Forum Post: 1 percenter tip
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 5, 2012, 1:23 p.m. EST by elpinio
(213)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I think a lot of you OWS protesters would benefit from reading this NYTimes post.
Want a Job? Go to College, and Don’t Major in Architecture http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/want-a-job-go-to-college-and-dont-major-in-architecture/?hp
99 percenter tip - don't trust a 1 percenter's tip.
ha ha
That's why you're stuck in the 99%.
And proud of it.
Sad. The lack of ambition in this country is why countries like China are eating our cake. They know poverty and strive to do their best. This US generation has never known hardship and is all about entitlement.
The entitlement mentality comes from the 1%. You would think Wall Street would have been a reality check for the need to regulate and reintroduce ethics into the free market model. Despite the evidence that free markets need regulation, the 1% feel entitled to double down on the bad policies that only fill the pockets of the 1% and suppress the ambitions of the 99%.
I agree. The only people who truly feel entitled in this country are the wealthy, though they love to point the finger.
SO TRUE! Just listen to them talk amongst themselves and it is very evident.
I don't see the 1% asking for anything. They don't use public schools, public transit, welfare, food stamps, medicaid, emergency rooms for regular checkups.
In fact, they pay for all that.
No. They profit off a corrupt system and off of the labor productivity of the workers who they don't pay fairly. Half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 per year.
What's unfair with that wage? If they had skills, they would be able to demand a higher pay. I've successfully negotiated my salary up before.
I can't imagine living on less than $26k per year. Not in my town. That's what's wrong with that wage. When unemployment is high, (and it's normally kept at a healthy 4 or 5%), employees have little power in setting their wage.
You can't imagine it because you are of the entitled generation. I know plenty of people who earned less than that and made it to the 1% through sheer determination.
Here are some recent articles about the lack of social mobility in this country. Perhaps you should stop romanticizing the U.S. so we can move forward:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/krugman-americas-unlevel-field.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Those articles are misinformed. They note that fewer people move from lower rungs to higher rungs. And on that basis, conclude that it is harder to move from lower to higher.
They are confusing correlation with causation.
I am not romanticizing anything. I know many people who have moved up from hard work. Myself, I was laid off from a 40k job and unemployed 6 years ago. And through hard work, I am in the 1% now. That's hard experience - not romanticism.
I'm happy for you. That's great. But tell me, with half of all jobs paying $26k, what jobs are people supposed to move up to? Just curious. Your case is singular. That will not happen for millions of others regardless of how smart they are or how hard they work because it is mathematically impossible. How could we have 300 million people in the 1%?
No matter how smart or how hard some people work, they are not going to be well off at this point. If you are a 50 year old janitor, it doesn't matter if you work hard now.
It is just common sense that there's a time and place where hard work pays off the most. And as my original post indicates, that is at college. Plus, you have to choose the right degree. It's obvious that you can't get an arts history degree from a state university and get a cushy job.
This isn't the post-war period where America was the only industrial base left standing, and people got cushy jobs just by being lucky to be born American. People have to re-adjust their expectations - work harder at the right degrees. There is no silver bullet.
Well then why dont these people earning less than $26k ask for higher salaries? If they think they are qualified for more, the should very well ask for it? Or they can leave the job. They are free to do it. It's a free market my friend. Both sides can negotiate.
Employees have very little power in setting the wage when unemployment is high. The normal, acceptable (Keynesian) unemployment rate is 4 or 5%, still leaving power in the hands of employers. Employees are human beings who have to feed, shelter, clothe and educate their families. They have much more to lose. Corporations have much less at stake - mere profit.
Haha... You are naive. Employees can form unions and negotiate with their employers. You see, manning an aisle in Walmart does not require education or a degree. Therefore, it pays less. But the more education you have the higher your salary http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77
The average salary for a master degree is $60k.
You guys are funny with your use of permalink. Go ahead. Have the last word, smartcapitalist.
Worker rights have been disintegrating for the past 30 years. Unions are weaker then ever.
