33% of Irish men aged 34 live at home

MagicMarker

CiaranC wrote: »

I can see why you still live with your ma.

People CHOOSE to houseshare cos they like it, to save money, cos they dont want to live alone, cos the want to live with their mates, for security, to party, because there are accommodation shortages near various colleges etc.

You live with your ma cos you cant afford to live anywhere else.

You are not self-sufficient.

See the difference?

I think you'll find that the vast majority of people choose to house share because they can't afford to rent on their own.

I'm sorry, but you'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

So can you tell me how I'm not self sufficient? Other than ''because you live with your ma''.

Merch

phantom_lord wrote: »

Well since I'm talking about people in their twenties...?

I thought it was thirties you were covering

HarryPotter41

phantom_lord wrote: »

I think it's quite incredible that i'm being villainized for saying that it's wrong to be mooching off your parents.

I think you will find you're being villianized for being boorish, condescending, insulting and pompous, not for saying its wrong to mooch off your parents.

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm asking you how I'm not being self sufficient? You're just ignoring the question because you can't answer it.

Um, I already have answered it.

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

Um, I already have answered it.

sigh...

Okay, let me rephrase the question. Is someone who lives with a friend and splits all costs 50/50, self sufficient?

RayM

phantom_lord wrote: »

I think it's quite incredible that i'm being villainized for saying that it's wrong to be mooching off your parents.

My view is that you're trolling (for reasons expressed in my previous post). Feel free to prove me wrong by showing exactly how a person who lives with their parents in a mutually beneficial arrangement (i.e. somebody who isn't 'mooching') is stealing or taking something from them at their expense. By being so shifty and evasive and ignoring any scrutiny of your highly questionable opinions, you aren't doing yourself any favours...

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

sigh...

Okay, let me rephrase the question. Is someone who lives with a friend and splits all costs 50/50, self sufficient?

If someone can afford to live financially independently then yes.

RayM wrote: »

My view is that you're trolling (for reasons expressed in my previous post). Feel free to prove me wrong by showing exactly how a person who lives with their parents in a mutually beneficial arrangement (i.e. somebody who isn't 'mooching') is stealing or taking something from them at their expense. By being so shifty and evasive and ignoring any scrutiny of your highly questionable opinions, you aren't doing yourself any favours...

If you're living with your parents because it's cheaper than moving out then I still consider that mooching.

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

If someone can afford to live financially independently then yes.

So we agree that someone living with a friend and splitting costs 50/50 is self sufficient.

But if you take away the word friend, and replace it with mother, then you're not self sufficient.

Logic fail.

Agricola

phantom_lord wrote: »

If you're living with your parents because it's cheaper than moving out then I still consider that mooching.

If people living at home is a mutually beneficial arrangement for all involved, then its not mooching! What your saying has no logic. Please just say that you dont like the idea of adults living with their parents! We can all just go home, (to our mammies) then!

HarryPotter41

Agricola wrote: »

If people living at home is a mutually beneficial arrangement for all involved, then its not mooching! What your saying has no logic. Please just say that you dont like the idea of adults living with their parents! We can all just go home, (to our mammies) then!

To a great big dinner I hope agricola:D

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

So we agree that someone living with a friend and splitting costs 50/50 is self sufficient.

But if you take away the word friend, and replace it with mother, then you're not self sufficient.

Logic fail.

Um, you said you couldn't afford to move out? the safe assumption there is obviously it's costing you less to live with your mother than it would be to share with a friend. Otherwise you would be able to afford to move out no?

is the % of men with their parents higher than women simply because men got hammered more than women when the construction industry collapsed?

When I was in college the number of people who had moved out of home but were bankrolled by their parents was massive. The people who stayed at home because their parents couldnt afford to pay their rent are no different really. In fairness todays student would have a hard time getting a part time job in fairness. Gold dust. And a huge amount of people have gone back to college - I bet the number of men gone back is higher than women as the male unemployment rate is higher.

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

Um, you said you couldn't afford to move out? the safe assumption there is obviously it's costing you less to live with your mother than it would be to share with a friend. Otherwise you would be able to afford to move out no?

Um, I can't. But we still split costs 50/50.

So am I still not self sufficient, even though I'm in the exact same situation that you yourself said is self sufficient?

phantom_lord

Wait just so we're clear.

So we agree that someone living with a friend and splitting costs 50/50 is self sufficient.

When I said yes to this I assumed rent was included in the costs that were split.

Are you asking me if someone lives rent free with a friend but splits everything else are they self sufficient?

RayM

phantom_lord wrote: »

If you're living with your parents because it's cheaper than moving out then I still consider that mooching.

Oh, Jesus wept...

