DutchGirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 3:18 pm
A completely different thing is that unfortunately, my brother-in-law is divorcing my sister. Turns out she signed an unfavorable prenup when she married 15 years ago (also before she found out about her chronic illness), so she's all up in arms about how she will now have to downgrade her lifestyle. She has lived a middle class lifestyle (three bedroom house with garden and balcony in a popular part of the Netherlands, nice furniture, three big trips per year, nice car etc) and would on her own probably have enough income for a lower middle class lifestyle (smaller house or in less popular part of the country, one trip per year, small car). She is my sister, and there are two lovely nieces (aged 10 and 12) involved, so I will probably help out financially to create a softer landing. This does mean that my own priorities around money have changed a bit - now I do want to earn some more in the next few years to be able to help out - at least until the nieces have become financially independent from their parents - after that things should be easier. My parents are by the way also helping and there are some legal protections when divorcing (brother-in-law, as the higher earner in the relationship, will need to pay spousal alimony for five years and both parents are responsible to support the children financially until they're 18 or until they're 21 if they go to university).
What do I owe my siblings and/or my nieces/nephews? A question I have been pondering lately, but yes, I do want to help out a bit financially.
Well, I recently wrote this, but I realize that every family is different and that I don't know all the parameters here.
jacob wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:40 am
In terms of other people, I agree with @Ego. Recessions are necessary in order to let those who are otherwise out of pedagogical reach learn by experiencing the consequences of their bad decisions. There are many people who are unable to see a bad decision
before the outcome smacks them in their own personal face. Fair enough. However, most are unwilling to listen and ignore warnings as well. There's basically no way to reach them pedagogically w/o letting them experience the consequences of their choices. Doing so would in my mind constitute a disservice. I should note that this problem is not due to lack of intelligence but a lack of accurate beliefs about how the world works. Some just have to learn by making their own mistakes. There's no other way!
This [inability compounded with an unwillingess to listen] used to bother me a lot more---why oh why do humans always gotta human---but I've increasingly come to accept that this is just the only or preferred way some people learn. While things are going well, it's everybody else who pays the cost of their bad decisions---but they don't see that either. As such I tend to see recessions as a kind of delayed learning process even if it is ugly.
I'm sympathetic to those who made good decisions but got thrown under the bus due to other people's bad decisions. Not so much those who made the bad decisions and caused themselves and everybody else to suffer. Doesn't mean my pain tolerance in terms of bad outcomes to others is infinite, but it is proportional to the destructiveness of someone's decisions. It would be better for society (and maybe even eventually for themselves) if they learned the consequences of their choices instead of getting bailed out. The more the cost of bad decision-making can be isolated to those who made the bad decision, the better. Harsh!
Consider that there are many different ways of helping. You could help her figure out how to refocus from "three bedroom house with garden and balcony in a popular part of the Netherlands, nice furniture, three big trips per year, nice car etc" to "lower middle class lifestyle (smaller house or in less popular part of the country, one trip per year, small car)". This requires showing a path from "aspiring beyond-your-means consumerism" over "frugality" and eventually to "ERE". Lessons here extend from the practical to the theoretical. You're well-positioned to lead by example here. Note that all this knowledge might not be welcome. Human minds have great immune systems with defenses kicking in when unsolicited advice is offered. The "holy shit, my situation changed, so I gotta change"-mind is very rare. The average human will try to deny, bargain, get angry, blame the world, ... before coming around to the fact that it sucks to suck. Again, I don't know the individuals here, but this is how it usually goes. So... you might wanna hold off while that process unfolds.
The easiest thing is just to throw money at the problem. This will inevitably create expectations, entitlements, and dependencies. Many cultures put family over everything else, even the individual. If so, it's just what you do. (This is why ERE/FIRE is not a thing in cultures where "filial piety" is a core value.) If this is not you, just consider how aid and support will permanently change the relationship. Again individual outcomes may vary. Don't expect outcomes to automagically be positive. The receiver might come to resent the dependence. It would be wise to insert some kind of hard break-point. For example, in the rare case I've bailed someone out, it's been on the condition that it'll never happen again---so is now the time or would they rather hold off on calling in what is a lifetime favor as far as I'm concerned?
The way I see it, it's fundamentally a choice between changing a person (who might not be ready to change themselves) or probably changing the relationship you have with them. This is it in a nutshell. "You can never do just one thing", but you can lean in on a given direction.
. But who knows?
