The Changing Economics and Demographics 

of Young Adulthood: 1975–2016

Population Characteristics

By Jonathan Vespa

Current Population Reports

P20-579

Issued April 2017

INTRODUCTION

What does it mean to be a young adult? In prior generations, young adults were expected to have finished 

school, found a job, and set up their own household 

during their 20s—most often with their spouse and 

with a child soon to follow. Today’s young adults take 

longer to experience these milestones. What was once 

ubiquitous during their 20s is now not commonplace 

until their 30s. Some demographers believe the delays 

represent a new period of the life course between childhood and adulthood, a period of “emerging adulthood” 

when young people experience traditional events at different times and in a different order than their parents 

did.1 What is clear is that today’s young adults look 

different from prior generations in almost every regard: 

how much education they have, their work experiences, when they start a family, and even who they 

live with while growing up. It comes as no surprise 

that when parents recall stories of their youth, they are 

remembering how different their experiences were.

This report looks at changes in young adulthood over 

the last 40 years. It focuses on how the experiences of 

today’s young adults differ, in timing and degree, from 

what young adults experienced in the 1970s—how 

1 F. Furstenberg, Jr., “On a New Schedule: Transitions to

Adulthood and Family Change,” The Future of Children, Vol. 20, 2010, 

pp. 67–87. See also, F. Furstenberg, Jr., et al., “Growing Up Is Harder To 

Do,” Contexts, Vol. 3, 2004, pp. 33–41, and J. Arnett, Emerging

Adulthood: The Winding Road From the Late Teens Through the

Twenties, Oxford University Press, New York, 2014. 

much longer they wait to start a family, how many have 

gone to college, and who are able to live independently 

of their parents. This report looks at a snapshot of 

the young adult population, defined here as 18 to 34 

years old, and focuses on two periods: 1975 and today 

(using data covering 2012 to 2016 to reflect the contemporary period). Many of the milestones of young 

adulthood are reflected in the living arrangements of 

young people: when they move out of their parents’ 

home and when they form families. Because these milestones are tied to young adults’ economic security, the 

report also focuses on how education and work experience vary across young adult living arrangements.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Most of today’s Americans believe that educational 

and economic accomplishments are extremely 

important milestones of adulthood. In contrast,

marriage and parenthood rank low: over half of 

Americans believe that marrying and having children 

are not very important in order to become an adult.

• Young people are delaying marriage, but most still 

eventually tie the knot. In the 1970s, 8 in 10 people 

married by the time they turned 30. Today, not until 

the age of 45 have 8 in 10 people married.

• More young people today live in their parents’ 

home than in any other arrangement: 1 in 3 young 
2 U.S. Census Bureau

people, or about 24 million 18- 

to 34-year-olds, lived in their 

parents’ home in 2015. 

• In 2005, the majority of young 

adults lived independently in 

their own household, which was 

the predominant living arrangement in 35 states. A decade 

later, by 2015, the number of 

states where the majority of 

young people lived independently fell to just six. 

• More young men are falling to 

the bottom of the income ladder. 

In 1975, only 25 percent of men, 

aged 25 to 34, had incomes of 

less than $30,000 per year. By 

2016, that share rose to 41 percent of young men. (Incomes for 

both years are in 2015 dollars.) 

• Between 1975 and 2016, the 

share of young women who 

were homemakers fell from 

43 percent to 14 percent of all 

women aged 25 to 34. 

• Of young people living in their 

parents’ home, 1 in 4 are idle, 

that is they neither go to school 

nor work. This figure represents about 2.2 million 25- to 

34-year-olds. 

About the Data

This report uses two surveys from the U.S. Census Bureau to look

at the demographic and economic characteristics of young adults:

the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population

Survey (CPS). It uses a third data source, the General Social Survey 

(GSS), to look at beliefs, attitudes, and values that Americans have 

about adulthood.

The ACS provides statistics on the country’s people, housing,

and economy at various geographic levels, including the nation,

states, and counties. It uses a series of monthly samples to produce 

annually updated estimates for small geographic areas. In 2015, the

ACS sampled about 3.5 million households. This report uses 2005

and 2015 ACS data to look at state-level changes in young adult

living arrangements. For more information about the survey, see

<www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/>. For more information 

about sample design and methodology, see <www.census.gov

/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html>.

The CPS collects information about the economic and employment 

characteristics of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population. This 

report uses the survey’s 1975 and 2016 Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement, which has data on marriage and family, employment patterns, work hours, earnings, and occupation. It also uses the 1976 and 

2014 June supplement to the survey, which collects data on women’s 

fertility. The CPS counts college students living in dormitories as if 

they were living in their parents’ home. As a result, the number of 

young adults residing in their parents’ home is higher than it would be 

otherwise, especially for 18- to 24-year-olds, who are more likely to 

be living in college housing. For more information about the CPS, see 

<www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html>.

Since 1972, the GSS has collected data on Americans’ opinions and 

attitudes about a variety of topics. Because of its long-running collection, researchers can use the survey to study changes in Americans’ 

attitudes and beliefs. The survey is administered by the National 

Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, with support 

from the National Science Foundation.1 The module on the milestones 

of adulthood comes from the 2012 GSS, the most recent year available, 

and was developed by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on 

Transitions to Adulthood.

1 T. Smith, P. Marsden, M. Hout, and J. Kim, General Social Surveys 1972–2012,

sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NORC ed.), Chicago: National Opinion 

Research Center, Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of 

Connecticut, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO

BE AN ADULT TODAY?

Americans Rank 

Educational and Economic 

Accomplishments as the

Most Important Milestones

of Adulthood

To say that young adults delay 

marriage and put off having children describes behaviors that are 

reflected in demographic trends 

for the population as a whole. To 

put these experiences in context, 

though, it helps to look at what 

adults think about them. Do people 

believe that waiting later to marry 

or have children is a normal part of 

adulthood today?

The 2012 General Social Survey 

asked Americans aged 18 and older 

about how important a variety 

of experiences are to becoming 

an adult. Over half of Americans 

say that getting married or having children are not important to 

becoming an adult, and only a third 

think they are somewhat important 

(Figure 1). These trends align with 

research showing that less than 10 

percent of men and women think 

that people need to have children 

to be very happy in life.2

Instead, the highest ranked milestones are educational and economic. Finishing school ranks the 

highest, with more than 60 percent 

2 J. Daugherty and C. Copen, “Trends 

in Attitudes About Marriage, Childbearing, 

and Sexual Behavior: United States, 2002, 

2006–2010, and 2011–2013,” National Health 

Statistics Reports, No. 92, National Center for 

Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, 2016.

of people saying that doing so is 

extremely important to becoming 

an adult. The emphasis on education underlies the rising student 

debt that many young people 

carry. In 2013, 41 percent of young 

families had student debt, up from 

17 percent in 1989.3 Not only do 

more young families have student 

debt, they are deeper in debt too. 

The amount owed on student loans 

nearly tripled, rising from a median 

of $6,000 to $17,300 across the 

same period (in 2013 dollars).4

Economic security ranks second

in the transition to adulthood. 

About half of adults believe

that having a full-time job and 

being able to financially support 

a family are extremely important 

to becoming an adult (Figure 1). 

Despite the prominence given

to economic security, only a

quarter of Americans think that 

moving out of the parents’ home is 

a very important part of adulthood. 

Given the attention paid to the 

“boomerang generation” that has 

“failed to launch,” it is surprising 

that Americans do not rate living 

independently as a more important 

step toward adulthood.5 Yet in a 

study by the Pew Research Center, 

most parents with coresidential 

adult children are just as satisfied 

with their living arrangements as 

parents whose adult children live 

elsewhere. Similarly, more than 2 

in 3 young adults who live at home 

are very happy with their family 

life.6

3 Young families are those headed by 

someone under the age of 35. Survey of 

Consumer Finance, “Table 13: Family 

Holdings of Debt, by Selected Characteristics 

of Families and Type of Debt, 1989–2013 

Surveys,” Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, Washington, DC, 2013. 4 ibid.

5 K. Parker, “The Boomerang Generation,” 

Pew Social and Demographic Trends Report,

Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, 2012. 6 ibid.

Defining Young Adults

Young Adults. This report looks at the population of 18- to 34-year-olds 

at two time periods, in 1975 and today, covering the years 2012 to 

2016. For some parts of the analysis, this report looks at a subsection 

of this population, the group of 25- to 34-year-olds. Throughout this 

report, the terms young adult and young people are used interchangeably to refer to these age groups.

Generations and cohorts. The population of 18- to 34-year-olds is a 

cohort, which is a group of people that share a common demographic 

experience or characteristic (in this case, age). By comparing cohorts at 

two different time periods, researchers can study how the experiences 

of a group of people have collectively changed over time. The cohort 

of 18- to 34-year-olds in 2016 includes people born between 1982 and 

1998, which roughly corresponds to the millennial generation. There 

is no official start and end date for when millennials were born. The 

cohort of 18- to 34-year-olds in 1975 includes people born between 

1941 and 1957, encompassing members of the silent generation (born 

1928 to 1945) as well as some baby boomers (born 1946 to 1964).

Adulthood. There are many ways to define adulthood, whether physically, emotionally, or psychologically. This report looks at adulthood 

as a period of the life course defined by a set of common experiences, 

events, and transitions. It focuses on demographic and economic 

events including schooling, marriage and parenthood, and work. This 

is by no means an exhaustive list, but represents one possible set of 

common experiences that people have as they age.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Most Americans Believe Young 

People Should Be Economically 

Secure Before Settling Down

The majority of Americans believe 

education and economic security 

are extremely important for becoming an adult. What they think about 

the timing of these milestones is 

revealing. When asked when

people should normally finish 

school and have a full-time job,

the median age was just 22

(Table 1). Ironically, the median 

age when most Americans believe 

that people should be financially 

independent of their parents is just 

21, a year earlier than the ideal age 

for finishing school and working 

full-time. The contradiction shows 

that it is not always clear when

and in what order young people 

should experience these milestones. What is clear is that most 

Americans believe young people 

should accomplish economic 

milestones before starting a family. 