But anyway, slippery evasiveness and illogical misuse of words aside, I've just had a quick look on daft.ie, and I've found hundreds of rooms available for considerably less than I pay each month. Most of them have wireless broadband, so I could cancel my UPC account, thus saving myself a further €42 a month. If I was to move out (into a house possibly owned by somebody else's parents), I would save at least €150 per month altogether. It would be a bit of a pisser for my mother, having an empty spare room, but she could always rent it out (to somebody else's son, perhaps) and recoup some of the money that I pay her. Would this be an acceptable 'mooch-less' situation?

Or is your real gripe not the whole 'mooching' issue, but the judgemental 'embarrassment' factor to which you initially referred?

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

Wait just so we're clear.



When I said yes to this I assumed rent was included in the costs that were split.

Are you asking me if someone lives rent free with a friend but splits everything else are they self sufficient?

No, rent is included.

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, rent is included.

Huh? So now you're saying you can afford to move out?

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

Huh? So now you're saying you can afford to move out?

When did I say that? I've said all along that I pay rent.

phantom_lord

phantom_lord wrote: »

Why are you living at home if you're self sufficient?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Because I can't afford to move out

either you're able to move out or you're not self sufficient.

mikom

Hey dad, there's a strange fella sittin' on the sofa munchy-wunching lomticks of toast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCbqtY25AU4

CiaranC

MagicMarker wrote: »

When did I say that? I've said all along that I pay rent.

Then why not move out? You can obviously afford it.

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

So we agree that someone living with a friend and splitting costs 50/50 is self sufficient.

But if you take away the word friend, and replace it with mother, then you're not self sufficient.

Logic fail.

MagicMarker wrote: »

When did I say that? I've said all along that I pay rent.

We're both agreed that if someone shares full costs with someone then they're self sufficient.

You say you live at home because you can't afford to move out.

Therefore I'm going to assume you can't afford to share with a friend.

Therefore I assume you're not self sufficient.

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

either you're able to move out or you're not self sufficient.

Erm, I said we split all costs, I never said what those costs amount to. If I were to move out my costs would go up from what they currently are, ergo, I can't afford to move out.

Well, I suppose I could afford to live in a 3 bed house with 7 other people in a really ****ty estate, sharing a room with 2 other people of course. But why exactly would I do that? To appease people like you?

CiaranC

MagicMarker wrote: »

Erm, I said we split all costs, I never said what those costs amount to. If I were to move out my costs would go up from what they currently are, ergo, I can't afford to move out.

So your mother is subsidising you and protecting you from having to pay market rates for accommodation.

LOL

MagicMarker

CiaranC wrote: »

So your mother is subsidising you and protecting you from having to pay market rates for accommodation.

LOL

Wow, reading words that are not there. Well done you. You clearly don't understand what 50/50 means.

CiaranC

MagicMarker wrote: »

Wow, reading words that are not there. Well done you. You clearly don't understand what 50/50 means.

You say by living at home you are paying less than market rates for accommodation. Its hardly a stretch to imagine why this might be.

MagicMarker

CiaranC wrote: »

You say by living at home you are paying less than market rates for accommodation. Its hardly a stretch to imagine why this might be.

Why is that?

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

Wow, reading words that are not there. Well done you. You clearly don't understand what 50/50 means.

lol

You're living at home because it's lower rent because it's with your mother. And you're trying to make out you're self sufficient?

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

lol

You're living at home because it's rent free. And you're trying to make out you're self sufficient?

Err, it's not rent free. I've already said this. I've been paying rent since I was 16 ffs, not all of us had mammy and daddy pay our rent for us.

edit: I see you edited your post :rolleyes:

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

So we agree that someone living with a friend and splitting costs 50/50 is self sufficient.

But if you take away the word friend, and replace it with mother, then you're not self sufficient.

Logic fail.

Replace it with mother and subsided rent. now can you understand why you're not self sufficient?

CiaranC

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why is that?

You tell us. Why is your rent subsidised? Why dont you have to pay market rates?

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

edit: I see you edited your post :rolleyes:

point still stands.

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

Replace it with mother and subsided rent. now can you understand why you're not self sufficient?

It's ironic that you accused someone of using a straw-man argument earlier in the thread and now you're resorting to it yourself.

MagicMarker

CiaranC wrote: »

You tell us. Why is your rent subsidised? Why dont you have to pay market rates?

As much as you'd love me to, I'm not going into detail on my personal finances.

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's ironic that you accused someone of using a straw-man argument earlier in the thread and now you're resorting to it yourself.

lol. I said all along that you weren't self sufficient because you can't afford to move out. and now you admit that you have to have your rent effectively subsided by your mother. plz point out how that's a straw man exactly?

