If your family had generational wealth when did it end?

[Anonymous]

Great grandparents were the largest shareholders in a medium sized conglomerate. Grandparents invested decently (didn't really work for a living), still have millions liquid and decent amounts of property. Parents founded their own companies, mid 8 figures net worth, still compounding. Paid for our educations, but not much more. Me and siblings (mid 30s) are all low 7 figure net worths.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

My grandfather, self-made-man, owned multiple businesses and properties. His kids (incl my dad) did not continue/grow any of it despite benefiting from my grandfather's financial support (he helped them buy their houses). It was gone in 2 generations basically. I expect to inherit nothing, and that will be the best situation (the worst being that I will have to financially support my parents).

[Anonymous]

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/

[Anonymous]

Ok well then anyone who inherited Aunt Larla’s old engagement ring would be considered having generational wealth. The above terms just mean inheritance. Generational wealth should assume significant assets.

[Anonymous]

When the communist stole all their land in 1945.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I know a family w a very famous last name and their line of wealth from their product was gambled away. So crazy.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Of course there's a huge difference--it's a large qualitative difference in amount of generational wealth. But it's equally important to examine patterns in smaller amounts of generational wealth too as there are a lot of disparities that affect a lot more people. There are a few people who have extreme generational wealth, but there are also a lot of people who think of their inheritances as "modest" and "not a big deal" but they represent the top 10% of wealth transfer in this country and also contribute greatly to people's ability to thrive (and also to inequality). Modest generational wealth transfers drive up housing prices much more than extreme wealth, for instance. The reason the term is "official" is that it was generated by the economists to help us understand these patterns in economic differences. Everyday people used terms like "old money" and the like before they decided to latch on to the economic term.

[Anonymous]

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.

Can you cite the source for that definition please?

NP
I cite common sense.

You can keep moving the bar and inventing an alternative reality, but this is what the words mean literally.