The last tuition check goes out in January. Then it's Daddy's turn for fun.What!??? You've never heard of the boomerang effect?
Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac
Get ready.
- charlestudor2005
- 09-16-2010, 06:30 PM
Get ready.
- ICU 812
- 09-17-2010, 11:35 AM
- Carrie Hillcrest
- 09-17-2010, 03:34 PM
- atlcomedy
- 09-17-2010, 04:18 PM
- Rudyard K
- 09-17-2010, 04:55 PM
Yeah. I know far too many of my friends who graduated, couldn't find jobs in their fields, and had to (or chose to...) MBI. Originally Posted by Carrie HillcrestYep, you've gotta plan waaaayyyy ahead as a parent. I started buying stocks and such for my kids...in their names...when they were still rug rats. Contributed to that on their behalf over the years. You do that for 20 years or so?...and it becomes a pretty penny.
When they graduated college...along with helping them find gainful employment...not a one of them moved back home for more than 2-3 weeks. They had a modest salary...and enough dividend income to fade a good part of their rent...and as such, they were completely off the tit.
What happens next?...is up to them.
Just like retirement...you've gotta plan ahead.
- beautifulbailey
- 09-24-2010, 01:19 AM
Semi off topic story that I was reminded of because of your avatar:
I was driving the other day and passed a car with a license plate that was something like "529 CBJ". I was like, Dang, that's a little pricey, ain't it?
It was totally a "You know you're in the hobby when..." moment. Originally Posted by Carrie Hillcrest
Being a new provider I am having those moments more and more. lol
- Guest110911
- 09-24-2010, 09:13 AM
- Laurentius
- 09-24-2010, 12:18 PM
Thinking about this ... there is sort of fantasy and then reality.
Technically speaking, I think what I said earlier is true. Practically anyone can afford even the most expensive of providers if he has a source of income, is frugal, saves and postpones gratification.
But the reality is we are a nation full of people in debt up to their ears. People buy all kinds of crap. Their homes are full of crap. They buy crap just for amusement and even worse they often buy it on credit. As a result, the slack in their budgets is minimal.
In addition, there are some cold hard facts of reality pertaining to what I would call "ostentation." Studies show that the brand of car a guy drives makes a serious material difference in the way women react. Other studies show that when a woman believes a man has more wealth, she has more and better orgasms. I totally hate to report this as it tends to confirm some negative stereotypes but that's what studies say.
Thing is, just as studies say that men react to blond hair the same way even when they know it is from a bottle, it is the *appearances* that matter more than the underlying reality.
And men react to the reality many times by adopting what I'd call "the trappings of wealth." Sometimes they even adopt the trappings on credit. As a result they leverage themselves into oblivion.
The savings rate in this country is little short of abyssmal.
So the reality, unfortunately, is that the guy bagging groceries is not about to book a session with a provider charging $400 much less $4000. He's too busy spending what he makes and stuff he doesn't need because of artificially generated wants. Same applies pretty much across the board.
I mean, just walk into any store and look. LOOK. That stuff is stocked because it sells, and most of it is nearly worthless.
You want to know what that CD player you paid $100 for (or however much) is actually worth? Put it on ebay as a used item and see what kind of bids you get. Odds are, it isn't even worth the shipping cost. Go to any yard sale. Look at the stuff they can't even get rid of for 50 cents or a dollar and will end up putting in a dumpster. Somewhere along the line they paid good money for that stuff. Some of it they may still be paying for on credit. And there it is ... worthless.
So because of the pervasive nature of dumb spending, I would strongly suspect that hobbying in general is not an attraction for any man whose income falls below the median ($46k). I really think most hobbyists have to be in the top 5% of earners. The bottom edge of that, incidentally, is $154k. Not exactly huge bucks.
To figure out what guys making that much or more for a living actually do for work, just go into some place like salary.com and do some digging. Lawyers, doctors, college professors, stock brokers, business owners, upper management and stuff like that.
Technically speaking, I think what I said earlier is true. Practically anyone can afford even the most expensive of providers if he has a source of income, is frugal, saves and postpones gratification.
But the reality is we are a nation full of people in debt up to their ears. People buy all kinds of crap. Their homes are full of crap. They buy crap just for amusement and even worse they often buy it on credit. As a result, the slack in their budgets is minimal.
In addition, there are some cold hard facts of reality pertaining to what I would call "ostentation." Studies show that the brand of car a guy drives makes a serious material difference in the way women react. Other studies show that when a woman believes a man has more wealth, she has more and better orgasms. I totally hate to report this as it tends to confirm some negative stereotypes but that's what studies say.
Thing is, just as studies say that men react to blond hair the same way even when they know it is from a bottle, it is the *appearances* that matter more than the underlying reality.
