If your family had generational wealth when did it end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

Yes, you probably are one of those people who only look up. Plenty minorities have to bootstrap their way through college with tons of debt. I'm sure they have a different opinion to you. You probably don't see them as "an average person"; you appear not to see them at all. Thanks for perpetuating racism and inequality with your filter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

Yes, you probably are one of those people who only look up. Plenty minorities have to bootstrap their way through college with tons of debt. I'm sure they have a different opinion to you. You probably don't see them as "an average person"; you appear not to see them at all. Thanks for perpetuating racism and inequality with your filter.

Lots of people don’t go to college at all. In fact, the “average person” with an “average income” most likely does not have a college degree or any post high school education at all. We’re talking here about what regular people think of a phrase, not how economists use it as academic jargon.

My parents did not go to college and gave their children no financial help for houses or cars. Their children who went to college did so by earning scholarships and applying for financial aid and work study jobs. And yet, when they died, they left enough that each of their kids got about $20,000. Are you seriously calling that generational wealth?

I get that there’s a move to popularize the term and have it apply as broadly as possible, but there’s a point where it gets ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

Yes, you probably are one of those people who only look up. Plenty minorities have to bootstrap their way through college with tons of debt. I'm sure they have a different opinion to you. You probably don't see them as "an average person"; you appear not to see them at all. Thanks for perpetuating racism and inequality with your filter.

Lots of people don’t go to college at all. In fact, the “average person” with an “average income” most likely does not have a college degree or any post high school education at all. We’re talking here about what regular people think of a phrase, not how economists use it as academic jargon.

My parents did not go to college and gave their children no financial help for houses or cars. Their children who went to college did so by earning scholarships and applying for financial aid and work study jobs. And yet, when they died, they left enough that each of their kids got about $20,000. Are you seriously calling that generational wealth?

I get that there’s a move to popularize the term and have it apply as broadly as possible, but there’s a point where it gets ridiculous.

I'm not the PP you're talking to, but: Regular people don't use the phrase "generational wealth" --regular people say "old money" "rich people" to talk about what you are talking about. UMC folks who like to post on money forums are more likely to use the term "generational wealth" to refer to rich people perhaps because they think it sounds smarter or more official than saying "old money" or "rich people." Economists generated the term for a purposes of analyzing economic patterns in society about how wealth transfers across generations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

Yes, you probably are one of those people who only look up. Plenty minorities have to bootstrap their way through college with tons of debt. I'm sure they have a different opinion to you. You probably don't see them as "an average person"; you appear not to see them at all. Thanks for perpetuating racism and inequality with your filter.

Lots of people don’t go to college at all. In fact, the “average person” with an “average income” most likely does not have a college degree or any post high school education at all. We’re talking here about what regular people think of a phrase, not how economists use it as academic jargon.

My parents did not go to college and gave their children no financial help for houses or cars. Their children who went to college did so by earning scholarships and applying for financial aid and work study jobs. And yet, when they died, they left enough that each of their kids got about $20,000. Are you seriously calling that generational wealth?

I get that there’s a move to popularize the term and have it apply as broadly as possible, but there’s a point where it gets ridiculous.

I'm not the PP you're talking to, but: Regular people don't use the phrase "generational wealth" --regular people say "old money" "rich people" to talk about what you are talking about. UMC folks who like to post on money forums are more likely to use the term "generational wealth" to refer to rich people perhaps because they think it sounds smarter or more official than saying "old money" or "rich people." Economists generated the term for a purposes of analyzing economic patterns in society about how wealth transfers across generations.

I agree, but I also think that there are people who want the term to be used more broadly by people who are not economists. Using the term “generational wealth” can have the effect of causing people who grew up poor in a household where no one had ever gone to college to feel guilty and privileged because they might end up with a few dollars when their extremely frugal parents pass away. These are not the people who are truly benefiting from this “transfer of wealth.”

[Anonymous]

I’m 3rd generation, it’ll go to 4th for sure.

[Anonymous]

Studies show that even an amount of 10k wealth transfer between generations positions the receiver and their next generation far better than those who never receive inter generational wealth transfers.

That said, when I think of generational wealth I think family offices, fortunes from hedge funds or the gilded age, etc.