Americans reported that the ideal 

age for getting married and having 

children is 25, the same age when 

most Americans believe a young 

person should be capable of supporting a family (Table 1).

Do as I Say, Not as I Do

Believing that young people 

should be done with school, gainfully employed, and capable of 

Table 1.

Milestones of Adulthood

How important are these experiences to becoming an adult?

Milestones

Percentage of adults who said

transition was: Ideal age for 

completing 

milestone

Percent with 

completed

milestone by

the ideal age

Extremely

important

Somewhat 

important

Not

important

Completed formal schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.5 33.3 5.2 22 1

51.8

Employed full-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.5 43.1 5.4 22 36.7

Capable of supporting a family financially . . . . . . . . 50.0 40.3 9.7 25 242.1

Financially independent from parents/guardians . . . 42.8 53.7 3.5 21 328.9

No longer living in parents’ household . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 55.8 18.5 21 47.1

Get married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 33.9 54.6 25 23.5

Have a child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 34.6 55.1 25 438.0

1

 Has a high school diploma or college degree, and has not been enrolled in school in the last 3 months. 2

 Personal income at least 150 percent of poverty level for a family of three. 3

 Personal income at least 150 percent of poverty level for one person. 4

 Women only.

Note: “Somewhat important” includes respondents who said quite or somewhat important, whereas “Not important” includes respondents who said not too 

important or not at all important. The ideal age is the median age when respondents think the transition should normally happen. It is asked only of those who 

said the transition was at least “Somewhat important.” Data on the importance of milestones and ideal age for completing milestones come from the 2012 General 

Social Survey. Data on getting married, employed full-time, and being capable of supporting a family financially or financially independent from parents come 

from the 2016 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Data on having a child come from the 2014 Current Population Survey, June 

Supplement. And data on completed formal schooling and no longer living in parents’ household come from the 2015 American Community Survey.

Source: 2012 General Social Survey; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement; 2014 Current Population 

Survey, June Supplement; 2015 American Community Survey.

Completed formal 

schooling

Employed full-time

Capable of supporting a 

family financially

Financially independent 

from parents

No longer living in 

parents’ household

Get married

Have a child

Percentage of adults 

who said transition was:

Figure 1.

Finishing School and Getting a Job

How important are these experiences to becoming an adult? 

Extremely

important

Somewhat 

important

Not 

important

Source: 2012 General Social Survey.

5

5

10

4

19

55

55

33

43

40

54

56

34

35

62

52

50

43

26

12

10
U.S. Census Bureau 5

supporting a family by the age 

of 25 says little about who actually meets these milestones. Many 

young people fall short of reaching 

them by the time most Americans 

believe that they normally should. 

For example, most Americans 

believe young people should ideally 

finish school by the age of 22, but 

only 52 percent of young people 

have done so by this age, counting those who have a high school 

diploma or college degree, and are 

no longer enrolled (Table 1). Moreover, only 37 percent of 22-yearolds are employed full-time. 

Far more young adults miss the 

bar set for financial independence: 

less than 1 in 3 were financially 

independent of their parents by the 

age of 21 (when measured by the 

proportion of 21-year-olds whose 

income was at least 150 percent 

of the poverty threshold) (Table 

1). The true proportion that is 

financially independent is probably 

lower because young people may 

omit the financial help from their 

parents, such as a down payment 

for a mortgage or help paying the 

rent or other bills, when reporting their income. This kind of help 

should not be underestimated. 

About 1 in 3 of all 18- to 34-yearolds rely on their parents for financial assistance.7

Family Delayed, but Not 

Forgone

Although most Americans think 

that the ideal age people should 

marry is 25, only about a quarter of adults (around 24 percent) 

have actually done so by that age 

(Table 1). Many people do go on to 

7 R. Schoeni and K. Ross, “Material

Assistance From Families During the

Transition to Adulthood,” On the Frontier

of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and

Public Policy, pp. 396–416, R. Settersten,

F. Furstenberg, Jr., and R. Rumbaut, eds.,

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 

2005.

marry and have children, just not 

as young adults. In 1995, women 

had a 59 percent chance of marrying by the age of 25. As of 2010, 

they had a 44 percent chance, a 

decline of 15 percentage points in 

just 15 years. Nonetheless, their 

chances of marrying by the age 

of 40 barely budged across the 

same period, from an 86 percent 

chance to an 84 percent chance.8

Thus over the long-term, women’s 

chances of marrying are nearly as 

high as they were 20 years ago, but 

their chances of marrying as young 

adults have fallen sharply.

In other words, many Americans 

put off starting a family until they 

are older. The trends show up in 

8 These probabilities represent the 

average likelihood of an event happening 

by the specified age. C. Copen et al., “First 

Marriages in the United States: Data From 

the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family 

Growth,” National Health Statistics Reports 

No. 49, National Center for Health Statistics: 

Hyattsville, MD, 2012.

historical data going back to 1976, 

which illustrate a retreat from marriage and childbearing at younger 

ages (Figure 2). Among women in 

their early 20s, the proportion who 

ever gave birth fell from 31 percent to 25 percent between 1976 

and 2014.9 The decline in marriage 

was even steeper, falling from 57 

percent to just 17 percent among 

women aged 20 to 24 years old 

over the same period (Figure 2). 

As a result, parenthood now precedes marriage for many women. 

Nearly 40 percent of all births in 

the United States are to unmarried 

women.10

9 U.S. Census Bureau, Historical

Table 1, “Percent Childless and Births

per 1,000 Women in the Last 12 Months:

Selected Years, 1976 to 2014,” Current

Population Survey, June Fertility Supplement, 

Washington, DC, 2014, <www.census.gov

/hhes/fertility/files/cps/historical/H1.xlsx>. 10 B. Hamilton et al., “Births: Final Data 

for 2014,” National Vital Statistics Report, 

64(12), National Center for Health Statistics, 

Hyattsville, MD, 2015.

Figure 2.

Family Delayed, but Not Forgone

Adults who have ever had a child or married: percent change

from 1976 to 2014

* 18 to 24 years old for the 1976 data on having had a child.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1976 and 2014 Current Population Survey Annual Social 

and Economic Supplement for ever married; 1976 and 2014 Current Population 

Survey, June Supplement for fertility.

Age 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44

Had a child

(women)

Ever married

(women)

Ever married

(men)

90

1976 2014 1976 2014 1976 2014

90

84

69

*31

85

82

71

50

25

96

95

93

85

57

85

79

69

46

17

93

92

88

75

38

80

74

59

32

10
6 U.S. Census Bureau

For the most part, we can still find 

the same high levels of marriage 

and parenthood from the 1970s, 

we just have to look at older ages 

today. In 1976, over two-thirds of 

women, some 69 percent, were 

mothers by the time they were 25 

to 29 years old (Figure 2). To find 

that same proportion today we 

have to look among women who 

are aged 30 to 34. The retreat is far 

more pronounced for marriage. In 

1976, some 85 percent of women 

and 75 percent of men were married by the time they were 29 years 

old. To find at least that same 

proportion today, we have to look 

among people in their early 40s. 

What these trends indicate is that 

young adults are not necessarily 

giving up on marriage. They are 

waiting longer. And, if Americans’ 

attitudes are any indication, they 

expect young people to be done 

with school and economically 

secure before marrying (Table 1). 

In this case, our behaviors reflect 

our attitudes. People with a college degree are the most likely to 

marry and stay married. Research 

from the National Center for Health 

Statistics shows that a woman with 

a college degree is less likely to be 

married by the age of 25 than one 

with only a high school diploma.11

By the age of 35, the pattern has 

reversed: the college-educated 

woman has a greater chance of 

being married and staying married than women with any other 

educational background. A collegeeducated woman has a 78 percent 

chance of still being married by her 

twentieth anniversary. A woman 

with only a high school diploma 

has a 41 percent chance.12

Delaying Marriage, but Still 

Living Together

Although young people are delaying marriage, they are not putting 

off romantic relationships. Over the 

last 40 years, the number of young 

11 See footnote 8.

12 See footnote 8.

people living with a boyfriend or 

girlfriend has increased more

than 12 times, making it the fastest 

growing living arrangement among 

young adults (Figure 3). Not only 

are they living together without 

being married, they are doing so at 

the same age that earlier generations were settling down to marry. 

Since the 1980s, the age when 

people start their first coresidential 

relationship has stayed consistently 

around 22, whereas the age when 

they first marry has risen from 

22 to 27 for women.13, 14 In other 

words, young adults are still starting relationships at the same age 

that their parents did, but they are 

trading marriage for cohabitation.

13 W.D. Manning, S.L. Brown, and

K.L. Payne, “Two Decades of Stability and 

Change in Age at First Union Formation,” 

Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 76, No. 

2, 2014, pp. 247–260. 14 U.S. Census Bureau, Table MS-2

Estimated Median Age at First Marriage by 

Sex, 1890 to 2015, 2015, <www.census.gov

/hhes/families/files/ms2.xls>.

1 College students who are living in dormitories are counted as living in the parents' home.

2 “Other” includes people who are living with relatives besides a spouse, such as siblings or grandparents, and nonrelatives such as 

roommates.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 and 2016 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

Figure 3.

More Young Adults Lived With Parents Than a Spouse in 2016

Living arrangements among adults aged 18 to 34: 1975 and 2016

26

31

11

21

5

8

1

12

(In millions)

Unmarried partner

Alone

Other2

Parents' home1

Spouse

Unmarried partner

Alone

Other2

Parents' home1

Spouse

(In percent)

1975

2016

27

57

14.7

6.1

3.1

0.7

31.9

22.9

15.6

5.9

9.2

19.9
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Alongside the rise of living 

together without being married, 

there are more young adults today 

who are choosing to live alone, 

move in with roommates, stay in 

their parents’ home, or live with 

other family members such as 

siblings (Figure 3). There are now 

more young people living with their 

parents than in any other arrangement. What is more, almost 9 in 10 

young people who were living in 

their parents’ home a year ago are 

still living there today, making it 

the most stable living arrangement 

for young adults (Tables 4 and 5). 

