this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
238 points (95.4% liked)

News

23634 readers
2813 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The “Bank of Mum and Dad” drives modern inequality, fostering an “inheritocracy” where family wealth shapes opportunities over individual merit. This safety net often undermines social mobility, tying success to inheritance rather than personal effort.

Rising housing costs, wage stagnation, and unequal inheritance have entrenched this dynamic, with parental support shaping life milestones like homeownership, career paths, and education.

While early inheritances advantage some, the burden of social care costs threatens others’ expectations.

This growing reliance on family wealth exacerbates inequality within and across generations, highlighting the need for a broader societal conversation about privilege and fairness.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 61 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

My parents were quite wealthy and they wasted almost all of it in a nasty 8-year long divorce battle.

They sold most of their belongings in estate sales because they couldnt stop fighting about who owned what so the court decided no one owned anything and they all sold everything for cheap. Infrared sauna sold for $200.

Now both parents are retired, one has fuck you money that they hid away on an offshore account and fled the country so spousal support doesn’t garnish from their retirement funds, and the other is very broke with virtually nothing to their name.

Guess who needs to support them?

I guess I’m just a lil salty. I’m not entitled to anything but just sucks thinking about what would happen if I came from a happy home instead.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

It's not just a happy home, it's a Goldilocks thing. So many things have to go exactly right. I came from a happy home, with parents who were upper middle class. Perfectly positioned for what the article describes. My parents were even able to give me a couple hundred dollars for my rent for a few years. But because they sold houses as they moved around they didn't have the level of wealth that would mean they could straight up bankroll me buying a house. Or give me a stable place of my own with no rent at all.

The fact that we are dependent on intergenerational wealth to even get started on the classic American dream stuff is ridiculous and worth a political fight.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And the hell of it is, the government can force you to. They have full authority to garnish your wages and give it to your parents, even if you don’t want to support them.

[–] bollybing@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What in the hell? Where on earth is that legal?

[–] Kite@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

Filial responsibility laws. There are some ways to get around them, but it requires having good parents that care about your future and a good elder law attorney.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not the USA, but several countries including China make elderly care the legal responsibility of their children.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have never heard of this happening in the USA. The closest I've heard of is some states enforcing grandparents' rights to visit their grandchildren, but I've never heard of any American government entity forcing children to take care of their parents.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just because you haven’t heard of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or doesn’t happen. Another poster already linked the Wikipedia article, but they’re called Filial Responsibility Laws. The states that have them are:

Alaska Arkansas California Connecticut Delaware Georgia Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Mississippi Nevada New Jersey North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia West Virginia

Iowa used to but they got rid off them in 2015.

[–] QualifiedKitten@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Any clue how those laws work if parent and child live in different states?

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

From what I can tell, it’s based off the state the parent lives in.

[–] QualifiedKitten@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That's kinda what I assumed, but say the parent lives in a state with filial responsibility laws, but the child doesn't. Can the child still be forced to support their parents? A brief internet search suggests maybe, but these laws are generally not enforced (except Pennsylvania), and also usually take into account the child's ability to support the parent.

Just seems pretty fucked up that someone's parents could move to State B with these laws to retire, and suddenly their kids, who have never lived in State B, are potentially being held to State B's laws.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, it sounds like it might be a great case to run up the flagpole to SCOTUS for an official ruling, since it crosses state lines.

Like ..okay the child is behaving in a way inconsistent with State B Law, but they're not in State B. That happens all the damn time, every day, with vice laws, weed laws, gun laws, etc.

Also, presumably, if the child moved out of the country, State B would be completely unable to enforce its laws in country B. So there's a limit to this enforcement, but where is it?

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Unless I move to Alberta, where filial responsibility laws don’t exist.