

You seem to have completely misunderstood my post (given the strange, inconsistent nature of your own posts, I'd guess that any misinterpretation probably wasn't wilful). I used the 'buying overpriced houses' example to illustrate the very thin line between 'success' and 'failure' (or rather, people's perception thereof).

My posts haven't been inconsistent, I may not have been as clear or explicit in this topic, but if you look at the last thread on this subject my position has been exactly the same.

As I said earlier buying a house/moving out/etc does not equal success. But having to be supported by your parents is failure.

sombaht wrote: »

I'll just never understand the rush to leave home and the dread it holds for some people at the thought of ever having to move back?

Quality of life.

R P McMurphy

Phantom_Lord I hope if you have kids that they don't ever have to come to you for support

sombaht

I don't understand why you're making this personal, I don't recall calling you personally a failure?

You said moving home is something that successful people do not do, insinuating that anyone who does move home is a failure/unsuccessful.

As for "Quality of life" I cant think of anything I was missing out on while living at home. Be it my own room, home comforts, net connection, cable tv, privacy. In what way did the quality of your life improve once you left home? Are people here under the impression that if they move back home they are treated by their parents as teeenagers and have curfews imposed on them or similar. The longer this thread goes on the more confused I get!

Cheers,
sombaht

phantom_lord

sombaht wrote: »

You said moving home is something that successful people do not do, insinuating that anyone who does move home is a failure/unsuccessful.

As for "Quality of life" I cant think of anything I was missing out on while living at home. Be it my own room, home comforts, net connection, cable tv, privacy. In what way did the quality of your life improve once you left home? Are people here under the impression that if they move back home they are treated by their parents as teeenagers and have curfews imposed on them or similar. The longer this thread goes on the more confused I get!

Cheers,
sombaht

One of the things I'm curious about is relationships. How do you have friends/girls over? It has to be extremely awkward at best?

dark crystal

sombaht wrote: »

You said moving home is something that successful people do not do, insinuating that anyone who does move home is a failure/unsuccessful.

As for "Quality of life" I cant think of anything I was missing out on while living at home. Be it my own room, home comforts, net connection, cable tv, privacy. In what way did the quality of your life improve once you left home? Are people here under the impression that if they move back home they are treated by their parents as teeenagers and have curfews imposed on them or similar. The longer this thread goes on the more confused I get!

Cheers,
sombaht

But you can get your own room, net connection, cable TV and (to a much larger extent) privacy in your own place too. Not to mention a far more fruitful sex life

Or is paying for those things yourself what's putting you off? Do you plan on living with mum and dad forever?

I understand financial pressures can be a big factor, but I would say there are a fair few older guys living at home simply because they have it too easy and the impetus to make their own way in life away from the nest just isn't there for them.

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

Moving home for altruistic reasons is one thing, moving home to save money is effectively mooching.

I don't understand why you're making this personal, I don't recall calling you personally a failure?

How is it not? I think not being able to support yourself passed a certain age is a fairly basic requirement of not being a failure.

If the reason why you're at home is because of the above then I think you have the answer to your earlier question.

Why am I taking this personal? Are you serious?! You say that anyone living at home over 20 is a failure. That is the same as calling me personally a failure.

Once again you talk about self sufficiency, do you not realise that people who live at home can still be self sufficient? Can you really not understand that?

You haven't told me why I'm a failure. I live at home, I'm over 20 AND I support myself. So tell me why I'm a failure.

HarryPotter41

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Phantom_Lord I hope if you have kids that they don't ever have to come to you for support

I assume having children would be considered being a failure, inability to control primal urges and all that

Pepe LeFrits

I'm living at home and I consider myself a failure.

Mind you, I also considered myself a failure when I worked a life-sapping desk job and paid some ****ing asshole extortionate rent for a crummy apartment. We're not exactly Maasai tribesmen here. Bring back a dead lion and I'll be impressed. Hell, a mountain goat would do. Jerking yourself off because you've the mental capacity to make a couple of clicks on Monster and a couple more on Daft doesn't quite do it. Let's be honest, most of the smugly self-sufficient masses are failures too. Not all of them of course, but the odds of you falling into this category do rise steeply if you like to spend your time clucking about it on your Crackpot Central soapbox.