Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is anything that we talk about on C-D relevant? It interests the posters. It doesn't need to be "relevant" to you.
It's nice to be curious about things, I agree with that. But virtually all of us in this thread are going to be New Money people - that is, assuming we ever do accumulate a sufficient amount of money in our lifetimes to be called New Money.
There is the biggest myth of all: We are going to be New Money! More than likely most of you are going to be Not Much Money.
Several generations of Old Money tend to teach their kids to live well but not extravagantly. The first generation of new wealth tend to be spenders because their parents failed to instill the virtue of furgality.
There is the biggest myth of all: We are going to be New Money! More than likely most of you are going to be Not Much Money.
Several generations of Old Money tend to teach their kids to live well but not extravagantly. The first generation of new wealth tend to be spenders because their parents failed to instill the virtue of furgality.
the Great Gatsby negates all sensibility.
I agree with your first sentence. Most of us are in the "not much money" classification.
Only the "nouveau riche" would take umbrage with what has been said about them here. I grew up in an area of both new and old money, with my family falling somewhere in the middle of the two - having had some money for about a century and a half and having been in the US for quite a long time.
My family was well to do. Comfortable. We defiantly were not showy or ostentatious.
I think what Gatsby was saying, and I know that this is rather reductionist, is that the newly rich, like himself, tend to be very showy with money, where as the old rich don't seem to enjoy it as much, at least in a very visible way.
There are two places mentioned in "The Great Gatsby" - both located on the Gold Coast of Long Island. One old money and one new. I grew up in the old money location.
We were comfortable but not wildly wealthy although I had friends who were.
All of us took jobs in the summer, drove a family car until we were able to buy one on our own. Were dressed well through college. But nothing flashy.
No jewelry! No sporty cars.
We had an old Navy blue Volvo station wagon that was called "the children's car". We were free to drive that. And to argue over it.
Our parents valued education and that was paid for. Completely. As was educational travel.
We were very different from our "Nouveau" ( that's what we called them) friends and acquaintances who drove red sports cars that they were given for their 16th birthday, and were not required to have summer jobs.
Do you find that those who worked to secure their wealth treat it with more respect VS those who are born into wealth?
My answer to this question is NO.
There are quite a few stereotypes re: new money vs. old money (e.g. new money is more flashy/ostentatious, old money is more frugal/refined, etc..) which I generally find to be untrue. E.g. Look at the Hiltons, Pritzkers, Gates, Buffett, Zuckerbergs, etc. and you'll see these stereotypes often don't fit...
I agree with your first sentence. Most of us are in the "not much money" classification.
Only the "nouveau riche" would take umbrage with what has been said about them here. I grew up in an area of both new and old money, with my family falling somewhere in the middle of the two - having had some money for about a century and a half and having been in the US for quite a long time.
My family was well to do. Comfortable. We defiantly were not showy or ostentatious.
I think what Gatsby was saying, and I know that this is rather reductionist, is that the newly rich, like himself, tend to be very showy with money, where as the old rich don't seem to enjoy it as much, at least in a very visible way.
There are two places mentioned in "The Great Gatsby" - both located on the Gold Coast of Long Island. One old money and one new. I grew up in the old money location.
We were comfortable but not wildly wealthy although I had friends who were.
All of us took jobs in the summer, drove a family car until we were able to buy one on our own. Were dressed well through college. But nothing flashy.
No jewelry! No sporty cars.
We had an old Navy blue Volvo station wagon that was called "the children's car". We were free to drive that. And to argue over it.
Our parents valued education and that was paid for. Completely. As was educational travel.
We were very different from our "Nouveau" ( that's what we called them) friends and acquaintances who drove red sports cars that they were given for their 16th birthday, and were not required to have summer jobs.
I believe several of "The Great Gatsby" characters had just moved from the North Shore of Chicago, which is where I grew up (one of the wealthiest U.S. counties). These areas also have lots of new and old money, as well as great poverty. Growing up with these families/kids, I saw little difference between how the nouveau rich and old rich treated their wealth.
I find your last paragraph is untrue in my area (but maybe the work ethic is different in the Midwest compared to Long Island...) Many first generation "new rich" kids, whose parents founded some of the most successful Fortune 500 companies, did work for their family business when they were teens and learned the value of hardwork and contributing back to the community. And many "old money" kids also learned how to work hard for the family business and give back to the community.
They were not just all handed sports cars, but I do know both old and new money kids who were given Jaguars - I just don't see a strong pattern either way. I think it has less to do with "old money" vs "new money," and more to do with individual parenting decisions.
I happen to be "nouveau" self-made money and find it somewhat offensive that "my kind" is often stereotyped as being ostentatious, flashy, cheap, unrefined, selfish, less educated, less involved in community, etc... LOL... But nobody knows how/when I got my money which is fine with me..... I have hung out with some "old money" women and many are perfect examples of ostentatiousness, and some of my "nouveau rich" girlfriends are the most refined people I know. These big differences between "old money vs. new money" are largely media induced stereotypes, IMO.
You can't buy class. Social class is complex. It usually takes two or more generations to instill behaviors and attitudes about money within a family. It falls in line with teaching values, morals, family expectations, etc. Within the first generation of wealth building, this can be hard to do when the wealth is earned while raising children. Parents often want to show their kids how much they have and neglect teaching them the responsibilities of having much. Many middle class families fall into this trap. So, while "new" money might last up to two generations, in the absence of these lessons in money management, that's about all it's going to last. "Old money" is "old" because it has stood the test of time. In most instances, the principal isn't being spent, and it is safeguarded against foolish squandering within trusts, insurances, foundations, real estate etc.
I disagree with the bolded. Do you not think an intelligent person can learn to be well-spoken, well-mannered, well-groomed, well-dressed, well-carried, and can learn how to build/manage wealth in only one generation? Can they not do this without flaunting their wealth, while teaching their children responsible behaviors? One makes a conscious effort to become well-read, learn the upper-class trappings of art/music/languages/certain sport, become well-traveled, understand how to start-up a foundation/volunteer at the right events, make contact with the right people. It is not hard to learn about trusts, real estate, tax shelters - this is easily obtainable information. And it is not hard to find a good trust/estate planning attorney who can help educate you - if you have the "new" money.
A reasonably intelligent person can do this in only one generation, if they place no limits on their thinking and they are a good study. Many people may even begin assuming they are "old money" when they, in fact, are not. Wealth / social class deception is relatively easy in the U.S. (just look at Bernie Madoff). It's all in the presentation. And the U.S. does not have as rigid class rules (such as naming conventions) or an ancient established aristocracy. I know many personal examples of people who have successfully become upper class in only one generation (many are right in the media and corporate spotlight) because they have obtained the money, education, language, connections, power/influence, and the perception from others...
The middle class trap is that many accept their station in life as unlikely to change, so sabotage their own thinking on how they can escape it or they don't make efforts to escape it as it just feels "comfortable" to them.
Last edited by GoCUBS1; 06-11-2013 at 06:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
