- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Summary
The “Bank of Mum and Dad” drives modern inequality, fostering an “inheritocracy” where family wealth shapes opportunities over individual merit. This safety net often undermines social mobility, tying success to inheritance rather than personal effort.
Rising housing costs, wage stagnation, and unequal inheritance have entrenched this dynamic, with parental support shaping life milestones like homeownership, career paths, and education.
While early inheritances advantage some, the burden of social care costs threatens others’ expectations.
This growing reliance on family wealth exacerbates inequality within and across generations, highlighting the need for a broader societal conversation about privilege and fairness.
From what I can tell, it’s based off the state the parent lives in.
That’s kinda what I assumed, but say the parent lives in a state with filial responsibility laws, but the child doesn’t. Can the child still be forced to support their parents? A brief internet search suggests maybe, but these laws are generally not enforced (except Pennsylvania), and also usually take into account the child’s ability to support the parent.
Just seems pretty fucked up that someone’s parents could move to State B with these laws to retire, and suddenly their kids, who have never lived in State B, are potentially being held to State B’s laws.
Yeah, it sounds like it might be a great case to run up the flagpole to SCOTUS for an official ruling, since it crosses state lines.
Like …okay the child is behaving in a way inconsistent with State B Law, but they’re not in State B. That happens all the damn time, every day, with vice laws, weed laws, gun laws, etc.
Also, presumably, if the child moved out of the country, State B would be completely unable to enforce its laws in country B. So there’s a limit to this enforcement, but where is it?