Nowadays, young people often keep living with their parents after they graduated school or university, but what are the consequences for both the children and the parents?
First of all, children still living with the parents after their graduation might not be able to mature the way they would if they lived on their own. Living at home with the parents of course has some advantages - bills are being payed, laundry and grocery shopping is being done and meals are cooked by the parents. Thus, a child could not have to take up those responsibilities which are an essential part of finally growing up. Those tasks belong to living an independent life - just completing some studies or an apprenticeship does not automatically turn you in an adult.
Furthermore, there are consequences for the parents as well. The financial burden for them keeps existing when a child decides to keep living with his or her parents - the parents have expenses regarding electric or water bills and for food; also, they cannot move to smaller place that costs less money as many parents do after their children leave their house to live independently. In addition, parents also need a certain amount of privacy at some point in their live. For almost 20 years, they lived as a family and afterwards, they should pursue their own interests.
To put it in a nutshell, there are a lot of negative consequences for both parents and children concerning the issue of “Hotel Mom”. Sometimes however, a child cannot afford to live on his or her own yet, so a great compromise would be to share the expenses for rent or food and also, to distribute chores evenly. Both parties should be able to live an independent live and manage their privacy as well. On these terms, it would not be a “Hotel Mom” anymore.
Often, you hear that a certain soccer player is worth millions of dollars and that some soccer clubs pay a fortune to transfer a player from another club to theirs. The question arises here, whether sports is just about business nowadays.
Of course, the sums that are being paid for those player transfers might seem ridiculous at first. At the end of the day, sports like football or tennis for instance are privately owned by an association like the FIFA, the UEFA or the ITF. These associations are business and they cannot be restricted by the government. If they decide to pay such a large sum on a soccer player, it is their decision. The principle of “demand determines supply” can be applied here as well.
Also, athletes are paid from a pot of money which predominantly comes from the people who watch it, paying for their satellite television subscriptions, as well as advertising during sports events for instance. People are willing to pay this amount of money to support their favorite teams or to watch the competitions as a form of entertainment, thus, it is justified that large amounts of money are being moved towards soccer clubs or the like.
In conclusion, professional sports at the core is a business, so whether or not a lot of money exists in that business, does essentially not matter. No one questions a large company buying a machine for million dollars because it needs it to manufacture their specific product, so why should the same rules not apply to sports?