For a while
I'd expect more people to be living together, multiple generations in a household, just like the old days. That reduces cost of living for these groups. That will drive down housing prices as demand remains soft, as well as rental requirements.
But that other comment was classic red-herring. Why should I work if these people who are not working get these benefits that I am paying for, and they live as good as me.
Well, they won't. Not as good as you box, because you are well qualified to make far more than these people, and you know it. This issue is the part of the population that barely qualifies for a "joe-job", and the fact that most of them are going away based on the current scenarios of industrial implosion.
What will there decision process be? Try to get the government to pay for their life, or get a job that barely allows them to get more than they'd get anyway?
Which I say is also bullshit. You have visions of a sub-class of people living off of you, and this makes you annoyed. I have no idea how that will play out, and what requirements there might be to get benefits, or if a 70s style welfare state is coming back. I guess it is possible.
The father of my grandson would do this. Or at least he'd try. He's a worst case stereotype. Which means I accept that you have a powerful emotional argument. Emotional arguments are worthless, except to and from true believers.
But the next time you are making a standing rib roast (yum), enjoying your multiple houses (you just bought one for the kid, right? Cool), take a moment to think about that blameless kid standing outside the closed emergency room. There are many scenarios that come into mind, and they simply don't matter. The room is closed. So, do you fund the hospital or preventative care? Or do you ignore it until it goes away.