
I think you are confused as to what point you’re trying to make. It sounds like you want to have everybody believe that the perfectly reasonable and appropriate and respectable amount of subsidies fully grown adults accept from their parents is whatever amount YOUR kids accept from YOU. It’s a very “the only moral abortion is my abortion” way of thinking. |
Lots of people want this. Now there is another young family who can’t have that quality house in the burbs close to their work because your kid outbid them, with the leg up they had from you. That’s what we mean by saying that resources are finite. Nobody is saying it’s morally wrong to help your kid. We’re just saying your kid has an unfair advantage. It’s wild that you can’t admit that. |
Umm, living frugal when you have a good salary means we had $2-3M in investments/savings by age 30 including retirement. So we were at $5M+ by age 35. If you are saving $140-150K/year easily plus retirement and investing it, you can get there. The key is investing and living below your means. I stated we were able to basically live comfortably on the $100K and save the $250K salary. Interestingly, we turned down jobs offers with another more established company that had we taken it, we would have been worth $20M+ by 30 (we had 2 different friends who did take those offers so we know the trajectory). This was a tech company with 5-6K employees. Most of the employees got very rich. This is just to show that there are plenty of opportunities out there, you just have to be willing to take the risk |
1. You were joining/rejecting start ups during the dot com boom. That’s pure LUCK. You are also arguing from a position of survivor bias, i.e. many people in your shoes took similar risks that did NOT pay off, so obviously they’re not metaphorically puffing their chests on the internet and telling everyone how clever they are. 2. Was it 10M at 35 or 5M at 35? Weird that you have already changed this detail. Doesn’t speak well for your credibility. 3. Those salaries were exceptionally good in the 90’s. Most couples even NOW don’t even EARN 140K + retirement, so obviously they can’t save it. A couple living off “only” 100K 25 years ago isn’t the flex you seem to think it is. |
No child has any control over being born. Parents have unprotected sex and a human being gets born in whatever situation they are being born. But in all civilized societies parents care for their children until they become successful on their own. So, yes, children do have a claim on the wealth or resources that their parents have earned. First of all, the parents need to raise the children well by taking care of their physical, mental, emotional, academic, social wellbeing, and this requires the parents to be self-sacrificing and putting the children first, so that these children become successful adults and parents themselves. Many American parents are selfish even though they make pretty decent money. They do not save for their kids because it inconveniences them. Then they shrug off every major financial decision that can give a leg up to their children by saying "sink or swim" or "have skin in the game". In today's economy and climate, young people will not be able to go to college, marry, afford a house, have kids and send them to college etc if the older generation does not share their wealth with their AC. The youngsters are inheriting a terrible Earth and a terrible economy thanks to mismanagement of previous generations - and throwing them out of the house at 16 no longer works. |
None of this drivel addresses the points being made. You appear to be suffering from the logical fallacy that because you are good at one thing (programming I’m guessing) you are good at all things. It is obvious that you are not, and this discussion is over your head. |