Lion of the Blogosphere

Young adults benefit when their parents give them financial support

In a study published in August in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Dr. Manzoni found that young adults who are given financial help instead of living rent-free at home do better professionally.

The study looked at about 7,500 18- to 28-year-olds from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which tracks job status. It found that college graduates whose parents offered money, whether in the form of paid bills or cash outlays, did especially well professionally, while those who lived at home did especially poorly.

Graduates who got the most cash, $15,000 a year or more, did best of all, ranking six points higher on a scale of occupational status than those who got little or no financial help. Graduates living with their parents, on the other hand, ranked 10 points lower on the occupational status scale than their friends who lived independently.

This study proves that the old-fashioned and out-of-date ideas of certain blog commenters about how making your kids pay their own way gives them valuable “life lessons” in frugality and work ethic TURNS OUT TO BE COMPLETELY WRONG.

That bit of bad news, backed by observations like those of Mary Beth Storjohann, a financial planner who works with millennials and the generation behind them, may help persuade parents to write a check instead of insisting that grown children pay their own way.

“In my experience working with people in their 20s and 30s, the ones who get sums of money are moving forward at much faster paces than the ones who move home,” Ms. Storjohann said.

* * *

Lowe has written the best comment:

Clearly a lower class person can’t act on this advice, because he simply doesn’t have the money to spare. But some middle class people could afford giving their children $10k/year for a few years.

They should at least know the facts of the matter, before deciding out of hand that it’s wasteful. Maybe the most important information to have is that the wealthy give their children small amounts of money, to keep them afloat early on. You want to know what the winning strategy looks like, right?

Yes, you could be fatalistic and say that they only do this because they have excess money because of their superior genes, and their children are successful for the same reason. But that’s just telling people to give up without trying. You won’t know whether you or your children have good genes if you don’t try.

There are a lot of valuable lessons that middle class people could learn by watching what high class people do. You can’t just assume they don’t have success because they are naturally inferior. That will be true only sometimes.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 17, 2018 at 7:05 PM

Posted in Wealth

64 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. So instead of letting the kids stay at home rent-free, parents should rent out the basement to other people’s kids and give the added income to their own kids to pay the rent on someone else’s basement. Certainly a poor tax strategy.

    Squacky

    November 17, 2018 at 7:21 PM

  2. “I gave my 25 year old daughter $10,000 and she moved out and went to an apartment.”, said one happy Mother. “She’s now pursuing her dreams of being a poet in Greenwich Village instead of bringing in smelly boyfriends to smoke pot.”, she explained. The New York Times said that by paying your children money, they could afford to live somewhere else.

    Its a good thing we have journalists to reveal these things to us, huh?

  3. This one is sort of a mixed bag. First, kids whose parents are rich enough to give them >$15k/yr in cash undoubtedly ALREADY enjoy a ton of advantages — they probably went to private schools; they’ve been socialized in a way that makes them candidates for high-status jobs; they are more likely to come from two-parent families, etc. So while the cash is indeed a big help, these other advantages probably contribute just as much, or more, to their success.

    OTOH man you are SO RIGHT about the “advice” that many on the right give to their kids. A lot of it is just sour grapes or parochialism repackaged as “advice.” “I’m telling my kids to learn a trade.” “Why should I pay for four years of an expensive private college? My local community college followed by Directional State U is the way to go.” It’s certainly true that not everyone is going to be CEO; one can be perfectly happy and satisfied while leading a humdrum middle-class existence; and there are more important things in life than chasing the almighty dollar. But education is really important; blue-collar work isn’t nearly as remunerative as a lot of people think it is; and it’s your duty to help your parents however you can.

    Joe Schmoe

    November 17, 2018 at 7:34 PM

    • “blue-collar work isn’t nearly as remunerative as a lot of people think it is”

      Oh really?

