Continuously paying for an adult child's lifestyle, while well-intentioned, can be perceived by the child as a message that their parents believe they are incapable of succeeding on their own, leading to resentment and depression.
Related Insights
Continuing to give money to adult children sends a damaging subliminal message: 'I don't believe you can make it on your own.' This perceived lack of faith from parents can be more destructive to a young adult's confidence than the financial struggle itself.
The common desire among seniors to "age in place" often contradicts their stated goal of not burdening their children. By refusing to move to more suitable housing without a plan, they can inadvertently force their families into crisis management roles, creating the very financial and emotional burden they sought to avoid.
If an adult child lacks ambition, the root cause is often continued financial support from parents. Providing money and shelter removes the natural consequences of inaction, creating a comfortable environment for laziness. The most effective (though difficult) solution is to cut them off financially.
The decision for a child to attend college, especially if it involves taking on debt, should not be dictated by parents who aren't funding it. The person paying for the experience gets to influence the decision. Parents pushing their kids into debt for their own social validation are acting selfishly.
The mere presence of an adult shifts responsibility away from children. They come to expect adults to enforce safety and solve conflicts, which discourages them from developing their own problem-solving skills, risk assessment, and self-reliance.
Disagreements over income disparity aren't about money itself, but a transactional mindset. Quantifying contributions devalues non-monetary efforts (like childcare), turning a partnership into an accounting exercise and creating resentment.
The discomfort felt by those from lower-income backgrounds around the wealthy is not just envy, but a deep-seated frustration. It stems from the belief that those who grew up with money can sympathize but never truly empathize with the constant stress and lack of a safety net that defines life without it.
The language parents use shapes a child's financial psychology. Instead of using traditional clichés that imply scarcity, parents can proactively reframe them to be more constructive. For example, changing "money doesn't grow on trees" to "money grows where you invest it" shifts the lesson from limitation to opportunity.
The most impactful gift a parent can provide is not material, but an unwavering, almost irrational belief in their child's potential. Since children lack strong self-assumptions, a parent can install a powerful, positive "frame" that they will grow to inhabit, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Parents don't need to formally teach kids about money. Children form powerful, lasting mental models by observing their parents' daily actions—every offhand comment about affordability, every choice of vacation, and every remark about neighbors. They will either mimic this behavior or, if they see it as flawed, aggressively rebel against it.
