"good choices"...
I'm just home from work.
These days I am working in learning support at a FE college.
Our cohort, comes from some of the most socially deprived communities in my country.
Many come to us barely literate and with low levels of maths literacy.
Tell me, how do you make a reasoned decision about say a loan you need so you can eat in the next five days, because your mother has drunk or injected the last of the child support money, and you haven't slept properly because you where up until 2am working in a pub, and your rushed because you have to get to college, feed your little brothers and you don't really understand what this APR thing is, or how it works.
I'd love to see anyone who bandies around language like "society should encourage good choices", make good decisions while living the lives of my student.
Society needs to be less worried about rewarding good choices, and more worried about enabling people to have a chance at making them.
It isn't "accusations of envy and self-justification" when people literally POST envy and self-justification Bugley.
But I'm done here.
Ok. I actually thought we were having a decent discussion (largely thanks to you).
Hell, I wish I were born rich, so I guess that makes me envious. And I've made some bad choices in my life (like not saving enough when I was younger). That's no one's fault but my own. But I also know people who work hard at crappy, dead-end jobs in bad circumstances with little to no prospect for advancement. My mother was one of those people, and she was anything but lazy.
"good choices"...
I'm just home from work.
These days I am working in learning support at a FE college.
Our cohort, comes from some of the most socially deprived communities in my country.
Many come to us barely literate and with low levels of maths literacy.
Tell me, how do you make a reasoned decision about say a loan you need so you can eat in the next five days, because your mother has drunk or injected the last of the child support money, and you haven't slept properly because you where up until 2am working in a pub, and your rushed because you have to get to college, feed your little brothers and you don't really understand what this APR thing is, or how it works.
I'd love to see anyone who bandies around language like "society should encourage good choices", make good decisions while living the lives of my student.
Society needs to be less worried about rewarding good choices, and more worried about enabling people to have a chance at making them.
Society does need to encourage good choices...but it has to help those who don't have the opportunity to make them. That's kinda my point: We should be helping those dealt a crappy hand, not blaming them.
"good choices"...
I'm just home from work.
These days I am working in learning support at a FE college.
Our cohort, comes from some of the most socially deprived communities in my country.
Many come to us barely literate and with low levels of maths literacy.
Tell me, how do you make a reasoned decision about say a loan you need so you can eat in the next five days, because your mother has drunk or injected the last of the child support money, and you haven't slept properly because you where up until 2am working in a pub, and your rushed because you have to get to college, feed your little brothers and you don't really understand what this APR thing is, or how it works.
I'd love to see anyone who bandies around language like "society should encourage good choices", make good decisions while living the lives of my student.
Society needs to be less worried about rewarding good choices, and more worried about enabling people to have a chance at making them.
Zombie, I could describe to you the seven years I spent at college, working two jobs and having nothing but a bicycle while living in an apartment with a drug-addled roommate, but I suspect that's not the sort of answer you want.
Your description above is not far off of my own situation when I was 17 and my alcoholic and gambling addicted divorced father decided that I was old enough to be on my own and moved away to pursue his own goals, leaving me to fend for myself on the streets. My oldest brother was in prison, my next older brother was on the run from the law and my next oldest brother was in a local jail. All of them were dealing with drug problems of their own.
How did I get through all of that and end up where I am today?
I suppose I was "lucky". But somehow I remember a lot of pain, suffering and hard-ass work being involved.
Now in my opinion society DID help me and I couldn't have gotten through those seven years without that help. What was that help? A few Pell grants and years of student loans, which I then had to pay off.
"good choices"...
I'm just home from work.
These days I am working in learning support at a FE college.
Our cohort, comes from some of the most socially deprived communities in my country.
Many come to us barely literate and with low levels of maths literacy.
Tell me, how do you make a reasoned decision about say a loan you need so you can eat in the next five days, because your mother has drunk or injected the last of the child support money, and you haven't slept properly because you where up until 2am working in a pub, and your rushed because you have to get to college, feed your little brothers and you don't really understand what this APR thing is, or how it works.
I'd love to see anyone who bandies around language like "society should encourage good choices", make good decisions while living the lives of my student.
Society needs to be less worried about rewarding good choices, and more worried about enabling people to have a chance at making them.