Like many posters, I am the beneficiary of several generations of small (think under 1M per generation) transfer down to the next. Looking back through family records, transfers of real property and cash/cash equivalents has consistently been significant generation to generation, but not “old money” sums.

The opportunity for real sizable wealth evaporated for my predecessors on both sides of my family in the Great Depression. One side had massive land holdings that were over leveraged for farm loans, the borrower died during the depression and the note was called in. That land, if ownership had stayed in tact would have been sold for a massive amount as cities expanded post-WWII. The other side suffered from the depression + dust bowl. Recovered decently as merchants in a railroad town, then moved further west and got into land speculating at a good time. Some of that side of my family moved back East post-WWII and did decently well in the 50s-70s on the east coast in corporate America.

But neither side passed forward the sort of fortune I think of as generational “wealth” that would have been possible if events had been different.

But, I enjoy that history because 1. It left me with a significant leg up, all things considered, 2. Those stories with all of their details takes me close to a lot of American history and the rise and fall of the wealth is such a part of the American story. My family lineage is from multiple very old colonial/pre-colonial families, making it even more interesting - but it also highlights to me how much luck is involved. Some branches of those families still have multi-floor apartments in UES coops and others live in shacks in Appalachia.

For me it’s a source of interest… I don’t really talk about it except anonymously and it’s not a source of pride or prestige. There is plenty of my history that is pretty dark too. But all of it is interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

Yes, you probably are one of those people who only look up. Plenty minorities have to bootstrap their way through college with tons of debt. I'm sure they have a different opinion to you. You probably don't see them as "an average person"; you appear not to see them at all. Thanks for perpetuating racism and inequality with your filter.

Lots of people don’t go to college at all. In fact, the “average person” with an “average income” most likely does not have a college degree or any post high school education at all. We’re talking here about what regular people think of a phrase, not how economists use it as academic jargon.

My parents did not go to college and gave their children no financial help for houses or cars. Their children who went to college did so by earning scholarships and applying for financial aid and work study jobs. And yet, when they died, they left enough that each of their kids got about $20,000. Are you seriously calling that generational wealth?

I get that there’s a move to popularize the term and have it apply as broadly as possible, but there’s a point where it gets ridiculous.

I'm not the PP you're talking to, but: Regular people don't use the phrase "generational wealth" --regular people say "old money" "rich people" to talk about what you are talking about. UMC folks who like to post on money forums are more likely to use the term "generational wealth" to refer to rich people perhaps because they think it sounds smarter or more official than saying "old money" or "rich people." Economists generated the term for a purposes of analyzing economic patterns in society about how wealth transfers across generations.

I agree, but I also think that there are people who want the term to be used more broadly by people who are not economists. Using the term “generational wealth” can have the effect of causing people who grew up poor in a household where no one had ever gone to college to feel guilty and privileged because they might end up with a few dollars when their extremely frugal parents pass away. These are not the people who are truly benefiting from this “transfer of wealth.”

Or it could make them grateful that they are one of the people who did receive something and appreciate its impact on their lives without reference to people who are richer than them. I think the insight into the impact of generational wealth transfers (both while living or as inheritances) is a valuable one--and one more likely to make us empathetic to the situations of the majority of people in this country who don't have even modest generational wealth transfers or for whom the wealth transfers are in reverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grandfather patented two very profitable things that are still in use today. We should all be filthy rich but he divorced my grandma and remarried. She outlived him and I assume her kids/his stepkids are doing very well.

So it goes.

Sounds like this is still generational wealth, only not for you or your kids.

Sort of, if you squint? I think people use generational wealth to mean handed down through the family, and it's not in the hands of anyone with his blood. And it's not like they were his "stepkids" in the sense he raised them or would think of them as his own. They married later and each of their kids were in their 30s/40s at the time. But it's a new generation for the second wife, if you count that.

Why didn't he include your parent in the will?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

I only corrected it because you (or whoever was the PP) felt obligated to "correct" the way someone else used it in a pretty patronizing way. Obviously people on the street think of generational wealth in different ways and there is an actual definition for the term that is not yors.

Do you have a cite for this definition?

