Good morning, NREB readers.

As always, we're here to keep real estate professionals informed while cutting out the fluff. Let's get right into it.

There are now 25.2 million Americans under age 35 living with their parents.

That is more than at any point on record, including the peak of the pandemic.

Roughly one in three adults ages 18 through 34 now shares a home with a parent.

The easy explanation would be that millions of young adults simply do not have jobs.

The data say otherwise.

Among 25–29-year-olds living at home, 71.1% are employed.

Among 30–34-year-olds, 68.4% are employed.

Put them together and roughly seven in ten adults ages 25–34 who live with their parents are working.

That changes the story.

This is not primarily a population waiting to enter the labor force.

A large share has already entered it.

What many have not entered is an independent household.

And for housing, that distinction matters enormously.

First, one useful piece of context.

The 25.2 million total is an all-time high in Realtor.com's analysis of Census Current Population Survey data.

The share of adults under 35 living with parents is 33.0%.

That is extremely high, but slightly below the pandemic peak of 33.6% in 2020.

So the clean way to describe the situation is:

More young adults live with their parents than ever before, while the share remains just below its pandemic record.

That is still remarkable when you consider what 2020 represented.

Colleges closed.

Jobs disappeared.

Young adults moved home suddenly.

Economic activity froze.

Living arrangements changed almost overnight.

It would have been reasonable to expect much of that spike to reverse as the economy reopened.

Some of it did.

Then the numbers started climbing again.

By 2025, the absolute count had surpassed the pandemic-era total.

The emergency ended.

The crowded nest did not.

COVID did not create this pattern.

It accelerated one that had already been developing for years.

In 2000, about 17.8 million adults ages 18–34 lived with their parents.

By 2007, the number was 19.2 million.

By 2010, after the housing crash and Great Recession, it had climbed to 20.8 million.

By 2015: 23 million.

By 2019: 23.5 million.

And now: 25.2 million.

Realtor.com modeled what the population would look like if age-specific co-residence rates from the early 2000s had simply persisted.

Under that scenario, about 20.3 million young adults would be living at home today.

The actual number is nearly 4.9 million higher.

That is roughly 4.9 million people above what population growth and age distribution alone would have produced under the old living patterns.

Something structural changed.

This is the part worth remembering.

Among adults ages 25–34 who still live with their parents, approximately 70% have jobs.

Employment among the at-home population has remained relatively stable even as co-residence has increased.

In 2000, roughly one in nine adults in their late 20s was simultaneously employed and living with parents.

By 2025, the figure was close to one in seven.

That is a very different problem from:

Many found work.

Independent housing still became harder to reach.

That suggests employment is no longer enough, by itself, to explain household formation.

A paycheck can solve the employment problem without solving the housing-cost problem.

The next AI trade may not be another chatbot.

It may be surgical robots, automated warehouses, smart factories, and machine vision systems already reshaping how companies operate.

MarketBeat’s new 7 Stocks to Buy Before the Robotics Revolution report reveals seven companies positioned across the automation boom, from robot builders and AI chip leaders to machine vision providers and factory automation giants.

This is where AI gets a body.

And as labor shortages, wage pressure, and supply chain stress push more companies toward automation, these stocks could move before the robotics story becomes impossible to ignore.

The report normally sells for $29.97, but it is free for a limited time.

Send My Free Report

The cost backdrop helps explain why.

Realtor.com's analysis put the national median home listing price at roughly $430,000, about 34.4% higher than in 2019.

Median asking rent was about $1,673, roughly 17.9% higher than in 2019.

Those increases affect different young adults differently.

Someone who wants to buy faces:

the purchase price,

the mortgage rate,

the down payment,

closing costs,

insurance,

property taxes,

and other ownership expenses.

Someone who wants to rent may avoid a down payment, but still faces a monthly rent that can consume a large share of early-career income.

Living with parents creates a third option.

And economically, it can be extremely difficult for either the rental or purchase market to compete with:

a bedroom that may cost very little or nothing.

That does not mean living with parents is free.

Families may share expenses.

Parents may absorb higher utility, food, insurance, or housing costs.

Young adults may contribute rent.

