NY Times column about parents who give children financial support

There’s a Your Money column in yesterday’s NY Times in which Ron Lieber writes about how some parents help their children financially and some parents don't. And he references the very important essay by the Canadian journalist, which I previously blogged about.

Steve Sailer sarcastically writes “Breaking News.” But his take is wrong. The fact that some parents help their children and some don’t, and the extent to which that help matters, is a very hidden part of our economy. People who receive help from their parents don’t talk about it. People who complain about not getting help are considered whiners and losers. In a sidebar blog post, Lieber writes:

So if you’re someone who has made it with no help at all, do you make a point of saying so to job interviewers and others? And if you’ve had plenty of help along the way, do you think you deserve less credit for accomplishing whatever it is you have achieved?

I’ve never heard of a single person who publicly takes less credit because he or she received parental help. And I can’t imagine how you could possibly put on your resume that your parents are poor and stupid and gave you no help when you were younger, and have that in any way increase your chances of getting a job.

But I’m happy to see that this topic is finally coming out of the closet into the mainstream media.

Comments

[AllanF]

"finally coming out of the closet into the mainstream media "

Don't worry, it will quickly be brushed back under the rug. Unless, that is, Dem's plan to use it to buy votes of the 25-34 y.o.'s by offering to cover their crushing student load debts.

Obviously buying off a mere 47% of the electorate is still cutting these presidential elections a little too close.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"The fact that some parents help their children and some don’t, and the extent to which that help matters, is a very hidden part of our economy."

Sailer's right. This isn't news.

That the NYTimes is surprised by this only means their columnists and reporters are even lazier, cocooned, clueless and unsophisticated than I had imagined. But I'm not really surprised; you can't expect much from journalist and humanities majors. Basic arithmetic is hard and all that.

[AE]

I've always wonder why so many poor and lower-middle class parents routinely kick their kids out as soon as possible and force them to "make it on their own." Don't they realize that this puts their kids at a major disadvantage in life? The other parents would never let their child even risk falling below the socio-economic status they were born into.

[Joe Walker]

I guess the New York Times is surprised that parents want to financially help their adult children when they could be donating that money to Obama's reelection campaign.

[Secret of NAM]

Over half of the staff at the NYT is Jewish, so they know what kibbutzim are. I await the point where you extol raising children in groups away from their families so that everything can FINALLY be fair. Truly, HS, it takes a village to raise a child.

(Except you'll want racially segregated creches for the usual reasons.)

[HS: I have no idea what it's like to live on a kibbutz, no more than you.]

[GLS]

I agree with Half that this is pretty important, mainstream recognition of what has been talked about on this blog and others. Parents with the means to do so probably should help their kids out. We no longer live in a world of boundless opportunities. Success in one's career is increasingly becoming a winner-take-all scenario and if you don't have an Ivy League background/connections to open doors for you, you need to pay your dues and work your way up, which is becoming harder and harder.

I have an informal mentoring relationship with a couple of people in their early 20's. Both of them graduated from state colleges with non-technical degrees. What I keep telling them is to take advantage of the fact that they are junior in experience and therefore are cheaper. When a company looks at me, they see a senior-level resource that they likely have to pay 100K or more. When they look at these two, they see people they can pay 35-45K. So I tell them, take advantage of this and think of these jobs as paid internships. The payoff will come later. Give it five years.

[Hermann]

I should have commented this on your post about the Canadian who couldn't get a journalism job until she got an inheritance to enable her to do the unpaid internships which are now pre-reqs for journalism jobs, and which are really a filter designed to exclude people who lack connections, either in the narrow sense or the broader one of "coming from the right class-- the nomenklatura."

The point is, in the US, Canada, and Western Europe, journalism is becoming EXACTLY like what it was in the old Soviet Union-- an entirely elite, prestigious though vacuous, somehow high-paying despite low-productivity, government-subsidized* occupation for the children of the upper class who are too dim to become investment bankers but still good at regurgitating the regime's propaganda (note how the Canadian journalist genuflects to the notion of "white privilege" even though she obviously had none).

