4 ms·

One thing often omitted, or taken for granted, in the "rich parents" discussion is the curious question of "How did the parents get rich?" Did they have rich pa

by f055 10y ago

One thing often omitted, or taken for granted, in the "rich parents" discussion is the curious question of "How did the parents get rich?" Did they have rich parents too? Or did they actually started from very low and got clever/lucky/hardworking. If you think of it this way, having rich parents may not be a magic privilege, a "silver spoon", but a consequence of their effort and sacrifice. Their children do not have to bear the same sacrifice. But you, whose parents weren't that clever/lucky/hardworking, you need to bear the sacrifice - maybe even not to get rich, but give enough of a good start for your children to get rich, and you grandchildren to be called privileged.

washadjeffmad 10y ago
Sacrifice implies you lose something with nothing gained. These people generated wealth and got posterity and legacy. They bought that with their work, volitionally, and bore the responsibility of the dedication required to keep it. You aren't sacrificing your money to buy yourself lunch, providing for your kids isn't a sacrifice, and you aren't sacrificing by working more hours to afford that big house and nice car you have. It's just hard sometimes, but it's all part of the bargain.
- restalis 10y ago
  "Sacrifice implies you lose something with nothing gained." Not true. That is just pure loss. According to its definition¹, "sacrifice" means either "to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else" or "to dispose of (goods, property, etc.) regardless of profit". Parents working hard in order to provide for their kids may involve something from both of the meanings. "you aren't sacrificing by working more hours to afford that big house and nice car you have" It depends on how you look at it, and working more hours for a nice house and car can be both a transaction and a sacrifice. If you consider the leisure time you have to give up (assuming that you don't particularly enjoy your work) then it's a sacrifice. If you consider the time and energy involved in the paid work then it's just a transaction. ¹ http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sacrifice http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sacrifice
- f055 10y ago
  Maybe sacrifice is not a perfect choice of words on my part, but what I mean is some parents chose to sacrifice consumer goods and instant pleasures so their kids could have it better in the future. You are correct that something is lost here and something is gained, but to be frank I have no other word that'd be close to what I mean.
tmnvix 10y ago
An interesting perspective and from an individual's point of view, probably quite a pragmatic one. I still suspect that widening inequality means that this is either an unlikely occurrence or the effect doesn't last. I'm guessing the first given that wealthy families seem to maintain wealth quite well.
- f055 10y ago
  There are several things at play here. First, it would be great to find a century-long study on the number of millionaires by year. From little I could find it seems their numbers fluctuate like a sinusoid, especially after bubbles burst, meaning there are a bunch of new rich people every couple of years, and another bunch that go bust. Second, it would be nice to measure actual wealth of poor people in 1900s and today - my assumption being that poor people are actually getting wealthier, just not fast enough to catch up millionaires pace. Here's a note: intelligent wealth management pretty much guarantees logarithmic increase of wealth - the more you invest, the more you profit. Thirds, I have a feeling the middle class collapsed and 1/3 got richer while 2/3 got poorer. It would be super interesting to read some deep and long-lasting studies on this.

by f055 10y ago

washadjeffmad 10y ago

Sacrifice implies you lose something with nothing gained. These people generated wealth and got posterity and legacy. They bought that with their work, volitionally, and bore the responsibility of the dedication required to keep it. You aren't sacrificing your money to buy yourself lunch, providing for your kids isn't a sacrifice, and you aren't sacrificing by working more hours to afford that big house and nice car you have. It's just hard sometimes, but it's all part of the bargain.

restalis 10y ago
"Sacrifice implies you lose something with nothing gained." Not true. That is just pure loss. According to its definition¹, "sacrifice" means either "to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else" or "to dispose of (goods, property, etc.) regardless of profit". Parents working hard in order to provide for their kids may involve something from both of the meanings. "you aren't sacrificing by working more hours to afford that big house and nice car you have" It depends on how you look at it, and working more hours for a nice house and car can be both a transaction and a sacrifice. If you consider the leisure time you have to give up (assuming that you don't particularly enjoy your work) then it's a sacrifice. If you consider the time and energy involved in the paid work then it's just a transaction. ¹ http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sacrifice http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sacrifice
f055 10y ago
Maybe sacrifice is not a perfect choice of words on my part, but what I mean is some parents chose to sacrifice consumer goods and instant pleasures so their kids could have it better in the future. You are correct that something is lost here and something is gained, but to be frank I have no other word that'd be close to what I mean.

tmnvix 10y ago

An interesting perspective and from an individual's point of view, probably quite a pragmatic one. I still suspect that widening inequality means that this is either an unlikely occurrence or the effect doesn't last. I'm guessing the first given that wealthy families seem to maintain wealth quite well.

f055 10y ago
There are several things at play here. First, it would be great to find a century-long study on the number of millionaires by year. From little I could find it seems their numbers fluctuate like a sinusoid, especially after bubbles burst, meaning there are a bunch of new rich people every couple of years, and another bunch that go bust. Second, it would be nice to measure actual wealth of poor people in 1900s and today - my assumption being that poor people are actually getting wealthier, just not fast enough to catch up millionaires pace. Here's a note: intelligent wealth management pretty much guarantees logarithmic increase of wealth - the more you invest, the more you profit. Thirds, I have a feeling the middle class collapsed and 1/3 got richer while 2/3 got poorer. It would be super interesting to read some deep and long-lasting studies on this.