The amount of people living subsidized by their parents is astounding

[Anonymous]

Reading this thread explains why I see so many sheltered-sounding posts on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that majorly irks me is when a daycare, or a private school, or a private college, gives financial aid because income doesn't take into account grandparent gifting.

Archived nymag article here. I am sure people will be outraged and delighted.

https://archive.is/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/parents-money-family-wealth-stories.html

The stories are interesting because the vast majority are the cliches everyone talks about. Basically, adults that will never be able to stand on their own two feet...ever.

But, I mean, so what? Every since humanity evolved we've been working together in family groups to take care of each other. Why not continue that human trait?

Huh? Working together in family groups implies older help younger, and younger help older. It's a reciprocal relationship.

These stories, for the most part, are one-way only. What's worse, most of these stories involve children that will sap all the money from their parents, and have done nothing to leave anything to their own children.

That's the tough part. My BIL and his wife have intentionally both taken steps back in their careers - one works part-time purely for health insurance, the other is a SAHP. They got a sizable inheritance and while I don't know the full details, I've heard its enough that if they live modestly, they don't need to worry about working full time. And I believe college is already fully funded for both of their young kids. I wonder how they'll explain it to their kids - and why this is not a realistic outcome for them to expect.

What to explain? Sounds like they both are spending more time with their family and kids. Always a good thing, as long as you can pay the bills

+1. Also how long did they work before taking that step back? If I inherited enough to do that in my late 40s or early 50s, I'd do it too. I've been working hard and diligently saving for decades. We've sicked away money for retirement and kids' college. We've paid off 2/3 of our mortgage. I'm not a freeloader. But I'd happily move into semi-retirement a decade or so early and just focus on spending time with kids, taking care of my health, and doing bucket list travel and hobbies while time still relatively young.

I'd have zero guilt about that. It's not like being a trust funder who never does anything of value.

Why do you assume trust funders do nothing of value? Do You think you’re more noble because you have worked into your 40s and 50s and if you get inheritance now you can retire? Why does that make you feel better about yourself? You’ve lost so much time working when that time could have been spent enjoying life.

Time is the currency here and the inheritance allows people not to have to exchange their time for money.

I pray I'm in a position to give my children and grandchildren money. I even pray I’m able to give strangers scholarships for college.

Some of you are so miserable, judgmental and jealous it’s ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know one woman who has three daughters aged 24 through 29 all living at home. They all have jobs so I don’t know why they are there. There seems to be a lot of failure to launch syndrome with that generation.

Nothing wrong with this. In most cultures, women remain home until they are married. It’s the Americans who send their children out to the wolves when they are not ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that majorly irks me is when a daycare, or a private school, or a private college, gives financial aid because income doesn't take into account grandparent gifting.

Archived nymag article here. I am sure people will be outraged and delighted.

https://archive.is/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/parents-money-family-wealth-stories.html

The stories are interesting because the vast majority are the cliches everyone talks about. Basically, adults that will never be able to stand on their own two feet...ever.

But, I mean, so what? Every since humanity evolved we've been working together in family groups to take care of each other. Why not continue that human trait?

Huh? Working together in family groups implies older help younger, and younger help older. It's a reciprocal relationship.

These stories, for the most part, are one-way only. What's worse, most of these stories involve children that will sap all the money from their parents, and have done nothing to leave anything to their own children.

That's the tough part. My BIL and his wife have intentionally both taken steps back in their careers - one works part-time purely for health insurance, the other is a SAHP. They got a sizable inheritance and while I don't know the full details, I've heard its enough that if they live modestly, they don't need to worry about working full time. And I believe college is already fully funded for both of their young kids. I wonder how they'll explain it to their kids - and why this is not a realistic outcome for them to expect.

What to explain? Sounds like they both are spending more time with their family and kids. Always a good thing, as long as you can pay the bills

+1. Also how long did they work before taking that step back? If I inherited enough to do that in my late 40s or early 50s, I'd do it too. I've been working hard and diligently saving for decades. We've sicked away money for retirement and kids' college. We've paid off 2/3 of our mortgage. I'm not a freeloader. But I'd happily move into semi-retirement a decade or so early and just focus on spending time with kids, taking care of my health, and doing bucket list travel and hobbies while time still relatively young.