I can still pull pre-'89 books off the shelf describing how prestigious "journalism" was in the Soviet Union, how only the children of Party members with top jobs could enter college schools of journalism-- from which they would go to papers or magazines or radio or TV with depending on how good their parents' connections (Klass) were, with the very top plums being "foreign affairs" journalism because of the travel (meaning the opportunity to buy jeans abroad, among other things).

*Just for example, most TV stations in the US would be out of business if it weren't for the Federal government propping them up with cable and satellite "must carry" and related rules (too complex to explain here, but trust me on this). And for cronyism, Solyndra is a joke next to FCC licensing shenanigans.

[Secret of NAM]

[HS: I have no idea what it's like to live on a kibbutz, no more than you.]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz_Communal_child_rearing_and_collective_education

There's nothing new about any of your Marxism except for the inclusion (barely) of HBD.

[map]

Steve Sailer brought up a topic on his site a long time ago, one that I still remember.

He asked if, in the past, societies that were based on hereditary privilege knew that that they were based on hereditary privilege. Was it understood that the reason why Jeeves was a butler and King George was a king is because George picked the right parents and Jeeves did not? If so, then it seemed that such societies developed a mutual respect and understanding where everyone understood the role they had to play.

How much we have fallen since then with the introduction of the "meritocracy." Hereditary privilege still matters, not only with money and connections but with the very genes that you inherit. Yet, the born unlucky are seen as losers and whiners.

It's enough to want the whole of society to burn to the ground.

[map]

I've always wonder why so many poor and lower-middle class parents routinely kick their kids out as soon as possible and force them to "make it on their own."
__________________

Because those parents bought into the meritocratic lies of this society.

[Drole Prole]

Many people feel if they've been shat upon, others should be too. Many Americans have been shat upon; therefore, "It's not fair John's parents paid for his tuition and living expenses. What a spoiled entitled leeching brat. I worked 40 hours a week to pay for college. When my child goes to college, he will get zip in spite of my current net worth totaling over $1 million and growing. Since I've been shat upon, so should my child and everyone else's child." When the fact is, if the shat upon were handed out money from family members to pay for school, they'd take it.

[Drole Prole]

Furthermore, in spite of the shat upon kicking his son from the house at 18 and providing not a single cent, he demands his child to take him in or to move in with him during old age and not send them to a nursing home.

[Bubba]

Great documentaries somewhat related to this topic are, "Born Rich", and "The 1%", by Jaime Johnson, a Johnson & Johnson heir. One particular part of the documentary stands out where one of the grandchildren of Warren Buffet discusses growing up in the family. She was disowned by Buffet after the film was released.

Videos can be watched for free here:

The One Percent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc

Born Rich:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7457140802142500840

[tiny]

"Furthermore, in spite of the shat upon kicking his son from the house at 18 and providing not a single cent, he demands his child to take him in or to move in with him during old age and not send them to a nursing home."

It's even worse if the old fart has dementia and needs 24 hour care to keep him safe. Thankfully, I didn't have Kick 'Em Out parents.

As for the Kick 'Em Out demographic, it seems to be mostly prolish Northern Europeans who do this. I have never seen an Italian family do this. Even Italian proles let their sons live with them until their mid thirties. And I have never, never seen Jewish families do this. The adult children may not live in the same house but they usually get an allowance that pays toward their living expenses.

[Just Speculating]

"We no longer live in a world of boundless opportunities. Success in one's career is increasingly becoming a winner-take-all scenario and if you don't have an Ivy League background/connections to open doors for you, you need to pay your dues and work your way up, which is becoming harder and harder".

Which goes back to the my idea that Proles will be heading for extinction, and the blue collar occupations will be taken up by the educated classes.

[J1]

"Don't they realize that this puts their kids at a major disadvantage in life?"

While there's a near certainty an upper middle class kid kicked to the street at 18 would drop to a lower socioeconomic class, the likelihood of that happening to a poor or lower middle class kid treated the same way is nearly zero. The kid from the poorer family is disadvantaged in terms of moving up in the world, but hasn't really lost anything, so right or wrong, the parents don't see a disadvantage in the sense you do. At worst, the kid's going to stay put, and if he has any initiative he'll probably move up in the world, albeit probably not to the biglaw/investment banking level.

