3 ms·

They almost make it sound like it was a bad thing. What's wrong about people keeping at least the minimum of an "extended family" thing?

bombcar 2y ago
The most likely age to receive an inheritance is about 60. At 60 an inheritance doesn’t move the needle much. The same “ball of funds” (even adjusted backwards for investment returns, etc) at 30 would probably have made a bigger impact - earlier house, better school district for the kids, etc. Being “forced” to support adult children likely indicates issues with society of some sort, but in general, that support well-done and intentional, can be a great leg-up in the world.
- em500 2y ago
  The big problem is that it's probably not possible to distinguish between "forced" (by circumstances) or "by own choice". I suspect that it's a similar problem as the impossibility to disentangle supply and demand from observed transactions and prices.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    Historically the primary and often almost only reliable way of obtaining any kind of meaningful wealth was through inheritance inheriting it. So such behavior was completely standard and expected (it’s much easier to justify it if your parents inherited most of their wealth as well). In a way that seems like an inseparable part of highly stable/stagnant societies. The things that broke the wheel back in the 1800s and 1900s was very rapid technological progress and several massive wars leading to societal collapse across much of the world
    - anovikov 2y ago
      But today, inheritance still plays a very small part compared to what it was even 40 years ago.
      - bombcar 2y ago
        The easiest way to get billions is still inheritance. But almost anyone can get into the low millions by diligently working and saving ($20/hr for 30 years is 1.2m after all).
        pjc50 2y ago
        And all you need to do is not spend any of that $1.2m on food and rent in the meantime!
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  > At 60 an inheritance doesn’t move the needle much. My in-laws gave my me and my wife about $20,000 to help with the down payment on our house when we were 35. They said to consider it an advance of our inheritance for that exact reason. $20K at that time would make a lot more of a difference to us than $20K + the interest it would have earned in 20-30 years.
pavel_lishin 2y ago
There's a difference between living with your family because you choose to, and being unable to afford to live on your own without your family's assistance.
knowitnone 2y ago
It's a bad thing if you can't move out...ever and with inflation the way it is, this is the case for more and more of the young. Think about inflation vs wage and you'll see wages have not matched inflation. Personally and culturally, I recommend staying at home. Just a couple of years ago, I was working for a so-called tech company that was paying just 19/hr for their support staff. Fast food workers make more than that now.

bombcar 2y ago

The most likely age to receive an inheritance is about 60. At 60 an inheritance doesn’t move the needle much. The same “ball of funds” (even adjusted backwards for investment returns, etc) at 30 would probably have made a bigger impact - earlier house, better school district for the kids, etc. Being “forced” to support adult children likely indicates issues with society of some sort, but in general, that support well-done and intentional, can be a great leg-up in the world.

em500 2y ago
The big problem is that it's probably not possible to distinguish between "forced" (by circumstances) or "by own choice". I suspect that it's a similar problem as the impossibility to disentangle supply and demand from observed transactions and prices.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  Historically the primary and often almost only reliable way of obtaining any kind of meaningful wealth was through inheritance inheriting it. So such behavior was completely standard and expected (it’s much easier to justify it if your parents inherited most of their wealth as well). In a way that seems like an inseparable part of highly stable/stagnant societies. The things that broke the wheel back in the 1800s and 1900s was very rapid technological progress and several massive wars leading to societal collapse across much of the world
  - anovikov 2y ago
    But today, inheritance still plays a very small part compared to what it was even 40 years ago.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      The easiest way to get billions is still inheritance. But almost anyone can get into the low millions by diligently working and saving ($20/hr for 30 years is 1.2m after all).
      - pjc50 2y ago
        And all you need to do is not spend any of that $1.2m on food and rent in the meantime!
Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
> At 60 an inheritance doesn’t move the needle much. My in-laws gave my me and my wife about $20,000 to help with the down payment on our house when we were 35. They said to consider it an advance of our inheritance for that exact reason. $20K at that time would make a lot more of a difference to us than $20K + the interest it would have earned in 20-30 years.

pavel_lishin 2y ago

There's a difference between living with your family because you choose to, and being unable to afford to live on your own without your family's assistance.

knowitnone 2y ago

It's a bad thing if you can't move out...ever and with inflation the way it is, this is the case for more and more of the young. Think about inflation vs wage and you'll see wages have not matched inflation. Personally and culturally, I recommend staying at home. Just a couple of years ago, I was working for a so-called tech company that was paying just 19/hr for their support staff. Fast food workers make more than that now.