this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023

464 points (96.2% liked)

Greentext

4437 readers

874 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

464

Anon's dad is proud of him (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 11 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 116 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It's pointless but harmless hobby. At 19 he could use his money for a lot worse things. He could also use them better, but why?

The idea that personal finances should always be optimised for the best possible future outcome is sickening to me. What's the point in that grind? To eventually have more money for ... more pointless hobbies? If so, then he already won the game by being able to enjoy a pointless hobby at the age of 19.

It's a good time to do it too. It's only getting more difficult and less enjoyable the older you get. Life shouldn't be so serious. Let the kids play as long as they can. People get mentally old because they stop playing.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Well said.

More people should know the story of the Mexican fisherman.

[–] josep@freiburg.social 1 points 11 months ago

An interesting take on #personalfinance and #happinness in fact

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 12 points 11 months ago

Love that it's a random picture of the spineless shit that is Canadian politician Andrew Sheer.

[–] Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

What a fool, you should have used your money responsibly, like me, who gambled it all away. Your way was such a waste!

[+] javasux@lemmy.world -65 points 11 months ago (7 children)

[deleted]

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 108 points 11 months ago (2 children)

First of all he could very well be paying rent, you don't know shit. And second of all, thank god he isn't wasting his damn money paying someone else's mortgage. This economy fuckin sucks ass. Decades ago you could afford a house working in basic jobs. Not anymore.

[–] RQG@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I never thought about it that way. But giving your parents money to pay off their house you would eventually inherit makes much more sense than renting from a stranger.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's better than renting from strangers, but since inheritance is taxed (in some countries/states) it might be better for the total family worth to let the kids live there for free as long as possible.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 6 points 11 months ago

Remember to empty the bins and clean your room

[–] RQG@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Inheritance tax in many countries has a lot of ways to reduce and circumvent it at least partially. But you are right in that it should be taken into account.

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 58 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Oh fuck off. The kid didn't just appear one day and start eating their food and using their electricity. You are legally required to provide if you have a kid. You don't get a medal, and you sure as fuck aren't owed anything.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Where are you legally required to provide for a 19 year old?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In Neckbeard's Law of Being a Leech section 2 line 45

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I'm convinced you're the neck beard, with how much edge you're trying to cut me with.

Charging rent to your kid is the best way to guarantee they live with you longer. If you take their money, they have no money to move out.

Dumbass.

[–] ChexMax@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well, no. If a kid is paying money either way, they might decide they want privacy. My parents started charging my sister rent, the next month, she moved out. At some point, enabling your kids is hurting them more than helping them

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Now how many kids move out with no money because their parents are overbearing control freaks who think because they had sex one time 20 years ago means they have a slave.

Edit: I also feel I should add that living with your parents as an adult was very common until the last 40-50 years. The only reason it became the "norm" was, because of how good the economy was, young adults could actually afford to leave their parents at that age.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago

Be 19

[–] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 15 points 11 months ago

Sure is easy to buy things when you dont have to throw away 50%+ of your take home pay to rent!

[–] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't live with my parents, but only cause I had reason to move out. If the parents and child are happy with the arrangement, what arbitrary rule decides that the child should move out? They should absolutely contribute to the household, but if they have the room, why not save the money?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

I don't think they were saying he should move out

[–] oldGregg@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago

Don't have kids.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

You say it like it's a bad thing

[+] SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org -18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Damn you pissed off a lot of basement dwellers.

Down voters: "and I took that personally"

[–] ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz 17 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Uh, I'm 31, I have a job and a home (no kids though, don't want any either). I still think that the idea of charging your kids rent is ridiculously heartless, especially when they're still in education.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

It depends on what the parents do with it, IMO. My parents charged us all "rent," till we moved out, provided we had gotten a job to begin with. What we didn't know is they were just stashing it in a savings account for us, for when we graduated. AFAIK, I got every penny I gave them back in a lump sum. Wish I had been a little smarter with that money, but oh well. Have to have some regrets I suppose.

[–] SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org -4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Agreed, but at a certain age it's time to pay up or move out. Certainly wouldn't charge my kids rent while they were furthering their education.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

that notion seems ridiculous to me in general. For the entirety of human history generations have lived in one shared home, all providing for the home in their way. Why the fuck has it suddenly become socially unacceptable to live with your parents? Why would a child need to pay rent to their parents for the "privilege" of continuing to live with them? It's more financially sound nowadays to share a home with other people, your parents, your friends, even strangers. The only time I can think of when that wasn't the case was 50-90s in first world countries when buying a house by a single income working class individual was, like, possible

[+] SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org -7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Society changes over time. It's been a long, long time before multiple generations lived with each other, permanently. It's been the norm, that sometime between a person's early to mid twenties they leave the nest.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You just said that about 1/3 of the world's population doesn't have a society. Anywhere that grows communal crops, such as rice that require multiple families to tend the crops, they still frequently live with their parents, and then the parents move in with the eldest child and live with them.

Western societies didn't even start moving away from these communal societal structures until the start of The Protestant Revolution. It also cause us to stop marrying our cousins, but that was unintentional. The intentional effects were a focus on individualism rather than a focus on family. Even then, it really took until the Industrial Revolution before we really embraced the idea. The Nuclear Family is a concept that's less than 100 years old.

These ideas are far newer than you think.

AFAIC, the not marrying our cousins was the only real benefit of us moving away from societal structures that forced a closer community bond. At least that's the only goal they succeeded in that didn't almost immediately bite us in the ass.

[–] SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

When did I say a third of the world's population doesn't have a society?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Society changes over time. It's been a long, long time before multiple generations lived with each other, permanently. It's been the norm, that sometime between a person's early to mid twenties they leave the nest.

This implicitly discounts that at least 1/3 of the world's population that currently live in exactly that model of society exist, or they just don't count because they don't have a society, your pick.

[–] SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I was referring to my own society. Also, that's not me saying what you claimed I said. That's your interpretation of my statement. Huge difference.

A third of the world's population is approximately 2.7 billion. While possible, I doubt the number of multigenerational households is that high. Though I would be interested to read any material you may have on the subject. Espein comparrison to twenty years ago due to the skyrocketing costs of apartments/houses.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

19 is a bit low but just say the aforementioned 31 year old was still living with parents... Pay up lol

[–] ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz 6 points 11 months ago

I don't live with my parents. I just wanted to make it clear that it's more than stereotypical basement dwellers who think that charging rent to your kids is fucked up.