Valuing labor is complex. Should it be humane? I think so. Even the Catholic Church calls for a "Just Wage," enough to allow the worker to live in decency and with respect. We haven't even begun to value labor properly in this country.
And, I don't think $60k is a particularly good salary, either. How do you raise a family of four, say, on that in a typical town? How do you put your kids through college?
$60k as a starting salary for a master degree guy is a decent salary. And this is just the average. MBAs would be earning much more, so would people in hi tech industries. This $60k average includes people holding useless degrees as well.
As to how one can expect to raise a family of 4 on say $60k, well you can do 3 things
PS: I dont really give a damn as to what the church (or any religious body) says.
Do you really want to live in a world where everyone majors in business and has an MBA? Good grief. A nation of corporate drones. Sounds great.
Part of the reason our society is in all the trouble it is in right now is from worshiping corporations, consumerism and money. If we keep going along this path where we fail to educate our kids about political philosophy, history, economics, sociology, literature and the like, I fear we will continue our decline.
When did I say everyone should be an MBA? But that also does not mean that people ought to study something as useless as transgender studies or women studies etc. I am not saying we should not educate our kids on political science or history or english, may be these could be offered as a minor or electives but not as a major. Economics of course is useful.
Aren't you asking me to trust you?
Isn't that the very nature of this post. Here's a tip, trust me, I'm a 1 percenter and I'm right. You're asking me to suspend my distrust of the 1%, and buy into more failed policies and follow the same thinking that created this mess.
No thanks. I'll pass.
I'm not asking anything. I have everything I need and more. I am giving advice, and it is for you to take it or not.
In that case, my advice to you is to understand the 99% point of view. The 1% have fucked up the system and you all need to change your attitudes about the 99%.
You got to be kidding me. I am of the 1% now, but I was of the 99% not 5 years ago. In fact, I was of the bottom 8% back then - laid off and unemployed. Despite what you think, many of the 1% understand the viewpoint of the 99%. We just know that it is wrong.
You're a real riot, mister. You said, We just know that it is wrong. Puh-lease, spare me the silliness (oh my god !) - the 1% wouldn't know wrong from right if it was a snake and bit them in the ass.
If they don't know right from wrong, how did the make the right choices to become the 1% instead of wallowing as a poor?
If you don't know the answer to that, God help you, because I sure can't.
yeah they do by passing these costs from companies like walmart to the tax payer by not paying their workers better how else would it be that the 6 members of the walton family are worth more than the bottom 30% of the country combined are you fucking kidding me. time to take these people out. i already know you are a dumb brain washed 70 year old that is you right. http://www.realitysandwich.com/video/occupy2012
Hey, why didn't you start Walmart instead of complaining about them. Find some guts and develop a successful business and become the boss. Instead of bitching about how little your boss is paying you.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
I think colleges should require one year of biology, chemistry, and physics, one year of calculus, and a computer program (ideally, an object oriented program). I'm not talking about the bullshit, "nonscience" major courses either, real biology, chemistry, and physics.
The 1% are lousy tippers.
Too.
ya i tried to go to college, even after serving 10 years in the air force, got shafted out of my educational benefits VEAP by the air force, and then when i tried to apply for financial aid, got turned down cause the selective service said, i never registered for the draft. The real world works alot different than for you 1% 'rs that eat from a silver spoon.
try harder. where there is a will, there's a way
or how about, lets just say the poor are poor cause they dont want to work for it, and then go about our way thinking how brotherly we are. LOL
Where there is a will, there's a way. That's all you need to remember. Forget about brotherhood dude. That's for the military. In real life, it's competition.
I will admit that choosing liberal arts over something like engineering makes very little sense to me. But can you say with any confidence that if all those architecture and assorted liberal arts majors were actually engineers or doctors that they would find adequate employment?
Why is our education system so far behind Asian standards? Why are pharma firms allowed to drive up prices and still keep evergreening their patents? Whe are banks too big too fail? Why are banks not profitable enough to adjust rates for all distressed homes once they got the bailout but want to pay bonuses to the very "talent" that drove us all into this mess?
There are things wrong on both sides... So let's not place all the blame on either just the 1% or just the 99%...
