Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How did you decide that? Just off the top of my head.... Ralph Waldo Emerson published "Self Reliance" in 1841. He began writing his essays (and preaching them) in 1830. Our history of individualism stretches back to the Founding Fathers and beyond. THEY read the great European writers on the topic of Individualism.
"Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual you have an obligation to be one." -- Elanor Roosevelt
What people preach and practice are two different things. You're quote comes from one of America's dynasty families...
Any financial planner that gives you that kind of advice is departing from the premise that individualism is a natural, normal, universal and unquestionable part of human nature. It isn't.
Given the doctrine of individualism is dominant in American culture, the financial planner would be right within this particular context; which doesn't mean he is right, universally speaking.
Here you DO a need to cover your a** first because if your child grows up in this culture (especially the white one) chances are he will not feel he owes you any support in old age like you owed him support during his childhood. I mean, look at most answers in this thread. In a culture where most people feel like this, you'd be risking a lot by not listening to that matter-of-fact financial planner guy.
That doesn't change the fact that parents all over the world instinctively want to sacrifice for their children as they grow up. They want to give their children opportunities to do better in life than they have, even at the expense of their own future well-being.
Now THIS is natural and commendable - and doing that is not "poor planning", it is having parental instincts that haven't been stunted by a detached, self-serving view of "money management".
Yes, some people will even jeopardize their own future security so their children can take piano lessons or whatever else they believe may open gates for the child to a better life.
When humans' ability to sacrifice for significant others becomes atrophied - something that somehow makes life worth living is lost.
The whole mentality that people are OWED anything in life has emotionally crippled whole groups of people in this world
Yes, good parents sacrifice for their children.
But any sacrifice that spoils the child or creates an entitlement mentality on the part or either party (child OR parent) is wrong and emotionally unhealthy.
Back when my son was growing up and working so hard and we pushed him for success because we saw a special talent in him, we always said once you are an adult and are a millionaire, you can support your Mom and Dad.
Now that boy is a man and is in fact a millionaire. We would like to believe that part of his success is a result of us pushing him to succeed. So we are in part responsible for his success.
Is it his responsibility to send us money now we don't work anymore and no employer will hire my wife and I- too old?
Is it April 1st? It's not? Well then, my honest answer to your question is a resounding NO.
And it works both ways. My parents have always been savers and are now sitting on a very nice nest egg. I hope they spend every last penny before they die. They won't but I keep telling them to do it.
What people preach and practice are two different things. You're quote comes from one of America's dynasty families...
Elanor Roosevelt is an excellent example of American individualism. She broke racial, economic and gender barriers decades before her beliefs, and actions, became the norm.
How did you decide that? Just off the top of my head.... Ralph Waldo Emerson published "Self Reliance" in 1841. He began writing his essays (and preaching them) in 1830. Our history of individualism stretches back to the Founding Fathers and beyond. THEY read the great European writers on the topic of Individualism.
"Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual you have an obligation to be one." -- Elanor Roosevelt
What's new is applying individualism from government to individualism from their own families. Individualism isn't only applied to individuals. It is applied to groups too---a group's right to hold unique ideals from the overall population. Our Constitution represents and protects both individuals and groups. Individualism from society and government. Last time I checked, my family wasn't society or government. It's a subgroup that has the rights of individualism as separate people and as a group.
I always get pegged on the wrong side of my political beliefs when discussing family. Somewhere along the line conservatives stole "family" as a talking point. People hear the word and automatically assume someone is taking a conservative stance. The reality is that our family's choice to help one another is a very liberal concept. It's like micro social security. What's conservative is the belief that everyone fend for themselves and suffer the consequences if they fail.
Elanor Roosevelt is an excellent example of American individualism. She broke racial, economic and gender barriers decades before her beliefs, and actions, became the norm.
I read the beginning of the thread and skipped to the end, if the subject has changed then I most likely missed it.
Mrs. Roosevelt was a Roosevelt from birth (she married her cousin) and grew up as part of the inherited elite.
