Is paying for your child post-college a thing?

[SparklyUnicorn]

There's no way in the world I could live with my in-laws, but that's because they're the most racist folks I know IRL and it would easily go past my tipping point of sanity.

 

There's no way either hubby or I could live with my dad - too many mental illness issues - also quickly past a tipping point.

 

Both hubby and I could easily live with my mom and we love traveling with her + spending time with her.  

 

I think it totally depends upon the person/people involved.

 

Yeah it is just my MIL specifically.

 

Part of it though is that ideally I live with people who can tolerate the fact I need to hide regularly.  I just could not handle people in my space constantly. 

 

When my dad comes he often stays for long periods of time.  He is a lot like me.  He hides.  Which is good.

[FaithManor]

My mom and my dear mil are more than welcome to live with us so long as they do not require significant nursing care. My father will have to go to a nursing home or hospice facility ss he is soon going to bemore mentally ill than I can handle.

[TechWife]

 

All of this is quite aside from a twenty something or thirty something mooching off mommy to fund their world travels, though. That's where I have the biggest issue.

 

If mommy is giving the money willingly, then the twenty or thirty something isn't mooching. 

[amsunshine]

My guess is it has always differed by family.

 

Yes, this.  I couldn't imagine having my parents support me after I graduated from college.  I was eager to become totally self-sufficient so that I would be free to make my own decisions without having to answer to my mom who tried to control every minute aspect of my life if she supported me financially, and would use that financial support as a weapon to get her way.  She was very willing to do it, but I was the one who cut the financial support off.  But not all families are like that....

[Guest]

If mommy is giving the money willingly, then the twenty or thirty something isn't mooching.

I disagree. But then again I have familial experience with a few moochers and enabling parents. Just because mom or dad is too kind hearted to say no doesn't mean it is the right choice. The moochers and their parents have passed away now, so it's water under the bridge for the most part.

 

Thankfully it hasn't been an issue in my own relationship with my family of my husband and his. My family wouldn't help unless my husband was dead, and his family would help in an instant but we would never ask and have declined several offers at various points. There may be a lot of things on my tombstone, but freeloading relative won't be one of them.

 

That's me. You can do you however you please.

[LucyStoner]

I disagree. But then again I have familial experience with a few moochers and enabling parents. Just because mom or dad is too kind hearted to say no doesn't mean it is the right choice. The moochers and their parents have passed away now, so it's water under the bridge for the most part.

 

Thankfully it hasn't been an issue in my own relationship with my family of my husband and his. My family wouldn't help unless my husband was dead, and his family would help in an instant but we would never ask and have declined several offers at various points. There may be a lot of things on my tombstone, but freeloading relative won't be one of them.

 

That's me. You can do you however you please.

So you have a firm familial-cultural-religious tradition of young people having to be financially independent AND a familial experience of mooching? I'm a little confused.

[Guest]

So I am one of those thirty-somethings "mooching" off the parents.

But my parents have been wonderful. They have completely paid for housing, sometimes for a few years; they've assisted with groceries, and of course, big ticket items. My car died this past weekend in a big way. Yes, I could have gone out and gotten an older car, but they gave me a significant down payment so that I could get a brand new SAFE, excellent warranty car that I am completely comfortable giving to DS when he's ready to drive.

I do my best to make ends meet but I know I have a safe place to land when that doesn't happen. This has been the biggest reason that I'm not the stereotypical single mom who doesn't have her sh- together and begs on Craigslist. And all this financial help hasn't prevented me from working on my credit score enough so that I could buy my house 3 years ago, or consistently working on my budgeting skills...or now going to college so that I can help DS hopefully as much as I've been helped.

I think my parents have definitely taken the long view of family: they aren't just helping me but their grandchild as well. They've said that I can either have their money when they die or right now. It wouldn't help DS or I if we had to wait forty or so years to get help. They also are building their new house with the idea that I will get it eventually to live in or sell so they chose the better lot/upgrades to put me in a better position.

[madteaparty]

So I am one of those thirty-somethings "mooching" off the parents.

But my parents have been wonderful. They have completely paid for housing, sometimes for a few years; they've assisted with groceries, and of course, big ticket items. My car died this past weekend in a big way. Yes, I could have gone out and gotten an older car, but they gave me a significant down payment so that I could get a brand new SAFE, excellent warranty car that I am completely comfortable giving to DS when he's ready to drive.

I do my best to make ends meet but I know I have a safe place to land when that doesn't happen. This has been the biggest reason that I'm not the stereotypical single mom who doesn't have her sh- together and begs on Craigslist. And all this financial help hasn't prevented me from working on my credit score enough so that I could buy my house 3 years ago, or consistently working on my budgeting skills...or now going to college so that I can help DS hopefully as much as I've been helped.

I think my parents have definitely taken the long view of family: they aren't just helping me but their grandchild as well. They've said that I can either have their money when they die or right now. It wouldn't help DS or I if we had to wait forty or so years to get help. They also are building their new house with the idea that I will get it eventually to live in or sell so they chose the better lot/upgrades to put me in a better position.

Good for you and good for them. Should we all be that lucky to be able to help our kids similarly.

[Samm]

It must get trickier in blended families.

 

I remember one of my friends being resentful that his dad's new wife's son & wife/kids not only moved back in, but seemed to have no other job than developing a vainglory website and adding more babies to the grandparents household.  The dad had planned to retire but couldn't  b/c he had to keep working to support all these people.  The dad just seemed exhausted by all the kids and needs and just liked to go away on the porch to be by himself. 

 

 

[Jane in NC]

So Taryl, how do you define "mooching"?  I think this involves exploiting the giver in some manner. Helping a young adult establish himself is not mooching in my book.

 

I know several sets of parents who matched their teens' contributions to IRAs. The parents did this to promote financial literacy. Is that "mooching"?

 

My son lives in hotel rooms and off a per diem paid by his employer. He maintains a bedroom in our family home but asked if we wanted him to move out. Why pay rent/utilities when he would never be in the apartment given his job on the road?  Because he is a college grad, is he "mooching"?  (No, we do not charge him rent to retain his stuff in his room.)

 

What about grandparents or aunts and uncles who help young adults with the cost of college educations so they can avoid loans?  Is that "mooching"?

 

I see all of my examples as family culture. Not every family helps the next generation in the same way but I am not sure I want to label other choices as erroneous if they are not my choices or something not within my own economic means.

[LucyStoner]

Arctic, I would just caution you from:

 

1. Assigning your personal beliefs and circumstances moral superiority to the personal beliefs of others. It's neither good or bad to be very young and entirely self supporting (and as a person who worked on the books at age 12, I fall into the extreme end of self support at a young age). It just is. There are upsides. There are downsides. Casting family support or gifts that you personally reject as not in step with your values as "mooching" comes off as rather judgmental.