I'd have zero guilt about that. It's not like being a trust funder who never does anything of value.

Why do you assume trust funders do nothing of value? Do You think you’re more noble because you have worked into your 40s and 50s and if you get inheritance now you can retire? Why does that make you feel better about yourself? You’ve lost so much time working when that time could have been spent enjoying life.

Time is the currency here and the inheritance allows people not to have to exchange their time for money.

I pray I'm in a position to give my children and grandchildren money. I even pray I’m able to give strangers scholarships for college.

Some of you are so miserable, judgmental and jealous it’s ridiculous.

PP here and wow you're defensive. I didn't say that all trust funders do nothing of value. I said that someone who inherits enough money to stop working or reduce their workload at midlife is very different than a specific kind of trust funder who never does anything of value. Someone who has built a career and a family has already accomplished something very meaningful and worthwhile, so if they want to retire early who cares. They have already fulfilled their imperative to do something with their life.

Some trust funders do very meaningful work, or dedicate themselves to their families or to charity work or making art. Some trust funders find a purpose and fulfill it. Others don't. I have no problem pointing to the ones that never do anything at all of value as an example of someone who is a net negative for society. There's nothing wrong with being born into money, but if you don't do anything useful with that opportunity, of course I'm going to judge you! The world is your oyster, and if you spend it doing drugs, playing video games, and partying in Ibiza, I have no trouble labeling you as a waste of space. Try harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know one woman who has three daughters aged 24 through 29 all living at home. They all have jobs so I don’t know why they are there. There seems to be a lot of failure to launch syndrome with that generation.

Nothing wrong with this. In most cultures, women remain home until they are married. It’s the Americans who send their children out to the wolves when they are not ready.

A 29YO "isn't ready" to live alone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know one woman who has three daughters aged 24 through 29 all living at home. They all have jobs so I don’t know why they are there. There seems to be a lot of failure to launch syndrome with that generation.

Nothing wrong with this. In most cultures, women remain home until they are married. It’s the Americans who send their children out to the wolves when they are not ready.

This, plus if you develop a mature, adult relationship with your grown child, it's not a failure to launch situation. An employed adult child who lives at home, helps clean and maintain the house, cooks and grocery shops, has their own social life, has not "failed to launch." Also I think some people don't realize that family norms have shifted in the last 40s years and some parents now have mutually enjoyable relationships with their adult kids and they all enjoy spending time together. I grew up in the 80s/90s where there was this idea that parents and their children were natural enemies and that it was important to create distance from your parents once you became an adult since of course you could not have things in common or enjoy each other. But that dynamic is no longer the norm and a lot of parents cultivate mutually respectful, pleasant relationships with kids that allow them to socialize and even live together. I think it's much healthier in the long run because as you get older you realize the value of family more and more, and it's nice not to have to overcome negative dynamics that emerged when the kids were teens in order to do things like help raise grandkids or figure out care of an aging parent who is no longer independent. If everyone actually likes each other to begin with, those scenarios are a lot easier to navigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know one woman who has three daughters aged 24 through 29 all living at home. They all have jobs so I don’t know why they are there. There seems to be a lot of failure to launch syndrome with that generation.

Nothing wrong with this. In most cultures, women remain home until they are married. It’s the Americans who send their children out to the wolves when they are not ready.

This, plus if you develop a mature, adult relationship with your grown child, it's not a failure to launch situation. An employed adult child who lives at home, helps clean and maintain the house, cooks and grocery shops, has their own social life, has not "failed to launch." Also I think some people don't realize that family norms have shifted in the last 40s years and some parents now have mutually enjoyable relationships with their adult kids and they all enjoy spending time together. I grew up in the 80s/90s where there was this idea that parents and their children were natural enemies and that it was important to create distance from your parents once you became an adult since of course you could not have things in common or enjoy each other. But that dynamic is no longer the norm and a lot of parents cultivate mutually respectful, pleasant relationships with kids that allow them to socialize and even live together. I think it's much healthier in the long run because as you get older you realize the value of family more and more, and it's nice not to have to overcome negative dynamics that emerged when the kids were teens in order to do things like help raise grandkids or figure out care of an aging parent who is no longer independent. If everyone actually likes each other to begin with, those scenarios are a lot easier to navigate.

