Connect with us

Personal Finance

Where young adults are most likely to live with parents

Published

on

Catherine Falls Commercial | Moment | Getty Images

In some California cities, it’s common for parents to have roommates: their adult children.

Three California metro areas host the highest shares of 25- to 34-year-olds living in a parent’s home relative to other U.S. metros, according to a new analysis by Pew Research Center, a non-partisan research organization.

In the Vallejo and Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura metros, 33% of young adults were living with their parents in 2023, Pew found. (Those metros are in the San Francisco Bay Area and outside Los Angeles, respectively.)

In El Centro, east of San Diego near the U.S.-Mexico border, 32% of young adults live at home, according to Pew.

Those shares are significantly higher than the 18% U.S. average. In some metros, the share is as low as 3%.

Young adults can save about $13,000 a year by living with their parents, according to a 2019 Federal Reserve analysis. About half of those savings — $6,400 — is from housing and utility costs, it found.

Nationally, 50% of parents with a child older than 18 provide them with some financial support, averaging $1,474 a month, according to Savings.com.

Metros with high, low shares of young adults at home

These are the 10 metro areas with the highest shares of 25- to 34-year-olds living with their parents in 2023, according to Pew:

  1. Vallejo, Calif. — 33%
  2. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, Calif. — 33%
  3. El Centro, Calif. — 32%
  4. Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas — 31%
  5. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. — 30%
  6. Merced, Calif. — 30%
  7. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas — 29%
  8. Naples-Marco Island, Florida — 29%
  9. Racine-Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin — 29%
  10. Port St. Lucie, Florida — 29%
Student loan matching funds

These are the 10 metro areas with the lowest shares of 25- to 34-year-olds living with their parents in 2023, according to Pew:

  1. Odessa, Texas — 3%
  2. Lincoln, Nebraska — 3%
  3. Ithaca, New York — 3%
  4. Bloomington, Indiana — 3%
  5. Bozeman, Montana — 4%
  6. Cheyenne, Wyoming — 4%
  7. Wausau, Wisconsin — 5%
  8. Midland, Texas — 5%
  9. Manhattan, Kansas — 6%
  10. Bismarck, North Dakota — 7%

Demographics are a driving force

Demographics — and their interplay with personal finances — appear to be the primary driver of high shares of young adults living with their parents in certain metros, said Richard Fry, a senior researcher at Pew and co-author of the analysis.

There are fewer white young adults and more Hispanic, Black and Asian young adults in the top 10 metro areas with the largest proportions of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home, Fry said. (The one exception is Racine, Wisconsin.)

More from Personal Finance:
Cash may feel safe when stocks slide, but it has risks
Is college still worth it? It is for most, but not all
National average credit score falls

“Areas where there are more minority young adults tend to have more young adults living at home,” Fry said. “That’s not always the case, but it is a pattern.”

Black and Hispanic young adults are less likely to have a college degree and tend to have lower earnings as a result, Fry said.

“Being able to live independently may be more of an issue for them,” he said.

The typical Black or Hispanic worker, age 25 to 34, earned about $46,000 a year in 2022, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The typical white young adult worker earned $58,000.

Part of the reason may also be cultural, Fry said. There are likely other factors at play like cost of living, though the correlation isn’t as strong, he said.

Many of the metros with low shares of young adults living at home are college towns, Fry said.

For example, Ithaca, New York, hosts Cornell University, and Bloomington, Indiana, has Indiana University, Fry said. Many young adults here are likely university graduates who are well-educated and opt to stay there after they graduate instead of moving home, he said.

Nationally, the share of young adults living at home climbed starting in the early 2000s, peaking at 20% in 2017, according to Pew. (It declined to about 18% in 2023.)