The growth in all of these living 

arrangements has come at the 

expense of marriage. Over the last 

40 years the proportion of young 

people who were living with a 

spouse fell by half, from 57 percent 

to 27 percent (Figure 3). The result 

is that young people are living in 

more diverse arrangements than at 

any point in the last 40 years.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Young Adult Living 

Arrangements

More young adults live in their parents’ home than in any other living 

arrangement today (Figure 3). This trend is not the same for all young 

people. For Hispanics, Blacks, and other race groups, a greater share 

of young people live at home than in any other arrangement (Figure 4). 

For Whites, as many live in their parents’ home as live with a spouse, 

while for Asians, living with a spouse is actually the most common 

arrangement for young people. 

If we consider living with a spouse or unmarried partner as one group, 

then White young adults are the most likely to be living as couples, 

some 44 percent, while Blacks have the smallest share at 23 percent. 

Almost half of these Black couples are unmarried, which reflects their 

relatively low probability of marrying. Blacks have a less than 50 percent chance of marrying by the age of 30, compared with an almost 75 

percent chance for Whites and Asians.1

1 C. Copen et al., “First Marriages in the United States: Data From the 2006–2010 

National Survey of Family Growth,” National Health Statistics Reports, No. 49, National 

Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, 2012.

Figure 4.

Who’s at Home?

Living arrangements of young adults aged 18 to 34: 2016

(In percent)

Asian

White

Hispanic

Black

Other race

With unmarried 

partner Alone

Other living 

arrangement

With 

spouse

Parents’ 

home

26

30

32

37

38

32

30

28

13

20

6

14

12

10

14

9

9

4

11

7

27

17

25

30

21

Note: Asian, White, and Black include young adults who reported only that race and were not Hispanic. Other race includes young adults 

who were not Hispanic, and reported multiple race groups, or were American Indian or Alaska Native alone or Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander alone.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

The Delay in Marriage and 

Parenthood Reflect the 

Growing Complexity of Young 

Adult Experiences

For decades, researchers have 

looked at a set of common experiences that signify the transition to 

adulthood: leaving home, working, marrying, and becoming a 

parent.15 To get a better sense of 

how the transition to adulthood has 

changed over time, we can look 

at the most common combination 

of these four experiences in 1975 

(regardless of the order in which 

young adults completed them). Is 

this combination of experiences 

still the most common today? 

The most common combination 

in 1975 was having all four milestones. Close to half (45 percent) of 

all 25- to 34-year-olds lived away 

from parents, were ever married, 

lived with a child, and were in the 

labor force (Figure 5). The second 

most common set, another 22 

percent, had all of those milestones 

except they did not work (many of 

these people were married mothers 

who, in 1975, were not working 

outside the home). In other words, 

there was a good deal of uniformity 

in what people experienced by 

their early 30s: the two most common sets of milestones described 

the experiences of two-thirds of all 

25- to 34-year-olds in 1975. 

Today, the experiences are more 

diverse. The most common 

arrangement is still having all four 

milestones, but that combination 

applies to a much smaller proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds: only 24 

percent, compared with 45 percent 

15 M. Shanahan et al., “Subjective Age 

Identity and the Transition to Adulthood: 

When Do Adolescents Become Adults?” On 

The Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, 

and Public Policy, pp. 225–255, R. Settersten 

Jr., F. Furstenberg, Jr., and R. Rumbaut, eds.,

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 

2005. 

in 1975 (Figure 5). The second 

most common set in 2016, describing about 1 in 4 young people, 

is living away from parents and 

being in the labor force, a marked 

contrast to the second most common set in 1975, which revolved 

around marriage and parenthood. 

Taken together, the two most common sets of milestones in 2016 

describe just under half of all 25- to 

34-year-olds, far less than what the 

two most common sets described 

in 1975. Since the rest of the young 

adults must fit into some combination of these four milestones (even 

if they have none of them), the 

conclusion is that the experiences 

of young people today are more 

diverse, the transitions to adulthood more varied.16

THE GROWING ECONOMIC 

AND DEMOGRAPHIC 

DIVERSITY OF YOUNG 

ADULTS

Who young adults live with goes 

hand in hand with their economic 

security. Young people tend to 

put off marriage and parenthood 

when they are worried about their 

financial well-being, such as during a recession or when they are 

unemployed.17 They weigh the cost 

of housing in the decision to move 

and if they perceive that living on 

their own will be too expensive, 

16 Wayne Osgood et al., “Six Paths to 

Adulthood: Fast Starters. Parents Without 

Careers, Educated Partners, Educated Singles, 

Working Singles, and Slow Starters,” On The 

Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and 

Public Policy, pp. 320–355, R. Settersten, Jr.,

F. Furstenberg, Jr., and R. Rumbaut, eds.,

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 

2005. 17 V.K. Oppenheimer, “Cohabiting and

Marriage During Young Men’s CareerDevelopment Process,” Demography, Vol. 40, 

2003, pp. 127–149. See also, T. Sobotka, V. 

Skirbekk, and D. Philipov, “Economic Recession and Fertility in the Developed World,” 

Population and Development Review, Vol. 37, 

2011, pp. 267–306, and D. Schneider, “The 

Great Recession, Fertility, and Uncertainty: 

Evidence from the United States,” Journal 

of Marriage and Family, Vol. 77, 2015, pp. 

1144–1156.

young people put off forming

their own household.18 Unemployment also acts as a catalyst for 

moving back to the parents’ home 

or doubling up in another household, whereas higher incomes 

make it easier for young adults to 

live independently.19, 20 As a result, 

decisions about who to live with 

and whether and when to marry 

reflect the economic circumstances 

of young people.

Are Today’s Young Adults 

Better Off Than Prior 

Generations?

Americans’ attitudes about adulthood suggest that some young 

people should delay traditional 

experiences, like marrying and 

starting a family, because they 

should achieve educational and 

economic milestones first. They 

want to finish school and feel 

financially secure enough that they 

can support a family. But are they? 

How do the economic conditions 

of young people today compare 

to those in 1975? Here the report 

focuses on 25- to 34-year-olds, an 

age group that has had the time to 

finish school, start working, and 

form their own households independent of their parents.

18 F. Billari and A. Liefbroer, “Should I Stay 

Or Should I Go? The Impact of Age Norms on 

Leaving Home,” Demography, Vol. 44, 2007, 

pp. 181–198. 19 E. Wiemers, “The Effect of 

Unemployment on Household

Composition and Doubling Up,”

Demography, Vol. 51, 2014, pp. 2155–2178. 

See also, L. Mykyta and S. Macartney, “Sharing a Household: Household Composition 

and Economic Well-Being: 2007–2010,” 

Current Population Report, P60-242, U.S. 

Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2012, and 

G. Kaplan, “Moving Back Home: Insurance 

Against Labor Market Risk,” Journal of

Political Economy, Vol. 120, 2012, pp. 

446–512. 20 M. Iacovou, “Leaving Home:

Independence, Togetherness, and Income,” 

Advances in Life Course Research, Vol. 15, 

2010, pp. 147–160. See also, J. Ermisch, 

“Prices, Parents and Young People’s Household

Formation,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 

45, 1999, pp. 47–71.
U.S. Census Bureau 9

In 1975

Ranking Milestones

Percentage 

of 25- to 

34-year-olds

1

All four milestones 

Lived away from parents, 

ever married, lived with a child, 

in the labor force

45

2 Lived away from parents, 

ever married, lived with a child 22

3 Lived away from parents, 

ever married, in the labor force 15

4 Lived away from parents, 

in the labor force 6

5 In the labor force only 3

All other combinations 9

In 2016

Ranking Milestones

Percentage 

of 25- to 

34-year-olds

1

All four milestones 

Lived away from parents, 

ever married, lived with a child, 

in the labor force

24

2 Lived away from parents, 

in the labor force 23

3 Lived away from parents, 

ever married, in the labor force 13

4

Lived away from parents, 

in the labor force, 

lived with a child

8

5 In the labor force only 8

6 Lived away from parents, 

ever married, lived with a child 8

All other combinations 16

Figure 5.

Four Common Milestones of Adulthood—Getting Married, Having Children, 

Working, and Living Independently 

What are the most common combinations that young adults have completed?

(Percentage of young adults aged 25 to 34) 

Note: Each ranked group lists only the milestones that the young adults in that group experienced.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1975 and 2016 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

More young people today have 

a college degree and work fulltime, year-round . . .

Today’s young adults are better 

educated than their peers were in 

1975. Among 25- to 34-year-olds, 

more than one-third have a college degree or higher, compared 

with less than one-quarter in 1975 

(Table 2). However, young women 

have experienced more dramatic 

educational changes than men. 

There are now more young women 

than young men with a college 

degree, whereas in 1975 educational attainment among young 

men outpaced that of women.21

Having a more educated population 

of young adults marks a relative 

21 C. Ryan and K. Bauman, “Educational 

Attainment in the United States: 2015,” 

Current Population Reports, P20-578, 

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2016.

improvement in their economic 

condition, given the strong link 

between higher education and 

higher earnings.22

. . . but, young women are pulling ahead, while young men are 

falling behind.

On the whole, more young people 

are working today and have a 

full-time job that employs them 

year-round (Table 2). The driving 

force behind the increase, however, has been the rise of young 

women in the labor force. Whereas 

the share of men aged 25 to 34 

who were employed is about the 

same today as it was in 1975, the 

share of young women who were 

22 Bureau of Labor Statistics, “More 

Education Still Means More Pay in 2014,” 

The Economics Daily, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Washington, DC, 2014.

employed has risen from just under 

one-half to over two-thirds (Table 

2). Even among young women 

who were out of the labor force, 

we see a remarkable change in the 

reason why they were not working. 