Failure to launch is an adult child who cannot independently live on their own, without the financial or emotional assistance of their parents. A recent college grad who moves back in for a few years to save on rent is very different from a 29 year old employed adult who is also living with their parents. The latter is eyebrow raising. The prior example of the 3 females is a little odd. They're probably a bit sheltered or socially stunted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know one woman who has three daughters aged 24 through 29 all living at home. They all have jobs so I don’t know why they are there. There seems to be a lot of failure to launch syndrome with that generation.

Nothing wrong with this. In most cultures, women remain home until they are married. It’s the Americans who send their children out to the wolves when they are not ready.

This, plus if you develop a mature, adult relationship with your grown child, it's not a failure to launch situation. An employed adult child who lives at home, helps clean and maintain the house, cooks and grocery shops, has their own social life, has not "failed to launch." Also I think some people don't realize that family norms have shifted in the last 40s years and some parents now have mutually enjoyable relationships with their adult kids and they all enjoy spending time together. I grew up in the 80s/90s where there was this idea that parents and their children were natural enemies and that it was important to create distance from your parents once you became an adult since of course you could not have things in common or enjoy each other. But that dynamic is no longer the norm and a lot of parents cultivate mutually respectful, pleasant relationships with kids that allow them to socialize and even live together. I think it's much healthier in the long run because as you get older you realize the value of family more and more, and it's nice not to have to overcome negative dynamics that emerged when the kids were teens in order to do things like help raise grandkids or figure out care of an aging parent who is no longer independent. If everyone actually likes each other to begin with, those scenarios are a lot easier to navigate.

Failure to launch is an adult child who cannot independently live on their own, without the financial or emotional assistance of their parents. A recent college grad who moves back in for a few years to save on rent is very different from a 29 year old employed adult who is also living with their parents. The latter is eyebrow raising. The prior example of the 3 females is a little odd. They're probably a bit sheltered or socially stunted.

More likely it’s cultural.

Or they live in a very HCOL area and hope to stay in the area and don’t have generational wealth to draw from. My neighbors are ADOS, in Arlington, and can trace their roots back to the Lee plantation. Their kids (late 20s college grade in white collar professions) still live at home because it’s the only way they can afford to remain in Arlington and have decent commutes to their jobs and possibly save up $$$ for a down payment, probably not in Arlington, one day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know one woman who has three daughters aged 24 through 29 all living at home. They all have jobs so I don’t know why they are there. There seems to be a lot of failure to launch syndrome with that generation.

Nothing wrong with this. In most cultures, women remain home until they are married. It’s the Americans who send their children out to the wolves when they are not ready.

This, plus if you develop a mature, adult relationship with your grown child, it's not a failure to launch situation. An employed adult child who lives at home, helps clean and maintain the house, cooks and grocery shops, has their own social life, has not "failed to launch." Also I think some people don't realize that family norms have shifted in the last 40s years and some parents now have mutually enjoyable relationships with their adult kids and they all enjoy spending time together. I grew up in the 80s/90s where there was this idea that parents and their children were natural enemies and that it was important to create distance from your parents once you became an adult since of course you could not have things in common or enjoy each other. But that dynamic is no longer the norm and a lot of parents cultivate mutually respectful, pleasant relationships with kids that allow them to socialize and even live together. I think it's much healthier in the long run because as you get older you realize the value of family more and more, and it's nice not to have to overcome negative dynamics that emerged when the kids were teens in order to do things like help raise grandkids or figure out care of an aging parent who is no longer independent. If everyone actually likes each other to begin with, those scenarios are a lot easier to navigate.

Failure to launch is an adult child who cannot independently live on their own, without the financial or emotional assistance of their parents. A recent college grad who moves back in for a few years to save on rent is very different from a 29 year old employed adult who is also living with their parents. The latter is eyebrow raising. The prior example of the 3 females is a little odd. They're probably a bit sheltered or socially stunted.