Unemployment spiked during the Great Recession and it took many years for the labor market to heal, Fry said. Meanwhile, young adults today are more likely than older generations to be saddled with student debt.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Personal Finance

Incoming college freshmen may owe $40K in student debt by graduation

Published

on

Valerie Plesch | The Washington Post | Getty Images

The U.S. Department of Education is taking aggressive steps to restart collections on federal student loans that are in default — just as current high school seniors are set to rack up new balances on their path to a college degree.

Currently, around 42 million Americans hold federal student loans and more than 1 million high school graduates will take out new education debt in the months ahead, according to higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

By the time they graduate college, these students could each borrow as much as $40,000, on average, in federal and private aid to earn a bachelor’s degree, according to a new NerdWallet analysis of data from the Education Department, up from $37,000 the year before.

More from Personal Finance:
Is college still worth it? It is for most, but not all
How to maximize your college financial aid offer
Top colleges roll out more generous financial aid packages

The college affordability problem

Every year, new students are pumped into the student loan system while many current borrowers struggle to exit it. Despite historic student loan forgiveness efforts under former President Joe Biden, the country’s education debt tab has mostly ticked higher.

“We haven’t been able to get our arms around the college affordability problem more broadly,” said Michele Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute for College Access & Success. “There are new enrollments every semester and the pile up continues.”

We are overly reliant on student loans to fund higher education, says NACAC CEO Angel Perez

Around 45% of 2025 high school graduates will go on to a four-year college, according to NerdWallet, and more than one-third of them will take out student loans to help cover the tab.

College tuition costs have risen significantly in recent decades, averaging a 5.6% annual increase since 1983, outpacing inflation and other household expenses, according to a separate report by J.P. Morgan Asset Management. And families now shoulder 48% of college expenses, up from 38% a decade ago.

“Most people don’t have the money to make those payments out of pocket,” Zampini said.

To bridge the gap, students and their families have been borrowing more, which has boosted total outstanding student debt to more than $1.6 trillion.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Monday, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said that some institutions make “empty promises to students while pocketing their loan dollars.”

“Colleges and universities call themselves nonprofits, but for years they have profited massively off the federal subsidy of loans, hiking tuition and piling up multibillion-dollar endowments while students graduate six figures in the red,” she wrote.

Deep cuts in state funding for higher education have also contributed to significant tuition increases and pushed more of the costs of college onto students, other reports show.

These days, tuition accounts for about half of college revenue, while state and local governments provide much of the rest, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. But roughly three decades ago, the split was much different, with tuition providing just about a quarter of revenue and state and local governments picking up the bulk of the difference.

“We’ve haven’t actually seen a good faith effort to work through that comprehensive problem,” Zampini said. “What we’ve seen instead is a bit of an attack strategy on higher education in general.”

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Consumers are making different financial choices in response to tariffs

Published

on

The Apple Fifth Avenue store in New York, U.S., on Monday, Feb. 24, 2025.

Michael Nagle | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Even as a pause on reciprocal tariffs has been put into effect, consumers are already anticipating the pressures of higher prices.

A majority of Americans — 85% — have concerns about the tariffs, according to a new NerdWallet survey of more than 2,000 individuals conducted this month.

Among top concerns of consumers is that the new policies will impact their ability to afford necessities and that the U.S. economy will fall into a recession.

Meanwhile, cracks in consumer confidence are showing elsewhere.

The University of Michigan’s consumer survey shows sentiment has dropped by more than 30% since December among persistent worries of a trade war. The latest reading for April fell 11% from the previous month, which was worse than expected.

The worries are not unfounded, experts say. Tariffs could cost the average household $3,800 per year, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimates.

More from Personal Finance:
Nearing retirement? These strategies can protect from tariff volatility
Experts see higher stagflation risks. Here’s what it means for your money
Should investors dump U.S. stocks for international equities? What experts think

“Most Americans are worried about tariffs, and it’s actually impacting their spending plans,” said Kimberly Palmer, personal finance expert at NerdWallet.

In the next 12 months, a significant portion of individuals surveyed by NerdWallet plan to make changes to their spending habits, with a notable shift towards saving more.

