Getting in debt for the next 30 years of life as a proof of adulthood. This checks out as a modern initiation ceremornial, a good alternative to getting tatooed religious symbols on your body.
I think trying to avoid that (like paying a rent for the rest of your days, or buying very cheap and sacrificing social sttatus) is actually seen as against the social norms, and a definitive "not one of us" move from the older generation's perspective.
I'm sorry, it sounded slightly flippant but I don't think a loan is inherently bad. I also went through the mortgage process, and the back and forth with the bank and seller felt a lot like trying to get validated as a proper member of society.
Apart from the purely financial aspect of it, it's fascinating how the process goes will vary on your profession, your familial situation, overall background, years working in a stable company, the type of contract, how the seller sees you, if the banker trusts you. And if you pass the test, you get stamped as a home "owner" (though at the moment you only own the bank a lot of money, and you'll be out in the streets if you can't pay at some point), you pass through the ritual of sorting your health, life/death insurance and you get a warm look from your parents because you're now "one of them".
I think good or bad, this is the definition of a rite of passage.
It brings things which are considered grown-up sharply into focus. Nothing seems to encourage bringing home some money for food and housing like a child or two. At least that is my interpretation.
>What precisely is it about having a child and having a mortgage that qualifies someone as "grown-up"?
It's shorthand for assuming adult responsibilities. It's difficult to survive on your emotionally fulfilling but minimum wage job if you have a brood in diapers at home. Obviously you still have responsibilities, probably including property taxes, insurance, and utilities, if you own your house outright as opposed to having a mortgage.
BTW, it's a bit tricky to buy your home outright if you live, in, say Palo Alto, where I recall a bunch of YC-funded startups are based:
I understand that IF you have a spouse or kids, it's your responsibility to take care of them and provide the best possible environment for them to flourish.
But it does not follow that it's one's responsibility to marry and have kids. There have been plenty of people who contributed a lot to society without ever marrying or raising kids.
You're right that managing a family is shorthand for being responsible. My point is: why use a shorthand when you can simply ask "So what are you doing with all the extra time you get because of not having a family?".
Ask, don't presume.
(I am not even getting into the whole philosophical debate of whether "work == virtue". The subtext in comments like the above is: "Oh, you're living a comfortable life with no responsibilities? You should work hard and suffer like the rest of us!" )
> But it does not follow that it's one's responsibility to marry and have kids. There have been plenty of people who contributed a lot to society without ever marrying or raising kids.
One's responsibility is to do the right thing, to do one's duty. For some folks, that duty has not been to form a family, but for the vast majority of folks their duty has been to do exactly that: to repay their ancestors' millions of years of evolutionary investment by investing in their descendants.
There are some folks who have repaid that rather massive debt in other ways, but they are few and far between; far more these days simply renege on it.
I think trying to avoid that (like paying a rent for the rest of your days, or buying very cheap and sacrificing social sttatus) is actually seen as against the social norms, and a definitive "not one of us" move from the older generation's perspective.