 

2. Forgetting that everyone has a different idea of "successfully launched". For some that's their 20 year old working at McDs and living with 7 roommates. For others, that's a PhD and a house and money for the grandkids to go to private school. If a parent can support a child through graduate school or career advancing travels, they may well be doing so because they want something different or more for their family than would be possible without that multigeneration support. Statistically multigenerational support is highest in families with the highest level of educational attainment and higher lifetime earnings. I'll consider my older son launched when he's working FT and not in school. Even with him potentially starting college very early, I expect that we will choose to assist him until into his 20s. Minimum. Why? Because his particular prospects will be better given his talents and personality if he goes very far with his studies.

 

I was married at 21 and have never recieved anything more than a Christmas present from a living relative. I don't think that's a good or bad thing. I hope however that my sons can advance their educations or skill set much more deeply than I was able to while still under 25. And if I can pay for them to travel a bit, I'll consider that money well spent.

[Jenny in Florida]

But you can't because starter wages are so low. And for teachers and artists etc. forget it. You don't earn enough to live. You aren't worth surviving, to society which buys the fruits of your labor.

 

I think this is an over-generalization. It's entirely possible for one young adult to live on "starter wages" if that young adult is frugal and responsible. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, my daughter -- who has one of those dreaded, useless arts degrees -- does exactly that.

 

By living at home for a couple of years post-college, working part-time and saving most of her paychecks, she built up a nest egg that financed her move from Florida to NYC and got her set up in an apartment there. She shares space with two roommates, whom she met through a friend of a friend. The apartment is older and not in the ritziest of neighborhoods, but it's good sized and has some perks like new appliances. My daughter's bedroom even has the much-sought-after red brick wall. 

 

She works one part-time job at the front desk of a dance school that gives her 25-30 hours per week and supplements that with a few hours a week of more sporadic but higher-paying gigs. She teaches performance classes for children, for example, models for art classes and does appearances as assorted costumed characters.  

 

Her basic living expenses come almost entirely out of her paychecks. As I said, she is still on our medical insurance, and we cover her  cell phone bill, because it makes sense to keep her on the family plan. We have paid for her tickets to come home for holidays. Otherwise, she is self-supporting and has been since age 19. She has drawn on her savings to pay tuition for the actor training program she will finish this spring, but she is already beginning to slowly put some of that back into her account.

 

Once she graduates from the acting program and her schedule opens up, she will have more opportunities to look for more regular and/or more lucrative work. But, even while juggling her school schedule and three or four part-time jobs, she's managing to do pretty well under her own financial steam in one of the most expensive cities in the country.

 

She doesn't go out to eat very often, instead cooking at home and packing lunches for herself. She often spends a day every other weekend cooking large batches of her favorite foods and packing/freezing individual servings so she can grab things quickly when she needs them. She sticks to a fairly strict weekly budget for food and miscellaneous expenses and plans larger purchases (like clothing) carefully in advance. She and her friends get creative about finding affordable entertainment. For example, she can rattle off the name of every Broadway show that offers cheap standing room tickets or offers a lottery for ultra-discounted seats. She maintains a calendar of the free performances offered in various parks and venues all over the city. Dates tend to include things like packing a picnic to take to a park or taking a walk and having coffee. And, of course, because she is a performer and tends to be friendly with lots of other performers, she often lucks into "comps" or passes to see interesting shows with which friends and acquaintances are involved. 

 

As a hobby, she enjoys crafting with assorted "upcycled" items. She has decorated her room and parts of the shared space in the apartment for Halloween and Christmas with cute items made from paper, cans, bottles, yarn and acrylic paint. 

 

It's not a luxurious life, but she is really proud of the fact that it is entirely hers. She has told me more than once that she would much rather live the way she does and be an independent person than to do what some of her friends have done, which is to take on a lifestyle full of things they "need" but can't afford and have their parents supplement. We're very close and on very good terms -- we text, Facebook message and/or Skype pretty much daily and genuinely enjoy each other's company -- but she derives great satisfaction from being an adult on her own terms.

 

So, yes, it's entirely possible to not just survive but thrive on a starter salary, as long as one has reasonable expectations about what that life will mean.

[Guest]

So Taryl, how do you define "mooching"? I think this involves exploiting the giver in some manner. Helping a young adult establish himself is not mooching in my book.

 

I know several sets of parents who matched their teens' contributions to IRAs. The parents did this to promote financial literacy. Is that "mooching"?

 

My son lives in hotel rooms and off a per diem paid by his employer. He maintains a bedroom in our family home but asked if we wanted him to move out. Why pay rent/utilities when he would never be in the apartment given his job on the road? Because he is a college grad, is he "mooching"? (No, we do not charge him rent to retain his stuff in his room.)

 

What about grandparents or aunts and uncles who help young adults with the cost of college educations so they can avoid loans? Is that "mooching"?

 

I see all of my examples as family culture. Not every family helps the next generation in the same way but I am not sure I want to label other choices as erroneous if they are not my choices or something not within my own economic means.

:)

[livetoread]

One of the things I've noticed over time, though, is that rich parents usually give money in very specific ways that give their kids a boost without enabling them. Most are willing to pay for education (tuition, study-abroad, unpaid internships) or things that will boost their kids socially (name-brand university, down-payment on a home) or things that are truly emergency in nature (medical or death expenses). You don't usually see rich parents paying for adult kids' groceries or paying off their credit card debt or supporting them in a lifestyle of loafing. They don't typically give grocery money, and I think that matters. Rich parents understand that their kids need to learn how to manage and budget with real money . . . even if that budget is much bigger than most of us would consider typical. There is something really smart to the way rich parents give.

Yes, this was my folks. They came alongside my efforts to succeed and made that easier, but they made sure I lived within a budget. The targeted financial cushion they provided as long as I was making progress was so, so helpful in giving my dh and I financial stability. His folks did it for him too, so when we met and married, we were already solid.

 

Financial stability starting out can just keep snowballing if you are both lucky and financially careful. We do not have the income either of our folks did, but we are self-sufficient since marrying and flourishing thanks to that start. Our financial choices, plus unexpected and greatly appreciated gifts mean our kids can have a similar start, and as long as they continue to show good financial sense and progress towards self-sufficient adulthood, we'll gladly give it to them.

[momma2three]

If you look at historical trends, the idea that people are supposed to be self-sufficient adults at 18 or 21, with no help or particular ties to their parents, is a pretty new invention, and only really came about in the post WWII era in America.  There were a few reasons for this, both cultural and financial... for example, that was the first time that very young Americans could afford a house of their own, thanks to the VA bill and swaths of newly built cheap housing.  Really, it's a historical blip that's somehow become cemented in our minds as "the way things used to be."  