Our educational system in the U.S. is VERY FAR behind Asian standards in the K-12 grades but much less so in the college and university levels. I (having been away from college/university education for a long time) venture to say that the U.S. STILL has some of the best colleges and universities in the world. The Asian standards have higher expectations and more societal pressure (respect, rewards, and punishments) than we do here. I heard of U.S. parents complaining about too much homework in grade school but Asian parents often seem more concerned about too little homework for their children. Overseas they glorify the few best students in a class but over here we "classify" grade/rank information to avoid "making not-so-good-performing students feel bad." I see UNIONIZED teachers in K-12 schools as a major factor why our grade schools are so lousy. For many decades, the teachers have been rewarded for "professionalizing" their occupation which means degrees, training, longevity in teaching, etc. which have absolutely NOTHING to say about STUDENT performance. Yes, I understand that student performance is also very much a product of the parents and our culture but an excellent teacher is probably the most important factor to our students' performance (I know this because I had had some great teachers to whom I am forever grateful) considering how much time they spend with the student and how much they control the class culture. There are really lousy teachers who have longevity in teaching and are backed up by the unions who commit defiling crimes against young minds. The parents meanwhile are often too busy working to take good control of their children's learning or to be supportive. The schools have new methods of teaching every few years and slap on them new labels with some PhD or book-author names while the students get lost every few years. It reminds me of my toothpaste advertisements over the years: fruit-flavored, pumped, whitening, breath-freshening, etc. - and after years we still have to brush our teeth regularly with the same underlying plain-old fluoride toothpaste to avoid cavities. Has it occurred to us that for the students to perform well it is still the long-term day-after-day slog that really counts?
Too bad the vast majority of dumbass Americans don't take advantage of those colleges and universities. Instead, half of the graduates of the best engineering and science schools are foreigners, because Americans are too lazy or cool to study math.
I often hear, "It is too hard!" from our grade-school students. Our culture may be at fault in producing this prevalent defeatist attitude. I wonder if that is REALLY TAUGHT in U.S. grade schools. Can anyone confirm this? I do NOT see how graduating more Americans in engineering and science will solve our very severe economic problem. Few people have the financial resource, intellectual gift, or tenacity to pursue such studies. Besides, even those who persevered would tend to contribute to making more people UNEMPLOYED. Stuffing people into science and engineering will likely create more disillusionment and more Luddites. There seems to be a discontinuity of quality between U.S. K-12 schools and colleges and universities. Perhaps it is due to the elites filtering out the lower classes using the arcane college admission process. Is there a conspiracy between the teachers' unions and the elites to create "dumplings" so that those who know how to work the system get ahead? Perhaps we should actually be soliciting sponsorship from industries to train and later employ the not-so-few.
Technology is the only sector doing well. All great civilations lead with technology. It equals a good economy.
Everyone can do those subjects. They're just too damn lazy.
It does not help our social fabric if the technology simply displaces more people from work. Some technology opens up new areas of endeavor so that is good but other technology actually factor many old jobs into very few high-tech jobs and many jobs for machines. You can take a look at http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupytheconstitution-education/ It has arguments against your assertion about stuffing people into science, technology, engineering, and math. Getting more "education" does not solve the unemployment problem - it just delays it and worse yet it can tag on a huge debt burden.
so let's all work at walmarts for a living instead
Walmarts, however, have been a "category killer." They displaced many more mom-and-pop stores wherever they opened up. Do you think that there are more jobs at a new Walmart than the mom-and-pop stores that it drives out of business? I think that some people may even have problems landing in a Walmart job after having been displaced. It may well be the musical chair game played out with jobs.
Walmarts is great. Mom and pops shopped closed because they were not competitive. People need to get educated. Lazy bums who watched TV all day while in school don't deserve a good job. Fact is, 92% of people have jobs. If you're the bottom 5%, you need to do something different.
