Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

DP here, I don’t know what you think the PP should do instead. They might as well do something productive even if they don’t need the money.

I never suggested she shouldn't work, or that she's doing anything wrong. It's the insistence that she's doing this to teach her kids that is really out there. She has the luxury to work a low-stress, low paying job without any financial consequences, and she thinks that by doing so she's teaching her kids something. What is that?

And BTW, there's more than one of us who thinks she lacks a little self-awareness.

Out there, really? Ok, I guess I’m lacking self-awareness. I suspect other parents in similar situations get it, though. There are a lot ways to be a wasteful, indulgent person when you have a lot money at your disposal. We hope that by seeing us a functioning members of the working world—like, where most adults spend their days—they’ll follow suit and not blow it when their time comes. Maybe even do some good with their incredibly fortunate situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

DP here, I don’t know what you think the PP should do instead. They might as well do something productive even if they don’t need the money.

I never suggested she shouldn't work, or that she's doing anything wrong. It's the insistence that she's doing this to teach her kids that is really out there. She has the luxury to work a low-stress, low paying job without any financial consequences, and she thinks that by doing so she's teaching her kids something. What is that?

And BTW, there's more than one of us who thinks she lacks a little self-awareness.

Okay. So that person has a trust, and has children. Here are their options:

*Work a big law type job, 80 hours/week, big salary,big house, never see kids.
*Work a cube drone middle management/has life balance to enjoy their children and spend time with them
*Do nothing all day but entertain children.

The money is there. That isn't changing, and the OP who so offended you didn't choose that, they have it. Given that they have it, which of the above choices would you NOT look down on?

If the answer is just "none of them, I look down on this person for circumstances they had no control over" that is acceptable, just admit it.

Anonymous wrote:The lines are really blurry here. OP's question, I think, is if you are independently wealthy why do you work? A lot of people responding have some money coming in that they're not working for (trusts) but not so much that they don't have to work. If, for example, you have to think about how to fund expensive health insurance, you're not independently wealthy.

THat is not necessarily true. I don't HAVE to think about how much things cost. I CHOOSE to think about it, because I dislike the idea of wasting money. I don't fly private because of how terrible it is for the environment. Could I afford it? Sure. But I don't do everything I could afford. I grew up best friends with a girl who was UMC and a girl who was middle class. I learned a lot about money from them. I learned NOTHING about money from my parents who thought it was inappropriate and inconsequential to talk about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

Seriously? How does it finish? Let’s see, “you really should, because...”
- working can give you a sense of purpose
- working can help other people
- working is a good way to meet people/make connections
- working can make you disciplined
- working can keep you from being out of touch with what most people have to deal with
- spending money you didn’t earn isn’t very satisfying
- you’ve spent the first 20+ years of life in school, now go do something with it
- you were born incredibly lucky, but no better than anyone else

I could go on and on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

DP here, I don’t know what you think the PP should do instead. They might as well do something productive even if they don’t need the money.

I never suggested she shouldn't work, or that she's doing anything wrong. It's the insistence that she's doing this to teach her kids that is really out there. She has the luxury to work a low-stress, low paying job without any financial consequences, and she thinks that by doing so she's teaching her kids something. What is that?

And BTW, there's more than one of us who thinks she lacks a little self-awareness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I love what I do, because I love the people I work with, because I'd be a terrible SAHM, because it gives our family health insurance, because working full time helps me be a better parent.

Fraud Alert. If you're truly wealthy you wouldn't need to work to get health insurance.

Also, doctors that serve the wealthy a lot of the times don't even take insurance. They're also concierge doctors more often than not.

Nope - it's less expensive to use my job's health insurance. And we tried having concierge, but it wasn't the best for me because I had a lot of complex health issues for about 10-15 years that needed specialists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

DP - you are living a lifestyle that your working income can't support. Perhaps "entitled layabout" is too harsh, but it's pretty funny that you think that sets good example, or demonstrates responsible adulthood. Come on.

Am I reading the same thread? What do you know about this persons lifestyle relative to their income?

I am making the reasonable assumption that the trust fund family isn't living a lifestyle consistent with being a cube drone, as she indicated she was. That's a lot more reasonable than, as yu seem to suggest, assuming they don't touch the trust at all. But if she wants to correct me, then she can do so.