At some point, the definition of a word is what the majority of people think it is.

Simple google search of every day articles on the topic shows that the majority of people who write about generational wealth, define it this way:

Investopedia: "Generational wealth refers to financial assets passed by one generation of a family to another. "
https://www.investopedia.com/generational-wealth-definition-5189580

Forbes: "Generational wealth is anything with monetary value that is passed down from one generation to the next."


Fortune: "Generational wealth is essentially any kind of asset that is passed down from one generation to the next."
https://fortune.com/recommends/investing/generational-wealth-explained/

Those sources are not reflective of the way most people would define this phrase. They are trying to make this very broad definition “stick” but it is just not happening. Simply inheriting relatively smaller amounts of money or a house of average value for its location is not what most people see as “generational wealth.”

Walk down the street and ask people you pass what they think the phrase “generational wealth” means and very few will give you the definitions that Investopedia, Forbes, and Fortune give.

The term came from economics--it's a way to talk patterns of wealth. I don't know why you think the "person on the street's" misuse of an economic term is somehow more "right" but I guess that's one perspective.

I concur with the others. There's a huge difference between a "generational wealth" that means five times great-granddaddy started a mill in New England in 1840 and the family is still living off large trusts with fancy summer houses on Nantucket, sizable inheritances etc aka "old money," and a typical upper middle class doctor who pays for his kids' college education and helps with the down payments on first properties. Both are technically generational wealth using the "official" definitions (one does inquire what makes them more official but that's a different topic).

But the refusal to acknowledge the enormous difference between the two types of "generational wealth" is a blind spot for you. Because it does make all the world of difference. After all, your definition would include a modest working class carpenter who was thrifty and passed on to his sole child a house free of debt and 200k in savings. Such a man would never be thought of as wealthy by any stretch of imagination. Which is why I'd also agree that common sense and common usage would see generational wealth as referring to true wealth, not several generations of quiet suburban families who passed on a modest inheritance.

NP. Here's where your imagination has failed you. Between 70 and 80% of Americans will inherit zero dollars from their family, ever. The person who can pass on half a million plus in real estate and cash savings upon his death is ABSOLUTELY wealthy, no imagination required.

Those of you fighting air to insist that the help you got from your families was not wealth at all, it was nothing, meant nothing, is actually a hindrance because you were cheated out of 8-figures and only received 7-figures . . . you're ridiculous. "Cite the definition you're using . . . well, that's just like, economics talk, not my opinion, so I reject it!" Would you side with this kind of argument on any other topic than downplaying your own leg up in life? Likely not.

What is the end goal of your argument? What do you want? I'm laughing at your post because the way it's written you're trying to lump everyone on either side of a very clear dividing line in order to achieve some kind of moral (?) victory?

Plenty of people came from inheritances that were wasted and squandered, whether it was one person drinking away a 50k inheritance or a playboy blowing through multiple millions. Others inherited nothing from parents but received education and strong family support. Then you have those who grew up well off but became downwardly mobile in adulthood. Generational wealth in itself means absolutely nothing according to the definitions bandied about on here. I can see we live in a time where some people are very angry at life being unfair. But you know what, it's always been unfair and it's always been like that. 100 years ago, 200 years ago, today. It's called life.

My advice: cope. Stop thinking about other people and just focus on yourself and your life instead of going about every day with a chip on your shoulder and blaming your failures on other people. Many people would be better off if they learned the art of coping and resilience instead of being bitter and angry about things that have nothing to do with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

Yes, you probably are one of those people who only look up. Plenty minorities have to bootstrap their way through college with tons of debt. I'm sure they have a different opinion to you. You probably don't see them as "an average person"; you appear not to see them at all. Thanks for perpetuating racism and inequality with your filter.

Lots of people don’t go to college at all. In fact, the “average person” with an “average income” most likely does not have a college degree or any post high school education at all. We’re talking here about what regular people think of a phrase, not how economists use it as academic jargon.

My parents did not go to college and gave their children no financial help for houses or cars. Their children who went to college did so by earning scholarships and applying for financial aid and work study jobs. And yet, when they died, they left enough that each of their kids got about $20,000. Are you seriously calling that generational wealth?

