Our daughter “married well.” Nobody is happy about it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you’d provided a “lower resource” upbringing, she’s probably be more likely to settle closer to home. Why would you give your kids the world if you didn’t want them to get out into it?

Interesting point.

How do you figure? Lower resources would result in feeling even more anxiety and drive to make money and be successful and go wherever the best opportunities were. It would be a luxury to stay closer to home, more resources means more choices.

It’s just an interesting perspective is all. One I hadn’t thought of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you move out to be near your grandchild, OP? What are you doing that’s so important?

OP you forgot to answer this question in the very first reply to your post.

She answered further down:

“Another user asked why don’t we move near them: Because they are fairly rootless workaholics and go where their careers take them. They will likely bounce around and job hop for the next 30 years.”

How is it that 2 people have their different careers aligned so that they can both up and leave every few years? Usually one person's career has to take a back seat to accommodate this nomad lifestyle. Apparently they don't WFH if they have to physically move for the next opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Did DD spend her 20s at bottomless brunches?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone probably told her she could have it all and that's what she's trying to do. Wonder who that could have been?

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you’d provided a “lower resource” upbringing, she’s probably be more likely to settle closer to home. Why would you give your kids the world if you didn’t want them to get out into it?

Interesting point.

How do you figure? Lower resources would result in feeling even more anxiety and drive to make money and be successful and go wherever the best opportunities were. It would be a luxury to stay closer to home, more resources means more choices.

It’s just an interesting perspective is all. One I hadn’t thought of.

Doesn't make a lot of sense. People with more money and resources have more choices. They don't have to move and find the magic place with affordable housing and good jobs. They can stay where their successful parents are who usually end up helping them with the downpayment on that nice house in a good neighborhood usually out of reach for a first time home buyer. I've seen this play out dozens of times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you’d provided a “lower resource” upbringing, she’s probably be more likely to settle closer to home. Why would you give your kids the world if you didn’t want them to get out into it?

Interesting point.

How do you figure? Lower resources would result in feeling even more anxiety and drive to make money and be successful and go wherever the best opportunities were. It would be a luxury to stay closer to home, more resources means more choices.

Not for a kid who knows they’ll receive a “comfortable inheritance” one day. If you throw them into competition with a bunch of strivers from a young age, then they’re going to feel like they need to keep pace with them. I’m sure OP enjoyed bragging about her all along the way, though.

[Anonymous]

This is interesting feedback, mom, but you are so bitter it's hard to really unpack it. Her choices are not a personal affront on you and you are not entitled to have your kids rearrange their lives so you can be ten minutes away to see your grandkids grow up. But I hear your point about being a 2 career family that's always striving for the next thing. DH and I definitely fall in and out of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP makes a very valid point. People here are obsessed with the rat race, getting their kids into the best colleges etc.

But what is the prize of all this effort, should it pay off?

A job where you work like a dog, every hour that god sends, to pile up money that you can never enjoy, and to find a partner who can do likewise. You can then live a harrassed, miserable life together, sacrificing everything on the altar of prestige, money and status, and never tasting true happiness.

This was what she was taught OP. My parents taught me to be as successful as possible, and then we're horrified when I moved away from them to do so.

Lesson: if you want your kids to live right by you, don't emphasize achievement and send them to a localish university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you’d provided a “lower resource” upbringing, she’s probably be more likely to settle closer to home. Why would you give your kids the world if you didn’t want them to get out into it?

Interesting point.

How do you figure? Lower resources would result in feeling even more anxiety and drive to make money and be successful and go wherever the best opportunities were. It would be a luxury to stay closer to home, more resources means more choices.

It’s just an interesting perspective is all. One I hadn’t thought of.

Doesn't make a lot of sense. People with more money and resources have more choices. They don't have to move and find the magic place with affordable housing and good jobs. They can stay where their successful parents are who usually end up helping them with the downpayment on that nice house in a good neighborhood usually out of reach for a first time home buyer. I've seen this play out dozens of times.

Or people with more money have the resources to move away from judgmental parents.

[Anonymous]

Why don't you move out there?