      The future doesn’t look too good for yuppie type jobs either:

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256054177_The_Great_Reversal_in_the_Demand_for_Skill_and_Cognitive_Tasks

      sestamibi

      November 18, 2018 at 12:09 AM

      • The most successful blue-collar person makes $200,000 per year.

        The most successful white-collar person make $2,000,000 per year.

        It’s unlikely that you will have that much success in either field.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 18, 2018 at 10:03 AM

      • “As a college graduate with a degree in French Medieval Poetry, I can honesty say that the enrichment of the whole college experience really enriched me with enrichment.”
        So what do you do?
        “I’m a barista at Mermaid Coffee.”
        Do you have student loan debts?
        “Oh, sure. $50,000, and I’m getting another $50,000 to get a Masters in English Lit.”

        THE REAL STORY OF JULIA.

      • The most successful blue-collar person makes $200,000 per year.

        The most successful white-collar person make $2,000,000 per year.

        It’s unlikely that you will have that much success in either field.

        The problem is that you need to control for the innate differences between the average blue-collar guy who makes $200k and the finance/biglaw type who makes $2M (which is pretty high btw- not many in those fields earn even close to that). It’s not easy, since they usually come from entirely different strata of society, making direct comparison difficult.

        I’ve had kind of an unusual life trajectory: I’ve done years of blue-collar work and have many friends who still do it, but I also went to an elite grad school and have friends who work in fields like private equity, banking, and medicine. And there are large average differences between the two groups in both baseline talent and career preparation.

        Your average plumber or general contractor just kind of fell into the work at age 18 or so. Maybe his uncle was a plumber and offered him a summer job in high school, and he took it and just kept doing it. But he probably didn’t think about where he’d be in 10 years, or which initial job would set him up for success down the line. He probably worked locally, and never considered relocating for a few years to work for a big-time plumbing contractor in another city.

        The top white-collar types often spend more than a decade gunning for their jobs, and go into large amounts of student loan debt in many cases. Anyone who wants to be a doctor has to tailor her entire life around that goal for many years, and put enormous effort and planning into the process. That often entails bouncing around the country: college in one place, initial job in another city, grad school in a third city, etc. That can be true of finance and law as well.

        I live in high COL area where construction is expensive. I’m actually confident that someone talented enough to become a doctor could have a plumbing career with an equivalent or better NPV measured from age 18. A smart person who ditched all the time he would have spent on college, some research job, med school, residency, etc., and used it to build an extremely successful plumbing business would probably crush his plumbing competition and make bank. And with no prep time or student loans, he’d be a successful adult at a much earlier age. The doctor equivalent probably wouldn’t catch up to him until they were in their 40s.

        The biggest difference would be social rather than financial. College and the post-college network introduces you to a totally different set of potential friends and spouses. And the blue-collar stratum of society has gotten pretty messed up- see Charles Murray’s recent book.

        Anonymous Handle

        November 18, 2018 at 12:15 PM

      • The barrier to entry to having a super-successful plumbing business is much greater than these pro-blue-collar-job people assume, otherwise everyone would do it. Just because someone has the ability to graduate from med school doesn’t mean they have the ability to become a $200K+ plumber.

        If anything, it’s a lot easier to become an MD. You just follow the path until you get there, and then you have a guaranteed $200K+ income.

        The top 10% of plumbers only make $79K/year, which isn’t that much money compared to the top 10% of white-collar jobs (which is probably about $300,000/year). https://work.chron.com/much-money-master-plumbers-make-16120.html

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 18, 2018 at 12:26 PM

      • The barrier to entry to having a super-successful plumbing business is much greater than these pro-blue-collar-job people assume, otherwise everyone would do it. Just because someone has the ability to graduate from med school doesn’t mean they have the ability to become a $200K+ plumber.

        They aren’t doing it because they don’t know or just don’t want to. The efficient market hypothesis may be reasonably correct for publicly-traded stocks, but it’s not even close to correct for career choices.

