[Drew_]

> Perhaps my friends and I are outliers, none of us inherited any wealth or were given trust funds or lump sums when hitting adulthood

> all of us are better off than our parents at the same age and their parents are better off than their parents

These are conflicting statements. Your group are all beneficiaries of generational wealth by this description. Maybe it isn’t as overt as a trust fund, but you definitely inherited wealth and opportunity from your parents.

[monktastic1]

It's hard to understand what you're saying here. Being better off than your parents implies that you are a beneficiary of generational wealth? Connect the dots for us.

[Drew_]

OP described a group of families that accrued wealth over 3 generations "without inheriting any wealth". Assuming they weren't orphaned at birth, each generation definitely benefited from the fruits of the previous generation. Even without an overt handout like a trust fund, we still inherit wealth from our ancestors (eg: housing, health care, education, credit, social networks, etc). In this case, the "handout" would have been their upbringing. They feel "the system is working" because of this, but not everyone in the system has an ancestry like this.

[monktastic1]

So by your definition, anyone who isn't an orphan is a beneficiary of generational wealth? In fact, even orphans are, because they inherited genes, weren't left to die, etc.? I suppose that is a definition, but it doesn't seem like a useful one, especially in the context of this conversation. Or maybe I've just misunderstood you?

[flappyeagle]

Oh get off your high horse.

[Drew_]

I’m not on a high horse.