Dynastic Wealth, please.

How come the only folks who think dynastic wealth is a bad idea are the ones whose children are ticking off the days before Mummy or Daddums kicks the bucket?

I've been thinking about dynastic wealth since Warren Buffet declared to Charlie Rose that he didn't believe in it. He said that he's set up funds so that his children can do anything they want, so long as it "wasn't nothing". This morning, during the "your money" focus on NPR, they chatted with Warren's granddaughter. She said that she feels as if she had a very middle class upbringing with a very high class education. But, she says that she more or less always held onto a job to have spending money in college.

The piece on NPR went on to have an interview with a woman who "coaches" wealthy parents on their parenting. Now that is a genius way to make a buck. But, she had a very good point - she said that children suffer when parents are absent - whether it's from working two jobs to make the rent or because they choose to be jetsetting around. She said that roughly the same numbers of children of the wealthy get in serious trouble as the children of the not wealthy. (Interestingly, we consider the bad behavior of the children of the wealthy to be amusing entertainment and the bad behavior of the not wealthy to be the downfall of civilization.)

Not long ago, the NYTimes ran an article about the number of "middle class" parents who assist their grown children financially (and, this is the first entry about the phenomena of pet day care in this blog -- see - bongo really does have a finger on the pulse of humanity). I am acquainted with a woman who had her children fairly late in life (by swamp dwelling standards) and she came from a family in which she never really had to work that hard for anything she wanted. (Annual income from a family farm pays for the luxuries in her life.) So, she has raised two children who more or less have never held a real job. The oldest child is in "grad" school and has her lifestyle totally supported by her parents. I know the child has worked a week or two as a waitress, store clerk, and babysitter since earning the right to drive -- but, I'm pretty sure all of the income from those short adventures went into her pocket and were used for "leisure" activities.

I know lots of folks locally who make up the difference between what their children earn and what they want. I think middle class folks think this gives their children the same benefits as "rich" kids and thus will inspire them to become equals with the rich. That whole notion that parents want their children to do better, be and have more than they did.

But, as the NPR interviewee said, there is a value to allowing children to struggle. (Not suffer, struggle). I know that my grad student paid for his children's educations but did not give them enough to have much beyond the real basics. If they wanted money for beer, they had to earn that money. Of course, I don't know exactly the state of his family finances now, but I'm pretty sure he's not paying for doggie day care or rent or luxury vacations for them.

All this said, if some Phazillionaire (other than michael jackson - although I don't know if he still is all that rich) would like to leave me their fortunes just so that I can prove to be the exception to the lazy, white trash heir -- I'd be happy to give it a try. Kinda like I'd like the chance to prove that I could will the $335 million power ball lotto and not let it change my values as a monkey.