Anyone working for the next generation?

[AnonEMouse]

If your job is bearable, would you work longer after you hit your number to provide a leg up for your children/future generations? Or would you just quit then and there and let the chips fall where they may? I'm more interested in your reasoning than a yes/no response though.

The reason why I ask is that in the past it was assumed that the market would return at least 10-11% per annum on average. Now we're told it'd be 6-7% if we're lucky. Add to that the unprecedented negative interest rates, increasing automation and AI advances (self-driving cars, AI beating humans in fields previously unimaginable [Go, Jeopardy, etc.]) and it seems current and future generations may have a bit of a rough time ahead.

Owners of financial capital would undoubtedly do much better than labor (as in all of history) especially if an automated/AI future comes to fruition. So, having some capital in the family would help mitigate hardships for future generations, especially if said offspring(s) aren't the ones creating those AIs.

Of course things could go the other way and AI/automation ushers in an era where human labor is no longer necessary and the benefits are shared in some form like the Universal Basic Income, making your sacrifices to work more now to pad your finances moot. That seems rather unlikely from today's perspective though. I'd be more inclined to believe a SkyNet future as more probable. Either way, your financial savings would be moot.

The other thing is that even if we don't plan on it, we'll likely leave something. It's rare to be able to live to the last cent with our dying breath. Maybe the house and whatever is left of the portfolio is enough for the next generation.

 

[2017ish]

We put them through some fancy schools and they had their pick of careers. They seem to have chosen pretty well on both initial careers and life partners. (For better or worse, they seem to have opted out of the type of hours DW and I have kept.) At this point, they have fledged and we are soon retiring with a sufficient number to give us belt and suspenders even if DW hits 105 (per plan). Kids (and hypothetical grandkids) will likely inherit assets, and will likely get gifts over the years, but only if we are sailing smoothly.

Working longer to benefit them further was not a consideration--and if it had been, their choice of 5-day, 40-50 hour week careers would have weighed against working more for their benefit!

 

[rodi]

My financial plans include getting them through undergraduate school. And since our plan is conservative we'll likely leave a large nest egg - but that's because we have a fear of running out of money, not because our plan is too leave them a large nest egg.

I look at the firecalc output and see a lot of squiggly lines on the right side that are going upwards.... so odds are they'll see some money.

Our only plan/hope is to leave them a paid off house in a high COL area... But that's also plan B if the market collapses AND one of us needs extended nursing home care.

 

[Philliefan33]

Both daughters graduated with a BS, on our dime with no loans. We continue to help in little ways (D1, who is surviving on a grad student stipend, is still on our cell phone plan; we picked up the airfare for our recent trip to a family wedding, etc) but neither of them expects us to subsidize their lifestyle.

If things go as planned, we should have enough money to help the future grandkids with college tuition and leave a little inheritance. But our kids don't know that-- better for them to learn to manage on their own.

We didn't continue to work for the next generation. I feel it's more important that we are able to take care of our future spending needs so as not to be a burden on the girls, and to help them learn the value of LBYM.

 

[ikubak]

I've never thought handing over a lot money helped people all that much. I've seen large insurance benefits cause problems for some people in my family. Like lottery winners, these brain-dead family members lived like kings for about 24 months and then found themselves with car payments, house payments, and kids they couldn't afford to maintain.

With that said, I admit I have given my son a large sum of money in an Education IRA for his graduate level work or to use for his spouse or children, and I have funded his Roth IRA to some extent. I am much more inclined to give someone some $ if they are willing to use it to become better educated or to invest in a business.

I am not planning on leaving my son or any other relatives a lot of money to help out but I think the more education my son gets, the less he will rely on anyone to help him. In addition, just knowing how we are, he will get a good bit of assets when we pass because we have assets, no debt, and don't really spend much money. So to answer your question, although I have given some $ to my son already and maybe I worked a bit more time to accumulate that money, once I have decided it's time to retire, I would not work longer just to have more money to give to someone else.

 

[pb4uski]

For me actually, exactly the opposite... one of the principal reasons the I retired early is because we had 'enough" for me and DW and not to be a burden to our kids, but to continue working and feathering the nest egg was ultimately going to benefit them... as far as I'm concerned they can earn it like we did.

We have provided for their educations so they graduated with no student loan debt, unlike many of their peers. After that, it is up to them... one is doing great and the other it is too early to tell.

I have jokingly told them many times that if there is an inheritance to be had that it is simply due to estimating error on my part.

 

[FUEGO]

My financial plans include getting them through undergraduate school. And since our plan is conservative we'll likely leave a large nest egg - but that's because we have a fear of running out of money, not because our plan is too leave them a large nest egg.

I look at the firecalc output and see a lot of squiggly lines on the right side that are going upwards.... so odds are they'll see some money.

Just did an interview with Bloomberg this afternoon and gave pretty much this answer when asked the OP's question phrased a different way - "do you aim to provide for future generations".

They are getting a great head start on life, and there are strong odds we'll be leaving a bunch of money to them as well.

 

[W2R]

My daughter is doing better than I am financially. So, I'm glad that I did not work past my retirement age of 61.5 in order to provide her with a bigger inheritance or "leg up".