Yes, as a consumer, Walmarts are great for their somewhat low prices but as a NET job creator, they are dubious at best. If competitiveness is your sole criterion for what people deserve, it should fit you just fine that a robber can out-compete you in the possession of your belongings. More education was the excuse that the elites foisted upon the masses to keep social peace. Do you know that there ARE many many college graduates amongst the Libyan opposition forces? There are also many many highly educated people in Egypt's nascent regime change. Also, having a job is NOT sufficient for human fulfillment. If you really talk to and TRY to understand people, you can discover many very highly educated people who may be driving your taxis, mowing your lawn, looking for a widget for you, and cleaning your office. They are physics Ph.D.s, former engineers, biological scientists, etc. - all people whom I would classify as the cream of the crop for our technological society. Telling other people to be educated to go into these fields to become yet another underemployed person (and heaven-forbid with a great debt load) is doing a social disservice. Then I have ALSO met many management and financial types who are making the big bucks, checking off a checklist, getting agitated whenever "unexpected" things occur (any IDIOT can turn any project into a disaster if certain resource is withdrawn in the name of "efficiency" and you may have actually encountered the type that clamor for 20% ACROSS-THE-BOARD cuts; the wise ones scurry for cover upon hearing that phrase), and often watching non-job-related videos on the job. Is this really what our society should acquiesce? For me, the answer is NO. How about you? Can you "open your eyes" for once?
Actually, a robber probably can't outcompete me. I pay for the police and also pay for a home security system. I also have a shotgun at home.
I don't see any unemployed phDs and engineers and scientists. In fact, Silicon valley is on a hiring spree this year and we have to import scientists.
I don't know a single highly educated person that is unemployed.
I bet that you have never lived through periods of massive civil unrest and wars in your lifetime but that is just fine and you should count yourself lucky. Those things that you mentioned can prove very inadequate in certain circumstances. Sometimes, I think "survival of the luckiest" rather than "survival of the fittest" is the more accurate description.
Importing scientists is not an indication of the existence of underemployed PhDs and engineers and scientists. Silicon Valley always had an appetite for cheap foreign labor and in the old days it was virtually indentured servant labor. Employers have insatiable appetite for cost-free labor. Your not knowing a single highly educated person that is unemployed may simply reflect on the social sphere that you are in. I have not been to Silicon Valley recently but I recall that there were large number of vacant storefronts (like whole sections farther away from the entrances) in a shopping mall. Perhaps things have improved much by now.
Cheap foreign labor? Engineers, whether they are from India or New York, are both making an equal killing in SV these days. You're about 20 years out of date my friend.
Please define your "killing in SV." How much compensation do you consider a "killing"? Engineers' employment went through cycles of feast and famine because there is the college degree latency and the media hype. Wherever there is positive feedback, there will eventually be crash and burn. After that, there will of course be a real dearth of engineers and the whole hype starts over again.
Yes, I can say with full confidence that if many of them were engineers and doctors, they would find adequate employment.
Silicon valley, for example, is on a hiring spree. This year, Google hired more people than any other year in the past. We continue to import hundreds of thousands of Indian and Chinese engineers on H1B visas because there is a shortage of engineers in the States.
America is getting older, and there is a big shortage of doctors in rural areas especially.
I'm not saying that every single liberal arts major should have become something else, but the proportion is way out of wack. Students should have realized this (a liberal arts major won't get you a job) beforehand.
You 1% tippers are the reason America is in the sad shape its in.
No, it is the laziness and entitlement mentality of this generation.
This a misleading study. I suspect that if one were to look not at employment simplicter, but rather at full time employment or employment commensurate w/education figures, the numbers would look much worse.
I have two advanced degrees in the humanities, and I very much doubt that I could find any work at all outside of academia that would be commensurate with my education.
The market will pay what you are worth and is by definition commensurate with your education.
lol. that is bullhit.
How so? If you're worth more and provide valued services, you'll get paid more. What's so BS about that?
According to whose value? You have more money than me, but I consider your nearly worthless.
Regarding monetary worth, it has little relation to value of productivity. A CEO could sink his company and still get his 60 million dollar golden parachute. The bankers that destroyed the economy are very wealthy indeed. Destroying the economy cannot be sanely viewed as providing a valued service .