There can be substantial nonfinancial tradeoffs for everyone involved.

But the cash-flow difference can be enormous.

When market housing becomes expensive enough, remaining home can become the rational financial choice even for someone with a full-time job.

The 25.2 million figure also needs to be separated by age.

The largest group is 18–24-year-olds.

About 17.7 million, or 57.6% of that age group, live with parents.

That includes many college-age adults, and living at home during those years is hardly a new phenomenon.

The more revealing numbers appear farther into adulthood.

Among people ages 25–29, roughly 20.4% live with parents.

That is about 4.5 million people.

Among 30–34-year-olds, the share falls to 12.7%.

Smaller, but still about 3 million adults in their early 30s.

At the beginning of the century, only about 7.1% of 30–34-year-olds lived with parents.

That share has nearly doubled.

It is one thing for a 19-year-old college student to live in the family home.

It is something different when millions of people who are well into their professional years have not formed independent households.

There is an interesting wrinkle.

The co-residence rate among 25–29-year-olds has retreated somewhat from its recent highs.

At 20.4%, it remains far above the roughly 14.5% level seen around 2000, but this age group has shown more improvement than the others.

Realtor.com points to several possible reasons.

A large wave of multifamily construction delivered additional rental supply in 2023 and 2024, helping soften rents in many metros.

Some members of today's late-20s cohort were also old enough to take advantage of the extremely low mortgage-rate environment before financing costs rose sharply.

Housing conditions briefly gave part of that group an opening.

Some took it.

The cohorts immediately behind them encountered a very different market.

That is an important reminder that generations are not monoliths.

A two- or three-year age difference can mean someone entered the housing market under dramatically different financial conditions.

The story becomes more concerning among 30–34-year-olds.

Their co-residence rate rose to 12.7%, up from 11.4% before the pandemic and 7.1% in 2000.

About 3 million people in their early 30s now live with parents.

In 2000, it was about 1.4 million.

This is an age at which previous generations were much more likely to have established an independent household.

Not necessarily as homeowners.

Some rented.

Some bought.

Some lived alone.

Some lived with partners.

The relevant point is household formation.

Today's early-30s cohort passed through its mid-to-late 20s during one of the strangest housing periods in modern history.

First came extreme competition and rapidly rising prices.

Then came higher mortgage rates.

Rents surged.

Entry-level inventory remained constrained.

Someone who was not financially ready during the brief low-rate window did not simply get the same opportunity a few years later.

The market changed underneath them.

Another stereotype falls apart in the data.

Among 25–29-year-olds living with parents, 31.5% have at least a bachelor's degree.

Among 30–34-year-olds at home, 26.8% do.

The share of college graduates in the at-home population has increased considerably over time.

Again, that does not mean education has stopped helping people economically.

It means a degree plus employment no longer guarantees that independent housing is comfortably within reach.

A person can check several traditional boxes—

education,

employment,

career,

income—

and still look at local housing costs and decide the numbers do not make sense.

For real estate professionals, that is important because the person living in their parents' house should not automatically be viewed as economically disconnected from the housing market.

Some are professionals.

Some are saving.

Some are paying down debt.

Some are waiting.

Some may become renters.

Some may eventually become buyers.

They simply have not formed that next household yet.

Housing cost is not the only force here.

Roughly 92% of 25–34-year-olds living with parents have never been married, up from around 79% in 2000.

Marriage rates and the age of marriage have changed substantially over time.

People form partnerships later.

They have children later.

They combine finances later.

Those demographic shifts can delay household formation even if housing costs remain unchanged.

That is why it would be too simplistic to attribute all 25.2 million people to the housing shortage.

Culture changed.

Education changed.

Marriage changed.

Family structures changed.

Employment patterns changed.

Student debt and other household finances changed.

And some families simply prefer multigenerational living.

Housing affordability is a major part of the story.

It is not the only part.

The broader housing shortage matters because these demographic changes occurred inside a market that did not create enough additional homes.

Realtor.com's separate housing-supply analysis estimates the U.S. accumulated housing deficit at about 4.03 million homes in 2025.

That estimate includes not just the difference between construction and household formation, but also pent-up demand from younger adults whose household-formation rates have fallen.