[JP]

"I’ve never heard of a single person who publicly takes less credit because he or she received parental help."

I tell anyone who asks that my mom put me through undergrad and grad school. Yes, I had to do the work, but it was a hell of a lot easier (and took much less time) because I had no financial concerns.

[ProleMadeGood]

I'm glad that this topic is being addressed in the mainstream media. Part of the experience of being a prole thrust into elite environments is your complete ignorance of just how many unspoken advantages your peers enjoy.

[DaveinHackensack]

Parental help can do more harm than good, by pushing kids up into a social circle where they feel compelled to keep up with richer neighbors, and feel poorer by association with them. That was one of the points of The Millionaire Next Door (worth reading, if you haven't yet).

[superdestroyer]

HS,

Since you have some experience as a tax attorney. If the parents are giving the children more than $40K a year in support, wouldn't the children have to declare the support as income ans pay taxes.

It seems like the rich can use support their children as a way to move their childrens lifestyle well above the level that the children could afford without while ignoring the tax laws.

[HS: There's the irony of rich people voting for Obama who promises higher taxes, but then they cheat on their taxes when they can get away with it. And yes, it's pretty impossible for the IRS to figure out that you are giving too much money to your children.]

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"HS: There's the irony of rich people voting for Obama who promises higher taxes, but then they cheat on their taxes when they can get away with it. And yes, it's pretty impossible for the IRS to figure out that you are giving too much money to your children."

What are the tax rules (generally speaking) for what kind and amount of financial support parents can give their adult children?

[HS: It's subject to gift taxes. You can give more with forward planning by setting up a trust fund as soon as your kid is born, giving them money each year in advance of them needing it.

But if you buy your kid a few thousand dollars of presents you pay for with your own credit card, will the IRS know about it? No. Even if you write them checks, it's EXTREMELY unlikely that the IRS is going to audit every check you wrote.

Searching the internet, the IRS is most likely to catch you if you "sell" real property to your kid for extremely below-market prices, because the IRS can search property records without "probable cause."]

[Zejo]

I made it to HYPS as a middle class white fly-over german catholic male. Once there it was not hard to join the upper class, but I did envy the advantages of most of my classmates. I could have gone into a prestige low wage profession and my first couple summers I got the right very competive internships.

I later decided I'd prefer to get rich first and now I am well on my way. Even with my undesirable background I was admitted because I had perfect SAT scores, including several subject tests. I resent my parents a bit now for not working a bit harder, they were capable of making it into the upper class and choose instead to enjoy more laid back jobs and lifestyles. Now it falls to me to endow the education of my nephews and still unborn children so they can have choices I did not have. I think the tighter Asian and Jewish family culture is superior to my own and my serious dating has been with these girls.

Fortunately for me there are a lot of Jewish and Asian girls who prefer a generic white male but have high class standards that not many can meet.

[JP]

"If the parents are giving the children more than $40K a year in support, wouldn't the children have to declare the support as income ans pay taxes."

Even if that's true, it's bullshit. The parents have ALREADY paid tax on the income they spend on their kids, so there is no case (other than government greed) for taxing it again as the kids income.

[Grit]

I consider this issue to be a driving factor in daily life that will not be touched by the media. Why? Because too many kids are coming from divorced families that are un motivated to see them succeed. The issue is not parents who give versus parents who do not give. The real issue is having stabe parents vs. not having stable parents. Even initiating the discussion tacitly passes over divorced kids, and we hardly live in a society that holds stable family to a moral high standard.

[Just Speculating]

"Fortunately for me there are a lot of Jewish and Asian girls who prefer a generic white male but have high class standards that not many can meet".

You bring up the subject of unattractive women that many White men prefer not to date, if given a choice.

[Just Speculating]

"I'm glad that this topic is being addressed in the mainstream media. Part of the experience of being a prole thrust into elite environments is your complete ignorance of just how many unspoken advantages your peers enjoy".

