Downward social mobility - anyone worries about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nearly a dozen young people who have opted not to have kids because they feel they can’t afford them.

All of these young people grew up in nice homes with two loving parents, great schools, travel, etc. Despite having good educations and jobs, the cost of housing plus kids is just too much.

Only one of my kids is old enough to really worry about such things, and they’ve opted to not come back to the dc metro area after college because it’s too expensive.

It’s sad how people choose to avoid hard work and live selfishly. Kids are a lot of work but also a great investment and a great way to be fulfilled!

Yes, I'm sure insulting people that don't have kids will shame them into reproducing. Nothing is more selfish than bringing more people onto an already crowded planet because you want little replicas of yourself running around.

+1. Especially as those kids may not want to be born in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care if your kids have a downward trajectory - especially if they themselves don’t particularly care? It happens all the time. Family fortunes go up, and down.

+1
My family has been in the US since the Revolution. There have been a lot of ups and downs in the family’s fortunes since then. For some reason, wealthy people today seem to think that family fortunes stay intact over generations.

No, but it’s a lot easier to structure intergenerational wealth to help preserve it today than it was in the past. And the amount of financial education you can instill in your kids is much greater.

why would you think that?? the edwardians who had money had inherited that wealth from the 16th century and it was all lost in a period of 20-30 years. the world has become more unstable now than it was before ww1, not less and while a lot of brits pulled through the 1930s and 40's.. by the 50s their great homes that had been in their families for 400, 600 years sometime longer were schools, hospitals and housing estates. its absolutely not certain that americans or just white people in general will be able to hold onto their wealth in a rapidly decolonizing world. I know several landed and titled people and their holdings have only recently grown to anything like what they were before and with this new extreme inequality and rebellion against oligarchy.. it might all get taxed away again. And you cant just run and hide in thailand-- haven't you read Empire of the Sun?? I say decolonizing b/c the structures that allowed the exploitation of resources are being adequately challenged and changed now.. it hadnt really happened before. if there was one thing I learned from my jewish neighbors- its that the good times are never certain and you have to have back up plans and resilience in your back pocket.

Tell me you’re unfamiliar with trusts without telling me you’re unfamiliar with trusts.

Trusts exist because the law
allows them to exist. Laws can be changed. Mandami and the proposed billionaires tax in California show that socialism is on the rise and progressives are willing to tax (take) money that the government previously did not touch. We’re entering into a populist era in which making the rich pay “ their fair share” is a very popular position. Nothing is guaranteed in this life.

All of your arguments are basically just doomsday caused by massive societal upheaval. I guess that’s an argument but this thread is not really about that. It’s about helping the next generation (and even the one after) to not slide backwards. It’s never been easier to do that in the post-industrial revolution period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH and I are children of poor immigrants. We both studied hard, worked hard and now have a seven figure income. Our kids have had the lives DH and I could only dream of. They have the social capital DH and I didn’t. They can ski, golf, play tennis, swim, traveled all over the world, etc. I’m not sure they have the same drive DH and I did being poor immigrant kids. Time will tell.

Why do they need the same drive? They don't need it, because they have other skills -- skills you and your DH don't have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care if your kids have a downward trajectory - especially if they themselves don’t particularly care? It happens all the time. Family fortunes go up, and down.

+1
My family has been in the US since the Revolution. There have been a lot of ups and downs in the family’s fortunes since then. For some reason, wealthy people today seem to think that family fortunes stay intact over generations.

No, but it’s a lot easier to structure intergenerational wealth to help preserve it today than it was in the past. And the amount of financial education you can instill in your kids is much greater.

why would you think that?? the edwardians who had money had inherited that wealth from the 16th century and it was all lost in a period of 20-30 years. the world has become more unstable now than it was before ww1, not less and while a lot of brits pulled through the 1930s and 40's.. by the 50s their great homes that had been in their families for 400, 600 years sometime longer were schools, hospitals and housing estates. its absolutely not certain that americans or just white people in general will be able to hold onto their wealth in a rapidly decolonizing world. I know several landed and titled people and their holdings have only recently grown to anything like what they were before and with this new extreme inequality and rebellion against oligarchy.. it might all get taxed away again. And you cant just run and hide in thailand-- haven't you read Empire of the Sun?? I say decolonizing b/c the structures that allowed the exploitation of resources are being adequately challenged and changed now.. it hadnt really happened before. if there was one thing I learned from my jewish neighbors- its that the good times are never certain and you have to have back up plans and resilience in your back pocket.

Tell me you’re unfamiliar with trusts without telling me you’re unfamiliar with trusts.

Trusts exist because the law
allows them to exist. Laws can be changed. Mandami and the proposed billionaires tax in California show that socialism is on the rise and progressives are willing to tax (take) money that the government previously did not touch. We’re entering into a populist era in which making the rich pay “ their fair share” is a very popular position. Nothing is guaranteed in this life.