I get that there’s a move to popularize the term and have it apply as broadly as possible, but there’s a point where it gets ridiculous.

I'm not the PP you're talking to, but: Regular people don't use the phrase "generational wealth" --regular people say "old money" "rich people" to talk about what you are talking about. UMC folks who like to post on money forums are more likely to use the term "generational wealth" to refer to rich people perhaps because they think it sounds smarter or more official than saying "old money" or "rich people." Economists generated the term for a purposes of analyzing economic patterns in society about how wealth transfers across generations.

I agree, but I also think that there are people who want the term to be used more broadly by people who are not economists. Using the term “generational wealth” can have the effect of causing people who grew up poor in a household where no one had ever gone to college to feel guilty and privileged because they might end up with a few dollars when their extremely frugal parents pass away. These are not the people who are truly benefiting from this “transfer of wealth.”

Or it could make them grateful that they are one of the people who did receive something and appreciate its impact on their lives without reference to people who are richer than them. I think the insight into the impact of generational wealth transfers (both while living or as inheritances) is a valuable one--and one more likely to make us empathetic to the situations of the majority of people in this country who don't have even modest generational wealth transfers or for whom the wealth transfers are in reverse.

I do not think that the people trying to popularize the phrase “generational wealth” are doing it in attempt to make people feel grateful. On the contrary, they are interested in making people feel guilty for even scraps of help from parents who had no formal education and very little money. The word “wealth” can be a loaded term in our country and it is being used here to make people feel that they had more than they actually did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

I only corrected it because you (or whoever was the PP) felt obligated to "correct" the way someone else used it in a pretty patronizing way. Obviously people on the street think of generational wealth in different ways and there is an actual definition for the term that is not yors.

Do you have a cite for this definition?

At some point, the definition of a word is what the majority of people think it is.

Simple google search of every day articles on the topic shows that the majority of people who write about generational wealth, define it this way:

Investopedia: "Generational wealth refers to financial assets passed by one generation of a family to another. "
https://www.investopedia.com/generational-wealth-definition-5189580

Forbes: "Generational wealth is anything with monetary value that is passed down from one generation to the next."


Fortune: "Generational wealth is essentially any kind of asset that is passed down from one generation to the next."
https://fortune.com/recommends/investing/generational-wealth-explained/

Those sources are not reflective of the way most people would define this phrase. They are trying to make this very broad definition “stick” but it is just not happening. Simply inheriting relatively smaller amounts of money or a house of average value for its location is not what most people see as “generational wealth.”

Walk down the street and ask people you pass what they think the phrase “generational wealth” means and very few will give you the definitions that Investopedia, Forbes, and Fortune give.

The term came from economics--it's a way to talk patterns of wealth. I don't know why you think the "person on the street's" misuse of an economic term is somehow more "right" but I guess that's one perspective.

I concur with the others. There's a huge difference between a "generational wealth" that means five times great-granddaddy started a mill in New England in 1840 and the family is still living off large trusts with fancy summer houses on Nantucket, sizable inheritances etc aka "old money," and a typical upper middle class doctor who pays for his kids' college education and helps with the down payments on first properties. Both are technically generational wealth using the "official" definitions (one does inquire what makes them more official but that's a different topic).

But the refusal to acknowledge the enormous difference between the two types of "generational wealth" is a blind spot for you. Because it does make all the world of difference. After all, your definition would include a modest working class carpenter who was thrifty and passed on to his sole child a house free of debt and 200k in savings. Such a man would never be thought of as wealthy by any stretch of imagination. Which is why I'd also agree that common sense and common usage would see generational wealth as referring to true wealth, not several generations of quiet suburban families who passed on a modest inheritance.

NP. Here's where your imagination has failed you. Between 70 and 80% of Americans will inherit zero dollars from their family, ever. The person who can pass on half a million plus in real estate and cash savings upon his death is ABSOLUTELY wealthy, no imagination required.

Those of you fighting air to insist that the help you got from your families was not wealth at all, it was nothing, meant nothing, is actually a hindrance because you were cheated out of 8-figures and only received 7-figures . . . you're ridiculous. "Cite the definition you're using . . . well, that's just like, economics talk, not my opinion, so I reject it!" Would you side with this kind of argument on any other topic than downplaying your own leg up in life? Likely not.