NAMs also have many advantages that Proles don't have. Like free housing and affirmative action. But NAMs are low IQ and squander their opportunities for a lifetime of failure.

[Matt in RTP]

"I resent my parents a bit now for not working a bit harder, they were capable of making it into the upper class and choose instead to enjoy more laid back jobs and lifestyles. Now it falls to me to endow the education of my nephews and still unborn children so they can have choices I did not have. I think the tighter Asian and Jewish family culture is superior to my own and my serious dating has been with these girls."

You resent your parents for not being striver dorks?

You can spend your 20s and 30s striving away in Boston/NYC/LA/DC and still not own a home, or you can move to Raleigh/Athens/Knoxville/Louisville/Des Moines and have a nice suburban home, two cars, and your kids in private (or a good public) school without having to ever work more than 45 hours a week.

Also, while I admire and respect Asian and Jewish Americans (and also Italian-Americans, as someone else mentioned in this thread), I think their parenting style/family life sounds suffocating (Freud's Oedipus complex, the mother of all ethnic projecting).

[jeanne]

"wouldn't the children have to declare the support as income ans pay taxes. "

It's not taxable to the recipient. Parents can give any amount of money to their kids and the tax code actually encourages it. But they themselves will have give & estate tax if they exceed the yearly max.

What's hinky is when the kids get parental money, but still claim poverty for the sake of student financial aid.

[Black_Rose]

I am surprised no one here has yet mentioned that the wealthy parents have "K" oriented strategies towards rearing children (in contrast Desmond Hatchet is an "r" oriented extremist).

http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/08/these-are-the-genes-of-the-future.html

[The Undiscovered Jew]

OT, support is building for eliminating all gened requirements:

Are general education requirements purely for profit?

http://www.retrieverweekly.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=7997&format=html

With tuition rates nearing $9,500 per semester and climbing by a few hundred each year, and with the average student loan debt averaging over $20,000 dollars, one may wonder what the university system plans to do about it. One suggestion: how about removing unnecessary education requirements that force us to pay money we don't have for classes we don't need?

Regardless of major, general education requirements can add up to an entire year's worth of additional classes. These classes offer little to no benefit to a student's marketable professional skills.
A single standardized curriculum makes sense if the goal is for each and every student to learn the same thing. In high school, the endgame is to educate everyone with a broad base-line of knowledge. However, the purpose of college is specialization. How can a person possibly state that hundreds of different majors must have certain courses in common?

Most college students already have a liberal education in social studies, history and English classes. Will students ever be able to skip taking English Composition and Literature for the fifth time? Those who grew up with an American public education already sat through 1,000 - 3,000 hours of generic humanities education. Students are certainly being charged for unnecessary repetition. Unless a person is majoring in the humanities, is it even necessary?

None of this is to deny the potential benefits of education for its own sake. It cannot hurt to challenge your preconceptions about historical society by taking "Medieval Women's History," but unless a person chooses to take the class, what practical application can it have in the field of biology?

One of the most blatant wastes of time and money is the double physical education requirement. Must students be forced to pay $2,000 a head for the apparently exorbitant costs of getting thirty students to run around in circles twice a week?

In the end, UMBC is a for-profit organization. Like any service industry, it seeks to make money while simultaneously providing a benefit to its customers. This is understandable; what business can stay afloat without generating a profit? But at a certain point, a line must be drawn.

We pay full price for a three- or four-year education that, with the added requirements, becomes a four- or five-year marathon. Extending everyone's time at university by a full year is a transparent attempt to bleed dry for money the very people whose main goal in becoming educated is to earn enough money to support themselves.

If it takes the rest of one's life to repay student loans, which were borrowed for the purpose of getting an education to be able to make the money needed to repay those loans, then education is a catch-22. It makes one wonder whether the education received was a benefit or a curse.

[STFU]

But NAMs are low IQ and squander their opportunities for a lifetime of failure."