Under its methodology, there were roughly 1.82 million fewer Gen Z and millennial households in 2025 than would be expected if age-specific household headship rates resembled the 2010–2014 period.

That does not mean America could build 1.82 million homes tomorrow and every one of those people would instantly move out.

It means there is measurable demand that never became a separate household under today's conditions.

That is an important difference.

Housing demand does not disappear merely because a person shares an address with their parents.

Sometimes it is delayed.

This is where the issue becomes particularly interesting for agents.

Traditional market statistics measure activity that actually happens.

A lease is signed.

A purchase closes.

A household moves.

A mortgage is originated.

A new listing sells.

Someone living with parents produces none of those events.

From the perspective of transaction data, they can almost disappear.

But imagine a 29-year-old professional who:

has a stable job,

has been living with parents for three years,

would prefer their own place,

and has been saving while waiting for housing costs to become manageable.

That person is not current transaction demand.

They are potential demand.

Multiply some version of that situation across millions of people and the distinction becomes important.

There may be considerably more desire for independent housing than current sales volume or lease activity makes visible.

The constraint is whether that desire can become financially executable.

Pent-up demand sounds positive for future housing activity.

It can be.

But there is another side.

If affordability improves enough for a large number of delayed households to enter the market at once, that demand can place new pressure on the same entry-level inventory they are waiting for.

This is part of what makes the housing shortage difficult to resolve.

Lower mortgage rates could improve purchasing power.

But lower rates could also attract more buyers.

More entry-level construction could improve supply.

But millions of delayed households may already be waiting for it.

Lower rents can help young adults form independent rental households.

But that can also increase the number of households competing for a limited supply of desirable units.

Housing has a backlog.

When the door opens, not everyone necessarily walks through one at a time.

There is another household affected by all of this:

the one the young adult is already living in.

Twenty-five million adults at home means millions of parents whose housing decisions may also be different because their adult children remain under the same roof.

Some may postpone downsizing.

Some may want additional bedrooms longer than expected.

Some may convert basements or other spaces.

Some may seek a property that accommodates multiple generations.

Some may eventually help an adult child move into independent housing.

Some may genuinely enjoy the arrangement and have no intention of changing it.

The effect is not uniform.

But an adult child remaining home changes how the existing household uses housing.

That can influence the market from the seller side as well as the buyer side.

The delayed household is connected to an existing household.

This deserves saying clearly.

Living with family is not inherently a housing failure.

Multigenerational households are common in many cultures and can provide meaningful benefits:

shared expenses,

child care,

elder care,

family connection,

additional saving,

and efficient use of housing.

Some young adults actively prefer it.

Some parents prefer it too.

The issue in these statistics is not that everyone must leave their parents' home by a particular birthday.

The issue is choice.

If someone stays because the arrangement works for the family, that is one thing.

If someone would form an independent household but cannot make the economics work, that is a housing-market constraint.

National data cannot perfectly distinguish every individual motivation.

But when co-residence rises while employment remains strong and housing costs rise sharply, affordability becomes difficult to ignore.

For generations, the rough housing progression looked something like:

parents' home,

rental,

starter home,

move-up home.

Real life was always messier than that.

But the first two transitions happened relatively early for a large share of adults.

Today, those steps are stretching.

Someone may remain home longer.

Rent with roommates longer.

Save longer.

Marry later.

Purchase later.

Move directly from a parent's home into a first purchase rather than renting independently first.

Or remain a renter much longer before buying.

That changes housing demand by age, product type, and price point.

A market built around assumptions about what a 27-year-old "normally" does can easily misread today's 27-year-old.

Agents sometimes describe younger buyers as though an entire generation has lost interest in ownership.

The co-residence numbers do not prove that.

In fact, they can support the opposite interpretation.

Millions of people have not formed the households that previous generations formed at the same age.

Some portion of them are waiting for a viable entry point.

That means today's weak first-time or entry-level transaction volume should not automatically be interpreted as permanent lack of demand.

The demand may simply be constrained by price and financing.

This is similar to what we saw last week with affordable inventory.

There can be homes for sale without enough buyers able to purchase them.