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

lol. I said all along that you weren't self sufficient because you can't afford to move out. and now you admit that you have to have your rent effectively subsided by your mother. plz point out how that's a straw man exactly?

How is it subsidized by my mother if we pay equal amounts?

CiaranC

MagicMarker wrote: »

As much as you'd love me to, I'm not going into detail on my personal finances.

Not interested in your personal finances. Im simply wondering how you magically manage to pay considerably under the current market rates for accommodation while also claiming to be self-sufficient

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

How is it subsidized by my mother if we pay equal amounts?

I have no interest in your arrangements. but the fact that you can only afford to live with your mother would imply you're not self sufficient.

Merch

phantom_lord wrote: »

lol. I said all along that you weren't self sufficient because you can't afford to move out. and now you admit that you have to have your rent effectively subsided by your mother. plz point out how that's a straw man exactly?

I think you have painted yourself into a corner and cant get out really, because the only other option would be ignorance, it's blatant ignorance to not be able to see that people live differantly and reasonable people accept that that is ok

how does it so badly affect you that you are vehemently opposed to someone living at home if they need to or if it suits them?
Do you have a few places to let or something?

TheOwl

MagicMarker wrote: »

Err, it's not rent free. I've already said this. I've been paying rent since I was 16 ffs, not all of us had mammy and daddy pay our rent for us.

edit: I see you edited your post :rolleyes:

But your mommy is paying rent for you!

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

I have no interest in your arrangements. but the fact that you can only afford to live with your mother would imply you're not self sufficient.

lol... and if my mother moved out and my brother moved in? Or anyone else bar my father moved in?

MagicMarker

TheOwl wrote: »

But your mommy is paying rent for you!

Hi there, read the thread please.

CiaranC

MagicMarker wrote: »

lol... and if my mother moved out and my brother moved in? Or anyone else bar my father moved in?

Why would that happen? Its your mothers house is it not?

Or have I got it completely wrong and you are actually house-sharing with your mother in a house that has neither of your names on the deeds?

Rebelheart

phantom_lord wrote: »

If someone can afford to live financially independently then yes.
If you're living with your parents because it's cheaper than moving out then I still consider that mooching.

All your published thinking in this thread is based upon a faulty analysis of how human society works. If you live in a flat/house on your own and pay your own rent/mortgage, you are still "mooching" off the rest of society because you are not paying the entire cost of providing electricity/water/roads/gas/etc to your home; you are "mooching" off many other people upon whom you depend to share the cost of those services. Likewise, all those people who would like to contend that they pay for their own health costs: they don't. If they really did they would entirely finance their own heart/lung/whatever surgeon and their own nurses, medical equipment and of course ambulance when they fall injured. They don't. Rather they, to use your verb, "mooch" off a large number of other people upon whom they depend to share the cost of those services. How very socialist of our supposed capitalists.

"Financial independence" is a myth, as is "self sufficiency". To think otherwise is to embrace some sort of Celtic Tiger Progressive Democrat-type myth of capitalist invincibility that is still hanging on in Ireland in 2010. Don't delude yourself any further on this point. No person on earth - not even the Sultan of Brunei who owns his own hospitals, roads etc - is an island.

Merch

CiaranC wrote: »

Why would that happen? Its your mothers house is it not?

Or have I got it completely wrong and you are actually house-sharing with your mother in a house that has neither of your names on the deeds?

Its a possibility but thats not relevant, that poster said what if such a thing happened? but no one answered

MagicMarker

CiaranC wrote: »

Why would that happen? Its your mothers house is it not?

Or have I got it completely wrong and you are actually house-sharing with your mother in a house that has neither of your names on the deeds?

Who knows? Maybe we're both renting from a rich family member who is currently doing research in the amazon? It's no business of yours either way.

CiaranC

Merch wrote: »

Its a possibility but thats not relevant, that poster said what if such a thing happened? but no one answered

Course its relevant. In all likelihood most of the mortgage would be paid off if the house was owner occupied, hence the cheap rent, hence the subsidised living.

MagicMarker

Merch wrote: »

Its a possibility but thats not relevant, that poster said what if such a thing happened? but no one answered

I don't expect to see an answer any time soon tbh.

TheOwl

CiaranC wrote: »

Course its relevant. In all likelihood most of the mortgage would be paid off if the house was owner occupied, hence the cheap rent, hence the subsidised living.

bingo.

Merch

CiaranC wrote: »

Course its relevant. In all likelihood most of the mortgage would be paid off if the house was owner occupied, hence the cheap rent, hence the subsidised living.

Whats how much the rent or mortgage is to do with anyone really anyway?
A landlords mortgage could be all paid off, are you a better person because you pay more, thats ridiculous