238
Bank of Mum and Dad: why we all now live in an ‘inheritocracy’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
238 points (95.4% liked)
News
23669 readers
4998 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
Remember, it is not the super wealthy billionaires driving inequality, it is the middle class parents who (checks article) let their kids stay at home when saving money. It is not speculative real estate investors driving up home prices, it's your friend getting help on a down payment from family.
Everyone around you who has something you want but cannot afford is clearly the beneficiary of a corrupt system of inequality of which you are a victim…
I think that not being able to get ahead without parental help is explicitly a symptom of that.
That’s the symptom, but the middle class isn’t the disease.
Correct. I'm not sure the article writer would disagree.
Upward mobility with the help of family has generally been viewed as common or normal in any family that could afford to do so IMO. Doesn’t matter if it was a car, used or new, to get a young person on the way to independence, paying for some or all of college, or chipping in for a first house.
Must be a slow news day to attack that.
The problem is the rising costs making that family assistance more exclusive while the rest get loans from banks.
Correct. But it's easier to assemble and publish an editorial about discrete symptoms than a manifesto on core societal ills.
Did the article say it's "not the super wealthy billionaires driving inequality" or did you just add that?
It's good to talk about ALL drivers of inequality, don't you think? The article is correct to point out that in today's economy, if you don't have your parents support, you have many fewer opportunities. That is a systemic issue that society should try to rectify.
That sounds more like a symptom of inequality than a driver of it. That people with sufficient family support aren't yet as under water as people without doesn't mean they're driving inequality. If anything "people with support survive better" is too basic to write an article about.
Similar to how BP popularized a personal carbon footprint to distract from systemic problems with the oil industry, focusing on the people that still manage to eke out a middle class living as "part of the problem" is like myopically studying why a particular tree hasn't burned yet during a forest fire.
It is both. It is a symptom of the inequality that my parents suffer and a driver of mine. Generational poverty is terrible for a society.
I think some people are reading an attack where none is meant. The article isn't chastising people for helping their kids. It's pointing out that that help is necessary now in ways that it was not before.
The article is "people cannot excel without support and if we like to imagine ourselves as a meritocracy we need to fix that".