Society does need to encourage good choices...but it has to help those who don't have the opportunity to make them. That's kinda my point: We should be helping those dealt a crappy hand, not blaming them.
I am sure it was your point B. I've just had a rubbish day at work, and I made the mistake at looking at Off-Topic Discussions.
I don't disagree that in an ideal world encouraging good choices is desirable. But we don't live there. I'd settle for playing the lottery not being my students best odds at actually having a future that involves prosperity.
"good choices"...
I'm just home from work.
These days I am working in learning support at a FE college.
Our cohort, comes from some of the most socially deprived communities in my country.
Many come to us barely literate and with low levels of maths literacy.
Tell me, how do you make a reasoned decision about say a loan you need so you can eat in the next five days, because your mother has drunk or injected the last of the child support money, and you haven't slept properly because you where up until 2am working in a pub, and your rushed because you have to get to college, feed your little brothers and you don't really understand what this APR thing is, or how it works.
I'd love to see anyone who bandies around language like "society should encourage good choices", make good decisions while living the lives of my student.
Society needs to be less worried about rewarding good choices, and more worried about enabling people to have a chance at making them.
Zombie, I could describe to you the seven years I spent at college, working two jobs and having nothing but a bicycle while living in an apartment with a drug-addled roommate, but I suspect that's not the sort of answer you want.
Your description above is not far off of my own situation when I was 17 and my alcoholic and gambling addicted divorced father decided that I was old enough to be on my own and moved away to pursue his own goals, leaving me to fend for myself on the streets. My oldest brother was in prison, my next older brother was on the run from the law and my next oldest brother was in a local jail. All of them were dealing with drug problems of their own.
How did I get through all of that and end up where I am today?
I suppose I was "lucky". But somehow I remember a lot of pain, suffering and hard-ass work being involved.
But that's just me.
Lot of pain, suffering and hard-ass work is necessary; but not sufficient.
You overcame barrier, and that is great. It was bloody hard
But here is the thing, there was someone else, who had it just a little harder, and who worked just as hard as you, but didn't make it, because their barriers where higher.
And it is more complicated than that.
Because they could be facing the same challenges you did, be naturally talented at a subject, far better than you at it, but just be slightly worse at making good decisions, or have a slightly weaker will. People are spikey, good at some things, bad at others.
How is it fair that someone who is better at what you do, and started off in the same place as you, doesn't have your job, because the conditions he grew up in were to much for him.
Edit: Oh, and you went to university, or had a chance at it. The young people I am talking about are 21 and are studying entry level maths and English. Please do them the justice of not comparing yourself to them.
How is it fair that someone who is better at what you do, and started off in the same place as you, doesn't have your job, because the conditions he grew up in were to much for him.
It's as fair as my not being drafted by MLB because I couldn't throw a 95mph fastball zombie.
Your question above boils down to "how fair is it that some people make the wrong choices?"
That's another way of saying that "fairness" is defined as equality of outcome, when our current society is more of an equality of opportunity model.
Let me ask you this zombie, how "fair" is it if I struggle and make all the hard choices and sacrifice nearly a decade of my youth, if the person who chooses poorly gains the same advantages? Why would I have done what I did if choosing the easier path had the same result?
Edit: Why are they 21 and struggling at math zombie? Did they not have the opportunity, as I did, to study and learn math as children? What, exactly, in a country with public schools, stopped them?
So, can we please just stop with the "all it takes is hard work" narrative?
Justin, you are somehow missing the multiple times that everyone on this discussion has said that dealing with disabilities is a special case. Nobody is saying that people who have dealt with significant life-altering injuries, illness or mental struggles are struggling through lack of hard work. I have very carefully and multiple times said that I am talking about able-bodied, reasonably intelligent and emotionally stable people.
Edit: Full disclosure, I have an autistic adult son. He has found it incredibly difficult to stay employed due to his autistic symptoms. I fully understand the difficulties that HE, at least, is struggling with to overcome his own challenges.
I am talking about able-bodied, reasonably intelligent and emotionally stable people.That seems such a narrow subset as to be meaningless.
TOZ, only if you want to stretch the definition to MAKE it meaningless. And that is a deliberate exercise in confusing the issue to avoid making meaningful distinctions.
