I hate this term … giving your kids money to help them start out on their own isn’t nepotism, it’s parenting.
Nepotism is when you violate a responsibility you have to a third party (e.g., your employer) to act impartially in their interests, in order to benefit your family.
Is the idea that parents should donate their money equally to everyone’s kids? This makes no sense.
I agree it isn’t nepotism. But I think the societal expectation that parents have to help their children is a the same systemic oppression with a new face. This only applies to the well-to-do, who buy into capitalism. Give up their lives to the machine.
This power sincerely complicates coming out of the closet, dating and marrying for love, social expressions like tattoos, life choices like art instead of business. This gives us another reason to second guess whether we ought to live life for ourselves or to please our parents.
I mean, it’s a bit tough for me to see it that way. Having wealthy parents who can use the leg up they intend to give you in life as a way of manipulating you into doing and being what they want, and that’s gotta suck.
At the same time, you can cut ties with them and you end up in the same position a lot of us start in: having to do it on your own. You’ve got a choice that other people don’t, it’s difficult for me to see that as a disadvantage.
yea, the starting place sucks in this country and adding cognitive dissonance to whether or not to obey my shitty parents is not something I wanna have to worry about on top of the bog standard issues about healthcare and school loans.
Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. The moment my parents played games with who I was going to be or they would cut me off I left them. I would pick homelessness again than give them an inch. They can go cry to their bff supply side jesus
It should definitely not be called nepotism at the individual level, but if you agree with the core premises that working should be able to grant you enough money to buy your own house, it could be argued that it is a societal kind of nepotism in that the family you have determines your most basic opportunities in life.
You can just say your parents gave you an entire apartment building when you turned 18.
I moved out and went no contact with my parents on my 17th birthday… but I would love to be able to give my kids the kind of help my parents didn’t give me.
The idea is that Karen doesn’t get veto power over construction and we have enough housing for all.
That’s a very good idea, it’s what I’ve been harping about in my other comments. You don’t fix this issue by demonizing people for buying houses, you identify the reason there aren’t enough houses in the first place and go after that.
San Francisco allowing property owners (whose houses have skyrocketed in value) to block any kind of dense housing being built is the reason SF is so utterly fucked.
I hate this term … giving your kids money to help them start out on their own isn’t nepotism, it’s parenting.
Nepotism is when you violate a responsibility you have to a third party (e.g., your employer) to act impartially in their interests, in order to benefit your family.
Is the idea that parents should donate their money equally to everyone’s kids? This makes no sense.
I agree it isn’t nepotism. But I think the societal expectation that parents have to help their children is a the same systemic oppression with a new face. This only applies to the well-to-do, who buy into capitalism. Give up their lives to the machine.
This power sincerely complicates coming out of the closet, dating and marrying for love, social expressions like tattoos, life choices like art instead of business. This gives us another reason to second guess whether we ought to live life for ourselves or to please our parents.
I mean, it’s a bit tough for me to see it that way. Having wealthy parents who can use the leg up they intend to give you in life as a way of manipulating you into doing and being what they want, and that’s gotta suck.
At the same time, you can cut ties with them and you end up in the same position a lot of us start in: having to do it on your own. You’ve got a choice that other people don’t, it’s difficult for me to see that as a disadvantage.
yea, the starting place sucks in this country and adding cognitive dissonance to whether or not to obey my shitty parents is not something I wanna have to worry about on top of the bog standard issues about healthcare and school loans.
Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. The moment my parents played games with who I was going to be or they would cut me off I left them. I would pick homelessness again than give them an inch. They can go cry to their bff supply side jesus
Lmao. Thanks. I wish I had been so brave, and I aspire to be next time the opprtunity to stand up for myself shines.
My parents don’t agree. It all up to us. It sucks.
It should definitely not be called nepotism at the individual level, but if you agree with the core premises that working should be able to grant you enough money to buy your own house, it could be argued that it is a societal kind of nepotism in that the family you have determines your most basic opportunities in life.
You can just say your parents gave you an entire apartment building when you turned 18.
The idea is that Karen doesn’t get veto power over construction and we have enough housing for all.
I moved out and went no contact with my parents on my 17th birthday… but I would love to be able to give my kids the kind of help my parents didn’t give me.
That’s a very good idea, it’s what I’ve been harping about in my other comments. You don’t fix this issue by demonizing people for buying houses, you identify the reason there aren’t enough houses in the first place and go after that.
San Francisco allowing property owners (whose houses have skyrocketed in value) to block any kind of dense housing being built is the reason SF is so utterly fucked.