 

Prior to that, it was standard (though obviously not universal) for children of ALL classes to live with their parents until they got married... and then they often continued to live with one set of parents for years after.  Housing was expensive, and there was no particular reason not to share resources.  I think most people know that lower class families often lived in crowded tenement-style apartments with extended family, but it was perfectly normal for middle and upper class families to live intergenerationally, too.  If you read old books, it's pretty common for all manner of extended family to be living together, and when you read history or biographies it's common for them to mention that the young married couple lived with one set of parents for a couple of years, and then bought a house, and Cousin Martha moved in, too, to help with the children... the idea of the "spinster" was the unmarried relative who spent her days spinning and weaving and watching the children.  The idea of the nuclear family living as a stand-alone and completely independent unit is very much a product of the nuclear age.

 

Housing, energy, and food costs are rising for most Americans... but really they're returning to more historical levels of unaffordability.  I think that it's definitely going to become more common for families to live together, and/or to provide financial support both up and down generations.  I know of at least two young 20-somethings (both women... separate families) who moved back in with their parents, rent-free, after graduation from good schools.  Within a few years, both owned property (one a house, one a nice condo).  There's no way they would have been able to save for that down payment if they hadn't been "mooching."  I don't know the exact details of either arrangement, and I think that there were informal agreements about who was paying for groceries and doing things around the house, but both families are very clear that the top priority of everyone was that the girls would save as much money as possible while living at home.  This may have been "mooching," but I also think it was very smart and I would be happy to do it for my own kids someday.

[DesertBlossom]

We got married in college and DH worked himself through college. We were dirt poor, yet my parents were generous. They often paid our gas on our trips home. Christmas and birthdays meant a chunk of change we could put towards otherwise unattainable items. We even lived with them for a few months after DH graduated and he looked for a job and housing in a new state.

 

That being said, I'm glad my parents didn't (or maybe couldn't) give so much that weren't still being stretched on our own. I look back on those dirt poor years with fondness, when we learned to scrimp and save and do without. I think it was a good learning experience. It certainly makes me appreciate the little things a lot more.

 

I hope to be able to be generous like that with my own kids when they are older. But I also think it's good for young adults to learn to go without some things too. I think too often people get wants and needs mixed up and so they sucked into debt, believing that they are supposed to be able to afford all the things that people a generation ago took decades to acquire.

[BrookValley.]

I addressed this above. I'm talking about something different.

 

Maybe your experiences have been better - newlyweds living with inlaws has actually been horrible in our family and caused immense stress and difficulty, especially for the child who married into the family. I was advised very explicitly against it by my own mother who had to do it. Nightmare situation for her and my cousins, too. And this was with fairly normal and agreeable people, no psychos.

 

I would have been ashamed to stay with my relatives or my husband's in all except emergency temporary circumstances. It's hard for me to mentally square being an adult and living with mom and dad. And again, I hail from what is considered upper middle class, stable, wealthy families. My husband comes from a more working class one but they're now quite well off, and they'd also probably be the ones more likely to help us if we needed a home. He and I are both agreed that once you're married you don't go home to mom and dad, though, unless they need medical care or *they* need a roof. An adult moving in to help an aging relative isn't the same situation at all - I'm totally in favor of it, especially for single relatives or those who don't have small children who need them first.

 

All of this is quite aside from a twenty something or thirty something mooching off mommy to fund their world travels, though. That's where I have the biggest issue.

Huh. I guess my family's living arrangements would be "shameful" to you. I've always lived with my mom. Yup. And I'm pushing 40. However, no shame here. My entire family lives on a beautiful farm, has no mortgage/debt, and will always take care of each other. Always. My kids (and their future families, if they so choose) are always welcome here. My parents provided for me, now we support each other, and when mom isn't independent anymore, we'll take care of her (dad is gone). Along the way we've supported each other financially in times of need and *gasp!* in more frivolous endeavors. Yeah. Like travel. We enjoy giving to each other, what can I say.

 

I don't come from a culture or religion that either promotes or discourages multi-generational living; it's just what feels right and works for us. I don't believe that people who don't live with relatives are doing anything wrong or shameful. I'm not easily offended, but the implication that I'm "mooching" is kinda shitty. We all worked/work/will work damn hard for what we have.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Huh. I guess my family's living arrangements would be "shameful" to you. I've always lived with my mom. Yup. And I'm pushing 40. However, no shame here. My entire family lives on a beautiful farm, has no mortgage/debt, and will always take care of each other. Always. My kids (and their future families, if they so choose) are always welcome here. My parents provided for me, now we support each other, and when mom isn't independent anymore, we'll take care of her (dad is gone). Along the way we've supported each other financially in times of need and *gasp!* in more frivolous endeavors. Yeah. Like travel. We enjoy giving to each other, what can I say.

 

I don't come from a culture or religion that either promotes or discourages multi-generational living; it's just what feels right and works for us. I don't believe that people who don't live with relatives are doing anything wrong or shameful. I'm not easily offended, but the implication that I'm "mooching" is kinda shitty. We all worked/work/will work damn hard for what we have.

 

This.

 

I find this an ideal situation. Family helping family.

 

 

Mooching is a judgemental word.

 

I won't be dropping my kids as soon as they reach some arbitrary age. I plan to help and support them in what ways I can as long as they need.

[Guest]

What you describe is like another planet to me. I can't even imagine my own parents allowing that, let alone signing on. Yours must just like you better :D

[luuknam]

I don't get it.  Married people should not be mooching off parents, absent a serious emergency (and initiated by parents).  Those parents are at or near retirement age and who knows what the future holds?

 

I don't get it. What's special about being married? I got married at 20 for practical/financial reasons*, if not for those reasons I might have just lived together as bf/gf for a decade like a lot of people seem to do (statistically speaking, women now even have their first child before they have their first marriage). How does the simple act of getting married change how your parents should treat you financially? It's not like getting married magically makes you richer or something.

 

*Related to immigration and the cost of college as a foreign student vs in-state after a year if married and on a marriage-based visa.

[Jenny in Florida]

I know of at least two young 20-somethings (both women... separate families) who moved back in with their parents, rent-free, after graduation from good schools.  Within a few years, both owned property (one a house, one a nice condo).  There's no way they would have been able to save for that down payment if they hadn't been "mooching."  I don't know the exact details of either arrangement, and I think that there were informal agreements about who was paying for groceries and doing things around the house, but both families are very clear that the top priority of everyone was that the girls would save as much money as possible while living at home.  This may have been "mooching," but I also think it was very smart and I would be happy to do it for my own kids someday.