Which is, I know, what a lot of people resort to.
Edit: Why are they 21 and struggling at math zombie? Did they not have the opportunity, as I did, to study and learn math as children? What, exactly, in a country with public schools, stopped them?
I can't talk specifics(for ethical reasons) and the generalities are to wide and depressing for words.
But take combinations of four or five of the following, and you'll get a snap shot.
-Late diagnosis of Specific learning difficulties
-Learning disables
-ESOL
-Mental health problems
-addiction
-care leaver
-abuse survivors
-bullying resultant persistent truency
-neglect
-homelessness(both current, and long term speradic)
-acting (as carers for adult or child family members)
-serious behavioral difficults
-sensory imparement
-ASD
-chronic health problems
The problem is that this narrative you use has an impact on the rest of us. Do you know that it can take up to two years (maybe longer) to get approved for social security disability? During that time, even if you are able to work a little (which I'm not, but some disabled people are), you can't because it will screw up your paperwork processing. That means NO INCOME for most of us. All because people, like you, are afraid of the moochers. Most of us end up living with family while all this is taken care of. But, if you don't have anyone to fall back on (perhaps you grew up in foster care)? My lawyer has told me that she's seen people gone homeless and scrounging for food while their disability paperwork is getting processed. But, at least we're protecting ourselves against moochers, right?
Justin, as I said above, I have an autistic son. We are well aware of the challenges of gaining social security disability. I know the reams of paperwork involved and the multiple medical professionals you have to get to sign off on their status. It's brutal. My son lives with me now primarily because he does not want to complete the effort for social security because he views it as "giving up." He desperately wants to achieve success on his own terms, based on his own abilities.
I have never used the words "mooching off the system". You are the one casting unfair judgments on me here. I have no problem with a social safety net.
That's not the issue here. The discussion here was not "Why aren't you able to find your next morsel of food?" The discussion here is "Why aren't you a millionaire?" Nobody in this discussion that I have seen is suggesting that helping someone to stay alive and reasonably comfortable is advocating "mooching". Except you so far.
Edit: Why are they 21 and struggling at math zombie? Did they not have the opportunity, as I did, to study and learn math as children? What, exactly, in a country with public schools, stopped them?I can't talk specifics(for ethical reasons) and the generalities are to wide and depressing for words.
But take combinations of four or five of the following, and you'll get a snap shot.
-Late diagnosis of Specific learning difficulties
-Learning disables
-ESOL
-Mental health problems
-addiction
-care leaver
-abuse survivors
-bullying resultant persistent truency
-neglect
-homelessness(both current, and long term speradic)
-acting (as carers for adult or child family members)
-serious behavioral difficults
-sensory imparement
-ASD
-chronic health problems
I have two thoughts here, neither of which will endear me to those who feel that my position here is not "sensitive" enough.
1. We have already discussed that people with serious learning, physical or emotional problems are not what we're talking about. Yet that's pretty much your entire list here.
2. If you (and TOZ) are suggesting that the majority of young people in our society are unsuccessful for some or all of the reasons you have listed above, all I can say is that is a rather massive indictment of our society as a whole, and would suggest that there are far deeper problems to solve than a few self-limiting bad choices.
For me to accept the notion that the vast majority of people fail to attain rudimentary levels of personal success because of the issues listed above would require accepting the premise that our society has utterly, completely and irreparably failed.
Perhaps it has. But my own experience and background does not suggest to me that it has. Yet.
We're definitely getting there though.
Why Are You Not A Millionaire sounds so deflating and demoralizing. Lack of self confidence and depression do not usually lead to success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why am I not a millionaire?...
Because I'm a billionaire, of course.
Duh.
Reminds me of the old joke:
"How do you become a millionaire?"
"First you start with a billion dollars..."
I could grouse about all the bad work related stuff of the past four years that led to my nervous breakdown and eventually to me being broke. But that's not nearly as amusing as the possible real reason I am not a millionaire.
That is that I keep having great ideas for film scripts, but despite being a good writer, I remain too lazy to get them written and shopped before somebody else has the same exact idea and makes a huge movie out of it.
