If it's New Jersey, nearly half of all millennials, that's who.
The Northeast leads the way in percentages of millennials living at home, led by New Jersey (46.9 percent), Connecticut (41.6 percent), and New York (40.6 percent). All three states have high costs of living, including rent and/or house payments. In such areas, it simply makes sense for millennials to stay at home if that's an option.
Other areas with high costs of living, property values, and/or taxes have similarly high percentages of millennials living at home. Florida (38.3 percent), California (38.1 percent), and Illinois (36.5 percent) are primary examples. However, the Deep South shows a uniformly high rate of living at home — perhaps from a mixture of economic necessity and a culture more tolerant of generations living under the same roof.
I'm sure it's because they're shiftless, lazy, and spend all their money on avocado toast.
*note: title left at its soporific best because who DOESN'T live at home
Hahaha this is the stupidest advice. You need a thing called disposable income in order to have savings. The idea that someone working 25 hours a week a Target while living at home is going to be able to have anything left over for "savings" after food and car payments is ridiculous. Nobody on IBR is thinking about how to sock away extra money towards their loans... hell, that's the purpose of IBR. And anybody financially able to save for retirement or a house while living with their parents is probably already living with their parents for that exact reason and doesn't need this advice.
I've thankfully never got to the point that I had to move back in with my parents, which I saw as a pit that if I fell into, it would be very hard to escape from again. That would have been in New Jersey, as it turns out, where entry-level job pickings are slim, so I would have had to come up with enough money all at once to not only get my own place, but also to relocate.