Boomerang generation, don't move back home — it's bothering your parents

This article was originally published April 6, 2018.

It's often resented and mocked, but it's an unavoidable trend; more and more millennials are still living with their parents. In 2014, a U.S. study found that almost a third of individuals between 18 and 34 are still at home, and that statistic shows no signs of slowing down. Even those who have managed to break free for a while often return home, so much so that they're being dubbed the "boomerang generation". While these returns can be a humbling and frustrating experience for the children, how do the parents feel? You'd think that having your child back in your home would be an excellent remedy to empty nest syndrome, but that may not be the case. According to a new study, coming back home to live with your parents may actually be wearing them down.

The study, from the London School Of Economics, aimed to measure the quality of life amongst parents who had returning children. To do this, they collected data from 17 European nations on parents between the ages of 50 and 75 (75 being the maximum age selected to rule out skewing factors of other elderly issues). The longitudinal data was collected in waves (in 2007, 2011, 2013 and 2015) where parents completed a standardized test on quality of life. The test compiled an overall quality of life rating based on four key characteristics: control, autonomy, pleasure and self-realization (cumulatively scored on a scale from 12 to 48, with the higher number indicating a greater quality of life).

The totalled results showed that parents who had a boomerang child had a noticeably decreased quality of life after their child's return. On average, parents of boomerang children saw a .8 decrease in their quality of life score compared to non-boomerang parents — a drop that is equal to dealing with experiencing elderly disabilities. The study went beyond this to also examine the reason for each child's boomerang, since they can often be for independently distressing reasons (such as unemployment or divorce). But even controlling for those factors, researchers still saw a significant drop. However, these findings only existed among parents who had no children living at home before their child returned. Among boomerang parents who consistently had one of their children at home, a boomerang child caused no significant drop in life quality.

The idiosyncrasies of these results suggest many factors are at play. Firstly, although the trend was seen across all nations, researchers believe the regions that traditionally place higher value on fostering independence showed the largest decrease in life quality. Secondly, the differences between parents that had no child at home versus parents that always had a child at home suggests that with an empty nest comes a new found freedom for parents (financially, time-wise, etc.) and that this secondary stage of independence is very much enjoyed. So when it is fully expressed and then violated by the boomerang child, the largest drop occurs.

While this study covered quite an expanse of Europe, other research suggests this trend could be alive and well in Canada, too. The expensive housing market in some locations makes it almost impossible for some young adults to find stable living on their own, regardless of their employment status. A recent census found that the national average of young adults still living with their parents is about 35%, though in the notorious GTA, that statistic is nearly 50%. Furthermore, a 2017 survey of such individuals found that almost 80% do so simply because it's too expensive to live otherwise (especially with substantial transit costs and student loans still as factors). Ironically, 70% of the young adults surveyed reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their parental living situation. And it's not just the children who are feeling these financial strains; a Canadian study published earlier this year found that parents are sharing their children's financial burdens — at the expense of their own retirement savings — so it's a fairly logical assumption that these trends could be lowering the life quality of Canadian parents as well.

Since none of these trends seem to be slowing down, might we see parents suffering from "full nest syndrome"?