Why do young adults coreside with their parents?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nearly one in every two adults aged 18–29 currently lives with their parents, compared to slightly more than one in four in 1960. The literature focuses on changing labor market conditions and marriage–childbearing delays to account for this shift. Using a Blinder–Oaxaca procedure, we identify a role for housing affordability, measured by market‐level median housing rent or price to median household income ratios, as an additional factor in the increase in coresidency since but not before 2000. We endogenize the marriage–childbearing decision with a Heckman selection model and attribute up to a quarter of the observed 9‐percentage‐point increase in the coresidence share between 2000 and 2021 to a decrease in housing affordability. We find a nonlinear relationship between affordability and coresidence with the relationship strongest in the least affordable metros where affordability constraints might be more binding. Overall, these results show changes in market‐level housing affordability are associated with the increase in young adult coresidence over the first two decades of the 21st century.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".