I deal with a lot of 18-19 year olds as my primary job is teaching first year engineering students.
I will tell you it is a LOT more complicated than this. This type of single point simplification and pronouncement about 'coddling' is decidedly unhelpful.
For starters, if you grow up in two working parent household, both parents can easily come home completely exhausted and unable to provide the extended engagement necessary to help a child develop. Add in the social pressures of school where EVERYONE has an iphone and games where it is socially isolating not to do these things - which carries its own set of risks. Add in a public education system that doesn't focus on development and instead focuses on learning material. Add in an economy designed to optimize extraction of capital from individuals through psychological programming and ads and more stuff to buy.
None of this has to have a single source of blame, much of its realistically structural and cultural. It isn't one bad actor or one failed thing...it is a large number of individuals, groups, and organizations individually performing Goodhart's law and the result is some get cast aside.
If the parents don't provide for them, what do you think would happen to the nephews? Do you think they would be homeless? I certainly don't.
The fact that the parents are providing a roof over their head and paying for their food/water/electricity/internet/clothes/games/etc is why they haven't had a job nor any desire for one well into their 30s.
Honestly, because the parents keep providing for them, there's no impetus for them to change, so they may as well do this into their 40s or 50s.
Minimum wage is enough to survive, and almost anyone that's not severely mentally/physically disabled can do most minimum wage work. In this case, it's not a matter of lack of ability, but lack of willingness.
That said, I have nothing against parents willing to provide housing/support if the child is working, still furthering their education, or need some help getting their feet back on the ground. But at this point, this is none of that, and just enabling their behavior.
The parents certainly can be enabling, but I think you're ignoring that there are plenty of people that are homeless, that do wind up with dependencies on alcohol, drugs like meth, etc, and your implication that anyone (especially people in their 30s with no real work history) can get full-time, minimum wage work doesn't seem realistic. Many of those jobs are both minimum wage and few enough hours per week (to avoid having to give you benefits, of course) that it would be extremely difficult to live independently, while still requiring a schedule that makes it nearly impossible to take on other jobs.
I'm in my 30s and have now seen several high school classmates with similarly poor prospects eventually succumb to drug overdoses.
Spiked rich kids are spoiled. If they weren't spoiled rich kids the parents would be risking homelessness by supporting a layabout who isn't paying rent.
Fully agree with this for 18-19 year olds, but at some point (25? 30?) it really does seem like coddling, or enabling at least. At some point you have to move out and support yourself.
"Pamper, pander to". Perhaps it's a loaded word but as a parent who may some day be facing this situation (from the parent point of view) I feel like I'm justified in my judgement.
FWIW I do have friends that were forced out of the house at 18. At the time I was the same age and I thought it was harsh. Many years later though, I can see that it worked out just fine.
I will tell you it is a LOT more complicated than this. This type of single point simplification and pronouncement about 'coddling' is decidedly unhelpful.
For starters, if you grow up in two working parent household, both parents can easily come home completely exhausted and unable to provide the extended engagement necessary to help a child develop. Add in the social pressures of school where EVERYONE has an iphone and games where it is socially isolating not to do these things - which carries its own set of risks. Add in a public education system that doesn't focus on development and instead focuses on learning material. Add in an economy designed to optimize extraction of capital from individuals through psychological programming and ads and more stuff to buy.
None of this has to have a single source of blame, much of its realistically structural and cultural. It isn't one bad actor or one failed thing...it is a large number of individuals, groups, and organizations individually performing Goodhart's law and the result is some get cast aside.