by mos6507 » Sat 08 Jan 2011, 13:26:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'M')y personal philosophy is money I never had in my possession was never mine so if someone else has it I don't let it bother me. I decided in my early 20's if I inherit anything it is a bonus, but I do not plan on ever seeing a dime from anyone.
It is amazing how much easier it was for me to get along with my elderly relatives after I reached this decision, so far none of them has left me anything but I live my own life and am responsible for my own bills. Sure it would be nice, but so would winning the lottery or any other unplanned for extra income. The family time I had/have is not marred by future expectations or past ones either.
I agree with that, but to put things into a doomer perspective, there are undeniably high stakes.
If future generations are going to have progressively harder lives than their ancestors,
then inheritance will become perhaps the only way to hold onto affluence. This may be the first form of catabolic collapse that Greer talks about. Households will feed off the accumulated net worth of the extended family. This takes many forms. The return of extended families by necessity (otherwise known as freeloading) could be seen as the first symptom. Kids growing up and not moving out of the house. Older adults losing their houses and moving back in with their boomer parents. It becomes this economic train wreck that follows a generational pecking-order. The youngest who have the worst economic prospects become the perennial slackers. They are already calling them "Generation-R" for the recession. The middle-agers are the ones who overextended themselves and are perhaps destined to be life-long wage-slaves. The boomers are at least the ones with the most accumulated assets, paid-off real-estate being the biggy. How they decide to share (or not share) will probably characterize family dynamics throughout collapse.
I'm already experiencing this first-hand, with the gentrification of the town I grew up in. Those of my peers who are still living in this town who either didn't marry into wealth or become doctors and lawyers inherited (or are scheduled to inherit) their parents' homes.
The post-war boom was a boon to the generations that were of working age at that time. Those who bought into the early suburbs and who got jobs at the peak of US dominance.
The bounty of that era is going to be what my generation and onwards will squabble over.
I've had countless arguments with my parents over what to do with the market value of this house, as I want my parents to cash out and pool resources on a collective doomstead. They won't do this, so that limits my future preps to what I can accomplish with my own finances. If I thought the future economy would enable me to pay off a 30 year mortgage I might not be afraid to take on debt just as my parents were casual about it when they bought this house in the 1960s. But by limiting myself to all-cash in order to prevent myself from losing the doomstead to a future foreclosure, I can not do nearly as much as I could do if we pooled resources.
It's easy to say that each generation should pull its own weight, but if the prior generation had an easier time of it, and future generations worse, then odds are most of us can't have faith that our work ethic and persistence will get us through as it may have done them. So you start to see your life as being made or broken based on the judgment of your aging parents.