 

See, I think there's a huge difference between a mutually beneficial (or at least benign/beneficial) and presumably temporary arrangement designed to achieve a goal and the concept of young adults moving out "on their own" in a way that is regularly subsidized by parents for an indefinite period of time.

 

I think the young people you mentioned in your post are an example of the first: They moved in with parents, which was beneficial for them and no great hardship to parents, in order to save enough to get on their feet.

 

What I find myself shaking my head about (in a bemused, not judgmental way) are the situations I know of in which college grads take apartments and begin accruing bills with the full knowledge that they can pay those expenses only with the help of a monthly check from their parents.

 

The first is, it seems to me, an appropriate stepping stone to adulthood, while the second seems a lot like extended adolescence.

[Jenny in Florida]

I don't get it. What's special about being married? I got married at 20 for practical/financial reasons*, if not for those reasons I might have just lived together as bf/gf for a decade like a lot of people seem to do (statistically speaking, women now even have their first child before they have their first marriage). How does the simple act of getting married change how your parents should treat you financially? It's not like getting married magically makes you richer or something.

 

*Related to immigration and the cost of college as a foreign student vs in-state after a year if married and on a marriage-based visa.

 

I think the underlying assumption is that marriage is a relationship entered into by adults and should, therefore, come with other adult responsibilities.

 

Please understand that I'm not saying I think that is a hard and fast rule with which I agree. I'm just explaining the reasoning as I grasp it.

[Guest]

Jenny, that's actually a really good way to explain part of my hangup. I figured it was just because I identified very strongly with the verses on marriage and appropriate boundaries in that, but who knows if that's actually the case or if I'm just projecting :p

[luuknam]

I think the underlying assumption is that marriage is a relationship entered into by adults and should, therefore, come with other adult responsibilities.

 

Okay. It just seems odd that there appear to be people who think it's okay to subsidize e.g. a 30yo single child, but not a married one. I'm not sure it's such a great thing to give financial incentives to *not* get married, which is what that essentially amounts to (not that I want to go off on a tangent of the pros and cons of giving incentives to get married/not get married - like I said, I got married because there were some pretty strong incentives (largely financial) compared to the risk of divorce, which just isn't as big a deal as it once was).

[Jenny in Florida]

Okay. It just seems odd that there appear to be people who think it's okay to subsidize e.g. a 30yo single child, but not a married one. I'm not sure it's such a great thing to give financial incentives to *not* get married, which is what that essentially amounts to (not that I want to go off on a tangent of the pros and cons of giving incentives to get married/not get married - like I said, I got married because there were some pretty strong incentives (largely financial) compared to the risk of divorce, which just isn't as big a deal as it once was).

 

Actually, I suspect that most of the folks here who have thought it odd/inappropriate to provide routine financial support to married adults would have the same twinge about regularly subsidizing the normal living expenses of a 30 year old, barring unusual circumstances. Chronological age, educational attainment and marital status are all markers of adulthood in various families or cultures. Each of us may draw the line differently, but I think some combination of those characteristics begins to make most people think that person is an adult and should be independent.

[Catwoman]

Okay, I was just curious. Multigenerational housing, especially for children as opposed to aging parents, isn't very prevalent in the US compared with many other regions.

 

I'm planning my own build to have a handicapped accessible suite for at least one set of our parents, since I'm sure we will be taking care of someone. And we would like a bunkhouse for visiting kids and grandkids. But that is worlds away from full time residency of adult children and I think it's a little more common in this particular area.

Taryl, your kids are still so young. I am willing to bet that if you were to look back on this thread in another 10 years or so, your views will have changed dramatically. It is so easy to think we know what we will do when our kids are older... until they are actually older and we realize that things are not the way we'd pictured them when the kids were little.

 

I'm not saying that to be condescending -- it's just something I have seen very often, in myself and in others. As our kids grew older, we changed our opinions on many things. :)

[Catwoman]

All of this is quite aside from a twenty something or thirty something mooching off mommy to fund their world travels, though. That's where I have the biggest issue.

Honestly, this sounds like sour grapes to me. Why is it any of your business if a parent offers to finance their adult child's "world travels?" Why do you think it is okay to judge them for doing a nice thing for their own kid?

 

It's not mooching if a parent offers to pay for something for their adult child and the kid accepts. It is generosity, not mooching.

[J-rap]

Wow, I just want to thank everybody for so eloquently stating their views on this!  I've really enjoyed reading all of the thoughtful posts.  Thank you.  Much food for thought here, and though I really generally agree with nearly everyone, I've also been challenged to think slightly differently about a few things. 

Really grateful to be part of the Hive!

 

 

 

[Guest]

Taryl, your kids are still so young. I am willing to bet that if you were to look back on this thread in another 10 years or so, your views will have changed dramatically. It is so easy to think we know what we will do when our kids are older... until they are actually older and we realize that things are not the way we'd pictured them when the kids were little.

 

I'm not saying that to be condescending -- it's just something I have seen very often, in myself and in others. As our kids grew older, we changed our opinions on many things. :)

I just talked with my husband about this and that I was in the minority on this thread, he was honestly shocked. I verified with him our views on supporting kids just to make sure j wasn't assuming things or crazy. He and I both agreed we would help each kid with the first two years of college and continue to save for them for a down payment for their homes, as well as add to their wages of the best job they can get is minimum wage when they're a teen. He also indicated that a working and unmarried kid out of college could feasibly still live here if they were willing to abide by the rules. But marriage is an adult action and requires adult responsibilities, which is incompatible with living under another's roof in his view. In the same way, funding holidays or hobbies is something he cannot abide - he is an even bigger believer in the value of earning a standard of living than me.

 

I proposed many of the arguments brought up here and he shot them down expertly. It was good to chat about it and make sure we were on similar pages, but I highly doubt he would ever change his mind on this barring extraordinary circumstances. He told me candidly that he has thought about this extensively since we married. We shall see but I can count on ONE hand the number of things we have change position on in the last twelve years.

 

Love that guy!

[Tsuga]

...And holy - lack of irony - Batman . . . you want to rant about the "lazy" poor and their sense of entitlement! Seriously?!

 

So I get it. And I didn't resent the rich kids in my new upper-class world so much as I was very, very surprised. ...

 

One of the things I've noticed over time, though, is that rich parents usually give money in very specific ways that give their kids a boost without enabling them. Most are willing to pay for education (tuition, study-abroad, unpaid internships) or things that will boost their kids socially (name-brand university, down-payment on a home) or things that are truly emergency in nature (medical or death expenses). You don't usually see rich parents paying for adult kids' groceries or paying off their credit card debt or supporting them in a lifestyle of loafing. They don't typically give grocery money, and I think that matters. Rich parents understand that their kids need to learn how to manage and budget with real money . . . even if that budget is much bigger than most of us would consider typical. There is something really smart to the way rich parents give.

