Boomers are still bankrolling their adult kids — but not all are mad about it

Salon - Apr 9th, 2025

A recent survey by Savings.com reveals that baby boomer and Gen X parents are providing unprecedented financial support to their millennial and Gen Z children. The study, involving 1,000 U.S. parents, indicates that these parents contribute an average of $1,474 monthly to their adult children's expenses, a significant amount that sometimes surpasses their contributions to their retirement savings. This trend highlights a shift away from the 'kick the baby bird out of the nest' mentality, as many parents wish to shield their children from financial struggles they themselves faced.

Despite the support, there is growing concern among boomers about the long-term implications of this financial assistance. Many parents fear their own retirement might be jeopardized as they continue to support their children, with more than half delaying retirement due to financial stress. This situation underscores the complex dynamics between generations, where love and responsibility are weighed against the necessity for financial independence. The findings suggest a need for redefining expectations about success and financial responsibility within families, while also highlighting the economic pressures faced by younger generations today.

Retirement Gen Z Millennials Savings.Com Baby Boomers Financial Support Economic Tension Survey

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-rounded exploration of the financial dynamics between boomers and their adult children, supported by data from a survey and expert opinions. It effectively challenges stereotypes about boomers while highlighting the complexities of intergenerational financial support. The narrative is clear and engaging, though it could benefit from additional sources and a more detailed explanation of the survey methodology. The topic is timely and of significant public interest, addressing broader economic challenges and personal financial planning issues. Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to the discussion of generational financial dynamics, though it could be strengthened by incorporating more diverse perspectives and corroborating data.

Accuracy

The article presents several claims about the financial dynamics between boomers and their adult children, supported by a survey from Savings.com. The claim that parents provide an average of $1,474 monthly to their adult children is a significant figure that aligns with similar reports, though it might be slightly inflated due to included living costs. The narrative about boomers delaying retirement due to financial stress also matches broader economic data, though specific figures like the 58.8% statistic should be cross-verified with other studies. The article accurately reflects the sentiment of boomers being supportive rather than resentful, a perspective supported by the survey's findings. However, the claim that more than half of boomers have less than $250,000 in retirement savings needs further verification against comprehensive retirement studies.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view of the financial relationship between boomers and their adult children by presenting both perspectives. It counters the stereotype of boomers being unsympathetic with data suggesting they are willing to support their children financially. The article also includes dissenting voices, such as the 61-year-old father and the 72-year-old woman, who express concerns about financial burdens, adding depth to the narrative. However, it could further explore the perspectives of younger generations to provide a fuller picture of the intergenerational financial dynamics.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and clearly communicates the main points regarding the financial support boomers provide to their adult children. It uses accessible language and provides quotes and anecdotes that illustrate the data effectively. The narrative flows logically, moving from the survey results to individual stories and expert opinions. The tone is neutral, which aids in comprehension, though a more detailed breakdown of the survey methodology would enhance clarity further.

Source quality

The primary source of data is a survey conducted by Savings.com, which, while informative, may not carry the same weight as academic or governmental studies. The article does include expert opinions, such as those from Dr. Michael Kane and Melissa Cox, which lend credibility. However, the reliance on a single survey from a commercial entity could introduce bias, and the article could benefit from additional sources to corroborate the findings.

Transparency

The article is transparent about its reliance on the Savings.com survey and includes quotes from the analytics manager, Beth Klongpayabal, which helps readers understand the context of the findings. It acknowledges potential biases by noting the less prestigious-sounding name of the source. However, the methodology of the survey, such as how participants were selected and how questions were framed, is not detailed, which could impact the perceived impartiality of the findings.