Mitt Romney, as another example, did not create one single new job in the economy, yet he made millions buying and selling companies. Not a single widget's difference to the economy was created. He added nothing of value to it. Yet he is "worth" a great deal of money as a result.
Levels of monetary compensation are tied to perceptions of value, not value itself.
Despite your imagination, money doesn't grow on trees for these guys. They get it because they earned it.
Companies have to pay their CEOs that much because they are worth it. You have to offer competitive compensation to attract candidates. Sure, you will get a bad apple sometimes, but you don't know that when you are hiring and in general, they are worth it.
For example, if you want to hire a account manager, you have to offer a competitive salary. Maybe that manager does extremely poorly and you fire her. But you still had to pay her salary while she was employed, and you might have to pay severance as well. Same for CEOs. Sure, a few will be bad. But in general, they are worth their compensation, and you have to offer that if you want to attract talent.
Companies often hire CEOs who serve on other boards. Those other boards hire CEOs from those on yet other boards they serve on together. It is a good ol' boy network much of the time.
Companies' CEOs are never worth 2000 -3000 times what a worker makes. And they are not worth it in many other respects. They can, AND HAVE, purposefully driven companies' long term prospects into the ground for the sake of short term gains, enriching themselves in the process. They can make sweetheart deals that don't depend one iota on performance, because they are being hired by friends on various boards who know that they, in turn will be hired when they need it.
Smaller companies tend to be more responsible. The bigger ones, however, tend to see value in their own networks, scratching each other's backs instead of doing a single thing that makes their presence "worth it" for the company. Many CEOs are very good. Many are very, very bad. But to make a blanket statement that "they" are worth more, to the tune of often 50 or 60 million dollars a year, that they provide valued services exponentially more valuable than the average worker is inaccurate.
As to providing value, again, I ask, what value did the banks and Wall Street COEs who destroyed the economy provide? And if they are really held accountable like everyone else, how is it that they still have their jobs after having put their institutions on the brink of ruin and destroyed the futures of millions of Americans?
I don't call that providing value. I call that the incest of a cabal.
Face it, they get paid it because they are worth it.
Ask an average worker to run any company. I guarantee you that 100% of them will fail within 1 year. Ask a CEO with experience to run a company, and maybe 1% of them will fail in a year. In that regard, the CEO is infinity more valuable than a worker.
Face it, they don't.
They do. But either way, they get paid that much and it won't change in your lifetime. Better to heed my initial tip, work within the system we have, get into the 1%, than wallow as a poor.
Here's the thing: I don't really care how much they have. I care that they have unfettered access to political power. I care that they had the power to destroy the economy without consequence to them. I care that they undermine democracy.
It's not the individuals I'm talking about (except for some obvious exceptions like the Koch Brothers, et all) but the system itself that redistributes money from the bottom to the top and whose machinations always increase the velocity of that redistribution until a crisis intervenes.
I object to an income gap, the largest in the industrial world, that is obscene. The gap, in and of itself, kills children. (Yes, infant mortality is directly linked to the size of the distribution curve - surprising but true). I object to capitol gains and interest income, not being taxed as earned income. I object to corporate special interests getting welfare being seen as a good thing, while welfare for those who actually need it is denigrated by those who have the luxury of passing judgement while on their goose down cushioned upholstery.
I like capitalism. I think, on the whole, it is a good system. But not in its extreme. It must be made responsible to those who, for whatever reason, whether lack of genuinely equal opportunity or ability, can't cope with its relentless, and often skewed, competition. And it must not be permitted to destroy tens of millions of lives casually, remorselessly, duplicitously, carelessly, and without a single twinge of fear.
The 1% should have more political power. Otherwise, they would get overrun by the mob mentality of the masses.
Even the founders knew that direct democracy isn't ideal. That's why we have the electoral college. That's why we have 2 senators per state, no matter the population of the state. That's why we have the courts. Direct democracy would result in the majority oppressing the minority, regardless of right or wrong.