They also use subways as their their uh, bathroom:

http://observer.com/2012/09/tgif-everyone-lady-urinates-proceeds-to-take-shower-on-subway-video/

[nebbish]

"their parenting style/family life sounds suffocating (Freud's Oedipus complex"

I can't speak to the situation among Asian-Americans or Italian-Americans, but I suspect that the suffocating style of parenting is becoming less pronounced among non-Orthodox American Jews. Assimilation and intermarriage are partly responsible. On average, Jewish families might still seems close-knit compared to Northwest European-ancestry gentile families, but not like they were before. For the sake of the current generation of children, I hope that the tradition of maintaining some level of financial support after reaching the age of adulthood continues.

[Insider]

'NAMs also have many advantages that Proles don't have. Like free housing and affirmative action. But NAMs are low IQ and squander their opportunities for a lifetime of failure.'

Proles get housing, too, and affirmative action doesn't work in the way you think it works. Also, low IQ doesn't necessarily explain everything. I believe the primary explanation for NAM failure has to do with values, not really IQ.

[Secret of NAM]

[HS: There's the irony of rich people voting for Obama who promises higher taxes, but then they cheat on their taxes when they can get away with it.]

They don't actually want to pay more taxes because they know the gov will waste their money. This is why Warren Buffet (who's supposedly a giant fan of bigger gov) gave all of his money to the Gates Foundation. They want to stick it to their competitors and signal how generous they are by calling for more taxes ... all while hiring the best tax lawyers they can and lobbying gov for personal tax carve-outs. Meanwhile, they've convinced people like you that you're on the same team as your total tax burden approaches 50% so that you can pay for retards to breed and fight.

[James B. Shearer]

"HS: It's subject to gift taxes ... "

You can give up to about $13k a year without paying gift taxes. And some things like tuition are exempt. And as noted above it is often difficult for the IRS to learn about gifts.

[Rex Monday]

Similar to this post called "Hire The Uglier Model"
http://suehpro.blogspot.com/2012/08/hire-uglier-model-part-2.html

[anonymous]

@ Matt in RTP

You make it sound way too easy...

[Just Speculating]

"Proles get housing, too, and affirmative action doesn't work in the way you think it works. Also, low IQ doesn't necessarily explain everything. I believe the primary explanation for NAM failure has to do with values, not really IQ".

Yes, but many Proles who are in the lower middle classes, do not receive any perks from the government because they do not get preferential treatment as racial minorities.

Then there is a segment of proles who are in the upper middle classes with their successful blue collar or small mom n pop businesses.

Government funding for NAMs, for the most part have been a waste of money, as years of social welfare have not given them the empowerment they always wanted. Don't think IQ is a factor? Many immigrant Asians and Proles attend poorly maintained public schools with NAMs and peform much better than them where they graduate on time. NAMs have been stuck with remedial education and engineered test scores. But the Liberals want us to believe NAMs are still being oppressed and not given a chance.

[Samson J.]

****You resent your parents for not being striver dorks?

You can spend your 20s and 30s striving away in Boston/NYC/LA/DC and still not own a home, or you can move to Raleigh/Athens/Knoxville/Louisville/Des Moines and have a nice suburban home, two cars, and your kids in private (or a good public) school without having to ever work more than 45 hours a week.****

Great comment, Matt. My background is actually not dissimilar to the other commenter's - my parents were very intelligent (thus why I was able to transcend my lower socioeconomic background) but remained proles for their whole lives owing to choices they made when they were young. I don't resent for a moment not having had any financial help during school (having to make my own way gave me a strong work ethic), although looking back, I've said before that if there's one thing I think my father did wrong, it was in telling me I could do "whatever I wanted". For me, being the 17-year-old that I was, that was bad advice.

*******

One of the things Half Sigma's blog has taught me the most about is class, but one of the things that I think is not discussed often enough are the difficulties associated with changing class. I don't mean that it is actually hard to do - that gets mentioned frequently - but that vaulting several social classes upwards is downright *uncomfortable*. Maybe there aren't enough people who do it to make it a statistically significant category, but I get the impression that there are a few (like me) on here.