In 1975, virtually all of the young 

women who were out of the labor 

force reported the reason why as 

taking care of home and family (the 

share of women out of the labor 

force is only slightly larger than the 

share who were homemakers, Table 

2). But by 2016, less than half of 

young women who were out of the 

labor force were homemakers. 

Over the last four decades, young 

women have made considerable economic gains. The median 

income of women aged 25 to 

34 who were working rose from 

$23,000 to $29,000 between 1975 

Table 2.

Young Women’s Economic Gains Are Outpacing Men’s

Economic and educational characteristics of young adults aged 25 to 34

(In percent)

Characteristics

1975 2016

All Men Women All Men Women

 Total (in thousands) . . . . . . . . . .

Work

30,101 14,785 15,316 43,751 21,838 21,912

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 .8 84 .9 49 .3 77 .0 83 .7 70 .4

 Worked full-time, year-round1

 . . . . . . . . 46 .0 66 .7 26 .0 57 .3 66 .6 48 .1

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .3 7 .7 4 .9 4 .5 5 .1 4 .0

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 .9 7 .4 45 .8 18 .4 11 .2 25 .7

 Homemaker2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

N N 42 .9 7 .5 1 .0 13 .9

Bachelor’s degree or higher . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .8 27 .4 18 .4 37 .0 34 .0 40 .0

Associate’s degree or some college . . . . 20 .0 21 .8 18 .2 28 .8 27 .6 30 .1

High school diploma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 .6 34 .5 44 .6 25 .6 29 .2 22 .1

No high school diploma . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Economic Resources

17 .6 16 .3 18 .8 8 .5 9 .2 7 .8

Homeowner3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 .9 48 .7 55 .0 28 .8 26 .6 31 .1

Personal income (median)4 . . . . . . . . . . . $36,858 $45,908 $22,895 $34,837 $40,401 $29,429

 $0–$29,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 .8 25 .0 79 .6 49 .7 41 .4 58 .1

 $30,000–$59,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 .6 49 .0 18 .8 32 .0 35 .1 28 .8

 $60,000–$99,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .9 22 .7 1 .5 12 .9 15 .9 9 .9

 $100,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .7 3 .3 0 .2 5 .4 7 .6 3 .2

N Not available .

1

 Worked at least 50 weeks in the year prior to interview and worked at least 35 hours per week .

2

 Only asked of women in 1975 . To be considered a homemaker, young adults must not be in the labor force and, when asked why, report that they are taking 

care of home and family . 3

 To be considered a homeowner, young adults must be living in their own household as the householder or spouse of the householder, and they must own or 

be buying the housing unit (i .e ., not renting) . 4

 Income shown in 2015 dollars, adjusted for inflation using the research series of the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U-RS), provided by the U .S . Bureau of Labor 

Statistics .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 1975 and 2016 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement .
U.S. Census Bureau 11

and today (in 2015 dollars, Table 

2). At the same time, the share of 

young women who earned $60,000 

or more grew from about 2 percent to 13 percent—a minority, but 

still a sizeable change. Even with 

this change, however, the median 

income of young women is still 

$11,000 lower than the income of 

young men.

While young women made gains, 

some young men fell behind. Since 

1975, young men have swelled the 

ranks at the bottom of the income 

distribution. Some 41 percent of all 

men aged 25 to 34 have incomes 

less than $30,000 today, up from 

25 percent in 1975. Growth at the 

bottom, and to a smaller extent 

the top, came at the expense of 

the middle. Between 1975 and 

2016, the share of young men with 

incomes in the middle ($30,000 to 

$59,999) fell from 49 percent to 35 

percent, while the share at the very 

top ($100,000 or more) grew from 

3 percent to 8 percent (Table 2). 

Living Arrangements During 

Young Adulthood: The 

Majority of Young Adults No 

Longer Live in Their Own 

Household

Historically, the transition to adulthood for many young people has 

involved leaving their parents’ 

home and establishing their own 

household.23 The timing of setting 

up an independent household has 

been tied to when young adults 

marry and start a family. Homeownership especially is tied to 

marriage and family, as it is typical 

in the United States for married 

couples to live independently of 

23 S. Ruggles, “Patriarchy, Power, and Pay: 

The Transformation of American Families, 

1800–2015.” Demography, Vol. 52, 2015,

pp. 1797–1823. See also, T. Burch and

B. Matthews, “Household Formation in

Developed Societies,” Population and

Development Review, Vol. 13, 1987,

pp. 495–511. 

their parents.24 But as young people 

continue delaying marriage, they 

still set up their own households 

whether they live alone or with an 

unmarried partner.25 Living in an 

independent household is expensive and the ability to do so hinges, 

in part, on young adults’ economic 

resources as well as the costs of 

rent and homeownership.26 The 

next section of this report (and 

Tables 4, 5, and 6) focuses on 

differences in the economic characteristics of young adults across 

three different arrangements: 

whether they live independently in 

their own household, live in their 

parents’ household, or live with 

roommates.

Within the last 10 years, the 

breadth and speed of change in 

living arrangements have been 

tremendous. In 2005, the majority of young people lived independently in their own household 

(either alone, with a spouse, or 

an unmarried partner), which was 

the predominant living arrangement in 35 states. By 2015—just a 

decade later—only six states had 

a majority of young people living 

24 J. Henretta, “Family Transitions, Housing 

Market Context, and First Home Purchase by 

Young Married Households,” Social Forces, 

Vol. 66, 1987, pp. 520–536. See also, W. Clark 

et al., “Tenure Changes in the Context of 

Micro Level Family and Macro Level Economic 

Shifts,” Urban Studies, Vol. 31, 1994, pp. 

137–154, and C. Mulder, “Homeownership 

and Family Formation,” Journal of Housing 

and the Built Environment, Vol. 21, 2006, pp. 

281–298. 25 E. Klinenberg, Going Solo: The

Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of 

Living Alone, Penguin, New York, NY, 2012. 

See also, C. Mulder and W. Clark, “Leaving 

Home and Leaving the State: Evidence from 

the United States,” Population, Space, and 

Place, Vol. 6, 2000, 432–437. 26 M. Hughes, “Home Economics:

Metropolitan Labor and Housing Markets and 

Domestic Arrangements in Young Adulthood,” 

Social Forces, Vol. 81, 2003, pp. 1399–1429. 

See also, J. Ermisch, “Prices, Parents and 

Young People’s Household Formation,”

Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 45, 1999, 

pp. 47–71. 

independently (Table 3).27 Some 

areas of the country, like Florida 

and Nevada, have seen a faster 

transformation over the past 10 

years, while others, like North 

Dakota and South Dakota, have 

seen little change (Table 3). Of the 

top five states where the most 

young adults lived independently 

in 2015, all were in Midwest and 

Plains states. North Dakota ranked 

the highest with 60 percent of 

young adults living in their own 

household and, along with South 

Dakota, was the only state that has 

not witnessed a decline in young 

adults living independently over 

the last decade. The remaining four 

of the top five states in 2015 were 

South Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, and 

Nebraska. 

Why are there geographic differences in young adult living arrangements? For one, local labor and 

housing markets shape the ability 

of young people to find good jobs 

and affordable housing, which in 

turn affects whether and when they 

form their own households. Apart 

from local markets, patterns in 

migration may help create geographic differences in young adult 

living arrangements. For example, 

single people may be more likely 

to relocate for school or work. If 

many single young adults move 

to the same area, that area might 

see higher rates of living alone or 

with roommates. Last, there may 

be cultural norms in parts of the 

country that drive particular living 

arrangements, reflected in higher 

marriage rates or earlier ages at 

first marriage.

27 As shown in Table 3, this estimate 

includes state-like entities such as

Washington, DC.
12 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.

A Decade of Change: The State of Young Adult Living Arrangements

Change in living arrangements for young adults aged 18 to 34 between 2005 and 2015

States

Total 2005 Total 2015

Percent living in

parents’ home1

Percent living

independently2

Percent living with

roommates3

In 2005 In 2015 Change In 2005 In 2015 Change In 2005 In 2015 Change

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,081,164 70,872,118 26.0 34.1 8.1 51.0 40.7 –10.3 23.0 25.2 2.2

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995,907 1,029,932 26.9 35.0 8.1 50.2 40.0 –10.2 22.8 25.1 2.3

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,895 187,338 24.0 30.0 6.0 57.2 45.2 –12.0 18.8 24.9 6.1

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,387,424 1,498,219 20.4 31.6 11.2 54.3 41.6 –12.7 25.3 26.8 1.5

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604,430 628,225 22.5 27.5 5.0 57.4 47.9 –9.5 20.1 24.6 4.5

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,335,088 9,363,171 27.9 38.1 10.2 44.8 33.1 –11.7 27.3 28.8 1.5

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,128,498 1,288,232 18.6 24.6 6.0 57.4 46.9 –10.5 24.1 28.5 4.4

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 653,418 727,451 32.8 41.6 8.8 46.8 35.3 –11.5 20.5 23.2 2.7

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179,588 198,119 22.9 36.2 13.3 52.0 39.7 –12.3 25.1 24.1 –1.0

District of Columbia . . . . . . 137,253 206,059 13.5 16.6 3.1 50.4 41.1 –9.3 36.1 42.3 6.2

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,569,254 4,165,187 25.3 38.3 13.0 49.7 35.0 –14.7 24.9 26.6 1.7

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,159,880 2,256,730 23.2 34.2 11.0 52.0 39.9 –12.1 24.8 25.8 1.0

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263,263 323,785 32.5 33.7 1.2 40.5 35.9 –4.6 27.0 30.4 3.4

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331,799 356,749 19.8 26.9 7.1 59.8 49.1 –10.7 20.4 23.9 3.5