Just like here, where the poor (majority) are trying to oppress the rich. In fact, the rich already have to bear the "progressive" tax system. The rich pay most of the taxes in this country already.
Good thing the rich have political power - otherwise they would get overrun by mob mentality.
You say you don't care how much the rich make. So what really bothers you is how little average workers makes. Well they are paid what they are worth. If they had marketable skills, they could demand more. Supply and demand. Not too hard.
You are so full of shit. NO ONE is trying to "oppress" the rich. The rich are oppressing, indeed creating, the poor.
Taking out that old debunked distortion of "the rich pay most taxes" chestnut again? The rich pay a SMALLER PERCENTAGE of their income on taxes than the middle class. PERIOD.
Altogether, though, there is a more fundamental point. You are admitting, baldly, that you oppose democracy. Not just direct democracy, (which is not yet any where close to being a platform, thank goodness) but all democracy. One man one vote equal access, and all the rest, It has been a main assertion of OWS that the 1% usurps democracy. You don't deny it. You defend it!
I believe in democracy, as do most Americans. It is you, not OWS, who are out of touch with American values, and have just revealed it to everyone here.
There are three branches of government. Executive branch. Legislative branch. And the judicial branch.
The executive branch is not direct democracy - have you heard of the electoral college?
The legislative branch is not direct democracy - each State gets 2 senators, regardless of its population. Alaska sends 2 senators to Congress, just as California only send 2 senators.
The judicial branch is not direct democracy - judges are appointed life-time terms by the President.
So none of the three branches of American government is direct democracy.
The Constitution precluded direct democracy to protect minorities against majority oppressors. That goes for race. And that also goes for wealth. Good thing too, or the rich would be oppressed more than they are already, paying most of the taxes in this country.
Thank you for the entirely unnecessary lesson. It was,as usual, completely beside the point.
You oppose democracy qua democracy. You did not simply oppose direct democracy, and I made sure I addressed that straw man.
You said that the wealthy should have more power than everyone else.
That's NOT what the constitution says. That's NOT what the spirit of this country is all about. That's NOT what anyone in their right mind would lay down their lives to defend.
You describe your support for OLIGARCHY, not representative democracy. It is in your own words, you current dissembling notwithstanding.
Just because he is making the claim that he is a 1% does not make him so.
Ya, I am anonymously lying about my wealth. Idiot.
I believe that you are.
Just because he claims to have value of any sort does not give him any.
After all, trolls generally have negative value.
Agreed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Nah
[Removed]
[Removed]
Occupiers. Please keep on fighting the good fight for our democracy against takeover by oligarchists.
They are fighting the bad fight and leading our society into ruin. Their sense of entitlement and laziness is draining the american, capitalistic spirit and may cause our downfall.
See the post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-do-students-choose-poor-majors/ . I found the 446 responses I got to "Why do students choose poor majors?" to be illuminating.
Wow, very good post. These kids are clueless. I don't blame them entirely though - many are fairly young. Their parents did a shitty job in advising them.
Yep. Too many years of being their kids' best friend and too few being their parents. Combine this with the cult of self esteem by which everyone is praised independent of whether they accomplished anything and never "embarrassed" by being graded below a 'C', and you have America 2012. Our kids think they should get to do what makes them happy, should be praised regardless of their achievement, and should be put in charge after a year or so of service at the "lower levels."
I often say here that if the American Dream has Faded, it's only because the American Character upon which it was built faded first. We raised the entitlement generation, and now we're paying for it.
Yep. 5 hours of TV a week max (and only so they have some bare minimum knowledge of TV for socializing). A big ass-kicking for anything below an overall average of A. Their math skills should be 2-3 years ahead of whatever the public schools teach (i.e. 2 years behind what Asian schools teach). No equality between parent and kid. No allowance, and forced summer jobs at McDonalds so they know what it's like to be poor.
I never gave my kids an allowance; helping around the house is a family obligation. I did, however, compensate them well for grades; $100 per A, $50 per B, $0 per C, -$50 per D, etc. All grades were jacked up a notch for "Advanced Placement" or college classes at the Community College. I never had to argue with them about grades, they learned their pay is related to their performance, and they learned how to manage their money and not spend it all at once.