I could grouse about all the bad work related stuff of the past four years that led to my nervous breakdown and eventually to me being broke. But that's not nearly as amusing as the possible real reason I am not a millionaire.
That is that I keep having great ideas for film scripts, but despite being a good writer, I remain too lazy to get them written and shopped before somebody else has the same exact idea and makes a huge movie out of it.
A friend of mine spent years working on his own movie scripts in private. A few years ago he finally decided to "take the plunge" and decided to produce his own movie. He managed to get some investors and created a movie which was eventually picked up by a distributor and made millions of dollars.
As he tells me in his encouragement for me to finish my novel: "sometimes lightning does strike, but you'll never know if you don't try."
That guy is a full-time Hollywood producer now by the way. And a millionaire to boot.
I could grouse about all the bad work related stuff of the past four years that led to my nervous breakdown and eventually to me being broke. But that's not nearly as amusing as the possible real reason I am not a millionaire.
That is that I keep having great ideas for film scripts, but despite being a good writer, I remain too lazy to get them written and shopped before somebody else has the same exact idea and makes a huge movie out of it.
A friend of mine spent years working on his own movie scripts in private. A few years ago he finally decided to "take the plunge" and decided to produce his own movie. He managed to get some investors and created a movie which was eventually picked up by a distributor and made millions of dollars.
As he tells me in his encouragement for me to finish my novel: "sometimes lightning does strike, but you'll never know if you don't try."
That guy is a full-time Hollywood producer now by the way. And a millionaire to boot.
Relatedly, but conversely, I have a friend who actually lived in Hollywood for awhile, and wrote a script that generated real interest. A studio actually offered him a couple hundred grand - for his first script!
He got greedy and held out for more and they dropped it.
Can you imagine?
Relatedly, but conversely, I have a friend who actually lived in Hollywood for awhile, and wrote a script that generated real interest. A studio actually offered him a couple hundred grand - for his first script!
He got greedy and held out for more and they dropped it.
Can you imagine?
Yes, yes I can. I once had a similar opportunity and passed it up. It was for a computer game, but the same basic thing. In my case it wasn't greed, it was "on principle" but the same result. C'est la vie, water under the bridge and all that... :)
Edit: Why are they 21 and struggling at math zombie? Did they not have the opportunity, as I did, to study and learn math as children? What, exactly, in a country with public schools, stopped them?I can't talk specifics(for ethical reasons) and the generalities are to wide and depressing for words.
But take combinations of four or five of the following, and you'll get a snap shot.
-Late diagnosis of Specific learning difficulties
-Learning disables
-ESOL
-Mental health problems
-addiction
-care leaver
-abuse survivors
-bullying resultant persistent truency
-neglect
-homelessness(both current, and long term speradic)
-acting (as carers for adult or child family members)
-serious behavioral difficults
-sensory imparement
-ASD
-chronic health problemsI have two thoughts here, neither of which will endear me to those who feel that my position here is not "sensitive" enough.
1. We have already discussed that people with serious learning, physical or emotional problems are not what we're talking about. Yet that's pretty much your entire list here.
2. If you (and TOZ) are suggesting that the majority of young people in our society are unsuccessful for some or all of the reasons you have listed above, all I can say is that is a rather massive indictment of our society as a whole, and would suggest that there are far deeper problems to solve than a few self-limiting bad choices.
For me to accept the notion that the vast majority of people fail to attain rudimentary levels of personal success because of the issues listed above would require accepting the premise that our society has utterly, completely and irreparably failed.
Perhaps it has. But my own experience and background does not suggest to me that it has. Yet.
We're definitely getting there though.
It is not a complete list, and I barely got into stuff like having attend failing schools, violent neighborhoods, living below the poverty line.
Poor educational attainment has short‐ as well as longer‐term consequences. There are direct effects on health (for example, quality of diet, chances of smoking) and indirect effects(for example, lower skilled people are more likely to find employment in hazardous occupations where they are at greater risk of accidents) (Feinstein et al. 2006). Indeed, education has an impact on life expectancy: one more year of education has been shown to increase life expectancy in the United States by as much as 1.7 years(cited in Feinstein et al., 2008). There is further evidence that lower levels of educational achievement can have a negative impact on an individual’s engagement with society:for example, in the increased likelihood that an individual will engage in criminal activity (Feinstein et al., 2008).
