In fairness, I think it would be weirder in a capitalist country if the vast majority of people under 25 weren't independently 'poor' in an asset sense, since they've been an adult and in the workforce for only a few years.

These stats use family/household wealth and assets anyways, so that 28 year old living at home would get grouped by their parents assets and education.

Although I knew a lot of folks living dorms who probably met some of the metrics high level concepts of poverty:

• The household has unimproved or no sanitation facility or it is improved but shared with other households.

• The household’s source of drinking water is not safe or safe drinking water is a 30-minute or longer walk from home, roundtrip.

• Any person under 70 years of age for whom there is nutritional information is undernourished.

• The household does not own more than one of these assets: radio, TV, telephone, computer, animal cart, bicycle, motorbike, or refrigerator, and does not own a car or truck. (squeaking by on computer + telephone)

• The household has inadequate housing materials in any of the three components: floor, roof, or walls.

silliness aside, that is actually part of why 'poor' people in the developed are not living in that absolute poverty, according to metrics like the MPI.

These types of metrics are used by the UN to find, study, and combat extreme, multi-faceted, acute poverty in developing countries. Here is a map of where they've done case studies for it and the results. You'll notice developed western nations ain't on it.

https://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/global-mpi-databank/