Beyond my pay scheme, I let them do whatever they wanted with their time. It only took one semester of seeing a sibling get the big bucks while they got nothing for each to get on plan. Note, however, I never let anyone have the remote to my TV (and we never put one in their rooms), and all I ever watch is PBS, Discovery, etc. If they wanted to watch too, they were welcome. They all hate pablum TV.
My kids are in their mid-20's, and they're doing very well.
Sounds like a good plan. My kids still very young now. But the incentive plan is interesting. I was brought up the old-school way - punishment rather than incentive.
Hey, if the 1% is going to oppress us adults with their Capitalism, I figure we should oppress our kids and get 'em ready for what awaits them ;o)
I also gave the kids their entire college budget in a lump sum and told them, "that's it, there will be no further discussion of money." My eldest daughter blew hers too quickly and had to work to finish. She's now the best budgeter in the family, and I never had to say a word.
I frankly find TV a major waste of time. I do try and catch up on a few shows once in a while I don't remember watching much TV during most of high school and undergrad. But I won't suggest ass kicking for 'anything less than A', that would be awful. But yes, getting by with Cs should also not be taken lightly. Apathy towards math should also be checked. Also I am not so much in favor of summer jobs, instead summers can be spent doing something productive, may be learning a new language or solving math puzzles (ok I was a nerd in school) or working on easy electronics/mechanical projects. That should inculcate a healthy appetite for science and maths.
While parents shouldn't pressurize their kids for grads, giving too much leeway is also not right. There should be a balance.
I understand where you are coming from, but I do feel that parents have to demand the best from their kids. My grandparents had to flee famine and war with my father, who had to study by candle light in a slum in order to make it to the States as immigrants. So I feel to be born in such a great country and to piss it away in school by getting Bs or Cs is stupid and in fact disrespectful of our family's sacrifices. That's why it would deserve a big ass kicking. But maybe Rico's incentive plan would work too.
I never gave my kids an allowance; helping around the house is a family obligation. I did, however, compensate them well for grades; $100 per A, $50 per B, $0 per C, -$50 per D, etc. All grades were jacked up a notch for "Advanced Placement" or college classes at the Community College. I never had to argue with them about grades, they learned their pay is related to their performance, and they learned how to manage their money and not spend it all at once.
Beyond my pay scheme, I let them do whatever they wanted with their time. It only took one semester of seeing a sibling get the big bucks while they got nothing for each to get on plan. Note, however, I never let anyone have the remote to my TV (and we never put one in their rooms), and all I ever watch is PBS, Discovery, etc. If they wanted to watch too, they were welcome. They all hate pablum TV.
My kids are in their mid-20's, and they're doing very well.
Nice incentive plan. May be I will use it on my future kids
It worked in college too, but in a different way.
We gave each of our kids their entire college budget in a lump sum and told them, "that's it, there will be no further discussion of money." My eldest daughter blew hers too quickly and had to work to finish. She's now the best budgeter in the family, and I never had to say a word.
Yeah, I blew a lot of money in college too. It helped that I did not have to pay any fees. I know a lot of parents who have used this same technique as yours. But I was a was way too bad at managing my expenses, I don't know what I would have done.
Mine had already been trained how to manage their grade money to stretch over a semester, so they were generally equipped with the required skills. My daughter only blew it by about 6 months but had to live on beans for a few ;o) My son saved it all... picked a good but affordable university, no car, etc. and graduated with a lot left over. He's 26 and probably has $100 thousand or so in the bank already.
wow.. You must be a proud father. I am personally very apprehensive about how to go about this whole managing kids business. It's way too much responsibility.
Way proud father. Don't worry, parents have been worrying about kids since the beginning, yet they always get by. Just remember to be parents not their best friends. They like the security of having strong parents who make them do what's right, teach them whats wrong, and help them learn how to be successful in life. They get mad, but they forgive, just as you will. Let one parent (usually mom) provide unconditional love and support and the other (usually dad) the conditional love and expectation that prepares them for society. Mom loves you no matter what you do; Dads love you too, but they love you even more when you do right. Moms praise you all the time and that's good; Dads' praise comes less often, but is highly valued. The Mon/Dad balance is age-old, and it works. It gives us what we need. Have fun. Kids are the joy of our lives. I think Grandkids will be even better !