        The plumbing barrier to entry is that you need to be licensed, which means you need to work for someone else for maybe 4 years and take classes. If you’re really on the ball you can do trade school and be done with the classes at 17 or 18, but otherwise you can do night classes at a local community college. Then you take an exam (which a normally-intelligent blue collar guy can pass). The process is faster than the white collar one, and you get paid the whole time.

        Anonymous Handle

        November 18, 2018 at 12:40 PM

      • “which isn’t that much money compared to the top 10% of white-collar jobs (which is probably about $300,000/year).”

        Sorry, that’s more like the 99th percentile of income, not the 90th percentile.

        MoreSigmasThanYou

        November 19, 2018 at 12:03 PM

      • I’m glad I miscopied something, now I don’t feel as poor. So $144K or something like that is more correct.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 19, 2018 at 1:33 PM

    • Joe Schmoe wrote:
      “, kids whose parents are rich enough to give them >$15k/yr in cash undoubtedly ALREADY enjoy a ton of advantages — ”

      Exactly. Possibly the main advantage being that they share some genes with someone who was able to get that rich.

      I’m reading “Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are ” by Robert Plomin, Just about everything is controlled by genes except random events, according to Plomin.

      Rosenmops

      November 18, 2018 at 1:15 PM

  4. Living at your parent’s home is also a form of financial support. You sound like you’re thinking about the situation where the kids “pay their own way” by paying their own rent but that’s not what the article appears to be about.

    IHTG

    November 17, 2018 at 7:37 PM

  5. Well come on, the ones getting financial support most likely have wealthier parents which means their children have higher IQs and better access to their parents’ professional network.

    CamelCaseRob

    November 17, 2018 at 7:40 PM

    • Agreed, this sounds like any other so-called parenting effect that doesn’t control for genetics.

      Horace Pinker

      November 17, 2018 at 8:00 PM

    • Yes, kids with parents who can pay for their rent come from higher socio-economic backgrounds, meaning they have more genes for intelligence, higher education, and social skills. And those are the real reasons they are so successful.

      GondwanaMan

      November 18, 2018 at 6:09 AM

    • Exactly. For many families, a rent-free room is about all the support they can give.

      Richard

      November 18, 2018 at 10:51 AM

  6. ‘This study proves that the old-fashioned and out-of-date ideas of certain blog commenters about how making your kids pay their own way gives them valuable “life lessons” in frugality and work ethic TURNS OUT TO BE COMPLETELY WRONG.’

    I don’t think that it’s COMPLETELY WRONG. It depends on the circumstances, obviously. Personally, I’ve supported my married kids to the tune of a small fortune, but this has been a norm in the Jewish Orthodox society since forever. The question that should be asked and answered is what has changed that the traditional American model of self-reliance is no longer viable. I haven’t read the article, but I doubt that it deals with the issue, but you, Lion, should.

    Yakov

    November 17, 2018 at 8:22 PM

    • “But according to the sociologist Anna Manzoni, an associate professor at North Carolina State University”

      There is your problem.

      A vanishingly small percentage of sociology experiments are replicable.

      There is really no reason to think this result is valid.

      You’d have to be a fool to abandon the wisdom of the Gods of the Copybook headings to run after the ill-formed musing of some Sociology chippie.

      Lion o' the Turambar

      November 18, 2018 at 6:02 PM

  7. kicking your kids out without help is prole. also letting them live at home is prole (source: my neighbors). So that leaves the option above.

    Joe

    November 17, 2018 at 9:02 PM

    • Of course living at home rent free is not a good situation. Why? Because you have to tell everyone at work that you live at home. None of this will make you look good and it will affect your career.

      map

      November 17, 2018 at 10:52 PM

      • You help your kids generate the appearance of a working adult.

        Heck, are we going to read articles about how “helicopter parenting” is now good?

        map

        November 17, 2018 at 10:53 PM

    • These days I only hear of kids being kicked out if drugs or something equally unsavory are involved. The goodbye, you’re on your own mentality is pretty rare these days.

      toomanymice

      November 18, 2018 at 8:24 AM

      • I agree, although parents failing to offer positive, useful advice continues to be a major problem in prole communities.

