> 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.
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.