Here's the problem - according to your definition, a grandkid who got $20 at Christmas and $100 inherited from his grandfather is a recipient of generational wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

I only corrected it because you (or whoever was the PP) felt obligated to "correct" the way someone else used it in a pretty patronizing way. Obviously people on the street think of generational wealth in different ways and there is an actual definition for the term that is not yors.

Do you have a cite for this definition?

At some point, the definition of a word is what the majority of people think it is.

Simple google search of every day articles on the topic shows that the majority of people who write about generational wealth, define it this way:

Investopedia: "Generational wealth refers to financial assets passed by one generation of a family to another. "
https://www.investopedia.com/generational-wealth-definition-5189580

Forbes: "Generational wealth is anything with monetary value that is passed down from one generation to the next."


Fortune: "Generational wealth is essentially any kind of asset that is passed down from one generation to the next."
https://fortune.com/recommends/investing/generational-wealth-explained/

Those sources are not reflective of the way most people would define this phrase. They are trying to make this very broad definition “stick” but it is just not happening. Simply inheriting relatively smaller amounts of money or a house of average value for its location is not what most people see as “generational wealth.”

Walk down the street and ask people you pass what they think the phrase “generational wealth” means and very few will give you the definitions that Investopedia, Forbes, and Fortune give.

The term came from economics--it's a way to talk patterns of wealth. I don't know why you think the "person on the street's" misuse of an economic term is somehow more "right" but I guess that's one perspective.

I concur with the others. There's a huge difference between a "generational wealth" that means five times great-granddaddy started a mill in New England in 1840 and the family is still living off large trusts with fancy summer houses on Nantucket, sizable inheritances etc aka "old money," and a typical upper middle class doctor who pays for his kids' college education and helps with the down payments on first properties. Both are technically generational wealth using the "official" definitions (one does inquire what makes them more official but that's a different topic).

But the refusal to acknowledge the enormous difference between the two types of "generational wealth" is a blind spot for you. Because it does make all the world of difference. After all, your definition would include a modest working class carpenter who was thrifty and passed on to his sole child a house free of debt and 200k in savings. Such a man would never be thought of as wealthy by any stretch of imagination. Which is why I'd also agree that common sense and common usage would see generational wealth as referring to true wealth, not several generations of quiet suburban families who passed on a modest inheritance.

NP. Here's where your imagination has failed you. Between 70 and 80% of Americans will inherit zero dollars from their family, ever. The person who can pass on half a million plus in real estate and cash savings upon his death is ABSOLUTELY wealthy, no imagination required.

Those of you fighting air to insist that the help you got from your families was not wealth at all, it was nothing, meant nothing, is actually a hindrance because you were cheated out of 8-figures and only received 7-figures . . . you're ridiculous. "Cite the definition you're using . . . well, that's just like, economics talk, not my opinion, so I reject it!" Would you side with this kind of argument on any other topic than downplaying your own leg up in life? Likely not.

What is the end goal of your argument? What do you want? I'm laughing at your post because the way it's written you're trying to lump everyone on either side of a very clear dividing line in order to achieve some kind of moral (?) victory?

Plenty of people came from inheritances that were wasted and squandered, whether it was one person drinking away a 50k inheritance or a playboy blowing through multiple millions. Others inherited nothing from parents but received education and strong family support. Then you have those who grew up well off but became downwardly mobile in adulthood. Generational wealth in itself means absolutely nothing according to the definitions bandied about on here. I can see we live in a time where some people are very angry at life being unfair. But you know what, it's always been unfair and it's always been like that. 100 years ago, 200 years ago, today. It's called life.

My advice: cope. Stop thinking about other people and just focus on yourself and your life instead of going about every day with a chip on your shoulder and blaming your failures on other people. Many people would be better off if they learned the art of coping and resilience instead of being bitter and angry about things that have nothing to do with them.