LOL. Good thing they got rid of everyone at the IRS. Good luck with making the rich pay their fair share when there's no one to check if they paid taxes at all!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young people have had to hustle since the beginning of time.

I don't know of any young people having to compete with the global elite.

The young people I know are working 2-3 jobs to complete their college educations. They are doing well now and buying houses.

I’m sorry, but this is completely tone-deaf.

1. Families are forced to fight for real K–12 education, not a dumbed-down curriculum, from the moment kids enter school.
2. Our kids then have to compete with international students for limited opportunities. How do you tell them, institutions prefer international students because of WHAT?
3. And even after that, they still face diminishing chances in the corporate America, which favors cheaper labor or just ships jobs overseas.

If you can’t see what Gen Z and our kids are up against, then you’re part of the problem.

Once we all get guaranteed income like the tech bros say, we won't have to compete anyway.

Socialism does not work

[Anonymous]

There is a Chinese saying, "wealth doesn't last more than three generations," insinuating that mismanagement is almost to be expected (e.g., spoiled offsprings, bad investments) and factors outside one's control that lead to downfalls are inevitable when the time horizon spans over half a century (e.g., political turmoil, wars).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a Chinese saying, "wealth doesn't last more than three generations," insinuating that mismanagement is almost to be expected (e.g., spoiled offsprings, bad investments) and factors outside one's control that lead to downfalls are inevitable when the time horizon spans over half a century (e.g., political turmoil, wars).

My biggest fear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH and I both grew up with dads that made a lot of money. Way more than DH and I will ever make combined. But DH and I are much better parents and we have a mostly happy life. Doubling our salaries could make us more happy in a vacuum, but I work part-time and DH has a lot of flexibility and we would not trade that. DH and I both have a chance of inheriting good money, but nothing in life is guaranteed. I want my kids to be happy. I don't want them to pick careers based on salary (DH tried that and it did not go well) and I certainly don't want them to marry for money.

Allow me to translate

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah platitudes blah and blah pablum I am happy and carefree because I am going to inherit a lot of money! blah blah blah blah blah blah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care if your kids have a downward trajectory - especially if they themselves don’t particularly care? It happens all the time. Family fortunes go up, and down.

+1
My family has been in the US since the Revolution. There have been a lot of ups and downs in the family’s fortunes since then. For some reason, wealthy people today seem to think that family fortunes stay intact over generations.

No, but it’s a lot easier to structure intergenerational wealth to help preserve it today than it was in the past. And the amount of financial education you can instill in your kids is much greater.

why would you think that?? the edwardians who had money had inherited that wealth from the 16th century and it was all lost in a period of 20-30 years. the world has become more unstable now than it was before ww1, not less and while a lot of brits pulled through the 1930s and 40's.. by the 50s their great homes that had been in their families for 400, 600 years sometime longer were schools, hospitals and housing estates. its absolutely not certain that americans or just white people in general will be able to hold onto their wealth in a rapidly decolonizing world. I know several landed and titled people and their holdings have only recently grown to anything like what they were before and with this new extreme inequality and rebellion against oligarchy.. it might all get taxed away again. And you cant just run and hide in thailand-- haven't you read Empire of the Sun?? I say decolonizing b/c the structures that allowed the exploitation of resources are being adequately challenged and changed now.. it hadnt really happened before. if there was one thing I learned from my jewish neighbors- its that the good times are never certain and you have to have back up plans and resilience in your back pocket.

Tell me you’re unfamiliar with trusts without telling me you’re unfamiliar with trusts.

The Rockefellers have tons of trusts but the fortune that was passed onto heirs (a ton was given to charity…but a ton also given to heirs) is now basically 95% gone.

It’s distributing the fortune over lots of heirs…many of which don’t add anything to it…that eventually squanders it all.

The Rockefeller family has a net worth of over $10 billion and there is over $50 million per descendent, despite giving away a nine figure amount each year through their foundations and charitable giving. They are actually a success story of how to use irrevocable trusts and family business structures to maintain wealth over a century.

The Vanderbilts, on the other hand, did little planning and the money is basically all gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nearly a dozen young people who have opted not to have kids because they feel they can’t afford them.

All of these young people grew up in nice homes with two loving parents, great schools, travel, etc. Despite having good educations and jobs, the cost of housing plus kids is just too much.

Only one of my kids is old enough to really worry about such things, and they’ve opted to not come back to the dc metro area after college because it’s too expensive.

It’s sad how people choose to avoid hard work and live selfishly. Kids are a lot of work but also a great investment and a great way to be fulfilled!

Yes, I'm sure insulting people that don't have kids will shame them into reproducing. Nothing is more selfish than bringing more people onto an already crowded planet because you want little replicas of yourself running around.

DP. You’re posting on the college forum but don’t have kids?

That’s…odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care if your kids have a downward trajectory - especially if they themselves don’t particularly care? It happens all the time. Family fortunes go up, and down.