Only weird in your "americanized views". In most of Europe (as well as the obvious in Asia), kids live at home for several years after college. In fact, many live at home while attending university---the going away to college is very much an American concept (Sure it happens in Europe but it's not the norm).
Living at home to save up money is not weird if you have a healthy relationship with your family.

[Anonymous]

The amount of people being subsidised by the government is also astounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know one woman who has three daughters aged 24 through 29 all living at home. They all have jobs so I don’t know why they are there. There seems to be a lot of failure to launch syndrome with that generation.

Nothing wrong with this. In most cultures, women remain home until they are married. It’s the Americans who send their children out to the wolves when they are not ready.

They are not of that type of culture. They all moved out at least once already and came back. It’s not just an American thing anyway, more of a general wasp thing. There are lots of people in Europe who show their kids the door at 18 and hand them a bill for uterus rental, supplies and education, plus interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know one woman who has three daughters aged 24 through 29 all living at home. They all have jobs so I don’t know why they are there. There seems to be a lot of failure to launch syndrome with that generation.

Nothing wrong with this. In most cultures, women remain home until they are married. It’s the Americans who send their children out to the wolves when they are not ready.

This, plus if you develop a mature, adult relationship with your grown child, it's not a failure to launch situation. An employed adult child who lives at home, helps clean and maintain the house, cooks and grocery shops, has their own social life, has not "failed to launch." Also I think some people don't realize that family norms have shifted in the last 40s years and some parents now have mutually enjoyable relationships with their adult kids and they all enjoy spending time together. I grew up in the 80s/90s where there was this idea that parents and their children were natural enemies and that it was important to create distance from your parents once you became an adult since of course you could not have things in common or enjoy each other. But that dynamic is no longer the norm and a lot of parents cultivate mutually respectful, pleasant relationships with kids that allow them to socialize and even live together. I think it's much healthier in the long run because as you get older you realize the value of family more and more, and it's nice not to have to overcome negative dynamics that emerged when the kids were teens in order to do things like help raise grandkids or figure out care of an aging parent who is no longer independent. If everyone actually likes each other to begin with, those scenarios are a lot easier to navigate.

Failure to launch is an adult child who cannot independently live on their own, without the financial or emotional assistance of their parents. A recent college grad who moves back in for a few years to save on rent is very different from a 29 year old employed adult who is also living with their parents. The latter is eyebrow raising. The prior example of the 3 females is a little odd. They're probably a bit sheltered or socially stunted.

Only weird in your "americanized views". In most of Europe (as well as the obvious in Asia), kids live at home for several years after college. In fact, many live at home while attending university---the going away to college is very much an American concept (Sure it happens in Europe but it's not the norm).
Living at home to save up money is not weird if you have a healthy relationship with your family.

In most of Europe, salaries are terrible…not to mention unemployment from 18-29 is way, way higher than in the US.

I read an article about all the young people in Portugal upset about Americans driving up property prices and they said the median wage for a professional in Lisbon for a 22 year old was only like 20,000 Euros.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that majorly irks me is when a daycare, or a private school, or a private college, gives financial aid because income doesn't take into account grandparent gifting.

Archived nymag article here. I am sure people will be outraged and delighted.

https://archive.is/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/parents-money-family-wealth-stories.html

The stories are interesting because the vast majority are the cliches everyone talks about. Basically, adults that will never be able to stand on their own two feet...ever.

But, I mean, so what? Every since humanity evolved we've been working together in family groups to take care of each other. Why not continue that human trait?

Huh? Working together in family groups implies older help younger, and younger help older. It's a reciprocal relationship.

These stories, for the most part, are one-way only. What's worse, most of these stories involve children that will sap all the money from their parents, and have done nothing to leave anything to their own children.

That's the tough part. My BIL and his wife have intentionally both taken steps back in their careers - one works part-time purely for health insurance, the other is a SAHP. They got a sizable inheritance and while I don't know the full details, I've heard its enough that if they live modestly, they don't need to worry about working full time. And I believe college is already fully funded for both of their young kids. I wonder how they'll explain it to their kids - and why this is not a realistic outcome for them to expect.

