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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.