I am not suggesting for a second that ALL failure is based on the above, and other reasons.
Rather that A, that 'good choices' and 'bad choices' are far less influential than often thought by there advocates, and the B, our ability to make 'good and back choices' are themselves significantly influenced by other factors(psychological and neurological research even throws the existance of 'choice' into question, suggesting a much more mechanistic decision making process that takes place below consciousness, which is then justified as choice by our consciousness)
Also, there is a strong argument that BOTH our societies are fundamentally screwed.
America and the UK are pretty much the worse scorers on ever measure of social deprivation out of all of the OECD countries after all.
I think the important part of the question at least from an
"american" or "republican" or "capitalist" perspective
is that there's actually 3 kinds of capitalism... or rather 3 kinds of capitalists...
One capitalist was taught that being smart will get you good money, so study hard and you'll be able to be successful.
One capitalist was taught that working hard will get you good money, so work hard and you'll be able to be successful.
One capitalist was taught that you get rich by squeezing your workforce and production process as hard as you can, and by achieving the most profit by the least expense, you will be able to be successful...
For capitalism to succeeed, all three of these capitalists must be guaranteed success... Failure should only happen by rejecting each of these tenets... Those who are smart enough should work smartly... Those that are savvy enough to invest should invest... And those who work hard should work hard... Instead these things just give you a 'chance' at success.... People don't want chances.... they dont want looser slot machines... They want to get their bills paid.
But that's not what they're getting.
Turns out we now have 70% of our population on food stamps, so a lot of smart and hard workers are on food stamps while a handfulll of savvy investors walk away just fine. Not because 70% of our workforce suddenly became dumb and lazy the day obama took office.
Thats not proving that capitalism works... It's just proving to the world that capitalism is great at producting what every other politico-economic system can... a handful of rich people with all the power at everyone else's expense... The world doesnt want that... Never has... and lately the american public is starting to realize they don't want it either.
I agree that if you think 70% of the people in america are on food stamps because they're too dumb and lazy, then you haven't met enough americans outside your own circle.
Truth is most people dont want to be millionaires. Most people just want to be able to put in their 40 hours a week, get the bills paid, watch family guy or football until they lose consciousness... and maybe, just maybe, if they're lucky, smart enough or work hard enough, or pinch pennies enough... Have a better car to drive to work next year or a slightly bigger tv screen to watch family guy on next year... For the most part.... They really truly don't want much... Even crazy people who want gold iphones in luis vuitton bags don't care for or take care of them and only really care about having them since the guy standing next to them doesn't have one.... If everyone had one too they wouldn't care a lick.
Ask 99% of the people out there if everyone had the same infinite amount of money and money were no object, how big does your house need to be, what kind of a car would you want, most of them would not say they need a bugatti veryon and a bathroom so big they can park their veryon in it so they can wash their car and take a shower at the same time.... so what... 3 acres maybe?
Most people don't want more than they need until they see the guy next to them getting more than they need. You don't want a ferrari until you see that bieber and the 13 year old son of some rich oil baron driving them like crap and drifing them like 20 dollar go carts. And you think... I don't care how smart he is or how hard he worked or how savvy an investor he is.... he doesnt deserve that car.
Thats where all the trouble starts.
But at the end of the day we're not millionaires because most people don't want to be millionaires... they just want enough to get by and not be shown up by some silver spoon little punk... and working smart enough, working hard enough, or saving up enough to beat the little silverspoon punk just isn't worth the effort if that's all you're really doing it for.
Vincent, most millionaires in the USA do not live "like millionaires." I've seen a number of studies that show most millionaires actually live fairly frugally. In fact some studies show that is precisely HOW many millionaires became millionaires.
Many people in the USA live beyond their means and end up scraping by paycheck to paycheck. That's in part because our culture has developed a certain celebration of conspicuous consumption. Having the "right" car or the "right" TV or the "right" electronic gadgets has become a social status thing, and it is fairly easy to obtain such things initially, but doing so can become a trap as credit cards and loans begin to suck away disposable income.
The real path to wealth for many people is really not making more money, but instead the key is spending less.