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,874,201 2,862,173 28.4 36.5 8.1 49.9 40.3 –9.6 21.7 23.2 1.5

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,358,496 1,411,567 23.2 31.9 8.7 57.6 46.0 –11.6 19.2 22.1 2.9

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632,576 653,820 19.8 22.8 3.0 60.2 54.9 –5.3 20.0 22.4 2.4

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618,385 645,292 21.4 26.0 4.6 57.8 50.8 –7.0 20.9 23.2 2.3

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912,390 918,524 25.0 30.0 5.0 56.4 48.1 –8.3 18.6 21.9 3.3

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,031,839 1,066,596 30.5 33.8 3.3 46.8 41.2 –5.6 22.6 25.0 2.4

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249,819 243,869 25.0 31.7 6.7 55.6 47.2 –8.4 19.4 21.1 1.7

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,161,924 1,309,727 29.1 38.5 9.4 46.1 35.6 –10.5 24.8 26.0 1.2

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . 1,333,145 1,473,188 28.7 37.0 8.3 46.9 36.4 –10.5 24.3 26.6 2.3

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,147,381 2,091,966 27.6 34.9 7.3 52.0 42.3 –9.7 20.4 22.8 2.4

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,142,094 1,184,810 22.9 27.3 4.4 56.3 49.7 –6.6 20.7 23.0 2.3

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647,602 634,479 30.3 36.8 6.5 45.5 37.3 –8.2 24.2 26.0 1.8

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,265,360 1,300,061 23.4 28.6 5.2 55.9 48.0 –7.9 20.8 23.4 2.6

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196,172 214,178 19.5 24.1 4.6 58.0 51.3 –6.7 22.6 24.6 2.0

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395,110 416,098 20.2 22.7 2.5 59.9 53.8 –6.1 19.9 23.5 3.6

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565,911 649,537 19.4 31.3 11.9 54.4 40.0 –14.4 26.1 28.8 2.7

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . 247,070 258,019 27.6 36.5 8.9 53.5 43.5 –10.0 18.8 20.0 1.2

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,730,615 1,858,390 36.1 46.9 10.8 43.2 33.1 –10.1 20.7 20.0 –0.7

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 424,684 457,390 25.6 36.0 10.4 52.9 40.1 –12.8 21.5 23.9 2.4

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,103,168 4,511,095 33.2 40.6 7.4 42.6 33.1 –9.5 24.2 26.3 2.1

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 1,911,237 2,140,661 21.7 31.1 9.4 54.9 44.1 –10.8 23.4 24.7 1.3

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 140,705 192,278 17.6 14.1 –3.5 63.4 60.4 –3.0 19.0 25.5 6.5

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,415,973 2,410,813 25.8 31.3 5.5 54.4 45.9 –8.5 19.8 22.8 3.0

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799,224 871,233 21.3 26.7 5.4 57.9 48.6 –9.3 20.8 24.7 3.9

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824,665 876,835 18.5 26.7 8.2 58.0 44.3 –13.7 23.5 29.0 5.5

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 2,426,315 2,619,241 30.5 37.1 6.6 49.3 41.4 –7.9 20.2 21.5 1.3

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . 219,786 229,657 28.6 37.1 8.5 46.4 36.3 –10.1 25.0 26.6 1.6

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 914,915 1,034,157 25.7 33.5 7.8 50.6 40.5 –10.1 23.7 26.0 2.3

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 167,572 179,718 19.5 19.9 0.4 59.3 56.8 –2.5 21.2 23.3 2.1

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,320,466 1,417,748 24.2 31.4 7.2 54.2 44.0 –10.2 21.6 24.6 3.0

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,458,959 6,461,979 24.3 33.2 8.9 53.3 42.3 –11.0 22.4 24.5 2.1

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720,498 752,616 21.7 28.6 6.9 57.1 46.3 –10.8 21.1 25.0 3.9

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120,199 119,405 24.7 30.4 5.7 53.2 45.2 –8.0 22.1 24.5 2.4

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,615,582 1,838,572 24.7 32.3 7.6 51.3 41.6 –9.7 24.0 26.1 2.1

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,434,024 1,642,844 21.2 26.6 5.4 55.5 47.6 –7.9 23.3 25.8 2.5

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 368,696 356,718 27.4 32.9 5.5 55.6 44.5 –11.1 17.0 22.6 5.6

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,184,537 1,205,671 23.7 27.4 3.7 55.4 49.7 –5.7 20.9 22.9 2.0

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111,172 131,996 18.1 20.9 2.8 61.3 54.7 –6.6 20.6 24.4 3.8

1

 Child of the householder, regardless of the young adult’s marital status. 2

 The young adult lives alone, is the householder living with a spouse or unmarried partner, or is the spouse or unmarried partner of the householder. 3

 Living with other relatives or nonrelatives.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 and 2015 American Community Survey, 1-Year Data File.
U.S. Census Bureau 13

Table 4.

More Than Half of Younger Millennials Live in Their Parents’ Home

Demographic and economic characteristics of young adults aged 18 to 24: 2015

Characteristics Living in parents’ home1 Living independently2 Living with roommates3

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,795,266 100.0 4,458,204 100.0 7,757,228 100.0

DEMOGRAPHICS AND HEALTH

Sex

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,316,710 46.3 2,587,170 58.0 3,850,640 49.6

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,478,556 53.7 1,871,034 42.0 3,906,588 50.4

Age

18 to 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,459,426 34.6 249,603 5.6 1,328,036 17.1

20 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,335,840 65.4 4,208,601 94.4 6,429,192 82.9

Race, Non-Hispanic

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,147,667 51.6 2,851,558 64.0 4,054,476 52.3

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,349,574 14.9 463,235 10.4 1,202,915 15.5

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768,853 4.9 137,164 3.1 534,140 6.9

Other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665,474 4.2 178,622 4.0 337,825 4.4

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,863,698 24.5 827,625 18.6 1,627,872 21.0

Has a disability4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,043,993 6.6 224,079 5.0 413,383 5.3

ECONOMICS AND EDUCATION

Work Status

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,033,467 57.2 3,398,930 76.2 4,981,017 64.2

Worked full-time, year-round . . . . . . . . . . . 2,813,361 17.8 2,108,857 47.3 2,174,107 28.0

Mean hours worked per week . . . . . . . . . . 29.9 X 38.3 X 33.3 X

Unemployed........................... 1,594,298 10.1 247,436 5.6 642,978 8.3

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,167,501 32.7 811,838 18.2 2,133,233 27.5

Educational Attainment

Bachelor’s degree or higher5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,312,497 8.3 847,812 19.0 1,004,499 12.9

Associate’s degree or some college . . . . . . . 6,632,410 42.0 1,929,764 43.3 3,543,912 45.7

High school diploma or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,850,359 49.7 1,680,628 37.7 3,208,817 41.4

Enrolled in school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,463,376 53.6 1,198,279 26.9 3,585,994 46.2

Personal Income6

$0–$29,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,973,114 94.8 3,415,553 76.6 6,917,118 89.2

$30,000–$59,999....................... 736,414 4.7 885,252 19.9 715,064 9.2

$60,000–$99,999....................... 70,908 0.4 134,984 3.0 101,290 1.3

$100,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,213 0.1 21,950 0.5 22,876 0.3

HOUSING AND RESIDENCY

Type

Single-family home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,511,540 79.2 1,627,531 36.5 3,975,428 51.2

Apartment or multifamily building . . . . . . . . . 2,420,974 15.3 2,506,900 56.2 3,390,518 43.7

Other housing type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862,752 5.5 323,773 7.3 391,282 5.0

Lived at same address a year ago.......... 14,127,196 89.4 2,157,685 48.4 4,505,942 58.1

Tenure

Owned home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,830,698 68.6 802,211 18.0 2,458,831 31.7

Rented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,964,568 31.4 3,655,993 82.0 5,298,397 68.3

X Not applicable. 1

 Child of the householder, regardless of the young adult’s marital status. 2

 The young adult lives alone, or is the householder living with a spouse or unmarried partner, or is the spouse or unmarried partner of the householder. 3

 Living with other relatives or nonrelatives. 4

 “Has a disability” means the young adult reported having at least one of the following six types of disabilities: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, or independent living difficulty. 5

 Most 18- to 24-year-olds will not have had time to finish a traditional 4-year degree. However, the table shows bachelor’s degree so that the other two categories, some college and high school diploma, are still directly comparable with those in Table 5. 6

 Excludes young adults with incomes less than $0.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 1-Year Data File.
14 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 5.