 

Yes. I hope my surprise doesn't come off as resentment. I'm resentful about the "entitlement" message, true, but honestly, most of it has just been a shock.

 

I do hope I can manage to help my children in such a way that they will be transferred to the middle class or upper-middle class.

 

 

 

 

Honestly, this sounds like sour grapes to me. Why is it any of your business if a parent offers to finance their adult child's "world travels?" Why do you think it is okay to judge them for doing a nice thing for their own kid?

 

Please understand that if there were not such persistent, angry, and hurtful rhetoric at the poor for not achieving what the rich achieved, people would not imagine that this was a "fair game". I know that I and many grew up thinking that if I work hard in school and at work, I will have opportunity to get ahead. My success depends on merit. I heard about the "entitlement culture" of the poor and I absolutely determined I wouldn't do that. I would work! And therefore get ahead.

 

So you cannot imagine the shock and horror to learn that (a) it's not a fair game at all, that rich and upper-middle class children get advantages that the poor and working class will never have access to, including travel, and (b) that the very people who have the most entitlements, complain the most when poor people get them from taxes.

 

It feels like you're in the middle of a Monopoly game and you're all set up to win, and then suddenly someone pulls out enough money to put properties on everything and you're like, uh, NO. No way. I played really well but we're all out of cash now so I should get to play this game fair and square.

 

And they're like, "Well this is my money so I get to do what I want with it."

 

And you're like, "You said that at the beginning, we'd all start out equal! I don't even WANT to play a game that's not fair. What the heck?!?"

 

And they're like, "It is fair. My parents gave it to me."

 

And you're like, "No, it's not. How did they get the money?"

 

And they make all these harrumphs about hard work and settling the land and that's when you remember that your ancestors were slaves, or Indians shot off the land or the Irish who came without a suitcase because the English took the potatoes or whatever and you're like, "OH OKAY I SEE."

 

And then they're like, "Poor people are so entitled."

 

And you're like, "ME?!?! Entitled? You have all that money!!!!"

 

And they're like, "Sounds like sour grapes."

 

See, we all came into this game naked and naked we return. But in the meantime, when we try to provide for our babies, some of us get sudden gifts.

 

It's not so much the unfairness of life that is painful, but the sudden realization that it's not a meritocracy at all. One feels lied to. I thought you said this game was won through hard work but it's not. One feels that if one knew at the very beginning that some people had such a huge advantage, one would not necessarily have worked so hard in college, not to mention, gone without unemployment because one was too proud to take handouts because of an "entitlement culture".

 

Let's not pretend, at least, on this thread, that money is not used to give children an advantage over other children. There is no way any intelligent person, myself included, could think for a second that paying for their child's internships, travel, and work clothes would not edge out the child of a poor family who was equally or more intelligent and hard working. It will. Money trumps work.

 

It's a capitalist society, not a labor society.

 

I'm a person who has worked hard and god damnit, I won't rest until my kids feel just at ease among the rich as anyone else. They will have every confidence and advantage anyone in this country can have. I am working so hard to make that happen. And in doing so, yes I most certainly am leaving behind people and I do so knowing that my children's riches are their children's losses. Nobody's building new universities.

 

Sour grapes? I think that's unfair. If the game was fair and we lost, then it would be sour grapes.

 

But the frustration is that it's not fair. Not every child has an equal chance. And the consequences are dire. See: threads in which people on this very board are talking about their children, spouses and selves not getting medical care for serious conditions. Because they aren't rich enough, "merely" middle class.

 

Once again, I don't judge. I take full responsibility for my choices, which ave my kids in extra curriculars, in the poshest area we can afford, with brand-name clothes from my retail credit card rewards. We will go over college options and majors with an eye to getting out with little debt so we can get them a down payment. I will live in the basement if necessary, but they will have a home.

 

But it's not sour grapes. I believe there is justified resentment that people talk about hard work and meritocracy but that's not the reality.

 

Well, when you know the game, you play the game, and I will damn well play this game, but for the sake of my children and without regrets.

 

However, you can't say it was a kind thing to do to tell the working class that it was going to be based on hard work and then bring capital into it. It's not fair. It's the English system of property and class and when we admit it we'll all be a lot better off.

[Tsuga]

I would also like to say that Bertrand Russell suggested that there would be true justice when like political capital, which cannot be passed down from generation to generation, economic capital could not be passed down. 

 

That is not the reality that my children face so I must do right by them.

 

But to those who don't understand why the poor are so upset by it, I hope I have explained to some degree their expectations, based on social norms and what people are taught in school.

[creekland]

Why is it any of your business if a parent offers to finance their adult child's "world travels?" Why do you think it is okay to judge them for doing a nice thing for their own kid?

 

It's not mooching if a parent offers to pay for something for their adult child and the kid accepts. It is generosity, not mooching.

 

Just yesterday at school I had a discussion with co-workers with similar aged (college/post college) kids as mine.  We are all super glad we had the $$ to give our kids so they could go to college, travel, and more.  It helped them tremendously with their maturity and real world education.  We don't regret a thing - even though they all have more than any of us had at the same age.  We feel happy (?) that we were able to give them a good start with their adult lives and we plan to continue doing what we can.

 

There are a couple of our kids who aren't thankful, but most are very appreciative.

 

 

Let's not pretend, at least, on this thread, that money is not used to give children an advantage over other children. There is no way any intelligent person, myself included, could think for a second that paying for their child's internships, travel, and work clothes would not edge out the child of a poor family who was equally or more intelligent and hard working. It will. Money trumps work.

 

We use money to help our kids.  There's not even a remote thought about giving ours an edge over "poor" kids.  We do it 100% to help our kids have a great, educated, life following the path that leads them to their niche.  My kids have been places I'd love to go!

 

That said, kids from families with more money (and willing to spend that money on their kids) definitely have a huge advantage.  Kids in my classes who have traveled and experienced more definitely are more "educated" than their peer who has to get it all from a book or their parent's pictures.

 

I share a ton of my experiences with my classes - always working to inspire them.  If I were independently wealthy, I'd love to take them all to oodles of places (probably a few at a time rather than all at once!).  As it is, I always donate to school (or church) trips, etc, when they have fundraisers.  It's a super worthy donation.

 

Changing socioeconomic classes can definitely happen (which is why I work to inspire).  Both hubby and I are the beneficiaries of our grandparents and parents.  We're both thankful.  We're certainly passing on our family culture (of helping each other out) with our kids.  

