3 ms·
> Perhaps my friends and I are outliers, none of us inherited any wealth or were given trust funds or lump sums when hitting adulthood > all of us are better o
by Drew_ 2y ago
> Perhaps my friends and I are outliers, none of us inherited any wealth or were given trust funds or lump sums when hitting adulthood
> all of us are better off than our parents at the same age and their parents are better off than their parents
These are conflicting statements. Your group are all beneficiaries of generational wealth by this description. Maybe it isn’t as overt as a trust fund, but you definitely inherited wealth and opportunity from your parents.
- flappyeagle 2y agoOh get off your high horse.
- Drew_ 2y agoI’m not on a high horse.
- monktastic1 2y agoIt's hard to understand what you're saying here. Being better off than your parents implies that you are a beneficiary of generational wealth? Connect the dots for us.
- Drew_ 2y agoOP described a group of families that accrued wealth over 3 generations "without inheriting any wealth". Assuming they weren't orphaned at birth, each generation definitely benefited from the fruits of the previous generation. Even without an overt handout like a trust fund, we still inherit wealth from our ancestors (eg: housing, health care, education, credit, social networks, etc). In this case, the "handout" would have been their upbringing. They feel "the system is working" because of this, but not everyone in the system has an ancestry like this.
- monktastic1 2y agoSo by your definition, anyone who isn't an orphan is a beneficiary of generational wealth? In fact, even orphans are, because they inherited genes, weren't left to die, etc.? I suppose that is a definition, but it doesn't seem like a useful one, especially in the context of this conversation. Or maybe I've just misunderstood you?