Less Than Two-Thirds of Older Millennials Live Independently

Demographic and economic characteristics of young adults aged 25 to 34: 2015

Characteristics Living in parents’ home1 Living independently2 Living with roommates3

Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,381,719 100.0 24,361,670 100.0 10,118,031 100.0

DEMOGRAPHICS AND HEALTH

Sex

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,679,325 43.9 12,662,051 52.0 5,252,256 51.9

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,702,394 56.1 11,699,619 48.0 4,865,775 48.1

Age

25 to 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,496,782 65.6 10,476,186 43.0 5,761,676 56.9

30 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,884,937 34.4 13,885,484 57.0 4,356,355 43.1

Race, Non-Hispanic

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,191,760 50.0 15,525,081 63.7 4,702,087 46.5

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,428,202 17.0 2,167,943 8.9 1,836,600 18.2

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571,458 6.8 1,553,525 6.4 749,956 7.4

Other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326,003 3.9 746,193 3.1 365,294 3.6

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,864,296 22.2 4,368,928 17.9 2,464,094 24.4

Has a disability4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904,027 10.8 1,019,146 4.2 629,653 6.2

ECONOMICS AND EDUCATION

Work Status

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,778,467 68.9 19,869,452 81.6 7,863,056 77.7

Worked full-time, year-round . . . . . . . . . 3,650,765 43.6 15,556,869 63.9 5,616,542 55.5

Mean hours worked per week . . . . . . . . 37.1 X 41.6 X 39.5 X

Unemployed......................... 850,850 10.2 829,979 3.4 681,695 6.7

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,752,402 20.9 3,662,239 15.0 1,573,280 15.5

Educational Attainment

Bachelor’s degree or higher . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,067,987 24.7 9,964,959 40.9 2,863,508 28.3

Associate’s degree or some college . . . . . 2,839,777 33.9 7,562,896 31.0 3,210,941 31.7

High school diploma or less . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,473,955 41.4 6,833,815 28.1 4,043,582 40.0

Enrolled in school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,275,605 15.2 2,563,726 10.5 1,424,952 14.1

Personal Income5

$0–$29,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,246,561 74.6 10,997,674 45.2 6,402,325 63.3

$30,000–$59,999..................... 1,730,304 20.7 8,291,726 34.1 2,705,916 26.8

$60,000–$99,999..................... 336,456 4.0 3,653,443 15.0 806,182 8.0

$100,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,105 0.8 1,408,061 5.8 201,060 2.0

HOUSING AND RESIDENCY

Type

Single-family home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,686,540 79.8 14,530,608 59.6 5,478,158 54.1

Apartment or multifamily building . . . . . . . 1,232,904 14.7 8,609,516 35.3 4,136,030 40.9

Other housing type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462,275 5.5 1,221,546 5.0 503,843 5.0

Lived at same address a year ago........ 7,341,159 87.6 18,004,804 73.9 7,177,646 70.9

Tenure

Owned home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,230,071 74.3 10,918,075 44.8 3,439,069 34.0

Rented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,151,648 25.7 13,443,595 55.2 6,678,962 66.0

X Not applicable. 1

 Child of the householder, regardless of the young adult’s marital status. 2

 The young adult lives alone, or is the householder living with a spouse or unmarried partner, or is the spouse or unmarried partner of the householder. 3

 Living with other relatives or nonrelatives. 4

 “Has a disability” means the young adult reported having at least one of the following six types of disabilities: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, or independent living difficulty. 5

 Excludes young adults with incomes less than $0.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 1-Year Data File.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

Young Adults Who Are 

Economically Secure Tend to 

Live Independently

Who young adults live with reflects, 

in part, their economic security. 

Today, of the 28 million young 

millennials (aged 18 to 24), 16 million—more than half—live in their 

parents’ home, a group that is more 

likely to be enrolled in school and 

out of the labor force than their 

peers in other living arrangements 

(Table 4). Among older millennials 

(aged 25 to 34) who lived in their 

own household in 2015, about 41 

percent had at least a bachelor’s 

degree and about two-thirds had a 

full-time job that employed them 

year-round (Table 5). In contrast, 

their peers who lived with parents 

or roommates were less likely to 

have a bachelor’s degree or a job 

that employed them full-time, 

year-round. 

Overall, the picture of living with 

parents or roommates is one of 

young people who are working 

toward a firmer footing. For both 

young and older millennials in 

these arrangements, they are more 

likely to be enrolled in school than 

their peers living independently 

(Tables 4 and 5). In line with attitudes about the importance of education for becoming an adult, many 

young people wait to set up their 

own household until after they 

finish school. Living on their own 

can be expensive, so young people 

who live independently tend to 

have higher incomes, even among 

young millennials. Among older 

millennials, more than half of those 

who live in their own household 

have incomes of at least $30,000, 

compared with only one-third of 

their peers living with roommates 

and one-quarter living with parents 

(Table 5).

Living arrangements are more 

than just a matter of economics. A 

higher proportion of older millennials living with parents have a disability of some kind (Table 5). They 

may be living at home because 

they need instrumental support or 

caregiving, factors that could affect 

Table 6.

One in Four Young People Living at Home Are Neither in School Nor Working

Characteristics of young adults aged 25 to 34 living in the parents’ home in 2015

Characteristics Enrolled or working Neither enrolled nor working1

Total Percent Total Percent

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,218,882 100.0 2,162,837 100.0

DEMOGRAPHICS AND HEALTH

Sex

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,760,638 44.4 918,687 42.5

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,458,244 55.6 1,244,150 57.5

Age

25 to 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,202,426 67.6 1,294,356 59.8

30 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,016,456 32.4 868,481 40.2

Has a child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,087,299 17.5 462,655 21.4

Race, Non-Hispanic

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,093,788 49.7 1,097,972 50.8

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985,022 15.8 443,180 20.5

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477,887 7.7 93,571 4.3

Other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224,231 3.6 101,772 4.7

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,437,954 23.1 426,342 19.7

Has a disability2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307,912 5.0 596,115 27.6

EDUCATION

Bachelor’s degree or higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,812,320 29.1 255,667 11.8

Associate’s degree or some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,332,733 37.5 507,044 23.4

High school diploma or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,073,829 33.3 1,400,126 64.7

RESIDENCY

Lived at same address a year ago................ 5,473,308 88.0 1,867,851 86.4

1

 “Neither enrolled nor working” means that the young adult was not enrolled in classes within the last 3 months, plus they were either unemployed or not 

engaged in the labor force at the time of interview. 2

 “Has a disability” means the young adult reported having at least one of the following six types of disabilities: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, or independent living difficulty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 1-Year Data File.
16 U.S. Census Bureau

their ability to work. Indeed, adult 

children who are disabled are more 

likely to live with their parents.28

Seen in this light, the lower rates 

of working among people living 

at home may be linked to poorer 

health and disability. 

A Closer Look at Young People 

Living at Home: 1 in 4 Are Idle, 

Neither Going to School nor 

Working

It is easy to think of young people 

living in their parents’ home as a 

homogeneous group, as though 

they were all unemployed and 

dependent on their parents’ support. At 24.2 million people, the 

population of 18- to 34-year-olds 

living at home is a large and 

diverse group.29 Most of them—

about 81 percent—are either 

working or going to school. This 

should not be surprising because 

most people aged 18 to 24 are living in their parents’ home, attending classes or working part-time. 

On the other hand, we might be 

surprised if their older peers do 

not contribute to the family budget 

because they have had more time 

to finish school and find a stable 

job. Yet, of the 8.4 million 25- to 

34-year-olds living at home, about 

1 in 4 are idle, meaning they are 

not in school and do not work 

(Table 6). 

Who are these young adults who 

are not in the labor force or going 

to school? They tend to be older 

millennials who are White or Black 

and have only a high school education, compared with their peers 

28 A. Smits, R. van Gaalen, and C. Mulder,

“Parent-Child Coresidence: Who Moves in With 

Whom and For Whose Needs?” Journal of

Marriage and Family, Vol. 72, 2010,

pp. 1022–1033. 29 The total number of young people 

living at home comes from Tables 4 and 5, 

using the American Community Survey. This 

estimate of 24.2 million does not match the 

estimate shown in Figure 3, which uses the 

Current Population Survey. The surveys use 

different sampling and weighting procedures, 

which may affect the estimates. See the

Methodology for more information.

who are working or going to school 

while living at home (Table 6). But 

they may not be idle for want of 

effort. They are more likely to have 

a child, so they may be caring for 

family, and over one-quarter have 

a disability of some kind (Table 6). 

That so many are disabled suggests 

that they have limitations in their 

ability to attend classes, study, find 

work, or keep a regular job. Recent 

stories on boomerang children 

returning home focus on economic 

downturns, unforgiving job markets, and high rents.30 Though 

often overlooked in these stories, 

young people’s health may play an 

important role in their decision to 

live with parents. 

CONCLUSION

If one theme describes how adulthood has changed over the last 40 

years, it is growing complexity. In 

1975, there was one predominant 

adult milestone—family formation—that people largely experienced during their 20s. Today, 

while the milestones have remained 

the same, the pathways are more 

diverse. Those who marry and 

become parents by their late 20s 

are the minority; growing shares 

of young adults live alone, with 

roommates, or with an unmarried 

partner. That young people wait to 

settle down and start families tells 

us about their behavior, but not 

how they feel about their experiences. More than half of all

Americans believe that getting

married and having children are

not important to becoming an 

adult. In contrast, more than 9 in 

10 Americans believe that finishing school and being gainfully 

employed are important milestones 

of adulthood. What is revealing 

is the timing of these milestones 

30 K. Parker, “The Boomerang Generation: 

Feeling OK About Living With Mom and Dad,” 

Pew Research Center, Pew Social and

Demographic Trends, Washington, DC, 2012. 

See also, news stories by Forbes, the Wall 

Street Journal, Slate, and the New York Times.

which most Americans believe 

should happen before marriage. 

Having a history of work experience, and presumably savings and 

financial security, as a prelude to 

settling down suggests that marriage is a capstone experience,31

one that comes after (sometimes 

years after) young people feel 

financially secure. 

The complexity of the pathways 

to adulthood extends to economic 

conditions, as well. Today, more 

young people work full-time and 

have a college degree than their 

peers did in 1975, but fewer own 

their home. Whereas young women 

have made economic gains, some 

young men are falling behind. Compared to their peers in 1975, young 

men are more likely to be absent 

from the work force and a far 

higher share today are at the bottom of the income ladder. It is little 

surprise then that those still living 

with parents are disproportionately young men. Taken together, 

the changing demographic and 

economic experiences of young 

adults reveal a period of adulthood that has grown more complex 

since 1975, a period of changing 

roles and new transitions as young 

people redefine what it means to 

become adults.32

METHODOLOGY

Estimating How Many Young 

Adults Live in the Parental 

Home: Differences Between 

the American Community 

Survey and Current Population 

Survey

This study uses both the American Community Survey (ACS) and 

Current Population Survey (CPS) 

to estimate the number of young 

adults living in their parents’ home. 

