4 ms·

Traditional family connections and community is not the result of poverty. The correlation the author bases this on is tenuous at best. The correlation she pre

Traditional family connections and community is not the result of poverty. The correlation the author bases this on is tenuous at best. The correlation she presents is that with time incomes rose and communities fractured and family structure shrunk. The counterpoint is that in the past the people with the greatest amount of wealth, were very keen on maintaining family and community relationships. Modern royalty still invites all the royals in the entire world when they have a function. The whole article views the past and "traditional" structures through very rose tinted glasses.

rakejake 3y ago
I have thought about this and realised it is not really a counterpoint. At the very top, there is the illusion of community and camaraderie. Thing is, it is impossible to say whether your connections will actually turn up and help you. When you are not wealthy, you are forced to depend on other people, so you know early on who actually puts their money where their mouth is. If you are a wealthy person, chances are you'll never be in this position. You can pay your way out of any situation. Going from one gala to another does not really amount to community IMHO. Note that the definition of "wealthy" here is quite loose. Even the average HN SWE would comfortably qualify as wealthy. We may have our friend circles but it is not easy to say if we can count on someone to be there by our bedside if we end up with a terminal illness that leaves us bedridden. For a long time, family was the bedrock that could be relied on no matter what. Now, nobody knows.
johnea 3y ago
Regarding the effects of wealth, it's also worth pointing out that many people with significant wealth don't raise their own kids. Every person I've ever met with net worth of many many millions (probably only 1/2 a dozen) didn't raise their own children. They had a full time staff of caregivers (nannies) who were the adults present with the children the overwhelming majority of the time.

rakejake 3y ago

I have thought about this and realised it is not really a counterpoint. At the very top, there is the illusion of community and camaraderie. Thing is, it is impossible to say whether your connections will actually turn up and help you. When you are not wealthy, you are forced to depend on other people, so you know early on who actually puts their money where their mouth is. If you are a wealthy person, chances are you'll never be in this position. You can pay your way out of any situation. Going from one gala to another does not really amount to community IMHO. Note that the definition of "wealthy" here is quite loose. Even the average HN SWE would comfortably qualify as wealthy. We may have our friend circles but it is not easy to say if we can count on someone to be there by our bedside if we end up with a terminal illness that leaves us bedridden. For a long time, family was the bedrock that could be relied on no matter what. Now, nobody knows.

johnea 3y ago

Regarding the effects of wealth, it's also worth pointing out that many people with significant wealth don't raise their own kids. Every person I've ever met with net worth of many many millions (probably only 1/2 a dozen) didn't raise their own children. They had a full time staff of caregivers (nannies) who were the adults present with the children the overwhelming majority of the time.