[DawnM]

I went to a seminar recently given by two psychologists specifically targeted towards parents of young adult males.  In fact, I went to two different seminars given by the same guys.  It was fascinating.

 

The topics were on failure to launch for young males ages 18-25.

 

They gave a lot of statistics.  To me, they were staggering.

 

For today's males:

 

36% males ages 18-25 are unemployed (this included college kids, so a little skewed)

40% of males ages 18-31 live with their parents

48% of males up to age 25 live at home

 

 

 

Aside from the above statistics, I will add my .02.  I said earlier that I don't care if my kids/boys live at home through their college years and beyond and can use that time to save up for a downpayment or get financially stable.  I would much rather they have money saved and be able to launch successfully before they settle down and get married or have a family, than to struggle just to make ends meet.

 

I will also say that this, "You don't want your 25 year old living in your basement" mentality is a largely European/Western philosophy.  I don't buy it.   

 

If my kids want to leave at 18, that is fine, but they certainly don't have to.  We have actually encouraged them to consider living at home while attending college because our offer is, "We will pay the tuition, fees, books, and possibly even transportation, if you live at home and attend the local 4 year state school."  Anything beyond that, they have to pay the difference.  I would love for them to get out of college debt free.  We are very fortunate that our local 4 year state school is a decent school, and is quite reasonably priced.

 

 

[lllll]

nm

Edited November 22, 2015 by ^ 022

[Bluegoat]

To me the word mooching strongly implies an attempt to live of the work of others to avoid work of your own.  Living with extended family might be mooching, or it might not.  If we are contributing to society, even by pursuing education or saving money, that is not mooching IMO.  If we are not contributing, we are mooching - we are acting as a parasite on our family and on society.

 

I really see helping kids out as a two-sided coin - it can go well, but it can also go wrong.  There are a lot of problems in our society created by consumerism - the inability to differentiate wants from needs, a feeling of being put-upon if you don't have access to particular things, the inability to give up things we are used to when there is good reason.  These are things that going without can teach us, and they are important. 

 

Yes, going to France to teach might be a great opportunity.  On the other hand I think of all that airplane fuel being used - is that the kind of use of finite resources that we consider necessary?  Being used to a particular type of life does often make less seem like a privation, and we all live to large in the west.

 

And there are people who end up in an extended adolescence - adolescence itself has a strong manufactured element, a period of maturity when we are not able to be positive contributors to the social fabric.  It's easy to get into a habit or mindset where you think of yourself as essentially passive, or as needing to be cared for by others.  Some people have a very strong internal sense of needing to act, but others will coast along. 

 

The heart of this IMO isn't about things like extended family living.  It;s more about how we see our role in society, how we see our responsibility to others.  If parental responsibility to kids is making it hard for the kids to see their larger responsibilities, or where their needs and wants fit it, or other people's needs and wants, then it probably means the parents need to reconsider the ways they are helping.

[MinivanMom]

I think the underlying assumption is that marriage is a relationship entered into by adults and should, therefore, come with other adult responsibilities.

 

Please understand that I'm not saying I think that is a hard and fast rule with which I agree. I'm just explaining the reasoning as I grasp it.

 

I think this is part of it, but part of it is that money tends to come with expectations even if it is not the parents' intention to hold it over their adult child's head.

 

I think many people feel it is okay for parents to have input and expectations for their single, adult children. But it doesn't feel okay in western culture for parents to have input and expectations for their married, adult children.

 

Maybe it doesn't always make sense, especially nowadays with so many young adults delaying marriage, but marriage is the traditional marker by which we transition from our family-of-origin to a new nuclear family of our own. And the culture of the nuclear family is very strong in western culture today.

[madteaparty]

Let's not pretend, at least, on this thread, that money is not used to give children an advantage over other children. There is no way any intelligent person, myself included, could think for a second that paying for their child's internships, travel, and work clothes would not edge out the child of a poor family who was equally or more intelligent and hard working. It will. Money trumps work.

 

It's a capitalist society, not a labor society.

 

I'm a person who has worked hard and god damnit, I won't rest until my kids feel just at ease among the rich as anyone else. They will have every confidence and advantage anyone in this country can have. I am working so hard to make that happen. And in doing so, yes I most certainly am leaving behind people and I do so knowing that my children's riches are their children's losses. Nobody's building new universities.

 

Sour grapes? I think that's unfair. If the game was fair and we lost, then it would be sour grapes.

 

But the frustration is that it's not fair. Not every child has an equal chance. And the consequences are dire. See: threads in which people on this very board are talking about their children, spouses and selves not getting medical care for serious conditions. Because they aren't rich enough, "merely" middle class

By your argument, no one should ever homeschool (we should enroll in the public school we are zoned for and make those better), no acceleration whatsoever and definitely no competitive sports, because what about the fairness? I'm not in the fairness business, we live in one of the most extreme capitalistic societies, I contribute to the Sanders campaign ;) This is why family, battered as it is, is extremely important.again, I have no idea what help I will be able to afford. But they will have every last drop of it here and I cannot resent the rich people doing the same, because they're doing their job also.

[lllll]

nm

Edited November 22, 2015 by ^ 022

[amy g.]

So much of this, for me, comes down to the personality of the child. My goal is for my kids to be happy, productive, balanced adults. What actions I take to help them stay balanced depends on which side of the spectrum they are currently on.

 

If I had fearful, dependent young adults, I might push them in the direction of solving their own problems and understanding that we survive and regroup when we fail, but it doesn't destroy us.

 

My adult kids do not WANT to be dependent. I was trying to give my son some money for gas and he imphaticly told me. "Mother, stop giving me money!"

 

He works full time and has a roommate but drives the nice safe car that we bought him and that we pay the insurance on. He got his job due to family connections, and the good relationships Dh has built in the industry through the decades. His last name opens doors for him, but it is always his work ethic that gets him noticed and promoted.

 

His roommate was injured and lost his job. DS is picking up both halves of the rent. The roommates parents have declined to just pay their son's expenses. I respect their decision. He can move back home, or he can figure out a way to make life on his own work. They are giving him cash for his birthday this month, so that gives him a little breathing room.

 

So here is my point, I don't feel the need to bail my son out and cover their rent, but tonight I am taking him to dinner and I will buy them a weeks worth of groceries. I noticed that my son's tires need to be rotated, and I told him that I would pay for that as well.

 

I do not want to raise helpless adults, but Dh and I both know what it is like to put yourself through school and early adulthood and never have parents who help with anything. I couldn't do that to my own children.

 

My middle child is not happy about our move to California and I don't blame her, but I told her that the pay raise and the pension are the things that will allow up to pay for her kids to go to expensive summer camps and help her with a down payment on a house.