Your version of what is right and just is the antithesis of the American way of life. We began this country with a Declaration of Independence, and it has always been valued as an ideal.
Of course we want the best we can provide for our children. Some kids are born into better circumstances than others. If the best one can provide for their offspring is a community college,or no college at all, then it would be ludicrous to sacrifice the financial security of old age to do otherwise. And, in this country, there are precious few safety nets for poor seniors.
I'm certain my sons would rather we make sure our financial needs are met by being prudent, even if it meant denying them something they want. After all, the alternative would be our coming to them with our hands out at some point down the road.
Let's not forget a little detail here: the premise that the son is a millionaire; this is key.
If your adult child himself struggles as an adult - I can see how the parents would be reluctant to become additional burden on the children. But even then, many adult children who love their parents make do and help them anyway, despite having other obligations too. It's called love.
We would not have left my grandparents in a nursing home if we'd had to cut an arm. Even with obligations towards my own children I would have taken care of them until the end. I didn't have to because my own parents did. I had this attitude towards them not because I felt "obligated" but because I loved and cherished them beyond belief, as much as I love my own children - only in a different way.
"Wanting the best for someone" doesn't cost a thing. Sacrificing so they can get the best possible - that's a completely different story; and yes, a whole lot more noble than "wishing the best".
Declaration of Independence or not, when you're a millionaire and you don't feel compelled to help your aging parents who made efforts throughout their life so you can BECOME a millionaire - you're just a jerk. Yes, it's that simple.
1000 American cultures with 1000 Declarations of Independence are not going to change this simple truth. If you live in a culture that validates such a mentality by turning "jerk-ness" into "virtue" (dressed as "independence") perhaps it might be time to question some of the tenets of your own culture.
Once in a while, this can be an awesome exercise. You should try it sometimes because really, cultural relativism only goes so far.
The parents though are not completely "innocent" in this scenario either.
Yes, they have a fault - but this is not essentially "inadequate planning"; rather having raised a cold-hearted, disinterested, self-centered jerk; and if they knew the ties between them and this son had never been 100% fuzzy-warmy (the case of many families in this culture), then indeed they should have planned for their own retirement before investing in a "millionaire future" for their son.
Those who said that children are not "investment vehicles" are right.
If you want your children to be there for you in old age, you must balance the equation "the love you take is equal to the love you make".
Back when my son was growing up and working so hard and we pushed him for success because we saw a special talent in him, we always said once you are an adult and are a millionaire, you can support your Mom and Dad.
Now that boy is a man and is in fact a millionaire. We would like to believe that part of his success is a result of us pushing him to succeed. So we are in part responsible for his success.
Is it his responsibility to send us money now we don't work anymore and no employer will hire my wife and I- too old?
The reality is that our family's choice to help one another is a very liberal concept. It's like micro social security. What's conservative is the belief that everyone fend for themselves and suffer the consequences if they fail.
I never understood how people who keep pedaling the "everyone-fend-for-themselves" bike can be allowed, at the same time, to hijack and make a parody out of "family values".
A family, by its very own definition, is the antithesis of individualism. It is a collective body made of
individuals tied to each other primarily through feelings of affection. It is not just a successful, rational business that allows members to function separately, each in their own way.
Families have an irrational, emotional side - and this is what makes them beautiful. Everything else is just business. I don't provide for my kids because the state/society/rules expect me to be responsible for them.
I provide for them and sacrifice for them because I am crazy about their a** (nothing rational in this).
The dudes you mentioned above have sucked the "affection" out of the concept of "family". They left it all dry and "rational", and now they push this model down everyone's throats, calling it the "American Way".
Never mind America is supposed to be a diverse place where people - WITH THEIR FAMILIES! - have arrived from all over the world.
Some of these groups prefer to maintain a traditional understanding of family, not an individualistic one.
Some of us wants to live in "clans" and "tribes". We love it this way. May we keep our model?
If America is in the "diversity" business, it should be able to accommodate all types of families - not just the kind based on a "business, individualistic model".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