What to explain? Sounds like they both are spending more time with their family and kids. Always a good thing, as long as you can pay the bills

+1. Also how long did they work before taking that step back? If I inherited enough to do that in my late 40s or early 50s, I'd do it too. I've been working hard and diligently saving for decades. We've sicked away money for retirement and kids' college. We've paid off 2/3 of our mortgage. I'm not a freeloader. But I'd happily move into semi-retirement a decade or so early and just focus on spending time with kids, taking care of my health, and doing bucket list travel and hobbies while time still relatively young.

I'd have zero guilt about that. It's not like being a trust funder who never does anything of value.

Why do you assume trust funders do nothing of value? Do You think you’re more noble because you have worked into your 40s and 50s and if you get inheritance now you can retire? Why does that make you feel better about yourself? You’ve lost so much time working when that time could have been spent enjoying life.

Time is the currency here and the inheritance allows people not to have to exchange their time for money.

I pray I'm in a position to give my children and grandchildren money. I even pray I’m able to give strangers scholarships for college.

Some of you are so miserable, judgmental and jealous it’s ridiculous.

PP here and wow you're defensive. I didn't say that all trust funders do nothing of value. I said that someone who inherits enough money to stop working or reduce their workload at midlife is very different than a specific kind of trust funder who never does anything of value. Someone who has built a career and a family has already accomplished something very meaningful and worthwhile, so if they want to retire early who cares. They have already fulfilled their imperative to do something with their life.

Some trust funders do very meaningful work, or dedicate themselves to their families or to charity work or making art. Some trust funders find a purpose and fulfill it. Others don't. I have no problem pointing to the ones that never do anything at all of value as an example of someone who is a net negative for society. There's nothing wrong with being born into money, but if you don't do anything useful with that opportunity, of course I'm going to judge you! The world is your oyster, and if you spend it doing drugs, playing video games, and partying in Ibiza, I have no trouble labeling you as a waste of space. Try harder.

Newsflash: 95% of jobs are bullshit and nobody is doing anything worthwhile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that majorly irks me is when a daycare, or a private school, or a private college, gives financial aid because income doesn't take into account grandparent gifting.

Archived nymag article here. I am sure people will be outraged and delighted.

https://archive.is/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/parents-money-family-wealth-stories.html

The stories are interesting because the vast majority are the cliches everyone talks about. Basically, adults that will never be able to stand on their own two feet...ever.

But, I mean, so what? Every since humanity evolved we've been working together in family groups to take care of each other. Why not continue that human trait?

Huh? Working together in family groups implies older help younger, and younger help older. It's a reciprocal relationship.

These stories, for the most part, are one-way only. What's worse, most of these stories involve children that will sap all the money from their parents, and have done nothing to leave anything to their own children.

That's the tough part. My BIL and his wife have intentionally both taken steps back in their careers - one works part-time purely for health insurance, the other is a SAHP. They got a sizable inheritance and while I don't know the full details, I've heard its enough that if they live modestly, they don't need to worry about working full time. And I believe college is already fully funded for both of their young kids. I wonder how they'll explain it to their kids - and why this is not a realistic outcome for them to expect.

What to explain? Sounds like they both are spending more time with their family and kids. Always a good thing, as long as you can pay the bills

+1. Also how long did they work before taking that step back? If I inherited enough to do that in my late 40s or early 50s, I'd do it too. I've been working hard and diligently saving for decades. We've sicked away money for retirement and kids' college. We've paid off 2/3 of our mortgage. I'm not a freeloader. But I'd happily move into semi-retirement a decade or so early and just focus on spending time with kids, taking care of my health, and doing bucket list travel and hobbies while time still relatively young.

I'd have zero guilt about that. It's not like being a trust funder who never does anything of value.

Why do you assume trust funders do nothing of value? Do You think you’re more noble because you have worked into your 40s and 50s and if you get inheritance now you can retire? Why does that make you feel better about yourself? You’ve lost so much time working when that time could have been spent enjoying life.

Time is the currency here and the inheritance allows people not to have to exchange their time for money.

I pray I'm in a position to give my children and grandchildren money. I even pray I’m able to give strangers scholarships for college.

Some of you are so miserable, judgmental and jealous it’s ridiculous.

