4 ms·

I can't understand the tone of this article-- is there something inherently wrong with receiving parental help? What's wrong with family members helping each ot

by g_z_m 8y ago

I can't understand the tone of this article-- is there something inherently wrong with receiving parental help? What's wrong with family members helping each other? It's part of being in a family, people of your own blood helping, protecting, and lifting each other up. In an article slighting millennials for claiming to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps", it's even weirder to look in the NYT comments section filled with boomers talking down at struggling millennials while bragging about how they themselves worked 8 jobs, saved 10 years for a Honda Accord, trekked 5 miles in the snow to get to work.

zimablue 8y ago
Because it replaces meritocracy with oligarchy if wealthy parents are required to get a foothold in life.
- g_z_m 8y ago
  I disagree, but what do you suppose people do then? I'm afraid it's unrealistic to expect a society to collectively agree on donating to charity any excess money originally intended for helping their offspring.
  - zimablue 8y ago
    I expect society to severely tax and regulate wealth, and also the most harmful methods that the wealthy use to game meritocracy. Eg. for private education - tax the hell out of it, legislate that each next stage somewhat accounts for the last one being rigged (eg. colleges forced to push down people from expensive schools) and seek to promote meritocratic alternatives (eg. online education).
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      If there's one thing there needs to exist non-government alternatives to it's education. The government shouldn't get a near monopoly on telling the youth what to think. FWIW your median "private school" is usually church run, not some elite prep school CEOs send their kids to.
      - roguecoder 8y ago
        Church-run schools that exist to indoctrinate children into religious beliefs and refuse to teach basic science in favor of their doctrine should absolutely pay for the externality of the rest of us having to interact with those children later in life.
        barry-cotter 8y ago
        Government-run schools that exist to indoctrinate children into nationalist beliefs and refuse to discipline children who make school unpleasant and poor learning environments should be shut down.
        defterGoose 8y ago
        Lol. Discipline that would expose a likely financially-struggling teacher or school to an overtly litigious public? I forgot it was the schools' responsibility to raise our kids.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - roguecoder 8y ago
        Also in America even church schools mostly just exist because racist white parents don't want their children to have to share resources with black children.
  - roguecoder 8y ago
    It's called "government" and "progressive taxation" and "labor laws" and not only does this coordination as a society level reduce inequality, it also increases GDP over time as everyone benefits from investments in the commons.
  - throwawaytoday5 8y ago
    You tax the ultra wealthy. The easiest thing would be to increase progressive tax brackets (why does it stop at 600k?), raise taxes on inheritance over $10 million, establish new multiple payroll taxes to help SSA (why do the brackets stop at 500k?). The rich are destroying the earth through greed and society by destroying the middle class. They had their fun, it's time for 99% of other people to enjoy the government.
kokokokoko 8y ago
Yes. In a market economy it is wildly unfair to take family assistance because many people do not have access to it.
- matz1 8y ago
  Life IS unfair.
  - DangitBobby 8y ago
    Recognizing that fact, many people spend quite a lot of time, thought, and energy to make it less so.
    - matz1 8y ago
      Recognizing that fact, you adapt, utilize all the cards you have been dealt with, turn your disadvantages into advantages. For example, when you are born poor, you develop skills that someone who is wealthier does not have the opportunity to learn.
    - TomVDB 8y ago
      Yes. But even so, that doesn't make it immoral to help your children of for children to accept that help. Being in favor of a better world tomorrow doesn't mean that you can't play by the rules of the world today. Every election, I vote for policies that will considerably increase my taxes, but at the same time, I expect my CPA to make sure that I only pay the taxes that I'm legally required to pay.
    - franch 8y ago
      If make it less so means reducing personal freedom to the point of regulating how much time a grandmother can take care of it's grandchildren, I really strongly disagree with that vision.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        No one is suggesting that.
kharms 8y ago
Whether something is "inherently" wrong depends entirely on your own moral philosophy, but one downside to parental dependency is that it perpetuates and exaggerates class division.
emddudley 8y ago
I can think of one negative angle--family money perpetuates inequity. If "more than half (53 percent) of Americans ages 21 to 37 have received some form of financial assistance" then 47% have not. These two halves have completely different options for housing, work, etc. > “But she wasn’t considering the fact that she graduated without any student-loan debt, came from a two-income household, as opposed to me. I am starting with negative wealth because I have loans to pay off and was raised in a family with only one income.”
roguecoder 8y ago
The idea that our responsibility is just to our families instead of to each other ends up with the American patriarchal anarchism where rich people are happy to lie about climate change, knowing they are lying, so they can destroy the earth to enrich themselves far beyond their needs in service of their "family wealth".
- g_z_m 8y ago
  It's a little disingenuous to equate prioritizing family over others as patriarchal anarchism. I grew up in a supportive family that looked out for each other, and I can only hope to create a similar environment for my children when I have them. For me, it is very natural that family will always be a priority over greater society. This by no means insinuates that I have no loyalty to the people in my community, or my country-- I think that's too extreme of a conclusion to come to. If there's (God forbid) some natural disaster, a fire, a shooter on the loose, etc. I am always going to first check on and ensure the well being of my immediate family before that of others.

by g_z_m 8y ago

zimablue 8y ago

Because it replaces meritocracy with oligarchy if wealthy parents are required to get a foothold in life.

g_z_m 8y ago
I disagree, but what do you suppose people do then? I'm afraid it's unrealistic to expect a society to collectively agree on donating to charity any excess money originally intended for helping their offspring.
- zimablue 8y ago
  I expect society to severely tax and regulate wealth, and also the most harmful methods that the wealthy use to game meritocracy. Eg. for private education - tax the hell out of it, legislate that each next stage somewhat accounts for the last one being rigged (eg. colleges forced to push down people from expensive schools) and seek to promote meritocratic alternatives (eg. online education).
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    If there's one thing there needs to exist non-government alternatives to it's education. The government shouldn't get a near monopoly on telling the youth what to think. FWIW your median "private school" is usually church run, not some elite prep school CEOs send their kids to.
    - roguecoder 8y ago
      Church-run schools that exist to indoctrinate children into religious beliefs and refuse to teach basic science in favor of their doctrine should absolutely pay for the externality of the rest of us having to interact with those children later in life.
      - barry-cotter 8y ago
        Government-run schools that exist to indoctrinate children into nationalist beliefs and refuse to discipline children who make school unpleasant and poor learning environments should be shut down.
        defterGoose 8y ago
        Lol. Discipline that would expose a likely financially-struggling teacher or school to an overtly litigious public? I forgot it was the schools' responsibility to raise our kids.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - roguecoder 8y ago
      Also in America even church schools mostly just exist because racist white parents don't want their children to have to share resources with black children.
- roguecoder 8y ago
  It's called "government" and "progressive taxation" and "labor laws" and not only does this coordination as a society level reduce inequality, it also increases GDP over time as everyone benefits from investments in the commons.
- throwawaytoday5 8y ago
  You tax the ultra wealthy. The easiest thing would be to increase progressive tax brackets (why does it stop at 600k?), raise taxes on inheritance over $10 million, establish new multiple payroll taxes to help SSA (why do the brackets stop at 500k?). The rich are destroying the earth through greed and society by destroying the middle class. They had their fun, it's time for 99% of other people to enjoy the government.

kokokokoko 8y ago

Yes. In a market economy it is wildly unfair to take family assistance because many people do not have access to it.

matz1 8y ago
Life IS unfair.
- DangitBobby 8y ago
  Recognizing that fact, many people spend quite a lot of time, thought, and energy to make it less so.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Recognizing that fact, you adapt, utilize all the cards you have been dealt with, turn your disadvantages into advantages. For example, when you are born poor, you develop skills that someone who is wealthier does not have the opportunity to learn.
  - TomVDB 8y ago
    Yes. But even so, that doesn't make it immoral to help your children of for children to accept that help. Being in favor of a better world tomorrow doesn't mean that you can't play by the rules of the world today. Every election, I vote for policies that will considerably increase my taxes, but at the same time, I expect my CPA to make sure that I only pay the taxes that I'm legally required to pay.
  - franch 8y ago
    If make it less so means reducing personal freedom to the point of regulating how much time a grandmother can take care of it's grandchildren, I really strongly disagree with that vision.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      No one is suggesting that.

kharms 8y ago

Whether something is "inherently" wrong depends entirely on your own moral philosophy, but one downside to parental dependency is that it perpetuates and exaggerates class division.

emddudley 8y ago

I can think of one negative angle--family money perpetuates inequity. If "more than half (53 percent) of Americans ages 21 to 37 have received some form of financial assistance" then 47% have not. These two halves have completely different options for housing, work, etc. > “But she wasn’t considering the fact that she graduated without any student-loan debt, came from a two-income household, as opposed to me. I am starting with negative wealth because I have loans to pay off and was raised in a family with only one income.”

roguecoder 8y ago

The idea that our responsibility is just to our families instead of to each other ends up with the American patriarchal anarchism where rich people are happy to lie about climate change, knowing they are lying, so they can destroy the earth to enrich themselves far beyond their needs in service of their "family wealth".

g_z_m 8y ago
It's a little disingenuous to equate prioritizing family over others as patriarchal anarchism. I grew up in a supportive family that looked out for each other, and I can only hope to create a similar environment for my children when I have them. For me, it is very natural that family will always be a priority over greater society. This by no means insinuates that I have no loyalty to the people in my community, or my country-- I think that's too extreme of a conclusion to come to. If there's (God forbid) some natural disaster, a fire, a shooter on the loose, etc. I am always going to first check on and ensure the well being of my immediate family before that of others.