The end goal of the argument is you stop insisting words don't mean what they actually mean because you're so blind to reality that you think everyone blowing smoke up your butt about how *self-made* you are (when you aren't) is more important that economic reality. Life isn't fair, and part of that is that people who receive generational wealth have been given a leg up. Economics has language to describe that leg up, regardless of how much you wish you could cosplay as Horatio Alger. Cope with that, whiner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

Yes, you probably are one of those people who only look up. Plenty minorities have to bootstrap their way through college with tons of debt. I'm sure they have a different opinion to you. You probably don't see them as "an average person"; you appear not to see them at all. Thanks for perpetuating racism and inequality with your filter.

Lots of people don’t go to college at all. In fact, the “average person” with an “average income” most likely does not have a college degree or any post high school education at all. We’re talking here about what regular people think of a phrase, not how economists use it as academic jargon.

My parents did not go to college and gave their children no financial help for houses or cars. Their children who went to college did so by earning scholarships and applying for financial aid and work study jobs. And yet, when they died, they left enough that each of their kids got about $20,000. Are you seriously calling that generational wealth?

I get that there’s a move to popularize the term and have it apply as broadly as possible, but there’s a point where it gets ridiculous.

I'm not the PP you're talking to, but: Regular people don't use the phrase "generational wealth" --regular people say "old money" "rich people" to talk about what you are talking about. UMC folks who like to post on money forums are more likely to use the term "generational wealth" to refer to rich people perhaps because they think it sounds smarter or more official than saying "old money" or "rich people." Economists generated the term for a purposes of analyzing economic patterns in society about how wealth transfers across generations.

I agree, but I also think that there are people who want the term to be used more broadly by people who are not economists. Using the term “generational wealth” can have the effect of causing people who grew up poor in a household where no one had ever gone to college to feel guilty and privileged because they might end up with a few dollars when their extremely frugal parents pass away. These are not the people who are truly benefiting from this “transfer of wealth.”

Or it could make them grateful that they are one of the people who did receive something and appreciate its impact on their lives without reference to people who are richer than them. I think the insight into the impact of generational wealth transfers (both while living or as inheritances) is a valuable one--and one more likely to make us empathetic to the situations of the majority of people in this country who don't have even modest generational wealth transfers or for whom the wealth transfers are in reverse.

I do not think that the people trying to popularize the phrase “generational wealth” are doing it in attempt to make people feel grateful. On the contrary, they are interested in making people feel guilty for even scraps of help from parents who had no formal education and very little money. The word “wealth” can be a loaded term in our country and it is being used here to make people feel that they had more than they actually did.

This strikes me as a very biased view. Most of the people trying to popularize the phrase generational wealth are personal finance advisors trying to help people learn how to get it. That said, policy analysts who focus on these are noting that there is about to be the largest generational wealth transfer ever in US history from Boomers to Millennials, that this is going to really exacerbate existing inequities --for instance with White Millennials receiving 8x or more the wealth of Black Millennials from their parents (not surprising since the Black Boomers were trying to create wealth in a time when redlining prevented buying homes that were likely to appreciate, there were systematic loan discrimination, there was discrimination in college admissions and employment etc.) This wealth transfer is going to be disruptive to society--I don't know how you can think otherwise and pretend it's all about people's individual feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

I only corrected it because you (or whoever was the PP) felt obligated to "correct" the way someone else used it in a pretty patronizing way. Obviously people on the street think of generational wealth in different ways and there is an actual definition for the term that is not yors.

Do you have a cite for this definition?

At some point, the definition of a word is what the majority of people think it is.

Simple google search of every day articles on the topic shows that the majority of people who write about generational wealth, define it this way:

Investopedia: "Generational wealth refers to financial assets passed by one generation of a family to another. "
https://www.investopedia.com/generational-wealth-definition-5189580

Forbes: "Generational wealth is anything with monetary value that is passed down from one generation to the next."


Fortune: "Generational wealth is essentially any kind of asset that is passed down from one generation to the next."
https://fortune.com/recommends/investing/generational-wealth-explained/

Those sources are not reflective of the way most people would define this phrase. They are trying to make this very broad definition “stick” but it is just not happening. Simply inheriting relatively smaller amounts of money or a house of average value for its location is not what most people see as “generational wealth.”

Walk down the street and ask people you pass what they think the phrase “generational wealth” means and very few will give you the definitions that Investopedia, Forbes, and Fortune give.