There can also be would-be buyers without enough homes or financial capacity to turn that desire into a transaction.

Both sides matter.

Home sales get far more attention than household formation.

But household formation is one of the fundamental engines underneath housing demand.

When one household becomes two, the market needs another housing unit.

A young adult moves out.

A couple separates.

Roommates establish separate households.

Someone moves for work.

A family member leaves a multigenerational home.

Each event creates demand for another place to live.

That place may be rented or owned.

When household formation slows, transaction demand can slow even if population keeps growing.

When delayed households eventually form, housing demand can accelerate without the population suddenly changing.

That is why 25.2 million young adults living with parents is not merely a demographic curiosity.

It tells us something about demand the housing market has not yet absorbed.

For agents, one practical mistake would be treating co-residence as evidence that someone is nowhere near a housing decision.

Some are nowhere near one.

Others may be much closer than they appear.

A person living independently and paying high rent may have little cash left to save each month.

A similarly paid person living with parents may have been accumulating savings rapidly.

One may have strong income and weak reserves.

Another may have strong reserves but has simply rejected today's purchase economics.

Another may be preparing for a move six months from now.

Living arrangement alone tells you very little about readiness.

The useful questions are about circumstances and objectives, not stereotypes.

This trend also varies substantially by geography.

High housing costs can make co-residence more attractive.

So can cultures where multigenerational living is more common.

Local wages matter.

Rental supply matters.

Home prices matter.

Employment opportunities matter.

New construction matters.

The age distribution of the population matters.

For an agent trying to understand future entry-level demand, a useful local picture includes more than sales.

How many younger adults are in the market?

How quickly are rents changing?

What is happening to entry-level inventory?

Are new apartments being delivered?

Are younger households moving into or out of the metro?

Is multigenerational housing common?

Are homes with flexible living arrangements receiving unusual interest?

Those questions can help explain what the transaction count alone misses.

Twenty-five million adults living with parents should not be translated into:

There is no basis for that.

Some will rent.

Some will remain with family.

Some will form households with partners.

Some will move abroad.

Some will buy years from now.

Some may never buy.

But the number still tells us something important.

A historically large group of young adults has reached ages at which independent household formation was once more common and has not made that transition.

Most of the 25–34-year-olds in that situation are working.

Many have college degrees.

The phenomenon survived the post-pandemic employment recovery.

And housing costs remain substantially higher than they were before the pandemic.

That looks less like a temporary failure to launch and more like a structural delay.

The more useful housing question is:

What would have to change for more of these people to form households of their own?

For some, it will be higher income.

For some, lower rent.

For some, more savings.

For some, a partner and second income.

For some, lower home prices.

For some, lower borrowing costs.

For some, more entry-level supply.

And for some, nothing needs to change because they are exactly where they want to be.

The population is too large for one answer.

But when roughly one-third of adults under 35 live with parents, the housing market should pay attention.

Because every housing cycle is ultimately about households.

And right now, America has millions of adults whose next household appears to have been postponed.

They have jobs.

They are aging into years when independent living historically became much more common.

Many have the education and work histories associated with professional adulthood.

What they do not necessarily have is housing that makes the next step work.

That makes the crowded nest more than a family story.

It is one of the largest pools of delayed housing demand in the country.

NREB Premium is our weekly deep dive for real estate professionals who want to go beyond understanding what is happening in the market and know what to do with it.

Every Saturday, we take one real transaction, client, or business problem and break it down with the numbers, strategy, scripts, objection handling, and practical tools needed to put the idea to work.

Premium members also get full access to every previous NREB Premium briefing, including our complete library of deal strategies, client-ready guidance, financing opportunities, negotiation ideas, and other resources built for working agents.

Founder Edition pricing ends in September. Join before then to lock in $7.99/month or $79.99/year.

View all NREB and NREB Premium articles here

The 25.2 million estimate refers to adults ages 18–34 classified as living with a parent in the 2025 Current Population Survey data used by Realtor.com. The figure represents living arrangements, not a count of prospective homebuyers. Employment, education, marital-status, and historical comparisons cited above come from the same nationally representative CPS-based analysis.