Managing the financial expectations of relationships with friends, colleagues, parents, siblings, children, and romantic partners can be an ongoing quandary and balancing act. It is only one dilemma of economic security but it will not go away.
The natural tendency is to ignore this persistent dilemma or try to hide the open secret that will eventually be known to everyone important to you.
Unfortunately, failure to anticipate and address the expectations of others is fraught with potential hurt feelings, misunderstandings, mistrust, deceptions, disappointments, and resentments. In the end, ignoring “the situation” causes more of the problems in relationships. Problems you were trying to avoid in the first place.
For parents, perhaps the relevant question is how does growing up in an economically secure life effect your children’s capacity to have maintain long term relationships?
More than any other factor it is the quality and longevity of our relationships that predict a fulfilling, happy, and healthy life.
Robert J. Waldinger, MD explains this major finding of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, an exceptionally rare longitudinal study in his TED Talk.
“What are the lessons that come from the tens of thousands of pages of information that we've generated on these lives? Well, the lessons are not about wealth or fame or working harder and harder. The clearest message that we get from this 75-year study is this: Good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period.
We have learned three big lessons about relationships. The first is that social connections are especially good for us, and loneliness kills.
It turns out that people who are more socially connected to family, to friends, to community, are happier, they are physically healthier, and they live longer than people who are less well connected.
And the experience of loneliness turns out to be toxic.” 
We know that people who are part of the minority, which we identify as economically secure, frequently complain of feeling isolated and emotionally lonely sometimes even when with members of their own family.
Almost by definition being raised in an economically secure household makes one a member of a distinct and small minority. Indeed, it is a minority afforded many material and experiential advantages; however, being a member of any minority has disadvantages. The experience of isolation is perhaps the biggest disadvantage as is the fear of being negatively stereotyped. Young family members are more likely to feel wounded by being stereotyped and seen as atypical which can quickly become peculiar, strange, or weird.
Younger family members find it particularly difficult to be certain why others care for them. Is it because of who they are or is it because of what they can offer others because of their economic status?
“People who are more isolated than they want to be from others find that they are less happy, their health declines earlier in midlife, their brain functioning declines sooner and they live shorter lives than people who are not lonely”
When discussing her research Dr. Suniya S. Luthar of Columbia University suggests, “whereas children rendered atypical by virtue of their parents' wealth are undoubtedly privileged in many respects, there is also, clearly, the potential for some nontrivial threats to their psychological well-being.” Material advantages notwithstanding, growing up in an economically secure household, however paradoxical, increases the likelihood of feeling isolated.
For parents the relevant question is: How does growing up in an economically secure household effect a child’s capacity to have “a good life” by maintaining long term relationships?
 Robert J. Waldinger, M.D. is the Director of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies in history.
 We use the term economically secure as a substitute for the terms: rich, wealthy, high net worth (HNW), ultra high net worth (UHNW), for two reasons. 1) HNW and UHNW are inexact terms used in the investment industry to identify the liquid assets of a household. 2) Rich and Wealthy are poorly defined terms and frequently have negative connotations.
 Children of the Affluent: Challenges to Well-Being Suniya S. Luthar and Shawn J. Latendresse, Teachers College, Columbia University Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005 February ; 14(1): 49–53. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00333.x.
Sometimes people use the word motivation when they mean ambition. Ambition is a desire, a dream, for something better or at least different.
In his epic poem Ulysses – Alfred Lord Tennyson writes:
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die . . . . .
Tho' much is taken, much abides; . . . . . that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Can we read those immortal and inspiring words of Tennyson and remain worried about our children's inherent drive to dream? Can we believe that a financial inheritance, whatever the size, will destroy the drive “to sail beyond the sunset” or destroy the inner push “to strive, to seek and to find” so beautifully described by Tennyson and by Homer before him?
Shakespeare tells us in Hamlet in one the darkest hours in the classic play, that it is the thought of future dreams that pulls the prince away from the precipice of ending his life
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--
No more--and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep--
To sleep--perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
We all have the capacity and the drive to dream. Sometimes we see, and it is very sad when we do, that drive to dream is shut down. But the drive to dream does not disappear it is stifled, it goes underground, and it is suppressed. The result is sometimes depression, sometimes addiction.
As parents we are able to neither predict, nor instruct, what dreams may come for our children. But we can stifle their dreaming at great cost. Separating our dreams from our children's dreams - is a major task of parenting - we want them to be happy - and we think we know what will make them happy.
Separating the parent dreams from the dreams of their children seems logical and simple however in reality it can be very difficult. As parents do we want our children to inherit (our) dreams or do we want our children to create their own?
Parents worry their children's dreams are unrealistic . . . that all the distractions provided by the family money will act as permanent detours. Like Ulysses, parents worry their children will lured by the “Lotus” and become stranded on a remote island.
Paradoxically that fear pushes parents to direct their children away from the Lotus and in the process artificially inhibit the child's capacity to dream. They stifle the child's journey of self exploration.
Why are we afraid that money will spoil our children’s capacity to dream?
Do we think that they will never be frustrated if they have enough money?
Do we believe that they will never dream if they have enough money?
Do we believe that it is possible that all their dreams will be fulfilled?
 Alfred, Lord Tennyson 1809–1892
 In Greek mythology the Lotus-eaters were a race of people living on an island dominated by lotus plants. The lotus fruits and flowers were the primary food of the island and were narcotic, causing the people to sleep in peaceful apathy.
 In Greek mythology, the Sirens (Greek singular: Σειρήν Seirēn; Greek plural: Σειρῆνες Seirēnes) were beautiful yet dangerous creatures, who lured nearby sailors with their enchanting music and voices to shipwreck on the rocky coast of their island.
The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less
by Barry Schwartz
Infinite choice is paralyzing, Schwartz argues, and exhausting to the human psyche. It leads us to set unreasonably high expectations, question our choices before we even make them and blame our failures entirely on ourselves. His relatable examples, from consumer products (jeans, TVs, salad dressings) to lifestyle choices (where to live, what job to take, who and when to marry), underscore this central point: Too much choice undermines happiness.
There are few things sadder in life than seeing a young person who has no dreams, who has stopped dreaming or worse does not know how to dream. The fear that money will wreck a child’s drive, or their search for personal meaning, or their search for their true self is one that harks back to the ancient Greeks. The dangerous first stop on the travel home (to one’s real self) by Odysseus fully supplies a narcotic that makes the sailors, who were so motivated to get home, start to believe they already are home. That they have every THING they need.
Off course they forget where they were going and what they longed for. They confuse “stagnation” with flow. They have no dreams. Rather than search for their real home (self) they forget. Michael Goldberg suggests that the resignation of the Lotus Eaters is more than woeful - it is a deadly sin that the early Christian monastics called accedia, i.e. sloth, lethargy, discouragement.
Perhaps it is this ancient fear that fosters parents to fret about money and lethargy in their children. Rather than provide their children the tools needed to visit and than leave the island of the Lotus Eaters they try to arrange it so that the children will never get anywhere near that seductive island of false contentment. In that scenario the tools needed are neither provided nor tested - and perhaps worst of all - the children don’t launch on their own odyssey and only the parents are able to play the role of Odysseus.
 Travels with Odysseus:
Uncommon Wisdom from Homer’s Odyssey