[2Gkashmiri]

In India- or that subcontinent, people were majority in the very poor category. Only recently middle class grew, 20-40 years. What people did was buy homes and invest live savings to have a "permanant shelter over heads" for themselves and their families.

This is true for a lot of people so children when the start earning, "there is no rent to pay" which is a big savings considering.

On the other hand, you have "american dream" of kicking your kids out at 18 so the roof over heads analogy falls out the window.

I get it. Its fun, its freedom but at what cost? Apparently running your ass off to stay afloat.

Then there is this argument about "no opportunities in home town" but does this apply to 100% of 18 year olds in USA that they have to necessarily move out?

[dougmwne]

This is an over generalization of American culture. Yes, in my experience, when parents live in a high cost of living city with plentiful opportunities, the children tend to live at home longer. This seems quite common in California and New York. In areas with less opportunity, children are forced to move out or never have much of a career.

This was the case for me. I had no choice but to leave home at 18 or I would have been working in food service or lawn care for the rest of my life.

[cykros]

Everywhere? No. But it is commonly the case that the jobs are in one place, and the "good towns to raise a kid in" (schools, parks, low crime, or even just affordable housing suitable to raise a child in) are in others. Sure, perhaps when you've made your way up in your career field, you can go into a smaller/private practice of some sort (thinking law, finance, medicine here), but typically, for a lot of white collar fields, you start off in larger institutions, which typically means cities.

Could this change with the growing use of remote work? It could. Whether it does or not though remains to be seen.