+1
My family has been in the US since the Revolution. There have been a lot of ups and downs in the family’s fortunes since then. For some reason, wealthy people today seem to think that family fortunes stay intact over generations.

No, but it’s a lot easier to structure intergenerational wealth to help preserve it today than it was in the past. And the amount of financial education you can instill in your kids is much greater.

why would you think that?? the edwardians who had money had inherited that wealth from the 16th century and it was all lost in a period of 20-30 years. the world has become more unstable now than it was before ww1, not less and while a lot of brits pulled through the 1930s and 40's.. by the 50s their great homes that had been in their families for 400, 600 years sometime longer were schools, hospitals and housing estates. its absolutely not certain that americans or just white people in general will be able to hold onto their wealth in a rapidly decolonizing world. I know several landed and titled people and their holdings have only recently grown to anything like what they were before and with this new extreme inequality and rebellion against oligarchy.. it might all get taxed away again. And you cant just run and hide in thailand-- haven't you read Empire of the Sun?? I say decolonizing b/c the structures that allowed the exploitation of resources are being adequately challenged and changed now.. it hadnt really happened before. if there was one thing I learned from my jewish neighbors- its that the good times are never certain and you have to have back up plans and resilience in your back pocket.

Tell me you’re unfamiliar with trusts without telling me you’re unfamiliar with trusts.

The Rockefellers have tons of trusts but the fortune that was passed onto heirs (a ton was given to charity…but a ton also given to heirs) is now basically 95% gone.

It’s distributing the fortune over lots of heirs…many of which don’t add anything to it…that eventually squanders it all.

The Rockefeller family has a net worth of over $10 billion and there is over $50 million per descendent, despite giving away a nine figure amount each year through their foundations and charitable giving. They are actually a success story of how to use irrevocable trusts and family business structures to maintain wealth over a century.

The Vanderbilts, on the other hand, did little planning and the money is basically all gone.

Yep, Anderson Cooper only inherited $1.5 million after his mother died. A far cry from the Commodore's vast fortune.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is your child a boy or a girl? My teenager is a boy and I'm pretty sure his plan right now is to marry a woman that is ambitious. He's good looking so he probably has that luxury.

let us know how this works out please. i am not sure if that's what an ambitious woman would want. most of the ambitious succesful women i know want the same in a mate. we moved past wanting the good looking guys after high school.

Yea - I know several ambitious woman + unambitious SAHD pairings, and in absolutely every single case, the guy has serious family money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m more concerned about the dilution of educational standards, as other threads suggest is happening at top colleges to accommodate underprepared students. No offense, but in STEM majors, sitting through very basic material is tedious and doesn’t help prepared students.

Who exactly are the underprepared students??

(With admissions being so competitive a serious question!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the college application process wraps up, I’m realizing something that’s getting harder and harder to ignore: it really seems like DC is headed for downward social mobility. I just don’t see them pursuing a career that would allow them to maintain the lifestyle they grew up with. And since they’re not getting into Ivy League schools, they won’t even have the prestige, however little it may be, that might help them hold onto whatever social status comes with it.

And then there’s the bigger picture. The spouse they end up with will probably be in the same situation, and then there are their kids and the whole family trajectory. Add in the rise of AI and the disappearance of jobs, and it’s only going to make things worse.

Maybe this isn’t something people say out loud. One of those quiet anxieties. But can we rant about it on an anonymous forum.

Save more money, spend less, and leave them all you can in their inheritance. That is how you can help them and your grandkids.

Honestly, this. If they currently have some lifestyle (courtesy of you) that you don’t think they can make for themselves as adults—despite going to college and getting a professional job—then you clearly have the resources to help them in the future. Annual gifts, 529s for the grandkids, trusts when you die. Teach them deep financial literacy and long-term/intergenerational wealth planning. This is how every UMC and above family helps those who can’t swing it on their own (for those families that help, that is).

Ick. Don't have or want any of this. Parents don't feel the need to help us financially, which is fine by me. Isn't this how hustle dissipates through generations?

Well it's that or be buried with it, come on now, you don't want to help your kids and grandkids??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "poors" are reading through this thread confirming the obliviousness of the "wealthy" and the deathly fear of "sliding down the social ladder." We all want to leave a better starting point for our children and subsequent generations, but we see the gate-keeping, the born-on-third-base, but-I-hit-a-triple mentality.

We are all afraid of falling, and it is heartbreaking knowing that the world treats you differently depending on how money you have or don't have. You are all going to be fine; once your dc sees how the lower rungs live, they'll come running out of steerage, and will gladly struggle to live on the interest from their trust fund.

This is me, and my husband thinks I'm crazy, but if i am honest with myself this is why I check this forum, I will always wants the best for my kids if I can help it. They are both smarter than me, but admittedly snowflakes, they don't have the immigrant and lower class grit of my husband and I. Odd that many of my friend's kids are the opposite and "play the game" of sports/frats etc. Not mine, who are the intellectual bleeding heart type, and they grew up in the same environment. It's really odd how different kids are.