pennstatelive/ FLickr
The idea that hard work and career dedication are the drivers for economic success is outdated. Now, young people increasingly depend on “mommy and daddy’s bank”.
British historian Eliza Filby says that, whenever a company invites her to give a talk, she begins to explain to employers a point that she believes is fundamental to understanding the dynamics of modern workplaces.
“Do you realize that, now, your employees under 45 are more likely to buy a house if they are Loyal to your parents and not your boss?”
Filby is the author of Inheritocracy: It’s Time to Talk About the Bank of Mum and Dad.
The book is a bestseller in the United Kingdom and analyzes how wealth accumulated by a specific generation (the baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964) modeled the economic system in which later generations needed to develop.
“’Herançocracy’ is an intentionally provocative title”, declared the author to the presenter of the Radical podcast, on BBC Radio 4, Amol Rajan. “It is the opposite of meritocracy, the belief that hard work will result in success and opportunities.”
“Heritagecracy is a society in which the important thing is not how much you earn, nor what you have learned,” he continues, “but whether you have access to mom and dad’s bank, which is what defines your opportunities, your safety net and your platform for adult life.”
Filby guarantees that this phenomenon has immense impact on the lives of generation X (those born between 1965 and 1980) and millennials (between 1981 and 1986). And it may continue to expand in the future for generation Z (1997 to 2012) and alpha (2013 to 2024).
Meritocracy
Filby highlights that the concept of meritocracy was born as a warning. British sociologist Michael Young (1915-2002) coined the term in 1958 as satire, not as an ideal.
In his book The Rise of the Meritocracy, Young described a society in which the success was morally justified by talent and effort, while failure was the sole fault of the individual.
In the course of time, the irony is lost and the word began to be used as a compliment.
For Filby, this misunderstanding is fundamental to understanding the frustration of the current generation.
“The idea that hard work should bring rewards is fundamental to any democracy,” she told the BBC. “The problem is that we reduce merit to passing examsaccumulate credentials and follow a single educational path.”
The writer explains that, in part, the idea of merit became popular among baby boomers because it was a concept that served many of them well.
It was a time when stories of people who achieved leaving home at a young age and, through the path of higher education, they built their own future.
But Filby reminds us that the real reasons why this path worked so well for baby boomers are less focused on merit and more on the unprecedented features of the post-war worldwith sustained economic growth, driven by the fragile but consistent “peace” offered to the world by the Cold War (1947-1991).
With higher revenues, governments looked for ways to democratize opportunities for young people from rural or working class areas and found a way to do so, with higher education.
Filby recognizes that the intention was good and that, in social and cultural terms, sending more people to university brought real benefits.
But she also argues that, from the 1990s onwards, this impulse helped to consolidate a unique narrative of the meaning of success: study, go to university, get a degree and achieve a stable professional career.
It turns out that the system was unable to guarantee this same success for everyone who entered university.
For the author, “the problem is that we have built a system in which 50% of people did not have a clear alternative way towards a safe life.”
For many young people, not going to university is no longer a legitimate option. And, for those who attended higher education, the monetary value of a university degree started to fallwhile the costs of achieving it skyrocketed.
The result was a generation that got into debt to access a promise that no longer guaranteed stability.
“Education cannot end at 21“, he advises. “And it cannot just fall on people.”
“For decades, companies outsourced university education. Before, it was learned on the job. Today, companies expect ‘ready-made’ employees and invest very little in their training.”
Mom and Dad’s bank
Under current conditions, Filby states that “Mom and Dad’s bench” has become a greater source of stability than work itself. This is changing the dynamics in different areas of society.
But the author highlights that, in most cases, what occurs are not acts of greed or youthful irresponsibility, but rather adaptation.
“The family is intervening because the State withdrew and the market became dysfunctional in fundamental areas”, he explains. “In many ways, It’s a parental love story.”
Filby says that the expression “bank of mum and dad” began to appear in the UK around 2013. It describes the increasingly common phenomenon that leads parents and grandparents to use their wealth to help your children and grandchildren pay for studiesrent, mortgages, childcare or simply to make it to the end of the month.
After the 2008 financial crisis, the economic landscape for people entering adulthood suddenly changed.
Some things have become cheaper, such as technology, travel and some everyday luxuries. But others began to risesuch as housing, education, childcare and, in some countries, medical care.
In this scenario, many young people began to focus on small and visible expenses, such as coffee, a trip or a cell phone. The great achievements of adult life began to become unattainable without family help.
This is where, according to the author, the stereotype of millennial who spends on “avocado toast”a caricature that ignores the structural context behind that image.
Filby also states that the bank of mom and dad is not a concept valid only for the comfortable middle class. In fact, the majority of young people living with their parents in their late 30s come from working-class families.
In these cases, support does not translate into deposits for real estate financing, but rather into housing, food and mutual care.
“A family solidarity increased at all income levels”, according to Filby.
It is the grandparents who take care of their grandchildren so that their children can work. Parents who shelter adult children so they can save money. Families that function as safety nets in the face of an increasingly fragile system.
The problem, according to the author, is that not all families can do this. She In a society where stability depends on the family, birth becomes decisive.
Divorce, blended families, family conflicts or simply structural poverty turn into profound disadvantages.
The result is an economy in which loyalty to family is more important that loyalty to the employer and wealth are not accumulated through salary, but mainly through possessions, explains Filby.
And work, even if well paid, cannot guarantee access to the basic pillars of adult life.
Inherited company
In a phenomenon as profound as inheritanceocracy, its effects extend beyond money.
Filby says inheritanceocracy is reshaping the way people choose partners, plan their lives and understand security.
She cites as an example the selective choice of partnerswhich is the tendency to form couples between people with similar origins and resources.
During the 20th century, much of female social mobility occurred through marriage. Nowadays, the standard is different.
Filby explains that, initially, couples were formed between university graduates. But, since the 2008 crisis, the decisive variable has become different: access to family heritage.
“It’s not that people get married for someone else’s salary,” she says. “It’s just that two people with a mommy and daddy bank tend to find each other and come together.”
The author mentions research that indicates that more than half of generation Z young people consider financial compatibility a central factor in a relationship. This is a much higher proportion than in previous generations.
“I wrote this book because we need to talk about this”, he says. “It’s not about ‘nepotistic babies.’ It’s about how opportunities are distributed.”
