If your family had generational wealth when did it end?

[Anonymous]

Some people here are confusing basic generational wealth with “dynasty wealth”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people here are confusing basic generational wealth with “dynasty wealth”.

Not really. Generational wealth is a recently invented buzzword that means nothing because the range is enormous and includes everything under the sun and imposes a fake binary. Dynastic wealth has historical precedence.

[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.

Um, not necessarily. If he is in debt from college or starts his adult life at $0 there is no wealth transfer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people here are confusing basic generational wealth with “dynasty wealth”.

Not really. Generational wealth is a recently invented buzzword that means nothing because the range is enormous and includes everything under the sun and imposes a fake binary. Dynastic wealth has historical precedence.

I'm hispanic and the OP of this thread. Family came here legally but it was because my uncle was a doctor doing his studies here in America and he was having mental health issues while living alone here. My great grandmother and her parents were very well off and owned a lot of property and businesses. I can recognize new wealth when I see it and it's all over the place. People trying to pretend to be someone they're not. It's so fake to me.

[Anonymous]

Oops pressed submit too soon. I'm not sure if mine is generational or dynasty wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people here are confusing basic generational wealth with “dynasty wealth”.

Not really. Generational wealth is a recently invented buzzword that means nothing because the range is enormous and includes everything under the sun and imposes a fake binary. Dynastic wealth has historical precedence.

Generational wealth is not recently invented and you're confusing it because you're thinking it describes a threshold when it actually describes a category of types of transfers. It doesn't impose a binary at all, it's usefulness is a description of a category in which you could divide into any number of levels you want (e.g., reverse generational wealth transfer, no generational wealth transfer, minimal generational wealth transfer, average..., top 10%, top 1%, etc. etc.).

[Anonymous]

My DH’s family has been wealthy since the 1800s. They were traveling ministers (which meant they were wealthy enough to attend school, read, and write) and graduated from college starting in the early 1800s. They were/are a society family (not sure who cares about this stuff anymore) in the area they have been living for the last 200 years.

DH’s great grandfather married a steel magnate’s daughter (the son of the steel magnate left enough money for a family foundation) and some more wealth came into the family that way.

But it’s not crazy money - DH and his siblings (and all the grandkids if his generation) got trust funds to pay for college and grad school, but it wouldn’t allow them to not work. His parents likely have millions (they have helped all their kids out with substantial financial support), but who knows.

DH and his siblings were all raised with the understanding they needed to make lots of money, and they all have jobs which make seven figures. One has made crazy money in finance (like net worth over $50M and he is just turned 40). So the wealth is going to continue at least one more generation.

Interestingly, none of DH’s four first cousins have decent careers. Two will inherit very little (parents squandered), two will inherit a lot but are currently supported by their parent so who knows what will be left for their kids.

[Anonymous]

My father’s family had wealth, they owned farmland and had an old style manor house
WW2 meant that the borders were redrawn and they became refugees
The cities were bombed, so the property in the city was also lost

But that was only money

If you lose money you lose little
If you lose a friend you lose a lot
If you lose your freeedom you have lost everything

[Anonymous]

My great grandfather owned some property that was sold for ? several million and invested well in the years since. My parents never really touched it. As they sort of played it forward I intend to do the same..enjoying knowing it is there for something catastrophic of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people here are confusing basic generational wealth with “dynasty wealth”.

Not really. Generational wealth is a recently invented buzzword that means nothing because the range is enormous and includes everything under the sun and imposes a fake binary. Dynastic wealth has historical precedence.

Generational wealth is not recently invented and you're confusing it because you're thinking it describes a threshold when it actually describes a category of types of transfers. It doesn't impose a binary at all, it's usefulness is a description of a category in which you could divide into any number of levels you want (e.g., reverse generational wealth transfer, no generational wealth transfer, minimal generational wealth transfer, average..., top 10%, top 1%, etc. etc.).

I suspect you, and I, and most people never heard the term used with any meaningful regularity till quite recently. Maybe you can find it being used in arcane academic journals but you are also missing the point. And what you described also showed clearly why "generational wealth" means nothing, as it encompasses everything from a billionaire leaving billions to his children to a working class carpenter who was frugal his entire life leaving a paid off house and 100k to his only child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people here are confusing basic generational wealth with “dynasty wealth”.

Not really. Generational wealth is a recently invented buzzword that means nothing because the range is enormous and includes everything under the sun and imposes a fake binary. Dynastic wealth has historical precedence.

Generational wealth is not recently invented and you're confusing it because you're thinking it describes a threshold when it actually describes a category of types of transfers. It doesn't impose a binary at all, it's usefulness is a description of a category in which you could divide into any number of levels you want (e.g., reverse generational wealth transfer, no generational wealth transfer, minimal generational wealth transfer, average..., top 10%, top 1%, etc. etc.).

I suspect you, and I, and most people never heard the term used with any meaningful regularity till quite recently. Maybe you can find it being used in arcane academic journals but you are also missing the point. And what you described also showed clearly why "generational wealth" means nothing, as it encompasses everything from a billionaire leaving billions to his children to a working class carpenter who was frugal his entire life leaving a paid off house and 100k to his only child.

"Generational wealth" is political. Billionaires to carpenters, averages rather than medians, everyone getting a transfer gets the average, ... so reparations...

[Anonymous]

A few years ago, I read Fortune's Children The Fall of the House of Vanderbilt by Arthur Vanderbilt. It was very interesting. Reading it, you can understand how money gets squandered. If I remember correctly, it was the first Vanderbilt (Cornelius) who wanted to pass along his wealth to just one of his children because spread among all of the children would mean no one person would have "a lot." Highly recommend!

[Anonymous]

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-great-inheritors-how-three-families-shielded-their-fortunes-from-taxes-for-generations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people here are confusing basic generational wealth with “dynasty wealth”.

Not really. Generational wealth is a recently invented buzzword that means nothing because the range is enormous and includes everything under the sun and imposes a fake binary. Dynastic wealth has historical precedence.

I'm hispanic and the OP of this thread. Family came here legally but it was because my uncle was a doctor doing his studies here in America and he was having mental health issues while living alone here. My great grandmother and her parents were very well off and owned a lot of property and businesses. I can recognize new wealth when I see it and it's all over the place. People trying to pretend to be someone they're not. It's so fake to me.

It is becauae you live in NoVA I bet. Move to Boston or New England in general. I am not from generational wealth but I deal fine with people with actual wealth. The people in NoVA are just obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

My mother's family has had generational wealth for at least fifteen generations. Thankfully, I will pass it on to my children and hope they will pass it on to theirs. So will all my cousins.