Interesting perspective, considering many of them today still live like children (living with one's parents is the polar opposite of living like an adult). As such, the age of majority in developed countries today is (functionally) nearly 25; I expect the law to catch up within a generation.
Of course, this is all due to economic circumstances- this isn't 1970, so you can't just walk into a factory and get a job like you could then.
And _that's_ the real reason for this conversation- the economy has contracted so much in its demand for manpower that being on social media doing something stupid is now a big deal (and even worse, that it's able to discriminate enough that university attendance is now mandatory to get jobs that should only require a high school education).
Maybe because I am from different culture, I don't see a big deal about that living arrangement. If it is cheaper and you don't have much money, it is more mature financially reasonable arrangement then paying more just to prove yourself adulthood. And if you live away from parents, bit they helped you with paying or getting college debt, then you are less independent then you think.
On the other extreme,I have read older geberation brags about how their adult children could not wait to leave and are independent enough to never call. I don't see that as achievement. If you was such a dick to your offspring that they disliked you so much, then you are just that.
In any case, cops nor judges treat these people as children. Nor should they, adulthood means we consider you old enough to co trolling your actions and be responsible for then. Living arrangement has little to do with it.
People are too eager to use their own consumer choices as adulthood marks. Adulthood is about making choices now, not back then. And is independent of whether you use public transport or car.
>Maybe because I am from different culture... it is more mature financially reasonable arrangement then paying more just to prove yourself adulthood
I don't believe your claim that your culture doesn't seem to understand the value of having a space in which you are not to be interfered.
Not having one stunts the development of your culture in ways I am sure you are already well acquainted.
Just extend that concept to the individual a little further- your social growth is absolutely stunted when you have to worry about destabilizing yourself. As an example, you can't come out as gay if you have to (pretend to) be straight to keep a roof over your head, or invest in a new idea if you only get paid enough to cover needs and not wants.
And that success and failure are meaningful is what separates children from adults. If success is no longer possible because people can no longer get that experience and grow from it, that's a bad thing, especially in a society where only the already-well-off get to do it. Social progress slows down when humans can't fully mature, and drags innovation down with it.
> I don't believe your claim that your culture doesn't seem to understand the value of having a space in which you are not to be interfered.
It is pleasant to have it. The question is, how much money you pay for that and how much you can afford. It is also necessary for old people to have help. Also, if you live with friends, especially if you don't have own room, you have no place where you are not to be interfered. If you have spouse and small kids, such place don't exists either.
Having a place where you are not to be interfered is exceptional state for most people in most history.
> or invest in a new idea if you only get paid enough to cover needs and not wants.
What does that have to do with living arrangements? Nothing. But also, this would imply that majority of people in the past were not adults either. It shapes your actions and options, but they were no less adults. We are a bit less adults compared to them, because we play more. (We also drink less and are less violent which is very likely related.)
> And that success and failure are meaningful is what separates children from adults.
There is very little success of failure in local factory job in stable economy you mentioned in above comment. Nor much personal development. You are changing standards here. And for adult 1960-1970 middle class women, there was not much personal success or failure at all - her success or failure being defined too much what other people do. Still considered adult (edit: on second thought, some feminists argued that arrangement prevents women to grow and become real adults. So there were people who agreed with you.).
> If success is no longer possible because people can no longer get that experience and grow from it, that's a bad thing, especially in a society where only the already-well-off get to do it. Social progress slows down when humans can't fully mature, and drags innovation down with it.
But of course, success is possible whether you live with parents and save money that way or not. Or whether you live alone or with friends. So is failure.
How would you live with friends and not have your own space? Bunk up in the same room?That's just not done in the Western countries. In the past decades a usual shared house would be a private room, often with a lock, in a house with a shared kitchen, lounge and bathroom(s).
I also think you don't realise how a factory job did used to be a decent wage earner and you could have a whole other life on top of it. As far as I understand it, socialist worker parties, unions, etc. were all producing intellectuals, politicians, etc. from the late 1800s until the crackdowns in the 1980s.
In the UK we are seeing calls to loosen laws around unions as the pendulum swung too far towards the owners of capital, I've recently read Peston's WTF[1] that was arguing it, Jeremy Corbyn is saying it, the idea is entering the main stream again.
[1] Pretty good read on why Brexit happened, I don't agree with everything he says but worth a read if you want some insight into it
I know people who live like that in San Francisco - programmers. So yeah, it is done. Moreover, if you live with parents you typically have own room too.
I read up quite a lot on German society prior/between wars and nope. Huge amount of very poor people. UK a bit less so, but undreclass definitelt existing. Where lack of privacy was least of their problems. Not sure if Poland count as west, but they had poverty too. So did Italian which counts definitely. Don't have such detailed books for America, but unions sis not happened to be real because of massive prosperity for everyone.
Also, America had huge black population at the time that was very poor and unable to get good living even if they had jobs - and class of poor whites júst a bit better off then them.
But yes, there was period of better prosperity in after WWII. That is when factory work was good. It still is better job then situation of poor prior and between those wars.
"Adult" doesn't mean anything when you use it that way. Many people reach adulthood without having the experiences necessary to conform to your expectations. What of them?
> Many people reach adulthood without having the experiences necessary to conform to your expectations.
First, they are adults without experience. Second, I don't think I have all that much higher expectations in whatever requires experience. Quite possibly I would excuse more immaturity in them then parent. However, I strongly believe that we are not doing them good service when we talk about them as if they would be in elementary school. When kindergarten kid destroys something, it is on adults. That is not how I evaluate 19 years old.
To keep with comparison, their peers who did not had good enough SAT score have no more experiences. And if they have, they are exactly experiences of a bad kind. More importantly, it is not just about experience. It is about your brain being less impulsive then as if you was 12 and about your ability to learn from new experiences and ability to think about morality at least little bit. On average, college students are the ones that should be expected to be more mature. College student is more likely to possess enough impulse control to not randomly spray McDonald and then be shocked it can get him arrested. When high school drop out does the same, his action is not excused as just dumb mistake - despite having higher chance to not possess that impulse control yet.
This double think, how 19 years old elite college student is talked about as a child while 19 years old drop out is treated with full gravity of action makes no sense to me.
It does not matter what kind of dumb mistake we talk. Dumb mistakes are not made equal. And then there are "dumb mistakes" that are neither dumb nor mistakes. They are simply immoral, unethical or asshole actions that the person knows as such, but has expectation of getting away with. I think that past actions of doing something morally wrong should be excused. However, I don't think they should be redefined down into "dumb mistakes" merely because perpetrator is sympathetic.