The term came from economics--it's a way to talk patterns of wealth. I don't know why you think the "person on the street's" misuse of an economic term is somehow more "right" but I guess that's one perspective.

I concur with the others. There's a huge difference between a "generational wealth" that means five times great-granddaddy started a mill in New England in 1840 and the family is still living off large trusts with fancy summer houses on Nantucket, sizable inheritances etc aka "old money," and a typical upper middle class doctor who pays for his kids' college education and helps with the down payments on first properties. Both are technically generational wealth using the "official" definitions (one does inquire what makes them more official but that's a different topic).

But the refusal to acknowledge the enormous difference between the two types of "generational wealth" is a blind spot for you. Because it does make all the world of difference. After all, your definition would include a modest working class carpenter who was thrifty and passed on to his sole child a house free of debt and 200k in savings. Such a man would never be thought of as wealthy by any stretch of imagination. Which is why I'd also agree that common sense and common usage would see generational wealth as referring to true wealth, not several generations of quiet suburban families who passed on a modest inheritance.

NP. Here's where your imagination has failed you. Between 70 and 80% of Americans will inherit zero dollars from their family, ever. The person who can pass on half a million plus in real estate and cash savings upon his death is ABSOLUTELY wealthy, no imagination required.

Those of you fighting air to insist that the help you got from your families was not wealth at all, it was nothing, meant nothing, is actually a hindrance because you were cheated out of 8-figures and only received 7-figures . . . you're ridiculous. "Cite the definition you're using . . . well, that's just like, economics talk, not my opinion, so I reject it!" Would you side with this kind of argument on any other topic than downplaying your own leg up in life? Likely not.

Here's the problem - according to your definition, a grandkid who got $20 at Christmas and $100 inherited from his grandfather is a recipient of generational wealth.

Yep, generational wealth of varying amounts. Generational wealth is a description of transfer of assets. You can add these numbers up and see different patterns of wealth transfer and the impacts they have on people's lives. It's not a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of my family as having generational wealth, but it's not like there's some huge trust fund that sustains everyone in million dollar houses.

But my grandmother who lived a frugal life left me an investment account that had $35k in it. I never even thought about it until I wanted to buy a house. And wow, was that awesome. My other grandmother had left my mom money, and my mom was financially comfortable enough to pass that along at the same time. So I essentially had $75k from my grandparents, who were NOT rich, to help buy a home. My father was also able to pay for college without loans, another huge financial gift.

That is still generational wealth, even though the numbers are not eye popping to many on this board. It padded my financial life immensely.

That is very, very nice and certainly helpful, but it is not the same thing as generational wealth.

Sigh, I thought we were done arguing semantics. The actual definition of generational wealth is: "Generational wealth refers to assets passed by one generation of a family to the next." So PP was right. What was passed on to her are actual examples of generational wealth. What you're talking about is are they rich from loads and loads and loads of generational wealth.

Sorry, but you are being pedantic here. The average person on the street does not think of “generational wealth” as being, “My parents paid for college” and “My parents/grandparents gave me a one time gift that helped with my house down payment.”

And I say this as someone who paid for college myself with a combo of scholarships and loans and got $0 help with any kind of down payment. While I would have loved financial help of any kind from my family, I don’t think of people who got that kind of help as having “generational wealth” and mine is not an unusual take on this phrase.

I only corrected it because you (or whoever was the PP) felt obligated to "correct" the way someone else used it in a pretty patronizing way. Obviously people on the street think of generational wealth in different ways and there is an actual definition for the term that is not yors.

Do you have a cite for this definition?

At some point, the definition of a word is what the majority of people think it is.

Simple google search of every day articles on the topic shows that the majority of people who write about generational wealth, define it this way:

Investopedia: "Generational wealth refers to financial assets passed by one generation of a family to another. "
https://www.investopedia.com/generational-wealth-definition-5189580

Forbes: "Generational wealth is anything with monetary value that is passed down from one generation to the next."


