Map Shows Cities With Highest Number of Adults Living With Their Parents
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A new analysis from LendingTree found that the share of young adults living with their parents in the United States varied drastically across metropolitan areas.
An average of 11.8 percent of working adults across the 50 largest metros lived with their parents. Riverside, California, had the highest percentage, with more than one in five (21.9 percent) working adults ages 25 to 40 living with their parents. Los Angeles (20.0 percent) and Miami (17.8 percent) were ranked second and third.
The findings were based on data from the American Community Survey (ACS), examining living arrangements across metropolitan areas from 2018 to 2023.
Why It Matters
The latest data highlighted persistent regional differences in how young American adults navigate financial independence and living arrangements.
The prevalence of young adults living at home can indicate underlying economic factors, cultural norms and disparities across states and communities, affecting millions of households and local economies. The trend also influences national debates over housing affordability, job opportunities and changing patterns in adulthood.
What To Know
Many California cities made the top 10 for highest percentage of working adults still living with their parents.
The top five cities saw between 15 percent and 22 percent of working adults still living at home and included (in addition to Riverside, California) Los Angeles, Miami, New York City and Fresno, California. Next were Detroit, Memphis, Las Vegas, Providence and Philadelphia.
Austin, Texas (5.8 percent), Raleigh, North Carolina (6.7 percent) and Denver (7.0 percent) had the lowest rates.
Altogether, the number of working adults living with their parents fell 8.3 percent across the 50 metros from 2018 to 2023. Only 13 metros saw an increase, led by Las Vegas at 22.1 percent.
Salary and cost of living may factor into why some working adults continue to stay with their parents, as the report found those living at home make 43.5 percent less on average than their independent peers.
"Wages don't keep up with the cost of living," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "In theory, economics would suggest that employers need to pay more to offset rising housing costs. But that's just not happening. Wages are sticky, they don't move as fast as housing prices. And when prices eventually drop, no one is lining up to take a pay cut."
Working adults who live with their parents make an average of $39,622 yearly compared to $70,137 for working adults who do not live with family.
Moving truck in New York City. A new analysis from LendingTree found that the share of young adults living with their parents in the United States varied drastically across metropolitan areas, with New York in...
Moving truck in New York City. A new analysis from LendingTree found that the share of young adults living with their parents in the United States varied drastically across metropolitan areas, with New York in the top five. More
What People Are Saying
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Cities with a higher cost of living, especially in major metro areas, are seeing this trend because rent and homeownership have become unsustainable. In many of these places, people are spending over 40 percent of their income just on rent. That's not viable for most individuals, especially if they're living alone."
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "The common trait of cities where working adults living with their parents is common—like Los Angeles and Miami—and where rates of this demographic are rising—like Atlanta and Las Vegas—is the cost of living is either already high or has been rising dramatically. The price of housing, in particular, is much higher in these cities, and with both home ownership and rent prices still hovering at or near all-time highs, financially it makes more sense for these adults to live with family than to move out on their own."
What Happens Next
While getting your first place has historically been seen as a rite of passage as you gain financial independence, the younger generations are likely to stay at home if they feel the benefits outweigh the cons in today's economy.
"While obviously most working adults would rather live on their own, this move could be the most fiscally responsible one," Beene said. "Being able to keep your head above financial water while also saving some of your income is the right move to make if you have the option, even if you'd prefer to be on your own."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
29 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Billionaire GOP megadonor Ken Griffin is confused: Why is the US trying to bring back 'jobs that'll never pay much'?
Ken Griffin had no good answer. The billionaire founder of the $66 billion hedge fund Citadel and its sister company, market maker Citadel Securities, Griffin is a megadonor to the Republican Party and was excited for the American economy after President Donald Trump's election. Less than half a year since Trump's inauguration, Griffin said he was asked during a recent visit to China, "Why are you trying to be like China?" He said there isn't a logical reason the US would want to bring manufacturing "jobs that'll never pay much" to the country, but that seems to be the goal of the tariff policies pursued by Trump's administration. "It's one thing to make Nikes, it's another thing to make F-35 fighters," he said Thursday morning at the Forbes Iconoclast conference in Manhattan. Griffin has been critical of the administration's tariff policies in recent months, calling them a mistake that will hurt the economy and consumers. He said Thursday that they were an "anti-growth agenda," and the expected growth of the US economy has been cut in half since Trump took office. He continued his criticism of Trump, whom he voted for, focusing on the current tax bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate. Griffin said it will add "several trillions" of dollars to the deficit and lacks "tough decisions." "The United States' fiscal house is not in order," Griffin said, questioning the decision to cut taxes on small and medium-sized businesses when the deficit was rising. He said credit markets have noted the uncertainty plaguing the US thanks to the administration's policies, noting that "the risk of a US default is priced the same as Italy or Greece." "There's just no words for it," he said. If there was any optimism in his talk, it was about the resilience of American CEOs. He said hiring and capital expenditures will slow as long as there is uncertainty from Washington. Still, he was impressed with how individuals like Doug McMillon, the CEO of Walmart, explained the impact tariffs would have on the consumer. "We should not criticize CEOs for being honest," he said, adding, "shame on the administration" for scolding McMillon and other CEOs for talking about the tariffs' impact. There's still time for Trump and his team to return to pro-growth economic policies, he said, and there's no time to wait. "The United States desperately needs growth" to pay for entitlements like Social Security, he said.