        Richard

        November 18, 2018 at 10:56 AM

  8. Is this a “duh” test?

    Vipltd

    November 17, 2018 at 9:03 PM

  9. In the U.S. we have nuclear families, not tribal multi-generational ones. When you come of age, you move out. The “generation gap” (hate your parents) needs to come back.

    Anthony

    November 17, 2018 at 9:41 PM

    • Despite my comments elsewhere about resenting my prole upbringing and envying UMC friends and classmates whose parents did things like help them buy their first house, I sort of agree with this. My Indian friend pointed out that when some Indian young adult, say a graduating med student about to start residency, goes to look at a new apartment, the entire family goes with them. Not just one parent, or even both parents, but but both parents plus all the brothers and sisters. There are posts on Student Doctor Network from Asians whose parents not only forced them to become doctors, but try to dictate their specific choice of specialty as well, and on the subject of money they say things like “there’s no my money vs. my parents’ money, it’s all just our money.” Basically, in these cultures you can’t do anything without the approval of the entire family, and the highest priority in every life choice you make is how it will affect the family as a whole. I can’t help but think that importing such amoral familism is bad for the fabric of American society.

      Hermes

      November 18, 2018 at 4:37 PM

    • “we have nuclear families”
      And are all the worse for it in many ways. Nothing says “family values” like institutionalizing your parents in a $5k a month dump nursing home because “muh nuke family”. This is not western values, but “me first” American values – a modern invention. Europeans don’t dump their elders so casually. The Japanese have extended families that often look after the grandparents etc. without the overbearing dysfunction of the South Asian model referenced bellow. This model is somewhat reciprocal, hence some hikkikomori children also get sheltered into adulthood, alas.

      The incredible financial burden of homes that bill Ritz tier charges to Medicaid/Medicare could be eased if more selfish kids took in Mom or Dad instead of expecting taxpayers to carry their unfilial choices in life.

      Sanjuro

      November 19, 2018 at 3:31 AM

  10. So, the kids of the wealthy do better. Who would have thought it? (And yes, if you have $15,000/year to squander on financing your kid’s adventures, you are wealthy.)

    raoulduke2767

    November 18, 2018 at 12:05 AM

  11. My first instinct is that it is a correlation but doesn’t necessarily shows causation and there could be other reasons why this correlation exists.
    However, thinking about it, in the old times when people lived with their family until they got married, they tended to get married vary early so they also left home very early. After that they didn’t get married but still left home at the same age more or less. Staying at home to a late age is an anomaly.
    Anecdotally, I got a self made rich friend who is still living with his parents in his mid 30’s, he is also very successful with women, deeply christian and has a very alpha personality, I guess when you got it you just got it.

    Hashed

    November 18, 2018 at 1:12 AM

  12. You have to wonder what is the cause and what is the effect.

    Does giving children money after college help them get better career opportunities.

    Or

    Or does having better career opportunities make them less likely to live at home and more likely to ask for money instead.

    I would think that more of the ones taking money have some job lined up, even if it is low paying and more of the ones living with parents have no job lined up and few prospects of finding one.

    MikeCA

    November 18, 2018 at 1:44 AM

  13. It is interesting that the number of studies based on PSID data exceeds the number of families that participated in PSID. Every day a new publication in some journal comes out based on its data.

    My 2¢

    November 18, 2018 at 2:02 AM

  14. Clearly it’s better for an ambitious, competent child to get a little help from their parents so they can pursue a potentially lucrative career track than for a lazy, incompetent kid to live in their old bedroom working a dead-end job. But it’s putting the car before the horse to think that paying for a kid to have their own apartment will lead to lucrative career track. So a lot depends on the kid and the circumstances.