 

So yes, so long as we are breathing, I expect to be helping our children in any way we can.

 

One parenting choice that I really can't be non judgemental about is parents who want adult children to support them.

 

It makes me so sick when I see 24, 25 year olds who are working outside the home and their parents take the money for themselves because they had more children than they can afford or because they find working a 9-5 job stifling.

 

If you can help your kids and want to, great.

 

If you can't, or if helping perfectly able adults is against your belief system, great.

 

But please don't prohibit young adults from launching because you feel they are obligated to stay home and meet your needs.

[creekland]

One advantage of attending public high school is that one sees the networking and cheating, so one knows it is not a meritocracy. 

 

One advantage of working in an average public high school is being able to realize this is not a truthful blanket statement everywhere.

[Tsuga]

Just yesterday at school I had a discussion with co-workers with similar aged (college/post college) kids as mine. We are all super glad we had the $$ to give our kids so they could go to college, travel, and more. It helped them tremendously with their maturity and real world education. We don't regret a thing - even though they all have more than any of us had at the same age. We feel happy (?) that we were able to give them a good start with their adult lives and we plan to continue doing what we can.

 

There are a couple of our kids who aren't thankful, but most are very appreciative.

 

 

 

We use money to help our kids. There's not even a remote thought about giving ours an edge over "poor" kids. We do it 100% to help our kids have a great, educated, life following the path that leads them to their niche. My kids have been places I'd love to go!

 

That said, kids from families with more money (and willing to spend that money on their kids) definitely have a huge advantage. Kids in my classes who have traveled and experienced more definitely are more "educated" than their peer who has to get it all from a book or their parent's pictures.

 

I share a ton of my experiences with my classes - always working to inspire them. If I were independently wealthy, I'd love to take them all to oodles of places (probably a few at a time rather than all at once!). As it is, I always donate to school (or church) trips, etc, when they have fundraisers. It's a super worthy donation.

 

Changing socioeconomic classes can definitely happen (which is why I work to inspire). Both hubby and I are the beneficiaries of our grandparents and parents. We're both thankful. We're certainly passing on our family culture (of helping each other out) with our kids.

I think you are naive about changing classes. It doesn't happen often at all and less often in the US than in other countries.

 

Your students, creek land... They won't make it. We will get them in CC and they drop out because their car breaks down or they have to work to pay for health care.

 

Parental support is the #1 factor in student success because expectations and college schedules are built around that.

So are tuition charges and the EFC formula that starts at 25.

 

It's not possible. They will be mired in a debt and day to day that the upper middle class will never know. I know so many people on this situation--not just students but faculty. The rich have homes and move on. The poor teach at three colleges.

 

The game is rigged. I tried to win it and came close. We were barely middle class, made it to middle, and this is with both of us in the top percentiles.

We just don't have the cash.

 

Giving presents and living expenses absolutely keeps the poor down.

 

You get the internship they couldn't take, the interview that required travel, you can hobnob with the boss, you make them comfortable with your stories of a childhood like theirs.

 

It's their loss, the poor's loss, that competitive advantage gained from rich parents.

 

I can stomach injustice and I can stomach being a part of it but O can't stomach the lie that the poor are told, that they have a chance. It's not a fighting chance.

 

When the rich give only to theirs and not to education, it's not a fighting chance.

 

Don't tell them it is and then let them feel they have failed. That is more demoralizing than fighting th system.

[Bluegoat]

I think it's true that a lot of these things do give the well off an advantage.  (Though I think not so much being able to hob-nob or talk about the same kind of childhood.)

 

I think its a bit different to imply taht people do it in a competitive mindset.  That does happen, and there are some who argue that is inevitably more common in a capitalist system because the nature of the system means that some need to fail.  I think there is probably some truth to that.

 

But I don't think it is ubiquitous.  People don't usually give their kids a college education hoping that it will make them compete against others - more often they probably hope all will do well.

 

Though I do seem to see a lot more of it here on STR when parents talk about getting their kids into university than I do in in my community. 

[Tsuga]

It's the lie that is unkind, society's lie, not one person's.

 

$100,000 to one's own... College, down payment, car.. How can two starting points not hurt those who start so far behind?

 

And then blame the bottom half for not making it.

 

How can that not be seen clearly, why they are so unhappy about it? That surprises me.

 

Editing to add, I'm not saying it is wrong of one family to participate in a system they cannot change. But certainly to claim sour grapes and perpetuate the idea that the system is something. Other than what it is, that's not right.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Tsuga

[livetoread]

We got married in college and DH worked himself through college. We were dirt poor, yet my parents were generous. They often paid our gas on our trips home. Christmas and birthdays meant a chunk of change we could put towards otherwise unattainable items. We even lived with them for a few months after DH graduated and he looked for a job and housing in a new state.

 

That being said, I'm glad my parents didn't (or maybe couldn't) give so much that weren't still being stretched on our own. I look back on those dirt poor years with fondness, when we learned to scrimp and save and do without. I think it was a good learning experience. It certainly makes me appreciate the little things a lot more.

 

I hope to be able to be generous like that with my own kids when they are older. But I also think it's good for young adults to learn to go without some things too. I think too often people get wants and needs mixed up and so they sucked into debt, believing that they are supposed to be able to afford all the things that people a generation ago took decades to acquire.

Agreed.

 

A couple of months before our wedding, my dh got laid off and didn't find a full-time job in his field for a year. I was in grad school, and we lived on my stipend and some part-time work he scrounged up which came to about 12k.

 

But here's the difference. We both came into this situation with parent funded advanced degrees (I was back for another), two newish, reliable cars, no kids, and no debt. No student loans, no car payments, no credit card debt, no medical. We also both had some savings because when we worked, we could save more than others who had to spend more on necessities. Dh's company gave him six months salary in severance and covered COBRA because he was white collar, and 25 years ago companies treated their white collar employees more generously.

 

We cut things to the bone, bonded, and came out of it trusting each other. It was a very good experience for us. But we sailed through it really because of the financial advantages our parents had already given us. Living on 12k with reliable cars and no debt can't compare to the opposite. We ended up not even touching his severance money and didn't accrue any debt, while that situation might have taken another couple years to dig out of.

 

Our wealthy folks never offered a cent, but they didn't need to. They had already provided that financial cushion. They knew the value of struggling for a time but not going under. We knew dh was going to find another job, I'd graduate and earn good money, and we'd be fine. We knew if somehow things worsened and we started going under that they'd be there, as long as we were making good choices about it.

 

That's what I mean by well-off folks giving targeted support. We still learned we can live on very little and be happy, we knew wants were not needs (because neither of our folks were very materialistic anyway), and we were able to struggle without going under. That cushion meant the difference between having a great learning experience with no ill effects and a situation that set us back years in our climb to comfortable middle class.

