You’re looking at it backwards. Nobody is saying that it’s bad to help your family succeed. They’re saying that it’s fucked up that the only way gen-Z adults can afford homes is for their parents to pay their way.
I mean, this is the point I’m trying to make and I am agreeing with your statement here, and I honestly don’t know what exactly we are disagreeing about.
The word “Nepotism” does have a negative connotation, so the article title is saying to me: “Helping your family succeed is nepotism and that’s bad.”. At least, that’s the way I read it. Did I interpret it wrong?
The point is more “Success requires help from your family, and that’s bad”. There’s nothing wrong with helping your kids succeed, but if economic conditions preclude most people without help from their parents from success, then success becomes intrinsically linked to the success of your parents. That sort of economic situation balloons into overt classism very quickly, which is the bad part.
The article just uses the prefix “nepo-”, from the Latin for nephew/descendent, implying that the market is dominated by homebuyers that are distinguished by being someone’s descendent.
Two sides to a coin, and also the difference between micro and macro. On an individual level, of course you’re gonna help your kids, but on a large scale if help from family is required despite being otherwise doing everything you need to go (working, not squandering your money, etc), that’s just bad news for the economy, and indeed promotes “nepotism”, the bad kind.
You’re looking at it backwards. Nobody is saying that it’s bad to help your family succeed. They’re saying that it’s fucked up that the only way gen-Z adults can afford homes is for their parents to pay their way.
I mean, this is the point I’m trying to make and I am agreeing with your statement here, and I honestly don’t know what exactly we are disagreeing about.
The word “Nepotism” does have a negative connotation, so the article title is saying to me: “Helping your family succeed is nepotism and that’s bad.”. At least, that’s the way I read it. Did I interpret it wrong?
The point is more “Success requires help from your family, and that’s bad”. There’s nothing wrong with helping your kids succeed, but if economic conditions preclude most people without help from their parents from success, then success becomes intrinsically linked to the success of your parents. That sort of economic situation balloons into overt classism very quickly, which is the bad part.
But none of that is nepotism. It’s a stupid word choice for this article.
The article just uses the prefix “nepo-”, from the Latin for nephew/descendent, implying that the market is dominated by homebuyers that are distinguished by being someone’s descendent.
Class mobility is the term. We still have it, but mostly in one direction.
“We all float down here.” 😅
Two sides to a coin, and also the difference between micro and macro. On an individual level, of course you’re gonna help your kids, but on a large scale if help from family is required despite being otherwise doing everything you need to go (working, not squandering your money, etc), that’s just bad news for the economy, and indeed promotes “nepotism”, the bad kind.