Vincent, most millionaires in the USA do not live "like millionaires." I've seen a number of studies that show most millionaires actually live fairly frugally. In fact some studies show that is precisely HOW many millionaires became millionaires.
Many people in the USA live beyond their means and end up scraping by paycheck to paycheck. That's in part because our culture has developed a certain celebration of conspicuous consumption. Having the "right" car or the "right" TV or the "right" electronic gadgets has become a social status thing, and it is fairly easy to obtain such things initially, but doing so can become a trap as credit cards and loans begin to suck away disposable income.
The real path to wealth for many people is really not making more money, but instead the key is spending less.
Those are studies I would be interested in seeing
Here's a whole book on the subject zombie:
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the time my wife and I retire, we will be millionaires as a family. Neither of us came from money, and we both have jobs that are under 6 figures and a kid (with hopefully at least one more coming soon)
Becoming a millionaire is very doable if you invest. We got the mortgage on house at the bottom of the market with a really good interest rate, invest a % of our income in either savings or very safe investments, and each of us have really good retirement plans.
This is a goal we are sacrificing to achieve, and unless something happens we will get there thanks to the investments we made in education and settling into stable careers.
Millionaire isn't what it used to be. It means my daughter won't grow up poor like I did, unless she does something dumb. But it doesn't mean I can buy a Ferrari and gold chains.
And if not for the student loans, free k-12, government back mortgage loans, etc...I would still be poor.
OK, this really is going to be my final post on this thread.
A couple of questions here Dragon:
First what do you consider "Successful"? You talk about "successful enough not to be envious", but that's meaningless. There are people scraping by who aren't envious of the rich and there are people bringing in millions a year envious of those making 10s of millions.
That's precisely why I described it that way Jeff. Some people are probably never going to be satisfied, and for those who can be satisfied, what level of wealth allows them to be satisfied is a very personal issue. My suspicion is that for most people that level of wealth would be a nice home in a nice neighborhood with a nice car and some nice stuff, a retirement account and the ability to go out and enjoy a dinner, movie, theater or sporting event from time to time. That's pretty much where I fit anyway. And I'm there, so that's all good.
More importantly, do you really think that everyone or even most people could be a success by the kind of financial standard we're talking about?
I tend not to use words like "everyone" and there are certainly economic limitations in the real world that come into play when you are talking about millions of unemployed people suddenly becoming employed. But, yes, on an individual basis, I do pretty much believe that MOST people could achieve their personal level of financial "success" if they really make that a primary goal in life. In reality though, most people won't try, so those that do try actually benefit from the lack of competition.
Not, could some random Joe make it if he was only motivated enough and didn't screw up, but could they all? Would our economy even begin to function if something like 75% of the population was able to make it in one of the high-paying fields (things like lawyers, doctors, finance, entrepeneurs, upper management, etc)?
Doesn't it all collapse without the vast majority of people doing the s&!# jobs? Or even the decent jobs that just won't ever get you to the millionaire level, but that we desperately need: teaching, nursing, sciences, etc.
See above Jeff.
If that's the case, maybe it makes sense to try to structure your society and the economy so that things are better off for those near the bottom or in the middle, rather than just claim it's fine since anyone could grab the brass ring and make it to the top?
In this thread I have not been attempting to address the philosophical underpinnings of economic theory. I have my own ideas about a worldwide economic order, but that has not been the purpose of this thread so I have not advanced it, nor am I going to advance it now.
This is even forgetting about all the barriers to access that brass ring. That's not the point. Even if it was completely fair and anyone could make it by hard work and natural talent, everyone can't.
Again, see above.
Finally, you seem to be placing all of this on personal choices. Handwaving away any structural issues with "If I made it from my poor beginnings, anyone should be able to." Do you think structural issues, government policy, economic conditions, etc have any effect? There's a lot of evidence that social mobility has decreased in the US and income inequality (and even more wealth inequality) has increased over the last ~30 years or so. Is that simply a result of more and more people being less and less motivated and/or making poorer and poorer choices, while a relatively small handful are just working even harder and being more clever?
There are lots of exceptions and differences at the margins of this thing, like most macro-economic things. But in the main I believe that all other things being equal, the harder working, more motivated, more determined individual is more likely to advance their economic status.