New York Times
35 minutes ago
- New York Times
Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Suit Against U.S. Gunmakers
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Mexican government cannot sue U.S. gun manufacturers to hold them responsible for violence committed by drug cartels. In a unanimous decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the court held that a lawsuit by the Mexican government was barred by U.S. legislation that insulates gun makers from liability. Mexico, she wrote, had not plausibly argued that American gun manufacturers had aided and abetted in unlawful gun sales to Mexican drug traffickers. Mexico had argued that the gun industry's production and sale of arms in the United States had helped fuel and supply drug cartels, harming the Mexican government. Mexican government lawyers also claimed the companies were aware that some of their guns were illegally trafficked, and that the country should therefore be allowed to sue. During an oral argument in early March, a majority of the justices appeared skeptical that Mexico could prove a direct link between gunmakers and cartel violence. Several justices appeared persuaded that a 2005 law shielding gun makers and distributors from most domestic lawsuits over injuries caused by firearms could also apply to the case brought by the Mexican government. The case began in 2021, when Mexico filed a lawsuit against a number of American gun makers and one distributor, arguing that they shared blame for drug cartel violence. The country asked them for $10 billion in damages. In the lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts, the Mexican government alleged that the gun industry's actions had burdened the nation's police, military and judicial system. Mexico also argued that the U.S. gun industry had been negligent in marketing, distributing and selling high-capacity guns. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CBS News
41 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court blocks Mexico's lawsuit against major U.S. gunmakers in win for firearms industry
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Mexican government's lawsuit against major U.S. gun manufacturers, delivering a win for the firearms industry in a test of a federal law that shields them from civil suits. The high court unanimously rejected Mexico's arguments that its effort to hold firearms makers accountable for the violence wreaked by drug cartels armed with their products should proceed because it satisfied an exception to the liability shield provided through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA. In the case known as Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico had argued that gun manufacturers are knowingly aiding and abetting the unlawful sale of their firearms to straw purchasers, who are trafficking them across the southern border to give to drug cartels. But the justices said that because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the gunmakers aided and abetted dealers' unlawful sale of weapons to Mexican traffickers, it was barred by PLCAA. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for the court. Between 200,000 to 500,000 American-made firearms are trafficked into Mexico each year, a pipeline that's become known as the "iron river." Nearly half of all guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes are manufactured in the U.S., according to data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. As part of its efforts to stem the flow of guns illegally trafficked across the U.S.-Mexico border to arm drug cartels, the Mexican government sued seven of the biggest gunmakers in the U.S. and one wholesaler in 2021. It is seeking $10 billion in damages from the industry, as well as other forms of relief. Mexico has argued that its suit fell under one of PLCAA's exceptions, known as the predicate exception, because the gun manufacturers allegedly knew they were breaking the law by selling to known straw purchasers, and that violation led directly to Mexico's injuries: the millions of dollars in damage to its military and property caused by cartel violence. The law was passed with bipartisan support from Congress in 2005 and broadly provides a legal shield for gun companies from civil suits that seek to hold them liable for harms stemming from the criminal misuse of their products by another person. A federal district court in Massachusetts dismissed Mexico's suit in 2022 after finding that PLCAA "unequivocally" bars lawsuits seeking to hold firearms manufacturers liable for the actions of people using their products. The court also ruled that PLCAA's narrow exceptions did not apply to the case. But in early 2024, a panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit revived Mexico's lawsuit, concluding it fell under one of PLCAA's exceptions, known as the predicate exception. That allows suits against gunmakers to be sued if they knowingly broke the law, and if that legal violation led directly to Mexico's injuries. The appeals court found that the gun industry was "aiding and abetting" the unlawful sale of firearms to traffickers for cartels in Mexico, and that the trafficking of those guns has foreseeably forced the Mexican government to incur significant costs because of cartel violence. The case arrived at the Supreme Court while it was in its early stages. As the gunmakers' appeal was pending, the district court dismissed six of the eight manufacturers from the case. The remaining companies are Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, a wholesaler.