    It’s kind of claiming that people with university degrees make a lot more than people without. So, therefore, everyone should get a university degree. That assumes all things are equal when they’re not. Some people really are better off learning a trade. In fact, I’d argue that even some very smart people would have been better off learning a trade. I know a number of people who’ve started their own electrical, plumbing, etc companies and made millions. I also know lots of people with postgraduate degrees who haven’t.

    I believe there are sensible rules of thumb for what works. But they’re not laws. And you need to understand them and not just follow blindly. One should use some judgement.

    destructure

    November 18, 2018 at 3:03 AM

  15. When I was dating in New York City, it was not uncommon for the girls to be living with their parents. The value of letting your children live at home depends on the how good the local job market is.

    Beliavsky

    November 18, 2018 at 7:14 AM

  16. All living organisms benefit from being challenged. We grow and get stronger through adversity. The modern swpl idea that children benefit from over protection is a fallacy. This concept, of prolonged adolescence, is very new to the world and already has shown to have serious negative consequences. It delays family formation. It increases indebtedness through hyper consumption and student loans for superfulous degrees in order to “find oneself”. It has created the snowflake culture of personal and professional weakness. As many have pointed out here, children who receive cash from their parents have primarily benefited from their parents’ connections and genetics. Not from the money itself. People need to grow up when they are 20 and not 40. Otherwise, they themselves as well as society at large are robbed of them reaching their full potential. Great historical figures are usually people whose character was forged by being tested from an early age. They did not receive rent stipends until they were middle aged. I am not saying that we should not pay for our children’s education or let them live at home. But once they are done with grad school, say 24, they need to be out and gone for good. Do not put too much trust in the value of overindulgence by rich parents. Elite decadence has often done more harm than good.

    B.T.D.T.

    November 18, 2018 at 7:47 AM

    • ” Great historical figures are usually people whose character was forged by being tested from an early age. They did not receive rent stipends until they were middle aged.”

      That’s what the history books want you to THINK.

      When the NY Times heavily investigated Donald Trump, they discovered that his father Fred gave him a lot of help for a long time.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 18, 2018 at 10:06 AM

      • Trump is an outlier who has a tremendous amount of natural energy and ambition. The average child would not benefit from his father’s help, they would take advantage of it for as long as they can. I’ve known a lot more rich kids over the years who have become drug addled dilletantes than captains of industry.

        B.T.D.T.

        November 18, 2018 at 11:31 AM

      • Great historical figures get challenged early.

        What does that have to do with Trump?

        njguy73

        November 18, 2018 at 11:59 AM

      • Trump’s older brother drank himself to death.

        toomanymice

        November 18, 2018 at 2:31 PM

  17. Staying at home is great from a wealth preservation standpoint. Of course a financial advisor will steer you into spending money. Looking back, I wish I stayed at home a few more years instead of renting a place. I was just throwing away money that could have gone to a down payment on a better place than I bought.

    j4049478

    November 18, 2018 at 8:16 AM

    • For a woman that is fine, I suppose. But a young man living at home usually takes a big hit to his self esteem, which is one of his most important assets in life.

      Lowe

      November 18, 2018 at 2:07 PM

  18. This would only be of note if they compared the group receiving money to a group that was offered money but refused it. Otherwise it just goes in the duh category as someone else noted.

    toomanymice

    November 18, 2018 at 8:22 AM

  19. I can’t believe Lion fell for this. The article is clearly written for the wealthy; those who can support multiple households of their children while they wait to find themselves. In what way is the “good advice” applicable to the working and middle class? Next you’ll be giving us “good advice’ on which services provide the best live in help. “Studies show” the mansion is cleaner when you have someone full time cleaning it.

    Mike Street Station

    November 18, 2018 at 8:23 AM

    • One of the stats for the NYT advertiser kit is reader yachts per capita.

      Monsieur le Baron

      November 18, 2018 at 12:56 PM

    • Clearly a lower class person can’t act on this advice, because he simply doesn’t have the money to spare. But some middle class people could afford giving their children $10k/year for a few years.