Like pb4uski, I worked long enough to make sure I would not be a financial burden on her in my old age, but that's about it.

 

[RockyMtn]

Probably could've quit at 42 or so. Stuck it out to 51 to insure that I had more than enough on hand for the next 40 or so years and something to leave to the kid/family/charities (if I don't spend it all first). Don't regret it. Probably wasn't really ready to retire at 42 anyways.

 

[cooch96]

Shouldn't the third poll option be "Unripe"? I thought moot meant the issue doesn't matter because it has already passed.

Regardless, I concur with PB4uSki.

 

[COcheesehead]

My parents gave me little or no money and that was their greatest gift.

 

[Asher Aion]

I voted yes. At 50 we are in good shape even if one of us makes into our 90's. But in the case of Zombies or other dark things like hyperinflation that keep me awake at night, I would like to diversify our investments to counter that in some way, to assist our kids in that event. As a child of immigrants who arrived without anything but their shirts and a large dose of hope, I don't want to knowingly squander the opportunities of the past decades. I was FI for a while now, with OMY nagging once again, but I realize that the responsibility must end somewhere and sometime. 2017 perhaps?

On the other hand my kids may not need our help. They both see to plan ahead and are more frugal than I was at their age. If they receive a boatload at our demise, so be it.

 

[Katiek]

No children, so no need to plan for them. But I"m not retired yet, because I want to make sure I have enough for me, so odds are, my nieces and nephews and favorite charities will get some inheritance in the future (although I will leave something in my will to make sure there is money for expense related to any pets I may leave behind)..

 

[bclover]

First, we don't believe in inheritances. Way to many horrible outcomes in our family to know no matter how rich we got we would never plan on leaving our kids one.

I don't have grandkids yet so if and when they come I'll need to reevaluate.

 

[RobbieB]

I always loved the bumper sticker on the big RV that said;

"We're blowing our kid's inheritance"

Let 'em make their own dough -

 

[laurence]

We're going to help with college, somewhere between 50%-75%, we think they need some skin in the game as we've had too many friends/family make poor education choices when there was no accountability. We are out as soon as the math is good, but like everyone else the odds are they'll get a million each when we croak.

 

[Souschef]

My parents gave me little or no money and that was their greatest gift.

My parents paid for my education in the late 50's when it was not the absurd numbers it is now. Thank you mom & dad. After that, I earned it all myself.

 

[cathy63]

Our daughter just graduated college in May with no debt, so we've done our part for the next generation and are now retired.

DD will inherit whatever is left when we go, but hopefully not until she's about 65 herself.

 

[laurence]

Our daughter just graduated college in May with no debt, so we've done our part for the next generation and are now retired.

DD will inherit whatever is left when we go, but hopefully not until she's about 65 herself.

You know this reminded me, I was thinking, "Oh, I'll help with my grand kids college with the estate" and then I thought, "Wait, I want to live longer than that!!" Statistically my life expectancy will have them in college when we pass if my kids have them when I had my kids. I'm holding out for longevity pills!

 

[Free To Canoe]

The question presupposes that more money will give heirs a leg up in life. IMHO probably not in today's affluent society.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes into play here.

 

[Big_Hitter]

looks like we have a winner!

 

[devans0]

If a person funds an IRA for the number of years for it to start doubling, say 6.9-7.2 years @ 10% and quits funding it, they are equivalent to the person who started later and funds it for every single year thereafter.

Compounding.. Grandkids are getting hired to fund their IRAs ASAP. By twenty one they can be 2x growth without contributing a penny. If they blow it after that, it's not for lack of being given a chance. I only have the two gc. Makes a difference.

 

[FUEGO]

Our daughter just graduated college in May with no debt, so we've done our part for the next generation and are now retired.

DD will inherit whatever is left when we go, but hopefully not until she's about 65 herself.

That's a great point. I expect my kids will either thrive or fail financially by the time they receive the inheritance.

In my case, I'll get a decent bequest from my parents some day but we hit FI already and it looks like the bequest is a long way off (thank goodness!). In the meantime, it's my job to help my parents understand they can spend more than they are right now (and convince Dad he can actually afford to retire with 2 SS's, a COLA pension and a decent size 7 figure portfolio).

 

[unno2002]

[FONT=&quot]Planning for our daughter’s education and entry into her earning an independent living was part of our ongoing financial plan during our working years. We always made it clear to her what was potentially available, and what was coming based on our plan. An aspect of the plan includes assets that she can inherit to get her own “jumpstart” on a nestegg.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Assuming of course that “Skynet” or politicians don’t succeed in destroying the economy, or worse.[/FONT]

 

[Closet_Gamer]

I've got a way to go to FIRE, so this is a bit hypothetical. That said,

I believe that education and hard work can overcome nearly any starting point. Recognizing that somewhere down the line in my family tree someone will be schmuck who has kids that start off in a bad place, I've considered working a few more years to create a multigenerational educational trust. Haven't really done the math, but something like a trust that guarantees that a child in subsequent generations would have 50% of a state school paid or something.

Not sure it's possible, but I consider it.