Or rent an apartment out there and visit every 6-8 weeks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you’d provided a “lower resource” upbringing, she’s probably be more likely to settle closer to home. Why would you give your kids the world if you didn’t want them to get out into it?

Interesting point.

How do you figure? Lower resources would result in feeling even more anxiety and drive to make money and be successful and go wherever the best opportunities were. It would be a luxury to stay closer to home, more resources means more choices.

It’s just an interesting perspective is all. One I hadn’t thought of.

Doesn't make a lot of sense. People with more money and resources have more choices. They don't have to move and find the magic place with affordable housing and good jobs. They can stay where their successful parents are who usually end up helping them with the downpayment on that nice house in a good neighborhood usually out of reach for a first time home buyer. I've seen this play out dozens of times.

Exactly. And they made a choice. OP just doesn’t like it. I’m baffled by the idea that providing your kids with all these opportunities and resources would make them want to stay exactly where they were raised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying you’d be happy to provide full time day care following all the parenting requirements your daughter and son in law have if they moved near you? You’d give only the foods they approve, take the kid to all the activities they want, follow their screen limits, toy rules, etc?

Are you kidding, of course I would happily provide any day care duties. Just as my parents and my husband’s parents were always nearby and there for me when our children were growing up. It’s not just day care or providing a helping hand, it’s proximity to be there and watch them grow up. It’s painful to be so far away and know strangers are raising a grandchild. I keep using “strangers” because that is what is happening. I am not anti day care, I am underscoring how un-well “marrying well” turned out to be.

Another user asked why don’t we move near them: Because they are fairly rootless workaholics and go where their careers take them. They will likely bounce around and job hop for the next 30 years.

No, they’re strangers to you.

The caregivers at our childrens’ daycare were not strangers to us at all. We knew and trusted them. It certainly wasn’t perfect, but we absolutely knew who was caring for our kids.

We can agree to disagree. And you can rationalize it however you’d like. It is paying large sums of money to lower class strangers to raise your child(ren) instead of you and/or grandparents, i.e. family, raising them. All so you could net more HHI and/or live far away from your parents.

Oh, the irony. You’re unhappy that your daughter is a workaholic after hearing a lifetime of comments like this one, about how people working in traditionally lower-paying fields are “lower class?” The problem here is you. If you’re not a troll, that is, which seems unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My parents bought a second home near me and live here 6 months of the year. Why haven't you done similarly? You're retired.

OP isn’t retired. She never worked. Thus her kids weren’t raised by strangers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you’d provided a “lower resource” upbringing, she’s probably be more likely to settle closer to home. Why would you give your kids the world if you didn’t want them to get out into it?

Interesting point.

How do you figure? Lower resources would result in feeling even more anxiety and drive to make money and be successful and go wherever the best opportunities were. It would be a luxury to stay closer to home, more resources means more choices.

Not for a kid who knows they’ll receive a “comfortable inheritance” one day. If you throw them into competition with a bunch of strivers from a young age, then they’re going to feel like they need to keep pace with them. I’m sure OP enjoyed bragging about her all along the way, though.

Again, I don't see it. These people also don't stress about college and their kids b/c it's already paid for via a trust. For example, My brother and his wife live off her trust. They have two low stress lives and enjoy the good life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you’d provided a “lower resource” upbringing, she’s probably be more likely to settle closer to home. Why would you give your kids the world if you didn’t want them to get out into it?

Interesting point.

How do you figure? Lower resources would result in feeling even more anxiety and drive to make money and be successful and go wherever the best opportunities were. It would be a luxury to stay closer to home, more resources means more choices.

It’s just an interesting perspective is all. One I hadn’t thought of.

Doesn't make a lot of sense. People with more money and resources have more choices. They don't have to move and find the magic place with affordable housing and good jobs. They can stay where their successful parents are who usually end up helping them with the downpayment on that nice house in a good neighborhood usually out of reach for a first time home buyer. I've seen this play out dozens of times.

You also make a good point. I concur. They have the credentials and work experience to make great money anywhere. They choose to isolate themselves and our grandchild far away from family for what seem to be rather pointless reasons big picture. It makes us unhappy and it has eroded their marriage (though they maintain the perfect happy family facade).