Thanks a lot for the advice. Will use it, hopefully in the near future.
Ah, I see ! Are we expecting children soon ?
Need to get practical now if I want to start a family. Europe is of course the biggest problem now, US is already on the way to recovery, albeit a slow one. I hope everyone learns something from this whole financial mess that was created. It's not just the average guy, the guys at wall st also got affected. Many lost, not just their jobs, but also their savings (and the early retirement plans along with it).
Will get back to writing my reports now.
Well, I am a little tradition in that front. The future spouse is ready, it's just that with the economy being what it is, starting a family right now is probably not the best idea. A trader's skills are very specialized and if I get laid off things would get tough. Sometimes I think I should shift to consulting, money is less but the life is more stable.
Consulting blows. Travel 4 of 7 days.
You sound like me, and engineer. Always so practical. The money thing kinda fixes itself for the first few years; you won't have time to spend it anyway, you'll be busy trying to figure out whether it's OK your kid is eating dust balls off the floor.
The economy will leap if Romney wins or at least once the Germans decide everyone has been contrite enough to let the ECB be lender of last resort. There's so much money sitting on the sidelines right now, we're going to have to watch out for another bubble once fear departs and confidence returns.
yeah.. i know that. Most of my consulting friends live out of their travel bags.At least with finance, travel is very limited, and mostly if you are in M&A or sales. But the work is far hectic
Let me get married first :)
Really? I thought we'd reversed the order these days ;o)
You should get off the computer and go find your spouse ! They're not in here.
Agreed.
[Removed]
Just for your info, the Chinese government will not allow degree to be given in areas where there will be "no jobs" or minimal jobs.
Architecture and Arts were two areas that were reported. I am sure there are several more but I haven't researched it.
Wow... that's smart. Where did you hear this? Have a link?
CNN reported it yesterday - I did a search but couldn't find - however there is a lot of good info out there about how the Chinese teach, what they teach and the value of what these grads make from going to school.
[Removed]
http://www.realitysandwich.com/video/occupy2012
http://www.realitysandwich.com/video/occupy2012
No. Wah wah wah i'm going to major in gender studies or 1700's French Art History because I want to. Wah wah wah. If I don't find a job IT'S THE GOD DAMN BANKS AND RETHUGLICANS FAULT!!!!!!!
Buy low, sell high. Make more money. Dont whine.
Better yet, become a productive member of society and get a real job.
I am. I pay my taxes, on time. I donate to social causes that I believe in. But I wont allow YOU to put your dirty little hands in my pockets.
Hey!@!!@!
You're whining again.
You said you didn't do that.
Interesting.
As if we had all forgotten about the allegation of four years ago:
Architecture is a branch of engineering - and human engineering is a subject that crosses psychology and engineering to produce a sub field called ergonomics.
Topics of engineering often can be and are used to discuss allegorically topics related to human engineering and thus avoid negative repercussions.
After all, we cannot and will not discuss accidental engineering as a field of endeavor, in any way, shape or form.
Yet the first edition of Psychology of Everyday Things the author, Donald Norman, did just that - allegorically.
He demonstrated that a plane could be made to crash just by rearranging the process of a simple oil change. He demonstrated that in fact that nearly happened, to a plane that had left a Florida airport and was over water when the second of three engines failed. This plane in particular did limp back to it's port of origin, on a single engine.
All for want of a simple little o ring.
The o ring was missed because of changes in procedure.
I note that at the end of the NYT article linked above, psychology is mentioned - as a field that isn't very profitable today.
If I had to guess, I would suggest there is a subtle warning contained herein - one aimed at human engineers. The kinds of engineers who once produced a Floridian Butterfly we call a ballot.
One day, perhaps the public will be armed with the names and faces of such individuals . . .