PP here and wow you're defensive. I didn't say that all trust funders do nothing of value. I said that someone who inherits enough money to stop working or reduce their workload at midlife is very different than a specific kind of trust funder who never does anything of value. Someone who has built a career and a family has already accomplished something very meaningful and worthwhile, so if they want to retire early who cares. They have already fulfilled their imperative to do something with their life.

Some trust funders do very meaningful work, or dedicate themselves to their families or to charity work or making art. Some trust funders find a purpose and fulfill it. Others don't. I have no problem pointing to the ones that never do anything at all of value as an example of someone who is a net negative for society. There's nothing wrong with being born into money, but if you don't do anything useful with that opportunity, of course I'm going to judge you! The world is your oyster, and if you spend it doing drugs, playing video games, and partying in Ibiza, I have no trouble labeling you as a waste of space. Try harder.

Newsflash: 95% of jobs are bullshit and nobody is doing anything worthwhile.

+1000 this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that majorly irks me is when a daycare, or a private school, or a private college, gives financial aid because income doesn't take into account grandparent gifting.

Archived nymag article here. I am sure people will be outraged and delighted.

https://archive.is/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/parents-money-family-wealth-stories.html

The stories are interesting because the vast majority are the cliches everyone talks about. Basically, adults that will never be able to stand on their own two feet...ever.

But, I mean, so what? Every since humanity evolved we've been working together in family groups to take care of each other. Why not continue that human trait?

Huh? Working together in family groups implies older help younger, and younger help older. It's a reciprocal relationship.

These stories, for the most part, are one-way only. What's worse, most of these stories involve children that will sap all the money from their parents, and have done nothing to leave anything to their own children.

That's the tough part. My BIL and his wife have intentionally both taken steps back in their careers - one works part-time purely for health insurance, the other is a SAHP. They got a sizable inheritance and while I don't know the full details, I've heard its enough that if they live modestly, they don't need to worry about working full time. And I believe college is already fully funded for both of their young kids. I wonder how they'll explain it to their kids - and why this is not a realistic outcome for them to expect.

What to explain? Sounds like they both are spending more time with their family and kids. Always a good thing, as long as you can pay the bills

+1. Also how long did they work before taking that step back? If I inherited enough to do that in my late 40s or early 50s, I'd do it too. I've been working hard and diligently saving for decades. We've sicked away money for retirement and kids' college. We've paid off 2/3 of our mortgage. I'm not a freeloader. But I'd happily move into semi-retirement a decade or so early and just focus on spending time with kids, taking care of my health, and doing bucket list travel and hobbies while time still relatively young.

I'd have zero guilt about that. It's not like being a trust funder who never does anything of value.

Why do you assume trust funders do nothing of value? Do You think you’re more noble because you have worked into your 40s and 50s and if you get inheritance now you can retire? Why does that make you feel better about yourself? You’ve lost so much time working when that time could have been spent enjoying life.

Time is the currency here and the inheritance allows people not to have to exchange their time for money.

I pray I'm in a position to give my children and grandchildren money. I even pray I’m able to give strangers scholarships for college.

Some of you are so miserable, judgmental and jealous it’s ridiculous.

PP here and wow you're defensive. I didn't say that all trust funders do nothing of value. I said that someone who inherits enough money to stop working or reduce their workload at midlife is very different than a specific kind of trust funder who never does anything of value. Someone who has built a career and a family has already accomplished something very meaningful and worthwhile, so if they want to retire early who cares. They have already fulfilled their imperative to do something with their life.

Some trust funders do very meaningful work, or dedicate themselves to their families or to charity work or making art. Some trust funders find a purpose and fulfill it. Others don't. I have no problem pointing to the ones that never do anything at all of value as an example of someone who is a net negative for society. There's nothing wrong with being born into money, but if you don't do anything useful with that opportunity, of course I'm going to judge you! The world is your oyster, and if you spend it doing drugs, playing video games, and partying in Ibiza, I have no trouble labeling you as a waste of space. Try harder.

Newsflash: 95% of jobs are bullshit and nobody is doing anything worthwhile.

I find this attitude very odd. Do you not participate in life and the economy? I get value out of every service I buy and enjoy products that someone made.