And men react to the reality many times by adopting what I'd call "the trappings of wealth." Sometimes they even adopt the trappings on credit. As a result they leverage themselves into oblivion.
The savings rate in this country is little short of abyssmal.
So the reality, unfortunately, is that the guy bagging groceries is not about to book a session with a provider charging $400 much less $4000. He's too busy spending what he makes and stuff he doesn't need because of artificially generated wants. Same applies pretty much across the board.
I mean, just walk into any store and look. LOOK. That stuff is stocked because it sells, and most of it is nearly worthless.
You want to know what that CD player you paid $100 for (or however much) is actually worth? Put it on ebay as a used item and see what kind of bids you get. Odds are, it isn't even worth the shipping cost. Go to any yard sale. Look at the stuff they can't even get rid of for 50 cents or a dollar and will end up putting in a dumpster. Somewhere along the line they paid good money for that stuff. Some of it they may still be paying for on credit. And there it is ... worthless.
So because of the pervasive nature of dumb spending, I would strongly suspect that hobbying in general is not an attraction for any man whose income falls below the median ($46k). I really think most hobbyists have to be in the top 5% of earners. The bottom edge of that, incidentally, is $154k. Not exactly huge bucks.
To figure out what guys making that much or more for a living actually do for work, just go into some place like salary.com and do some digging. Lawyers, doctors, college professors, stock brokers, business owners, upper management and stuff like that.
- pjorourke
- 09-24-2010, 12:23 PM
"The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them. "
- Laurentius
- 09-24-2010, 01:01 PM
"The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them. " Originally Posted by pjorourkeBeauteous!
- WTF
- 09-24-2010, 01:55 PM
". But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them. " Originally Posted by pjorourkeReally?.............You need to tell that to the generation of WWII vets that took advantage of the GI Bill or auto workers that worked their way to middleclassdom..
We now subsidies Wall Street Bankers. Yet this is defended as some necessary evil to encourage what amounts the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very bankers who not surprisingly are not supporting reform on their theiving asses.
Where is the outrage on their instant billionare gratification? Why is it defended by you guys?
- pjorourke
- 09-24-2010, 02:50 PM
You mean the GI's that won WW2 -- yeah, they didn't exhibit any self discipline or ability to defer gratification. 
I find it amazing how you always berate the WS Bankers and praise the UAW auto workers. I see both groups as being overpaid for the value they produce. The difference is that UAW is a protected labor monopoly, while the bankers can and do get fired regularly for what their individual performance -- a classic survival of the fittest market.
BTW, isn't Soros a billionaire WS banker (one of the few actual billionaires there)? I agree he is a piece of shit that needs to be slapped down.
I find it amazing how you always berate the WS Bankers and praise the UAW auto workers. I see both groups as being overpaid for the value they produce. The difference is that UAW is a protected labor monopoly, while the bankers can and do get fired regularly for what their individual performance -- a classic survival of the fittest market.
BTW, isn't Soros a billionaire WS banker (one of the few actual billionaires there)? I agree he is a piece of shit that needs to be slapped down.
- WTF
- 09-24-2010, 03:14 PM
You mean the GI's that won WW2 -- yeah, they didn't exhibit any self discipline or ability to defer gratification.That wasn't the point and you know it. Unless you are suggesting a national draft for everyone? I can dig that. See how many wars we start when the bankers/congressman son and daughter has to go fight.
Ammish show self discipline or ability to defer gratification. You don't see them looking for a handout, yet no bankers would bank on making any money from them.
Really, who got fired for taking government bailout money? And don't forget their golden parachute! All courtesy of you and I and every other taxpayer. Plus I wasn't defending the UAW, they priced theirself outta of a job.
I find it amazing how you always berate the WS Bankers and praise the UAW auto workers. I see both groups as being overpaid for the value they produce. The difference is that UAW is a protected labor monopoly, while the bankers can and do get fired regularly for what their individual performance -- a classic survival of the fittest market.
Originally Posted by pjorourke
- pjorourke
- 09-24-2010, 03:29 PM
Really, who got fired for taking government bailout money? Originally Posted by WTFWell it wasn't for taking the government money, but the entire management team at Lehman & Bear Stearns were out without any golden parachutes. One of the conditions of getting TARP money was getting rid of those agreements for top management. Further, Wall Street lost more jobs than Detroit.* I know how you hate to let facts get in the way of your rants.
_________
* "The financial crisis took a heavy toll on Wall Street. Nearly 200,000 financial professionals lost their jobs in New York alone—500,000 nationwide." - http://www.cnbc.com/id/35566066/Life...gs_Big_Changes
For comparison, the big 3 UAW automakers employ about 250,000 in the US.
- pjorourke
- 09-24-2010, 03:31 PM