Fortune: "Generational wealth is essentially any kind of asset that is passed down from one generation to the next."
https://fortune.com/recommends/investing/generational-wealth-explained/

Those sources are not reflective of the way most people would define this phrase. They are trying to make this very broad definition “stick” but it is just not happening. Simply inheriting relatively smaller amounts of money or a house of average value for its location is not what most people see as “generational wealth.”

Walk down the street and ask people you pass what they think the phrase “generational wealth” means and very few will give you the definitions that Investopedia, Forbes, and Fortune give.

The term came from economics--it's a way to talk patterns of wealth. I don't know why you think the "person on the street's" misuse of an economic term is somehow more "right" but I guess that's one perspective.

I concur with the others. There's a huge difference between a "generational wealth" that means five times great-granddaddy started a mill in New England in 1840 and the family is still living off large trusts with fancy summer houses on Nantucket, sizable inheritances etc aka "old money," and a typical upper middle class doctor who pays for his kids' college education and helps with the down payments on first properties. Both are technically generational wealth using the "official" definitions (one does inquire what makes them more official but that's a different topic).

But the refusal to acknowledge the enormous difference between the two types of "generational wealth" is a blind spot for you. Because it does make all the world of difference. After all, your definition would include a modest working class carpenter who was thrifty and passed on to his sole child a house free of debt and 200k in savings. Such a man would never be thought of as wealthy by any stretch of imagination. Which is why I'd also agree that common sense and common usage would see generational wealth as referring to true wealth, not several generations of quiet suburban families who passed on a modest inheritance.

NP. Here's where your imagination has failed you. Between 70 and 80% of Americans will inherit zero dollars from their family, ever. The person who can pass on half a million plus in real estate and cash savings upon his death is ABSOLUTELY wealthy, no imagination required.

Those of you fighting air to insist that the help you got from your families was not wealth at all, it was nothing, meant nothing, is actually a hindrance because you were cheated out of 8-figures and only received 7-figures . . . you're ridiculous. "Cite the definition you're using . . . well, that's just like, economics talk, not my opinion, so I reject it!" Would you side with this kind of argument on any other topic than downplaying your own leg up in life? Likely not.

What is the end goal of your argument? What do you want? I'm laughing at your post because the way it's written you're trying to lump everyone on either side of a very clear dividing line in order to achieve some kind of moral (?) victory?

Plenty of people came from inheritances that were wasted and squandered, whether it was one person drinking away a 50k inheritance or a playboy blowing through multiple millions. Others inherited nothing from parents but received education and strong family support. Then you have those who grew up well off but became downwardly mobile in adulthood. Generational wealth in itself means absolutely nothing according to the definitions bandied about on here. I can see we live in a time where some people are very angry at life being unfair. But you know what, it's always been unfair and it's always been like that. 100 years ago, 200 years ago, today. It's called life.

My advice: cope. Stop thinking about other people and just focus on yourself and your life instead of going about every day with a chip on your shoulder and blaming your failures on other people. Many people would be better off if they learned the art of coping and resilience instead of being bitter and angry about things that have nothing to do with them.

Do you even look at patterns of data? Inequity in this country has SKYROCKETED and is about to be exacerbated by inheritances from Boomers. This isn't just "how life goes" it's the result of systems that allow the wealthy to influence politicians to create tax policies that protect the assets of the wealthy. Healthy democracies do not operate like this. Sure, individuals make choices that help or hinder their situation--they always have. I'm a well-off person, I've made mainly good financial decisions helped by a financially stable upbringing, and I've also benefitted from policies tilted in my own and my parents' histories . Look at even the fairly innocuous retirement tax incentives. The vast majority of Americans don't have a 401k and if they do, don't earn salaries that allow them to even approach maxing it out. But what are the retirement tax incentives that always pass? Requirements that employers provide accounts or make contributions for all their employees? No. It's always increasing the maximum contribution amount--a tax benefit nearly exclusively helps the UMC who have the salaries to max out such accounts. Social security could be fixed by regularly raising the salary caps taxed, but they are stuck very low. Estate taxes are extraordinarily non-existent for the most part in this country. These are all policy decisions--and ones that help the people who have means, keep and grow their means. I'm all for individual responsibility, and coping with the hand you're dealt etc. but that's not the only thing--people are right to fight for equity in policies in their country.