      They should at least know the facts of the matter, before deciding out of hand that it’s wasteful. Maybe the most important information to have is that the wealthy give their children small amounts of money, to keep them afloat early on. You want to know what the winning strategy looks like, right?

      Yes, you could be fatalistic and say that they only do this because they have excess money because of their superior genes, and their children are successful for the same reason. But that’s just telling people to give up without trying. You won’t know whether you or your children have good genes if you don’t try.

      There are a lot of valuable lessons that middle class people could learn by watching what high class people do. You can’t just assume they don’t have success because they are naturally inferior. That will be true only sometimes.

      Lowe

      November 18, 2018 at 2:17 PM

    • lion’s parenting advice is mostly indirect griping at his own parents and upbringing both of which he blames for his perceived privations in life.

      toomanymice

      November 18, 2018 at 5:58 PM

      • True, it can be annoying when people harp on personal subjects, but in this case I don’t blame Lion. It sucks to grow up prole and have that as your background when you’ve got the intellect, temperament, and disposition to fit in more with the UMC, but you can never quite truly and fully fit in, and have trouble making the same kind of career progress and meeting and marrying the “right” kind of spouse, because of your prole background.

        Hermes

        November 19, 2018 at 8:55 AM

  20. Everyone I know graduated with student debt, except two. My wife because she lived frugally, hardly ever went out; and my high school bud’s wife. She managed to SAVE money during her study.

    At the time I wondered how that was possible, but I had never seen or met her. Turned out she was the kind of woman men throw money at just to be around her. How my buddy managed to catch & keep her I’ll never know.

    FD: I paid of my debts with bitcoin profits in ’13, but I probably woud have been better off today w/ the bitcoin 😦 Both my parents are dsad, so supporting me was no option.

    Maciano

    November 18, 2018 at 12:42 PM

  21. As I mentioned above, I have a pretty good window into the construction industry in an expensive blue city and suburbs. There is a ton of this going on in nice urban neighborhoods and the inner-ring suburbs with good schools. I’ve worked with some of these new homeowners. These are married people in their thirties with college or even grad degrees, good jobs, kids, and two incomes. But they still couldn’t buy or renovate these houses without the parents’ help. So if see people in your social circle buying in a posh town with great schools and you wonder “how can they afford that?”, the answer is quite likely that their parents are giving them money for the down payment. It’s definitely a thing.

    Anonymous Handle

    November 18, 2018 at 1:05 PM

  22. This reminds me of studies where kids who got allowances are worse with money than kids that don’t. But that doesn’t control for prolishness, so who knows what the real effect is?

    Monsieur le Baron

    November 18, 2018 at 1:10 PM

    • I think having income you take for granted is a recipe for under-appreciating the utility of saving. As a child, I knew enough not to even ask my mother for an allowance. When I moved to be near my father’s mother in my early teens, she started giving me the princely sum of $20/wk. From that point on, it seemed like I always had money in my pocket. I’m sure the years of not having money had something to do with that.

      MoreSigmasThanYou

      November 19, 2018 at 11:05 AM

  23. yes. the idea that all parental reponsibilities end at age 18 is antiquated and prole. antiquated because it has become almost impossible to make a living wage with a high school degree only and with no experience and prole because what the proletariat lacks, intergenerational wealth, makes such a sentiment unnecessary and prole because expecting an 18 year old to figure it out without advice from his parents means you’re an idiot and should never have had children. of course in a non-shitty society kids would get saga advice and guidance from more than just their parents.

    suicide by libertarian overdose

    November 18, 2018 at 3:28 PM

    • “of course in a non-shitty society kids would get saga advice and guidance from more than just their parents.”