Specifically, 45% plan to spend less on non-necessities, 33% intend to spend less on necessities, and 30% plan to save more money in an emergency fund. However, a smaller percentage, 14%, anticipate paying less on their debts.

The tariffs come as consumers were already struggling to pay for groceries and other essentials amid higher prices, according to Palmer.

“These tariffs are adding to that financial stress and basically forcing people to make some difficult decisions,” Palmer said. That includes scaling back on travel and planned big-ticket purchases like a car.

Emergency savings is ‘most important’ priority: expert

New economic pressures may prompt income to be eaten up by rising prices and competing interests, according to Stephen Kates, a certified financial planner and financial analyst at Bankrate.

Consumers may have to make tough choices between saving, investing and paying down debts.

“If you have nothing [saved], start with the emergency fund,” Kates said.

Individuals should strive to have at least one month of essential expenses set aside at the very minimum, Kates said. Ideally, that would be more like three to six months’ living expenses, he said.

James Gorman: Trade policy has definitely been a shock and will affect how the Fed behaves

That way, if a job or other income loss happens, consumers can protect themselves from going into debt, Kates said.

For individuals who already have racked up debt balances, prioritizing emergency savings still makes the most sense, Kates said. And if you’re choosing between emergency savings or saving for retirement, emergency savings should still be the highest priority, he said.

To be sure, that doesn’t necessarily mean individuals should ignore their other goals.

Kates discussed using what is called the “debt avalanche” strategy.

The focus is on paying down the debt with the highest interest rate first — while paying minimums on the others — then move on to the account with the next highest rate, and so on. That can provide an immediate return and help free up money in household budgets, Kates said.

When it comes to retirement savings, it’s important to make sure individuals are contributing enough to take advantage of a match, if their employer offers one, he said.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Trump said tariff revenue could replace the income tax. What experts say

Published

on

In this aerial view a forklift drives among stacked shipping containers in Hamburg Port on April 15, 2025 in Hamburg, Germany.

Sean Gallup | Getty Images

Tariff tax base is ‘a lot smaller’ than income tax

Some policy experts have questioned how much revenue the duties could bring in, compared to the federal income tax. 

“The tariff tax base is a lot smaller than the income tax base,” Kimberly Clausing, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told CNBC.

In 2023, the U.S. imported $3.1 trillion of goods. By comparison, the government levied tax on more than $20 trillion in incomes, according to a report she co-authored last summer.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro in late March estimated tariffs could raise roughly $600 billion a year.

But that figure “is not even in the realm of possibility,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s, told CNBC earlier this month. “If you get to $100 billion to $200 billion, you’ll be pretty lucky.”

To compare, the IRS has collected $1.14 trillion in individual income taxes for fiscal year 2025 through March 31, according to Treasury data.

“Tariff rates would have to be implausibly high on such a small base of imports to replace the income tax,” Clausing co-wrote in the Peterson Institute for International Economics report.

Plus, at higher tariff rates, people will buy fewer imported goods, which reduces revenue, Clausing told CNBC: “That’s part of the point of the policy.”

The Trump administration did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

Consumer behavior influences tariff income

As tariff rates increase, other factors can decrease how much revenue the U.S. ultimately collects, experts say.

“The administration seems to think that every time it raises the tariff rate that it can collect more revenue,” Tax Foundation’s Durante said. “And that’s not always the case.”

Direct tariff revenue is lowered by behavioral and other economic factors, Durante detailed in a report earlier this month.

Seeking safety amid market volatility: Strategies to keep your money safe

The Tax Foundation estimates that a 10% universal tariff would raise $2.2 trillion through 2034. However, the same tariff would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by 0.4%, which impacts revenue.

The International Monetary Fund on Tuesday reduced 2025 U.S. growth projections to 1.8% from 2.7% based on trade tensions.

Continue Reading

Trending