As far as the overall socio-economic status of this nation, and the world at large, is concerned, once we start talking about that, then we start getting into political policy issues, and it is my opinion that our current and recent political leaders have done a remarkably poor job of managing the world's economy. That is not a partisan statement, I blame all sides.
Is it tougher today to do what I did than it was in the late 70s when I did it? I don't know, but I'm in the process of finding out as both of my children are newly entered into the work force and they are encountering challenges of their own.
I will say this. So far the main thing that has kept both of them advancing in their own lives has been hard work, perseverance and determination. They both still have a long way to go, but so did I when I was their age. I'm rooting for them, and helping them as I can, but I can assure you that the main advice I give them about success truly is "work hard, stay focused, accept the pain and keep at it." So far it's working.
|
|
By the time my wife and I retire, we will be millionaires as a family. Neither of us came from money, and we both have jobs that are under 6 figures and a kid (with hopefully at least one more coming soon)
Becoming a millionaire is very doable if you invest. We got the mortgage on house at the bottom of the market with a really good interest rate, invest a % of our income in either savings or very safe investments, and each of us have really good retirement plans.
This is a goal we are sacrificing to achieve, and unless something happens we will get there thanks to the investments we made in education and settling into stable careers.
Millionaire isn't what it used to be. It means my daughter won't grow up poor like I did, unless she does something dumb. But it doesn't mean I can buy a Ferrari and gold chains.
And if not for the student loans, free k-12, government back mortgage loans, etc...I would still be poor.
Of course, the counter to this is that a million isn't worth as much as it used to be. If you want to have a vaguely comfortable retirement, you'd better be a millionaire by then.
And of course, it could still easily be wiped out by job loss or serious illness.
Oh absolutely.
And my making it to this point is a minor miracle brought on by the kindness of others and the American taxpayer.
My getting to be a co-millionare is based on two incomes for 30 years, investing 10% or more at every step along the way and bad things not happening along the way.
As opposed to Paris Hilton, Kim Kardasian, etc...
|
|
And on top of that, I would not be able to get my job in the current job market with the skill set I had when I got it.
If I was 5 years younger, I would not be able to do what I am currently doing to move from a family of poverty into the middle to upper middle class.
Largely because of how "government job" is being labeled as "evil" and hiring freezes are the norm.
The UK Governement forced my family to sell the Swan Hunter Shipyards to them at a fraction of there real value a while back, although I'm unclear how much my family was involved at that point. Apparently my full name would have been Hunter-Garrett, but the Hunter was dropped from my father's name.
Of course, if I ever felt like selling the plans to ships such as The Mauretania or the length of her launch ribbon I have in the attic, I might make some of those millions...
And on top of that, I would not be able to get my job in the current job market with the skill set I had when I got it.
If I was 5 years younger, I would not be able to do what I am currently doing to move from a family of poverty into the middle to upper middle class.
Largely because of how "government job" is being labeled as "evil" and hiring freezes are the norm.
Odd, everything I've seen in the job market reports indicates that "government jobs" is one of the few true growth job markets in the country today.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odd, everything I've seen in the job market reports indicates that "government jobs" is one of the few true growth job markets in the country today.And on top of that, I would not be able to get my job in the current job market with the skill set I had when I got it.
If I was 5 years younger, I would not be able to do what I am currently doing to move from a family of poverty into the middle to upper middle class.
Largely because of how "government job" is being labeled as "evil" and hiring freezes are the norm.
What are you looking at? The sequester is functionally a hiring freeze for most federal government agencies and State Governments have been cutting most jobs for years now.
What are you looking at? The sequester is functionally a hiring freeze for most federal government agencies and State Governments have been cutting most jobs for years now.Odd, everything I've seen in the job market reports indicates that "government jobs" is one of the few true growth job markets in the country today.And on top of that, I would not be able to get my job in the current job market with the skill set I had when I got it.
If I was 5 years younger, I would not be able to do what I am currently doing to move from a family of poverty into the middle to upper middle class.
Largely because of how "government job" is being labeled as "evil" and hiring freezes are the norm.
