I know opinions on this vary a lot depending on the country and culture, so I’m curious what others think. Personally, I have a 22-year-old son. I bought him a house and a car, I pay for his university tuition (his grades are high enough for a state-subsidized spot, but we feel that should go to someone more in need), and I basically support him fully. We want him to focus on his studies and enjoy this stage of his life. He will finish his dentistry degree in 2028, and then we plan to finance the opening of his private practice. We’ll stop providing financial support once he’s earning enough to live comfortably on his own. I see many parents online (especially in North America) talking about kids moving out at 18, paying rent to live at home, and covering their own bills, and it honestly shocks me. That feels unfathomable to me. I believe that as parents, we have a duty to give our children a good life since we brought them into this world.
I personally think having a solid foundation in life is important. A home, reliable transportation, and a useful or profitable degree all work together to create stability. When those basics are covered, you’re able to focus on work, relationships, interests, and actually living your life.
You have singlehandedly removed the biggest obstacles he would have faced otherwise. It will make his life easier and “let him focus on other things”, sure, but don’t think for a second that you didn’t put him in a very privileged position from which he never learned to struggle and advance on his own merits. You have planned out everything for him in advance, up to opening his own practice, which I personally think is too much micromanagement from a parent.
This OP post has got to be fake. I can’t believe the number of people taking it seriously and then agreeing.
i live in boston ma.
probably like 10-20% of the population is like OP. tons of wealthy people who have planned and paid out their childrens entire lives.
and their children still hate them… and are often massively immature and childish because they will never have to be adults who made their own choices, pay their own bills, etc.
it is very real, and very common among the top 10% wealthiest americans. the types who go ivy league schools.
I’ve met people like this.
Literally enough money to never work and still live comfortably. I was talking to a wife of one that made her husband start a business simply because he was out golfing too much.
Yeah, this reeks of the other creative writing posts that have been cropping up here from time to time.
Decent question for discussion with a minorly contreversial/odd twist, from a brand new account as the only post on it.
I’ll give OP credit for actually responding twice in the comments. Most of the time these types of posts they just drop it and run, then delete it between a few hours and a day later.
I’m actually quite surprised how many here seem to be agreeing with this considering the level of resentment towards wealthy people I see here on daily basis.
because people don’t like it when other people are welathy… but if they were wealthy they’d do the same things the wealtyh do that they hate.
and they don’t see the irony or hypocracy. because it’s ‘different’ if they do it. and only bad if someone else does it.
It’s a great topic to bait class conflict.
I imagine a lot of lemmy users are tech-savvy, decent jobs, basically ‘comfortable’ in life. People who consider college education a necessity and part of parental responsibility, whether that means paying tuition outright, co-signing loans, or just letting their kid live at home until graduation.
I also imagine a lot of lemmy users are young people, struggling to balance the increasingly burdensome costs of housing, life, maybe school debt (depending on nationality). Maybe with their own kids put completely off the table by their immediate financial situation.
Both of those stereotypes can resent wealthy people. That first group means trust-fund kids and nepo-babies who graduate into leadership positions in their parents’ companies. The second group means the first.
FR. My dad is dead and my mom is broke. And she’s partially broke because she helped me pay for college and I’m beyond grateful. But there’s no way she could help me financially anymore.
I actually know a lot of people from where I went to high school who were treated this way…
yep, this is classic helicopter parenting
Most people don’t have that level of wealth or privledge.
for them life is a grind of acquiring the basics.
What if you gave him so much money that he’d never have to work again? Then he’d have even more time to focus on relationships and personal interests. Would that still be a net good thing? And if not, how is that any different?
When I think back on my life, the meaningful parts aren’t just about getting things - they’re about working toward them. My first car was a cheap piece of junk, but I bought it with money I earned myself, and I loved that thing. I’ve gone from one cheap rental to a slightly better one, and eventually to being able to buy my first house. It’s an old, tiny granny cottage, but I paid for it with my own earnings, and I’m sure I’m far more emotionally attached to it than I’d ever be to a nicer house someone just gave me.
The same goes for my body - I’ve spent decades working out to look the way I do. That process has taught me more about discipline and effort than almost anything else. It’s not something I’d ever want handed to me.
There’s a term for this - the IKEA effect. Studies show people value their IKEA furniture more than pre-assembled, more expensive pieces because they built it themselves. I think that applies to life too. It’s not about the destination - it’s about the journey.
Well, I view money as a means to an end, not an end in itself. I don’t believe money or material possessions provide innate fulfillment. If I were a billionaire with unlimited money, I’d absolutely want him to just enjoy life doing whatever he wanted. This idea that struggle is necessary for fulfillment or personal growth has never made sense to me. With freedom and resources, there are countless skills, passions, and pursuits that could bring purpose and joy.
That has nothing to do with the push back you’re seeing.
This here, the personal growth bit.
At some point in your child’s life, you will not be there as a safety net when something serious happens. If you are incredibly wealthy, make good investments, and have an abundance of time, then you may be able to reduce that to coming when you die. Or it may be something outside of personal control, like a serious health issue that can’t be solved by tossing money at it for better care.
The longer they go without having to navigate a serious situation like that, the less prepared they will be.
This isn’t just “gut feeling” shit. You can find text on the importance of allowing failure and natural consequences in early childhood education books, parenting books, even some management books. Studies have been done.
Edit: Reading some of your other responses, it sounds like while you’re providing, you also haven’t just let your kid coast on by just on your support, and have made sure they’re still oearning life skills. Don’t get me wrong, the first big life problem will still hit them hard, but it sounds like you’re doing what you can to help them be prepared to navigate it.
Unfortunately, I’m used to seeing the big monetary support be tied with not giving much support to the kid otherwise. Glad to hear that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
There are levels of support and none are inherently bad. It’s up to the parents to raise the child right and the child to use the opportunities to reach greater heights than their parents.
You would have been more prepared for problems had your parents dropped you off on the streets of a city when you were 15.
My parents died when I was young. That gave me survival focus. Decades ago I had a coworker with similar childhood where his parents were teachers but his parents didn’t die. His parents support allowed him to be more successful at a younger age than me.
The entire premise of education is that you get to stand on the shoulders of giants instead of being thrown alone in a mud hut and figure out everything yourself.
That is one side of the coin. But what if he gets into financial trouble later in life, when you’re no longer there, or otherwise able to support him? Addictions, accidents, bad business ownership, legal trouble - there are lots of ways people can inadvertently lose everything they have.
If you’ve never learned how to build stuff up from the ground up, it will be a lot harder to recover.
There are valuable lessons in earning your own house and working for your keep. If everything comes easy it’s going to be a problem when things get tough. You can only hope you set them up well enough that there’s never going to be financial woes.
My main concern is the kid might feel entitled to what they are provided from their parents. That is not necessarily a problem in of itself, but I would be worried if my kids are not aware of how hard it would be to get a house or a car from nothing, because they never need to work for it. And I would be very upset if they cannot empathize with people who are not provided these things by their parents, hence doesn’t support public projects that benefit the less fortunate.
You sound like an amazing parent. I hope your kid carries this sense of providing stability until the next generation can provide their own stability on to the next generation.
Is this and the upvotes an alt?