31 A. Cherlin, The Marriage-Go-Round: The 

State of Marriage and the Family in America 

Today, Vintage, New York, NY, 2010. 32 J. Silva, “Constructing Adulthood in an 

Age of Uncertainty,” American Sociological 

Review, Vol. 77, 2012, pp. :505–522.
U.S. Census Bureau 17

The 2015 ACS estimates that about 

24.2 million 18- to 34-year-olds 

lived in their parents’ home (Tables 

4 and 5), compared with 22.9 

million in the 2016 CPS. Differences between the surveys in data 

collection methods and coverage, 

weighting, and editing may affect 

the estimate. One major difference between the surveys that may 

affect these numbers is that the 

ACS estimates of householders are 

controlled to match the estimate of 

occupied housing units, while this 

is not true in the CPS. Therefore, 

the overall estimate of households 

in the two surveys differs considerably, which may affect the count of 

young adults living in their parents’ 

home. For more information on the 

differences in household estimates 

across Census Bureau surveys, see 

the paper by Cresce, Cheng, and 

Grieves.33 The CPS has an additional caveat in that the survey 

counts college students living in 

dormitories as if they were living 

in their parents’ home, while the 

ACS counts them in the dormitories 

(group quarters). The reason that 

this report includes the CPS estimate is for historical comparisons. 

The ACS did not begin until 2005, 

so the study can only look back to 

1975 using the CPS. 

Data From the General Social 

Survey on the Milestones of 

Adulthood

The General Social Survey

<http://gss.norc.org/> asked 

about the milestones of adulthood in a special module fielded in 

2012, which was developed by the 

MacArthur Research Network on 

Transitions to Adulthood. It collected answers from respondents 

who were aged 18 and older on 

how important specific milestones 

33 A. Cresce, Y. Cheng, and C. Grieves,

“Household Estimates Conundrum: Effort 

to Develop More Consistent Household 

Estimates Across Surveys,” Paper presented at 

the 2013 meeting of the Federal Committee 

on Statistical Methodology, Washington, DC.

were in order to be considered an 

adult. The survey asked about all 

of the milestones in the same way: 

“People differ in their ideas about 

what it takes for a young person to 

become an adult these days. How 

important is it for them to have/

be...”

• Financially independent from 

their parents/guardians?

• No longer living in their parents’ 

household?

• Completed their formal 

schooling?

• Employed full-time?

• Capable of supporting a family 

financially?

• A child?

• Gotten married?

Response categories were 

extremely important, quite important, somewhat important, not 

too important, and not important. 

This report collapses these categories into three groups. As shown 

in Table 1, extremely important 

includes respondents who said the 

milestone was extremely important, somewhat important includes 

those who said it was quite important or somewhat important, and 

not important includes respondents 

who said either not too important 

or not important at all. For each 

milestone, respondents who said 

the experience was at least somewhat important were then asked 

a follow up question: By what age 

should the experience normally 

occur? This report takes the median 

age that respondents replied and 

shows it as the ideal age for completing the milestone (Figure 1 and 

Table 1). Missing data from refusals 

and don’t know answers (typically 

less than 1 percent of respondents 

for each question) are excluded 

from the analysis.

Family Delayed, but Not 

Forgone

Data on fertility and childbearing is 

reported only for women because 

the CPS June Fertility Supplement 

surveys only female respondents. 

Although data are reported for 

20- to 24-year-olds, the fertility 

estimates for 1976 also include 18- 

and 19-year-olds. Estimates on marriage come from the CPS Annual 

Social and Economic Supplement 

and use marital status to determine 

whether respondents were ever 

married. The category includes 

people who were at least 18 years 

old and who reported being married (regardless of whether their 

spouse was present in the household), separated, divorced, or 

widowed (Figure 2).

More Young Adults Lived With 

Parents Than a Spouse in 2016

Figure 3 groups 18- to 34-year-olds 

into five mutually exclusive living 

arrangements:

• Spouse: Any young adult who 

lives with a spouse, regardless of whether anyone else is 

present in the household (e.g., 

parents, roommates, other family members).

• Parents’ home: The young adult 

is reported as the child of the 

householder and is not living 

with a spouse or cohabiting 

partner. Estimates include college students who are living in 

dormitories.

• Alone: The young adult is 

the only person living in the 

household.

• Partner: The young adult lives 

with an unmarried partner. For 

1975, the estimate of unmarried 

couples uses an indirect measure called POSSLQ (partners of 

the opposite sex sharing living 

quarters), because respondents 

could not report unmarried 

partners. POSSLQ includes 
18 U.S. Census Bureau

only households that have just 

two adults, one man and one 

woman, who are unrelated to 

each other, have no spouse 

present and are at least 18 years 

old. Children may or may not be 

present in the household. For 

2016, the estimate relies on a 

direct question asking about the 

presence of unmarried partners, 

including all cohabiting partners, 

regardless of whether they are 

the householder. The 2016 estimate includes same sex unmarried couples.

• Other: All living arrangements 

that were not already covered, 

including people who were 

living with relatives other than 

a spouse, such as siblings or 

grandparents, as well as

nonrelatives such as roommates. 

Race Differences in Living 

Arrangements

For information about the living 

arrangement categories, see the 

notes for Figure 3. The race categories for Asian, White, and Black 

include young adults who reported 

that they were only that race and 

were not Hispanic (Figure 4). Other 

races include several groups: 

young adults who were not Hispanic, and reported either multiple 

race groups or were American 

Indian or Alaska Native, or Native 

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

The Changing Milestones of 

Adulthood

Figure 5 shows four common milestones of adulthood:

• Living away from parents:

Includes any person aged 25 to 

34 who is not the child of the 

householder (i.e., living in the 

parents’ household). The category includes those who are 

householders, spouse of the 

householder, roommates, cohabiting partners, and people in any 

other living arrangement. 

• Ever married: Includes people 

who are at least 25 years old and 

reported being married (regardless of whether their spouse was 

present in the household), separated, divorced, or widowed. 

• Living with a child: Living in a 

household that includes someone under the age of 18. Ideally, 

this report would use fertility 

data to see whether respondents 

had ever become parents, but 

those data are not available in 

the CPS. In the 1975 data, it is 

also difficult to identify parents 

and children in cases where the 

parent is not the householder 

(i.e., identifying subfamilies in 

someone else’s household). As a 

result, the study uses a recode 

variable that indicates the presence of children under the age 

of 18 in the household, which 

is available for both 1975 and 

2016, so that the estimates are 

directly comparable across time. 

• In the labor force: Includes any 

person aged 25 to 34 who is 

employed or unemployed at the 

time of the survey. The report 

counts members of the armed 

forces as if they were in the 

labor force.
U.S. Census Bureau 19

Economic and Educational 

Characteristics

Median income was calculated only 

for 25- to 34-year-olds who were 

in the labor force (employed or 

unemployed) (Table 2). Thus, it is 

a gauge of how the typical worker 

in 2016 compared with his or her 

counterpart in 1975. Data on being 

a homemaker is only available for 

women in 1975 because at that 

time the CPS did not ask male 

respondents whether they were 

taking care of home or family.

Young Adult Living 

Arrangements

Tables 3, 4, and 5 group living 

arrangements in three categories:

• Living independently: Young 

adults are living in their own 

household. They either live 

alone, live with a spouse or 

unmarried partner, or the young 

adult is the spouse or unmarried 

partner of the householder.

• Living in the parents’ household:

The young adult is the child of 

the householder, regardless of 

the young adult’s marital status. 

This includes biological, step, 

and adopted children of the 

householder.

• Living with roommates: Includes 

young adults living in all other 

living arrangements, such as 

with siblings, other relatives 

(besides parents or spouses), 

and other nonrelatives.

Accuracy of the Estimates

Statistics that come from surveys are subject to sampling and 

nonsampling error. Sampling error 

occurs because surveys measure 

the characteristics of a sample of 

people, instead of those of the 

entire population (as from a census). Sample-based estimates vary 

depending on the particular sample 

that is selected from the population, but all survey-based estimates 

attempt to approximate the actual 

figures from the population. Measures of the size of sampling error 

reflect variation in the estimates 

over all possible samples that 

could have been selected from the 

population using the same sampling, data collection, and processing methods. Nonsampling error 

in surveys may be a by-product of 

how the survey is designed, how 

respondents interpret questions, 

how able and willing respondents 

are to provide correct answers, and 

how accurately the answers are 

coded and classified. The Census 

Bureau uses quality control procedures throughout the production 

process, including overall survey 

design, question wording, review 

of interviewer and coder work, and 

statistical review of reports to minimize these errors (Appendix Tables 

A, B, C, and D).

Suggested Citation

Vespa, Jonathan, “The Changing 

Economics and Demographics of 

Young Adulthood: 1975–2016,” 

Current Population Reports,

P20-579, U.S. Census Bureau,

Washington, DC, 2017.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Jonathan Vespa 

jonathan.vespa@census.gov

301-763-7283
20 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table A.