      A strangely wise idea.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 18, 2018 at 4:53 PM

      • should’ve been …sage advice… of course. only icelandic parents can give saga advice.

        suicide by libertarian overdose

        November 19, 2018 at 3:04 PM

  24. independence at 18 is also antihistorical. 200+ years ago the family was the business. so the sons grew up to work the same land their parents worked and the daughters married into another family nearby. or the blacksmith’s son worked along side his father until his father died at age 40 from cholera or something like that.

    suicide by libertarian overdose

    November 18, 2018 at 3:37 PM

  25. As others have said, the title of this post is kind of misleading. Because the article isn’t about people whose parents gave them financial support vs. those who didn’t; it’s about about people whose parents gave them financial support in the form of cash payments so they could live independently, vs. those whose parents gave them financial support in the form of letting them live with them rent-free. The truly prole thing to do is the “eighteen and out” philosophy, which is neither of the above. That was the way it was for me (though it was really twenty-two and out): as soon as I graduated from college, my father wanted me to either start paying him rent, or become totally self-supporting and move out.

    This topic resonates with me because, as I’ve said before, coming from a prole family and going to medical school, I was shocked when I encountered people whose parents were still helping them financially well into adulthood. According to the philosophy by which I had been raised, doing something like, say, buying a condo for your kid to live in rent-free during medical school would cause him to become “spoiled,” and he wouldn’t learn the value of hard work, would probably fail or drop out of medical school, and become a loser with no real job. Instead, I observed the exact opposite: people who pulled up to the first day of med school in a late-model Infiniti did well in med school, matched into competitive specialties, and became very successful.

    Hermes

    November 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM

    • Did your parents make you work summer jobs while in high school and college?

      Monsieur le Baron

      November 18, 2018 at 6:17 PM

      • No, my parents were both kind of listless people. My father’s mentality wasn’t that of the well-intentioned but misguided prole who wanted his kids to be successful; he just wasn’t successful himself and didn’t want to have to keep supporting kids. Early in high school, I knew some other kids who had jobs and I thought it might be nice to have some spending money, so I put in a few applications to be a busboy at restaurants, but after not hearing back, just gave up. My last summer in high school, my mother kind of got on my case a little to get a job, but I didn’t feel like it so I didn’t. In college, I did because I wanted/needed the money.

        Hermes

        November 18, 2018 at 7:08 PM

      • Your parents sound like selfish people. That sucks. At least you’re doing well now, right?

        Monsieur le Baron

        November 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM

      • I would describe my father as selfish; my mother less so but like I said they were both lackadaisical and underachievers. With my mother, it was more just that she didn’t have the resources; she had done one year of community college but then dropped out to run off with my dad because she was young, dumb, and in love, he was her Alpha, and she never thought she’d have to do anything other than be his wife. I’m doing okay now financially, though neither my career nor personal life are really where I wanted them to be because, as I lamented in a different comment, when you come from a prole background, no matter how much you pull yourself up by your bootstraps, there remain certain key ways in which you don’t quite fit into the UMC world.

        Hermes

        November 19, 2018 at 1:27 PM

    • Yeah…that stupidity about hard work and not spoiling your kid is a total lie.

      map

      November 18, 2018 at 6:41 PM

      • We all know being “spoiled” (read: selfish and lazy) is a genetic trait and unrelated to parental grooming. An altruistic introspective person will never mooch off of their parents more than they have to because such a person experiences emotional pain from such behavior. Likewise vice versa for genetically inclined grifters.

        Same as the sociopath and psychopath post from a while back.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lap Dog

        November 18, 2018 at 10:21 PM

  26. Genetic confounding?

    JayMan

    November 19, 2018 at 3:12 PM

  27. How are we defining “Middle Class”? If we mean just, say, the 50th to 90th percentile of the population, income-wise, most probably can’t afford $15K per year for several years or more, especially on top of the college debt to go to a uni that gets you on track for the type of career that would make it worth it to shell out that kind of money for several years or more. Just paying for health insurance, if you don’t qualify for a subsidy, can max out the budget of many Middle-income families.

    It’s also possible that while the upper classes support their more promising offspring, they cut off the ones who are obvious bad investments like Lena Dunham’s character in “Girls”, but more expeditiously.

    Georgia Resident

    November 20, 2018 at 8:21 AM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: