5 ms·

If you aren't going to leave anything behind for your kids, why work so hard to earn so much in the first place?

by t0mbstone 7y ago

duxup 7y ago
Perhaps it is about what he leaves behind for people other than his children?
- t0mbstone 7y ago
  Evolutionarily speaking, people should be motivated to protect their offspring and ensure their survival. It strikes me as very odd (and stupid) for someone to give their own child nothing, but then essentially give a bunch of other families and their children $400 million. I mean, at least give your own kid a leg up! Geez.
  - duxup 7y ago
    >give their own child nothing I think he probabbly gave them something more than "nothing", possibly even a leg up.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    If your children are well educated and have connections, they already have a leg up. But whatever the reasons, if he's not worried about their ability to survive, then it makes sense to contribute to society. >Evolutionarily speaking, people should... What does this mean?
    - t0mbstone 7y ago
      > "Evolutionarily speaking" When I use this term, I'm referring to the general theory of evolution, particularly in reference to survival of the fittest and natural selection. I'm also referring to the natural instincts that a lot of animals (and humans) tend to have, such as the instinct to save the life of their own offspring, even if it means putting their own lives at risk.
      - kevinh 7y ago
        By that standard, evolutionarily speaking, he should have worked to maximize the number of children he had, as he had the means to provide for them. Or maybe he should have worked to fight climate change, as that could be a long-term threat to humanity's survival, which may include some of his descendents (and certainly some of the same traits he has). Acting like what is "evolutionarily smart" isn't necessarily what's good. It can be, but that's not a strong basis for moral action.
      - krastanov 7y ago
        Evolutionarily speaking we should be chasing animals in hunter-gatherer clans. The fact that we are slowly transcending the bounds of biological evolution should be celebrated: we have culture, art, and science now. And what we consider family (the ones we want to be happy) is slowly growing (with the occasional small step back). That guy ensured his kids had marvelous opportunities and is now trying to provide marvelous opportunities for other people in his "extended family". Jeez, how misanthropic or selfish do you have to be for this to not make you happy?
        t0mbstone 7y ago
        I never said I disapproved of him giving away his money. I just found it odd. Like, it doesn't make logical sense to me. But I also have a deep-rooted mistrust of most charities, since I have first-hand knowledge of how many of them mismanage their funds.
  - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
    If you've parented well, you've given your kid a leg up whether you leave them money/property or not (though I intend to leave my children money/property). The connections they have from their father are likely non-negligible as well.
  - thefounder 7y ago
    Maybe the other families had less than his kid. Have you thought about that? I'm pretty sure his kid has more than nothing. It wasn't sent to an orphanage to begin with. Having a good education and knowing the right people is often more valuable than some cash in the bank.
  - lifthearth 7y ago
    He likely is protecting his children's children by denying them obscene wealth. The problem isn't with the first generation born into great wealth it is the 2nd or 3rd who are far removed from the origin and the ways of thinking that created it they tend to get all sorts of deluded worldviews that ultimately lead to their and their families ruin. I've seen stats that assert 70%-90% of wealthy families lose their fortune over 2 generations. Falling wealth levels is likely a much greater existential threat than being born into one and maintaining.
    - newsoul2019 7y ago
      It seems that there are "interesting" ways that you could have a lot of wealth, but shield your children from the negative effects. For example, let's say you drove mostly older cars, teaching your kids to maintain and repair them themselves. Or let's say you lived in a huge house, but you don't have a cleaning crew - the family works together to clean the house on Sundays. Everyone fights, no one quits. If you made it your goal, you should be able to decouple "instill a serious work ethic" from "we own assets worth millions or billions"
  - ww520 7y ago
    There are many things other than money that parents can give to children to ensure their survival - relationship, connection, power, status, good will, knowledge, education, wisdom, character, vision, etc. Money is just the medium for exchange. In this case the parent has exchanged the money with something intangible for his children, and as a last act, exchanged it for other intangibles. Edit: Also human has evolved to utilize social systems to further their survival and dominance. It's no good to have all the money in the world while the system itself crumbles. This dad has the foresight to use his money to ensure the system his offspring living in will survive and thrive. There's a saying, "no eggs can survive a fallen bird nest."
thefounder 7y ago
A better question would be why would you leave anything material for your kids? A good eduction and guidance through life should suffice. The rest should be invested in good governance.
- hsnewman 7y ago
  What if they can't take care of themselves? There are many reasons to provide for your offspring.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    For that we should invest in a social safety net, even basic income, so that those who can't succeed don't have to go off and die.
- t0mbstone 7y ago
  So I take it you don't carry a life insurance policy?
- beefield 7y ago
  I have thought that there would be no need to leave anything of significant monetary value to my kids. Either they are smart and they do not need that. Or they are dumb and they do not deserve that. And if I could choose, I would highly prefer paying my taxes not from my income when I am alive, but from the estate I leave after I am dead. For some reason that is completely mindboggling to me, this preference seems to be quite rare...
  - floe 7y ago
    What would prevent you from just spending / donating your whole estate before you passed and then paying zero taxes? Or is that a feature in your system?
    - beefield 7y ago
      Of course there are practical issues in paying all of my taxes from my estate, but I can still hope that I could pay a bit more of my taxes after my death and less while I live.
hprotagonist 7y ago
because if you get a lot of cash, you, while still living, can make it do stuff in the world that you think needs to be done. Carnegie, for example, decided that He Really Liked Libraries. So he built a lot of them. Paul Allen decided that we were wasting everyone's time redoing basic science experiments, so he did a lot of them and put them all online for free forever. Brian Acton and Jan Koum decided that free, secure messaging should be available to everyone, so they sunk $500M into Open Whisper Systems so it can be a nonprofit with a warchest. In years past, people have made similar decicions like "there should be a really good hospital in this town, so i am building one", or whatnot.
- t0mbstone 7y ago
  Carnegie liked building libraries, but you will notice that a lot of those libraries got named after him. He used his wealth to benefit society, but he also effectively set up a system that would stamp and preserve his name and legacy in history. His actions weren't exactly entirely selfless. This seems to be a common goal for a lot of people once they become very rich. They ask themselves, "what do I do with all this money?", and then they discover that even rich people die... So they attempt to white wash any of their past wrong-doings, and paint themselves as heroes and leave behind a legacy where their name will live on even after they die.
  - wetpaws 7y ago
    Doing good things and having a legacy is better then just doing good things.
  - cyc115 7y ago
    I would prefer that than not doing good at all. Doing good is doing good, leaving a legacy or not.
    - dmix 7y ago
      Plenty of places (ie, hospitals) put the name of the donors out of respect for them. I highly doubt someone as famous as Andrew Carnegie was heavily motivated by having his name on another building.
hkmurakami 7y ago
The son is still running the company. He received a great education and opportunities to work and challenge himself. He's gotten a lot and has appreciation for what he has.
danans 7y ago
> why work so hard to earn so much in the first place? Power. A very comfortable lifestyle can be had for orders of magnitude less than $400M in wealth, so lifestyle isn't a motivation at that point. Inheritances function kind of like insurance policies against an unpredictable future for your progeny. The more dangerous you think that future is for your children, the more likely you are to set aside as much as you can for them. The father in this case seems to be confident that the future holds promise for his children, whether because he thinks they will get a fair chance, or because he raised them well, and that therefore they don't need a massive inheritance to live well.
throwawaymath 7y ago
Following this to its logical conclusion, is anything worth doing if you don't have children?

If you aren't going to leave anything behind for your kids, why work so hard to earn so much in the first place?

duxup 7y ago

Perhaps it is about what he leaves behind for people other than his children?

t0mbstone 7y ago
Evolutionarily speaking, people should be motivated to protect their offspring and ensure their survival. It strikes me as very odd (and stupid) for someone to give their own child nothing, but then essentially give a bunch of other families and their children $400 million. I mean, at least give your own kid a leg up! Geez.
- duxup 7y ago
  >give their own child nothing I think he probabbly gave them something more than "nothing", possibly even a leg up.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  If your children are well educated and have connections, they already have a leg up. But whatever the reasons, if he's not worried about their ability to survive, then it makes sense to contribute to society. >Evolutionarily speaking, people should... What does this mean?
  - t0mbstone 7y ago
    > "Evolutionarily speaking" When I use this term, I'm referring to the general theory of evolution, particularly in reference to survival of the fittest and natural selection. I'm also referring to the natural instincts that a lot of animals (and humans) tend to have, such as the instinct to save the life of their own offspring, even if it means putting their own lives at risk.
    - kevinh 7y ago
      By that standard, evolutionarily speaking, he should have worked to maximize the number of children he had, as he had the means to provide for them. Or maybe he should have worked to fight climate change, as that could be a long-term threat to humanity's survival, which may include some of his descendents (and certainly some of the same traits he has). Acting like what is "evolutionarily smart" isn't necessarily what's good. It can be, but that's not a strong basis for moral action.
    - krastanov 7y ago
      Evolutionarily speaking we should be chasing animals in hunter-gatherer clans. The fact that we are slowly transcending the bounds of biological evolution should be celebrated: we have culture, art, and science now. And what we consider family (the ones we want to be happy) is slowly growing (with the occasional small step back). That guy ensured his kids had marvelous opportunities and is now trying to provide marvelous opportunities for other people in his "extended family". Jeez, how misanthropic or selfish do you have to be for this to not make you happy?
      - t0mbstone 7y ago
        I never said I disapproved of him giving away his money. I just found it odd. Like, it doesn't make logical sense to me. But I also have a deep-rooted mistrust of most charities, since I have first-hand knowledge of how many of them mismanage their funds.
- Matticus_Rex 7y ago
  If you've parented well, you've given your kid a leg up whether you leave them money/property or not (though I intend to leave my children money/property). The connections they have from their father are likely non-negligible as well.
- thefounder 7y ago
  Maybe the other families had less than his kid. Have you thought about that? I'm pretty sure his kid has more than nothing. It wasn't sent to an orphanage to begin with. Having a good education and knowing the right people is often more valuable than some cash in the bank.
- lifthearth 7y ago
  He likely is protecting his children's children by denying them obscene wealth. The problem isn't with the first generation born into great wealth it is the 2nd or 3rd who are far removed from the origin and the ways of thinking that created it they tend to get all sorts of deluded worldviews that ultimately lead to their and their families ruin. I've seen stats that assert 70%-90% of wealthy families lose their fortune over 2 generations. Falling wealth levels is likely a much greater existential threat than being born into one and maintaining.
  - newsoul2019 7y ago
    It seems that there are "interesting" ways that you could have a lot of wealth, but shield your children from the negative effects. For example, let's say you drove mostly older cars, teaching your kids to maintain and repair them themselves. Or let's say you lived in a huge house, but you don't have a cleaning crew - the family works together to clean the house on Sundays. Everyone fights, no one quits. If you made it your goal, you should be able to decouple "instill a serious work ethic" from "we own assets worth millions or billions"
- ww520 7y ago
  There are many things other than money that parents can give to children to ensure their survival - relationship, connection, power, status, good will, knowledge, education, wisdom, character, vision, etc. Money is just the medium for exchange. In this case the parent has exchanged the money with something intangible for his children, and as a last act, exchanged it for other intangibles. Edit: Also human has evolved to utilize social systems to further their survival and dominance. It's no good to have all the money in the world while the system itself crumbles. This dad has the foresight to use his money to ensure the system his offspring living in will survive and thrive. There's a saying, "no eggs can survive a fallen bird nest."

thefounder 7y ago

A better question would be why would you leave anything material for your kids? A good eduction and guidance through life should suffice. The rest should be invested in good governance.

hsnewman 7y ago
What if they can't take care of themselves? There are many reasons to provide for your offspring.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  For that we should invest in a social safety net, even basic income, so that those who can't succeed don't have to go off and die.
t0mbstone 7y ago
So I take it you don't carry a life insurance policy?
beefield 7y ago
I have thought that there would be no need to leave anything of significant monetary value to my kids. Either they are smart and they do not need that. Or they are dumb and they do not deserve that. And if I could choose, I would highly prefer paying my taxes not from my income when I am alive, but from the estate I leave after I am dead. For some reason that is completely mindboggling to me, this preference seems to be quite rare...
- floe 7y ago
  What would prevent you from just spending / donating your whole estate before you passed and then paying zero taxes? Or is that a feature in your system?
  - beefield 7y ago
    Of course there are practical issues in paying all of my taxes from my estate, but I can still hope that I could pay a bit more of my taxes after my death and less while I live.

hprotagonist 7y ago

because if you get a lot of cash, you, while still living, can make it do stuff in the world that you think needs to be done. Carnegie, for example, decided that He Really Liked Libraries. So he built a lot of them. Paul Allen decided that we were wasting everyone's time redoing basic science experiments, so he did a lot of them and put them all online for free forever. Brian Acton and Jan Koum decided that free, secure messaging should be available to everyone, so they sunk $500M into Open Whisper Systems so it can be a nonprofit with a warchest. In years past, people have made similar decicions like "there should be a really good hospital in this town, so i am building one", or whatnot.

t0mbstone 7y ago
Carnegie liked building libraries, but you will notice that a lot of those libraries got named after him. He used his wealth to benefit society, but he also effectively set up a system that would stamp and preserve his name and legacy in history. His actions weren't exactly entirely selfless. This seems to be a common goal for a lot of people once they become very rich. They ask themselves, "what do I do with all this money?", and then they discover that even rich people die... So they attempt to white wash any of their past wrong-doings, and paint themselves as heroes and leave behind a legacy where their name will live on even after they die.
- wetpaws 7y ago
  Doing good things and having a legacy is better then just doing good things.
- cyc115 7y ago
  I would prefer that than not doing good at all. Doing good is doing good, leaving a legacy or not.
  - dmix 7y ago
    Plenty of places (ie, hospitals) put the name of the donors out of respect for them. I highly doubt someone as famous as Andrew Carnegie was heavily motivated by having his name on another building.

hkmurakami 7y ago

The son is still running the company. He received a great education and opportunities to work and challenge himself. He's gotten a lot and has appreciation for what he has.

danans 7y ago

> why work so hard to earn so much in the first place? Power. A very comfortable lifestyle can be had for orders of magnitude less than $400M in wealth, so lifestyle isn't a motivation at that point. Inheritances function kind of like insurance policies against an unpredictable future for your progeny. The more dangerous you think that future is for your children, the more likely you are to set aside as much as you can for them. The father in this case seems to be confident that the future holds promise for his children, whether because he thinks they will get a fair chance, or because he raised them well, and that therefore they don't need a massive inheritance to live well.

throwawaymath 7y ago

Following this to its logical conclusion, is anything worth doing if you don't have children?