One is the glaring typo--1985 instead of 1965. Two is starting the scale at 30%. That makes the 35-50% jump look far bigger than it is.
The other two problems are cutting off in 2010 (basically during the aftermath of the 2008 recession), and starting in 1965. It looks like support decreased a lot from 1965 to the trough in 1980, then started trending back up. So what you might really be seeing is the consequences of the 1960-2000 period of unprecedented growth, with parental support returning to historical levels.
As an Asian person, I find it odd that people at CNBC would find this odd. Parents supporting young people starting out is an extremely old practice. These days it's paying for student loans, but back in the day it would mean giving household goods, land for farming, etc.