A Decade of Change: The State of Young Adult Living Arrangements

Change in living arrangements for young adults aged 18 to 34 between 2005 and 2015

(Standard errors [SE] for Table 3)

States SE of 

total 

20054

SE of 

total 

20154

Living in parents’ home1 Living independently2 Living with roommates3

SE of 

percent 

20054

SE of 

percent 

20154

SE of 

change

SE of 

percent 

20054

SE of 

percent 

20154

SE of 

change

SE of 

percent 

20054

SE of 

percent 

20154

SE of 

change

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,130 22,432 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,892 3,496 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.9

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951 1,291 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.2 1.3 1.8

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,550 2,071 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.8

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,529 2,905 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.7 1.1

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,318 4,398 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,971 2,585 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.8

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,086 1,645 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587 708 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.7 2.2

District of Columbia . . . . . . 283 538 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.7 1.2 2.1 1.6 1.5 2.2

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,053 4,680 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,243 4,773 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775 1,091 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.6

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,350 1,838 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.5

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,152 3,332 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,355 2,767 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,727 2,429 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.7 1.0

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,111 2,375 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.8 1.0

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,158 2,355 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.8

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,365 3,658 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892 1,136 0.8 1.2 1.5 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.9 1.3 1.6

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,691 1,919 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.8

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . 1,524 1,878 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.9

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,186 2,666 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,723 1,946 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,312 3,032 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.1

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,802 2,642 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.7

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,132 1,241 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.7

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,149 1,802 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.8 1.2

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,550 1,180 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.2

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . 1,073 1,093 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.6

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,398 1,877 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,001 1,812 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.4

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,634 3,009 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 4,034 3,993 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 834 1,492 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.6 2.0 1.2 1.4 1.8

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,843 3,034 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,322 2,010 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,981 2,194 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.1

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 1,951 2,753 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . 741 1,005 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.9

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 2,562 3,399 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.8

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 966 1,388 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.9

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,701 2,937 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,690 5,868 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,281 1,968 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.2

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 682 1.1 1.5 1.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 1.5 1.7 1.8

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,218 4,107 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,891 2,892 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.9

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 1,367 1,745 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.9 1.1

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,863 1,941 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913 1,859 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.9 2.5 1.4 2.0 2.4

1

 Child of the householder, regardless of the young adult’s marital status. 2

 The young adult lives alone, is the householder living with a spouse or unmarried partner, or is the spouse or unmarried partner of the householder. 3

 Living with other relatives or nonrelatives. 4

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A standard error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the standard error is in relation to 

the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 and 2015 American Community Survey, 1-Year Data File.
U.S. Census Bureau 21

Appendix Table B.

More Than Half of Younger Millennials Live in Their Parents’ Home

Demographic and economic characteristics of young adults aged 18 to 24: 2015

(Standard errors [SE] for Table 4)

Characteristics Living in parents’ home1 Living independently2 Living with roommates3

SE of total4 SE of percent4 SE of total4 SE of percent4 SE of total4 SE of percent4

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,424 X 35,683 X 44,602 X

DEMOGRAPHICS AND HEALTH

Sex

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,051 0.1 20,425 0.2 26,332 0.2

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,703 0.1 19,766 0.2 26,358 0.2

Age

18 to 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,760 0.1 6,946 0.1 12,648 0.1

20 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,096 0.1 33,323 0.1 38,762 0.1

Race, Non-Hispanic

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,418 0.1 26,240 0.2 32,067 0.2

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,059 0.1 7,929 0.2 13,828 0.2

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,296 Z 3,701 0.1 8,689 0.1

Other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,937 0.1 4,265 0.1 5,867 0.1

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,628 0.1 10,254 0.2 14,297 0.2

Has a disability5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,013 0.1 4,713 0.1 7,250 0.1

ECONOMICS AND EDUCATION

Work Status

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,320 0.1 29,165 0.2 32,343 0.2

Worked full-time, year-round . . . . . . . 18,870 0.1 19,703 0.3 19,570 0.2

Mean hours worked per week . . . . . . Z X 0.1 X 0.1 X

Unemployed....................... 11,731 0.1 4,871 0.1 9,782 0.1

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,784 0.1 10,740 0.2 21,880 0.2

Educational Attainment

Bachelor’s degree or higher6 . . . . . . . . . 12,797 0.1 11,051 0.2 12,507 0.1

Associate’s degree or some college . . . 28,768 0.1 19,216 0.3 31,878 0.2

High school diploma or less . . . . . . . . . . 26,857 0.2 17,410 0.3 20,868 0.2

Enrolled in school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,823 0.2 15,009 0.2 30,311 0.2

Personal Income

$0–$29,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,503 0.1 28,097 0.2 41,541 0.1

$30,000–$59,999................... 9,148 0.1 10,665 0.2 11,017 0.1

$60,000–$99,999................... 2,614 Z 4,049 0.1 4,005 0.1

$100,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,305 Z 1,459 Z 1,981 Z

HOUSING AND RESIDENCY

Type

Single-family home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,780 0.2 22,587 0.3 25,393 0.2

Apartment or multifamily building . . . . . 21,997 0.1 20,851 0.3 29,807 0.2

Other housing type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,978 0.1 7,279 0.2 8,593 0.1

Lived at same address a year ago...... 30,799 0.1 21,860 0.3 28,611 0.2

Tenure

Owned home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,987 0.2 15,336 0.3 16,438 0.3

Rented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,082 0.2 25,899 0.3 46,738 0.3

X Not applicable.

Z Rounds to zero. 1

 Child of the householder, regardless of the young adult’s marital status. 2

 The young adult lives alone, is the householder living with a spouse or unmarried partner, or is the spouse or unmarried partner of the householder. 3

 Living with other relatives or nonrelatives. 4

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A standard error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the standard error is 

in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. 5

 “Has a disability” means the young adult reported having at least one of the following six types of disabilities: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, or independent living difficulty. 6

 Most 18- to 24-year-olds will not have had time to finish a traditional 4-year degree. However, the table shows bachelor’s degree so that the other two categories, some college and high school diploma, are still directly comparable with those in Table 5.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 2015, 1-Year Data File.
22 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table C.

Less Than Two-Thirds of Older Millennials Live Independently

Demographic and economic characteristics of young adults aged 25 to 34: 2015

(Standard errors [SE] for Table 5)

Characteristics Living in parents’ home1 Living independently2 Living with roommates3

SE of total4 SE of percent4 SE of total4 SE of percent4 SE of total4 SE of percent4

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,551 X 60,737 X 48,935 X

DEMOGRAPHICS AND HEALTH

Sex

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,764 0.2 32,723 0.1 26,981 0.2

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,223 0.2 36,168 0.1 30,906 0.2

Age

25 to 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,362 0.2 42,979 0.1 32,209 0.2

30 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,970 0.2 31,738 0.1 27,705 0.2

Race, Non-Hispanic

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,204 0.2 38,405 0.1 31,430 0.2

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,785 0.1 14,594 0.1 13,221 0.1

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,556 0.1 12,099 Z 9,600 0.1

Other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,266 0.1 9,441 Z 6,909 0.1

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,052 0.1 19,625 0.1 17,878 0.1

Has a disability5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,341 0.1 10,012 Z 9,075 0.1

ECONOMICS AND EDUCATION

Work Status

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,492 0.2 55,805 0.1 41,009 0.2

Worked full-time, year-round . . . . . . . . . 18,226 0.2 46,597 0.1 35,109 0.2

Mean hours worked per week . . . . . . . . Z X Z X 0.1 X

Unemployed......................... 10,509 0.1 11,235 Z 11,035 0.1

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,795 0.2 19,905 0.1 17,121 0.1

Educational Attainment

Bachelor’s degree or higher . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,364 0.1 43,616 0.1 20,686 0.2

Associate’s degree or some college . . . . . 17,319 0.2 28,444 0.1 22,872 0.2

High school diploma or less . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,862 0.2 25,589 0.1 29,417 0.2

Enrolled in school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,726 0.1 21,017 0.1 13,166 0.1

Personal Income

$0–$29,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,204 0.2 33,748 0.1 39,073 0.2

$30,000–$59,999..................... 15,048 0.2 32,235 0.1 20,360 0.2

$60,000–$99,999..................... 7,345 0.1 19,569 0.1 12,734 0.1

$100,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,693 Z 11,216 Z 5,875 0.1

HOUSING AND RESIDENCY

Type

Single-family home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,364 0.2 53,932 0.1 29,941 0.2

Apartment or multifamily building . . . . . . . 13,153 0.1 28,494 0.1 31,586 0.2

Other housing type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,724 0.1 12,583 0.1 9,754 0.1

Lived at same address a year ago........ 27,479 0.1 55,598 0.1 38,704 0.2

Tenure

Owned home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,200 0.2 54,862 0.1 18,181 0.2

Rented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,107 0.2 33,658 0.1 45,563 0.2

X Not applicable.

Z Rounds to zero. 1

 Child of the householder, regardless of the young adult’s marital status. 2

 The young adult lives alone, is the householder living with a spouse or unmarried partner, or is the spouse or unmarried partner of the householder. 3

 Living with other relatives or nonrelatives. 4

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A standard error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the standard error is 

in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. 5

 “Has a disability” means the young adult reported having at least one of the following six types of disabilities: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, or independent living difficulty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 1-Year Data File.
U.S. Census Bureau 23

Appendix Table D.

One in Four Young People Living at Home Are Neither in School nor Working

Characteristics of young adults aged 25 to 34 living in the parents’ home in 2015

(Standard errors [SE] for Table 6)

Characteristics Enrolled or working Neither enrolled nor working1

SE of total2 SE of percent2 SE of total2 SE of percent2

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,033 X 13,498 X

DEMOGRAPHICS AND HEALTH

Sex

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,564 0.2 10,266 0.3

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,082 0.2 9,724 0.3

Age

25 to 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,612 0.2 10,852 0.4

30 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,336 0.2 9,869 0.4

Has a child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,739 0.2 7,042 0.3

Race, Non-Hispanic

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,536 0.2 11,269 0.4

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,801 0.2 6,705 0.3

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,586 0.1 3,890 0.2

Other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,665 0.1 2,980 0.1

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,955 0.2 7,807 0.3

Has a disability3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,855 0.1 9,658 0.4

EDUCATION

Bachelor’s degree or higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,427 0.2 5,759 0.3

Associate’s degree or some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,126 0.2 9,252 0.4

High school diploma or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,339 0.2 10,045 0.4

RESIDENCY

Lived at same address a year ago................ 23,155 0.2 12,697 0.3

X Not applicable. 1

 Neither enrolled nor working means that the young adult was not enrolled in classes within the last 3 months, plus they were either unemployed or not 

engaged in the labor force at the time of interview. 2

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A standard error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the standard error is 

in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. 3

 “Has a disability” means the young adult reported having at least one of the following six types of disabilities: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, or independent living difficulty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 1-Year Data File.