Comment by cannonpr

10 hours ago

I’m not sure I understand this perspective, I’m looking forward to inheriting some of my parents furnitures and getting rid of some of the ikea crap.. they are furniture that have been in the family in some cases for over 200 years, and I learned to maintain them and care for them as a kid just as a regular part of housework. Some have had amusing changes in use as the times changed, like an old wardrobe being turned into a chest of drawers as larger wardrobes became available, etc.

> I’m looking forward to inheriting some of my parents furnitures and getting rid of some of the ikea crap.. they are furniture that have been in the family in some cases for over 200 years, and I learned to maintain them and care for them as a kid just as a regular part of housework.

Your experience is an extreme outlier.

Most people don't have parents with such old, valuable furniture.

Of those who do, most don't value it themselves.

Of those who do, most don't know how to take care of it.

The reality: Kids often live far away, in smaller houses/apartments. They're married and their spouses may not like the old furniture - they've already invested in the furniture they bought. Also, as people get old, they often need to downsize, so they have to get rid of much of the furniture while alive.

When you have 3+ kids, you can hope at least one of the kids will value it. These days, having 3 kids is an outlier.

For me, personally: I just don't like heavy furniture. I wouldn't want to figure out how to get it into my house, positioned where it's needed, and who's going to move it later if I decide to change the layout of my rooms? Pain, pain, pain.

> I’m looking forward to inheriting some of my parents furnitures and getting rid of some of the ikea crap..

I think you are confusing the perspective of the GP here.

Your perspective is that of the "kid". You like the parents' furniture and eventually want to use them and that's all fine.

But GP is describing the parent perspective which, they argue, shouldn't be to plan life such that the kids will be inheriting and using things later. That puts pressure on them to actually do instead of making their own choices. It's a subtle but important difference.

I see similar issues with people buying the neighboring lot and building a second house there such that eventually their kids can move in their with their family, once they have one. Some kids certainly so, and that's great. But think about your own life, would really have wanted to do that? Or grow up feeling that's expected of you? Most of my friends live half a day of travel away from where they grew up. Most of them would despise the idea of moving in next to their parents. Which doesn't mean they don't love them, just that they value their independence and made choices free from the constraint that it needs to be exactly there. (Besides, a couple usually consists of two people and they often didn't grow up in the same neighborhood.)

Generally, trying to plan for leaving inheritances (of substantial value) is overvalued. Modern society is striving to less dynasty building and I think that's a good thing. A lot of the poor/rich divide is rooted in that and governments should discourage it (through inheritance tax) rather than encouraging it (through e.g. lack of actions against housing costs which forces people to get a big inheritance to be able to live anywhere.)

Though I'm really getting too far from the topic as that was about furniture. :)

  • This is a complex topic and I’m not going to do it justice in a comment, but I feel like modern society might just be destroying social mobility in the name of what you described, while the already rich are dynasty building just fine as usual via a variety of legal means only available to them selves.

    • Could you elaborate on which aspect you consider to be destroying social mobility?