[creekland]

I think you are naive about changing classes. It doesn't happen often at all and less often in the US than in other countries.

 

Your students, creek land... They won't make it. We will get them in CC and they drop out because their car breaks down or they have to work to pay for health care.

 

Sorry, I see too many who do make it to know that your story is not universal.

 

It's very common for us to be able to predict who will do well and who won't by the time they graduate and the most common denominator is work ethic, not parental wealth.

 

And then there are a few success stories from those we thought wouldn't make it too - once they got outside high school, started a basic job, and realized they were capable of more.

 

One difference in our areas is likely the COL.  We do not live in a high one.  It makes life easier.

 

One benefit to those who are lower income is need-based aid.  Some schools are quite generous with it.

[Hikin' Mama]

Sorry, I see too many who do make it to know that your story is not universal.

 

It's very common for us to be able to predict who will do well and who won't by the time they graduate and the most common denominator is work ethic, not parental wealth.

 

And then there are a few success stories from those we thought wouldn't make it too - once they got outside high school, started a basic job, and realized they were capable of more.

 

One difference in our areas is likely the COL. We do not live in a high one. It makes life easier.

 

One benefit to those who are lower income is need-based aid. Some schools are quite generous with it.

I agree with you Creek (imagine that :) )! The wealthiest person I know is from a very poor family and started out living in his old pick up. He did have a college degree because he got a football scholarship. However, he didn't get wealthy through football or by using his college degree. And he worked for 30, yes thirty years, to get to that level. Wealth doesn't happen overnight, and if you would see him on any given day, you would not think "wealthy," because he's really not into the show.

 

I know many other people who did not come from wealthy parents but managed to achieve financial security, maybe not wealth as most people think of it (big homes, expensive cars, lavish vacations), but financial security.

 

Creek, good for you for encouraging these kids! That encouragement might just mean the difference between making it or not.

[Tsuga]

Sorry, I see too many who do make it to know that your story is not universal.

 

It's very common for us to be able to predict who will do well and who won't by the time they graduate and the most common denominator is work ethic, not parental wealth.

 

And then there are a few success stories from those we thought wouldn't make it too - once they got outside high school, started a basic job, and realized they were capable of more.

 

One difference in our areas is likely the COL. We do not live in a high one. It makes life easier.

 

One benefit to those who are lower income is need-based aid. Some schools are quite generous with it.

It is not universal but there are ample statistics about changing social class and success at a two year college and success for part-time and working students.

 

I do it for a living.

 

My job in large part has convinced me that my own kids deserve better than these programs.

 

Not my story. My story is a success story.

 

I see the failures in the numbers and that is why I'll give my kids everything.

 

Need based aid only covers tuition. You don't get living costs. That is where people get lost.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Tsuga

[Tsuga]

I agree with you Creek (imagine that :) )! The wealthiest person I know is from a very poor family and started out living in his old pick up. He did have a college degree because he got a football scholarship. However, he didn't get wealthy through football or by using his college degree. And he worked for 30, yes thirty years, to get to that level. Wealth doesn't happen overnight, and if you would see him on any given day, you would not think "wealthy," because he's really not into the show.

 

I know many other people who did not come from wealthy parents but managed to achieve financial security, maybe not wealth as most people think of it (big homes, expensive cars, lavish vacations), but financial security.

 

Creek, good for you for encouraging these kids! That encouragement might just mean the difference between making it or not.

What was happening 30, 40, 50 years ago is not borne out in statistics now.

 

Social mobility is down and falling.

 

College success for the poor as COL goes up is stagnant.

 

College success for working students in CC is stagnant but low--around 10%.

 

If you believe in it so much, give that start to your own kids. If rich people really thought it was possible, show the poor how it's done. Prove it.

 

Let them enjoy the personal satisfaction of getting rich or even secure without help.

 

Put your money where your mouth is.

 

But you don't really believe it. Not really. Not for your own children. If you did and you really believed in the virtue of hard work and the value of money you'd send your own kids out there.

 

If it's not good enough for you kids why is it good enough for anybody's?

 

Pell grants and financial aid make a private education cost the same as public. You still end up with loans for living expenses and stuff. The package is nothing compared to what we'll-off kids get.

 

Everyone is giving their own kids every advantage.

 

There is nothing wrong with that.

 

There is something wrong with acting as if advantages don't matter.

 

 

If they didn't matter we'd be going to Hawaii and enjoying ourselves not working until our 70s to build an inheritance. It makes all the difference in the world.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Tsuga

[Hikin' Mama]

What was happening 30, 40, 50 years ago is not borne out in statistics now.

 

Social mobility is down and falling.

 

College success for the poor as COL goes up is stagnant.

 

College success for working students in CC is stagnant but low--around 10%.

 

If you believe in it so much, give that start to your own kids.

 

Let them enjoy the personal satisfaction of getting rich.

 

Put your money where your mouth is and I might believe it is sincere.

 

But you don't really believe it. Not really. Not for your own children.

 

If it's not good enough for you kids why is it good enough for anybody's?

Put my money where my mouth is?

 

Not sure where I said it wasn't good enough for my own kids. In fact, I'm not exactly sure WHAT you are saying isn't good enough for my own kids.

[Hikin' Mama]

What was happening 30, 40, 50 years ago is not borne out in statistics now.

 

Social mobility is down and falling.

 

College success for the poor as COL goes up is stagnant.

 

College success for working students in CC is stagnant but low--around 10%.

 

If you believe in it so much, give that start to your own kids. If rich people really thought it was possible, show the poor how it's done. Prove it.

 

Let them enjoy the personal satisfaction of getting rich or even secure without help.

 

Put your money where your mouth is.

 

But you don't really believe it. Not really. Not for your own children. If you did and you really believed in the virtue of hard work and the value of money you'd send your own kids out there.

 

If it's not good enough for you kids why is it good enough for anybody's?

 

Pell grants and financial aid make a private education cost the same as public. You still end up with loans for living expenses and stuff. The package is nothing compared to what we'll-off kids get.

 

Everyone is giving their own kids every advantage.

 

There is nothing wrong with that.

 

There is something wrong with acting as if advantages don't matter.

 

 

If they didn't matter we'd be going to Hawaii and enjoying ourselves not working until our 70s to build an inheritance. It makes all the difference in the world.

Okay, you've added to this post since I first quoted, but I'm still unclear as to where "out there" is that I would send my own kids to.

 

ETA: I never said advantages don't matter. My response to Creek's post was that not everyone will fail just because they don't have advantages. And I applauded her for giving those students encouragement. Encouragement is big in my opinion.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Hikin' Mama