Oh, I thought you were talking about five year trends, not five months.
|
|
Oh, I thought you were talking about five year trends, not five months.What are you looking at? The sequester is functionally a hiring freeze for most federal government agencies and State Governments have been cutting most jobs for years now.Odd, everything I've seen in the job market reports indicates that "government jobs" is one of the few true growth job markets in the country today.And on top of that, I would not be able to get my job in the current job market with the skill set I had when I got it.
If I was 5 years younger, I would not be able to do what I am currently doing to move from a family of poverty into the middle to upper middle class.
Largely because of how "government job" is being labeled as "evil" and hiring freezes are the norm.
I'm looking at both.
Citation for your findings?
And keep in mind that a good chunk of the 31k was temporary census workers.
Ciretose, your own graph shows private industry has only recently begun to recover from the massive job losses of the last five years, while the public sector has only recently started to lose jobs and hasn't lost at nearly the same rate.
I guess if you just look at the last two years it would appear that public jobs are hurting more than private, but as I said, I'm looking at a longer view.
Edit, the census workers were a short spike around 2010 that do not affect the long term trend.
|
|
Ciretose, your own graph shows private industry has only recently begun to recover from the massive job losses of the last five years, while the public sector has only recently started to lose jobs and hasn't lost at nearly the same rate.
I guess if you just look at the last two years it would appear that public jobs are hurting more than private, but as I said, I'm looking at a longer view.
Edit, the census workers were a short spike around 2010 that do not affect the long term trend.
You said you were looking at a 5 year view. Now that I showed that was wrong, you want 10...and still no citation...
If you want to keep moving the dates you set around...I said what I said, you tried you challenge it, I posted facts that say you were wrong and now you are moving the goalposts to say...exactly what I said.
Also, yes the census is a spike, look at the chart where the spike is...2010...yup.
I was hired 10 years ago. I got my job with a College degree and just under two years of Americorp where I made 18k a year for 60+ hours of work a week.
With that same experience, I could not get my current job. Until about 5 years ago I could, now that isn't even enough experience to get an interview for entry level.
My wife had to move from Florida to Maryland on a weeks notice to get her teaching job 5 years ago. With a Masters Degree.
Before going to Americorp I worked in the private sector in medical supplies. I got that job as a temp to perm position in the late 90's without a college degree and if I had stayed I think it is a safe bet I would would be making 6 figures by now.
I would hate myself and my job, but that was a growth industry that wasn't hard to get into. It was much, much harder to get my current job.
David Aldridge works for TNT as a Basketball Analyst. He appears on a radio show I listen to. His father worked for the post office, and paid for him to go to private school, and hence be able to be a writer and now a sports analyst. He grew up in DC. If not for that job, David Aldridge never goes to college.
But that is all personal analogy.
If you believe that government jobs are growing faster, please produce evidence.
|
|
Ciretose, your own graph shows private industry has only recently begun to recover from the massive job losses of the last five years, while the public sector has only recently started to lose jobs and hasn't lost at nearly the same rate.
I guess if you just look at the last two years it would appear that public jobs are hurting more than private, but as I said, I'm looking at a longer view.
Edit, the census workers were a short spike around 2010 that do not affect the long term trend.
Actually what it looks like is that the government didn't see the massive layoffs, but also isn't seeing any rebound. Government jobs also tend to be more stable and see less churn.
IOW, for the last 5 years there's been little hiring in the government. For the first 3 of those there were massive layoffs in the private sector, but now there is significant hiring. Much more than there has been in government.
That's hardly ""government jobs" is one of the few true growth job markets in the country today. "
Didn't initially see huge layoffs. It took longer to hit the public sector, but those are 475,000 job losses.
It says that for every public job, there are 4.7 private jobs. So a loss of 475,000 government jobs is equivalent to 2,232,500 private sector jobs lost
Or about what we are down in the public sector after the rebound.
Both the private and public sector were effected, it just hit public later, and is just still hitting the public sector now.
Ciretose, last time I checked, 2008 was exactly five years ago.
Also, again as you yourself pointed out, the latest job losses in the public sector are mostly due to the sequester. When that ends you'll see an uptick.
Yes, I admit it, things in this economy have been so horrible for the last five years that I did, in fact, interpret greatly reduced job loss as job growth. You got me there.