Cube drone here. You all are really beating up on me for some reason, when almost everyone else who responses cited virtually the same reasons for working. Maybe it was a poor choice of words in my initial post. Sorry if I sounded holier than thou, but I stand by my assertion that having working parents is good for my kids. I don’t care if you think it’s funny.

Anyway, tell me your “reasonable assumptions” about what my lifestyle looks like and I’ll tell you if you’re even close. There are a lot of assumptions about wealthy people tossed around on this site that are pretty far off the mark.

The only thing I am assuming is that your cube drone salary (and your husband's, since you initially said "we") is insufficient to support your lifestyle. You are using the trust to live a life that you couldn't afford otherwise. How much more lavish it is, I have no idea.

Anonymous wrote:I work because I get to do what I love -- which I couldn't do if I had to actually earn a living.

This is why my wife does it.

She doesn't make great money, but it's what she loves to do and she helps others.

I know the type OP is talking about, though. My BIL is that person who works insane hours at a job he doesn't really seem to like much but does because it pays obscenely well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

DP here, I don’t know what you think the PP should do instead. They might as well do something productive even if they don’t need the money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I love what I do, because I love the people I work with, because I'd be a terrible SAHM, because it gives our family health insurance, because working full time helps me be a better parent.

Fraud Alert. If you're truly wealthy you wouldn't need to work to get health insurance.

Also, doctors that serve the wealthy a lot of the times don't even take insurance. They're also concierge doctors more often than not.

DP. Depends on what you define as truly wealthy. My DH is comfortably a 1%er with a trust fund, but health insurance definitely factors in to our decisions to keep working. The cost of insurance for a family on the open market is insane. Throw in a cancer diagnosis, a few other random middle-aged health scares, and the prospect of many more decades of declining health, and yeah, we’ll stick around for that employer-sponsored plan a little longer.

Not if you're a true trust funder.

What’s the threshold for a true trust funder? I need to know if I can back out of this thread now and never come back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

DP - you are living a lifestyle that your working income can't support. Perhaps "entitled layabout" is too harsh, but it's pretty funny that you think that sets good example, or demonstrates responsible adulthood. Come on.

Am I reading the same thread? What do you know about this persons lifestyle relative to their income?

I am making the reasonable assumption that the trust fund family isn't living a lifestyle consistent with being a cube drone, as she indicated she was. That's a lot more reasonable than, as yu seem to suggest, assuming they don't touch the trust at all. But if she wants to correct me, then she can do so.

Cube drone here. You all are really beating up on me for some reason, when almost everyone else who responses cited virtually the same reasons for working. Maybe it was a poor choice of words in my initial post. Sorry if I sounded holier than thou, but I stand by my assertion that having working parents is good for my kids. I don’t care if you think it’s funny.

Anyway, tell me your “reasonable assumptions” about what my lifestyle looks like and I’ll tell you if you’re even close. There are a lot of assumptions about wealthy people tossed around on this site that are pretty far off the mark.

The lines are really blurry here. OP's question, I think, is if you are independently wealthy why do you work? A lot of people responding have some money coming in that they're not working for (trusts) but not so much that they don't have to work. If, for example, you have to think about how to fund expensive health insurance, you're not independently wealthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I love what I do, because I love the people I work with, because I'd be a terrible SAHM, because it gives our family health insurance, because working full time helps me be a better parent.

Fraud Alert. If you're truly wealthy you wouldn't need to work to get health insurance.

Also, doctors that serve the wealthy a lot of the times don't even take insurance. They're also concierge doctors more often than not.

DP. Depends on what you define as truly wealthy. My DH is comfortably a 1%er with a trust fund, but health insurance definitely factors in to our decisions to keep working. The cost of insurance for a family on the open market is insane. Throw in a cancer diagnosis, a few other random middle-aged health scares, and the prospect of many more decades of declining health, and yeah, we’ll stick around for that employer-sponsored plan a little longer.

Not if you're a true trust funder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

DP - you are living a lifestyle that your working income can't support. Perhaps "entitled layabout" is too harsh, but it's pretty funny that you think that sets good example, or demonstrates responsible adulthood. Come on.

Am I reading the same thread? What do you know about this persons lifestyle relative to their income?

I am making the reasonable assumption that the trust fund family isn't living a lifestyle consistent with being a cube drone, as she indicated she was. That's a lot more reasonable than, as yu seem to suggest, assuming they don't touch the trust at all. But if she wants to correct me, then she can do so.