Summary
The “Bank of Mum and Dad” is a significant force behind modern inequality, fostering an “inheritocracy” in which access to opportunities is dictated by family wealth rather than personal achievement.
This financial support, often viewed as a safety net, undermines social mobility and reinforces a system where success is shaped more by inheritance than by merit.
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, especially among millennials, 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.