MatureDJ
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 11,296
- Reaction score
- 4,664
I was reading an interesting article on how some wealthy parents would rather not bequeath any of their wealth to their own children - in a misguided attempt to "toughen them up".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-parents-may-inheritance-charity-093900697.html
It seems to me to the height of folly. It seems that the most important thing that a parent should do for his children is to make it easy for them to have grandchildren - to do otherwise would be to lose out in the evolutionary game. But by leaving their children no inheritance, they are relegating their children to being self-sufficient through the exchange of labor in an economic system that values such labor as worthless.
If one's wealth had no bearing on one's marriage market value, this would not be an issue. However, I think we all realize that wealth - at least for a man - is arguably the most important attribute in marriage market value (and probably quite high for a woman as well - and the most important for some men, who wouldn't mind tapping an ugly piece for a life of luxury.) And certainly being able to provide a comfortable home life without the stress of a hard job should lessen the chances of family strife - to say nothing of having enough money for the other things in life, and the ability to fund an intergenerational nest egg that can continue to fund strong families in the future (e.g., like the Kennedy's.)
Am I misanalyzing this in any way?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-parents-may-inheritance-charity-093900697.html
It seems to me to the height of folly. It seems that the most important thing that a parent should do for his children is to make it easy for them to have grandchildren - to do otherwise would be to lose out in the evolutionary game. But by leaving their children no inheritance, they are relegating their children to being self-sufficient through the exchange of labor in an economic system that values such labor as worthless.
If one's wealth had no bearing on one's marriage market value, this would not be an issue. However, I think we all realize that wealth - at least for a man - is arguably the most important attribute in marriage market value (and probably quite high for a woman as well - and the most important for some men, who wouldn't mind tapping an ugly piece for a life of luxury.) And certainly being able to provide a comfortable home life without the stress of a hard job should lessen the chances of family strife - to say nothing of having enough money for the other things in life, and the ability to fund an intergenerational nest egg that can continue to fund strong families in the future (e.g., like the Kennedy's.)
Am I misanalyzing this in any way?