NYT: "Wait a Minute. How Can They Afford That When I Can’t?"

[former player]

In my opinion, 12 to 18 months of military service should be mandatory for everyone. Military service changed me from a child to a man. As a nice side effect, it may change the way our politicians look at war, or, more specific, how often they send their constituents' children in war zones around the world.

Does that include people with disabilities?

[js82]

In my opinion, 12 to 18 months of military service should be mandatory for everyone. Military service changed me from a child to a man. As a nice side effect, it may change the way our politicians look at war, or, more specific, how often they send their constituents' children in war zones around the world.

I respectfully disagree.  While I'm grateful for the courageous men and women who choose to serve in our military, and agree with your opinion on some of the upsides - particularly with how it might affect the way some of our leaders view military action, I don't think compulsory military service for everyone is a good idea.  It's an environment that some people will thrive in, but others are poorly suited for.  Trying to force-fit someone into the wrong mold isn't doing anyone any favors.

I might be persuaded otherwise if we expanded the concept of "service" beyond our armed forces and included other options for service to our country and its citizens - take FEMA and its disaster relief efforts as an example.

[OtherJen]

In my opinion, 12 to 18 months of military service should be mandatory for everyone. Military service changed me from a child to a man. As a nice side effect, it may change the way our politicians look at war, or, more specific, how often they send their constituents' children in war zones around the world.

I respectfully disagree.  While I'm grateful for the courageous men and women who choose to serve in our military, and agree with your opinion on some of the upsides - particularly with how it might affect the way some of our leaders view military action, I don't think compulsory military service for everyone is a good idea.  It's an environment that some people will thrive in, but others are poorly suited for.  Trying to force-fit someone into the wrong mold isn't doing anyone any favors.

I might be persuaded otherwise if we expanded the concept of "service" beyond our armed forces and included other options for service to our country and its citizens - take FEMA and its disaster relief efforts as an example.

Yes to all of this. There are a lot of valuable ways to serve one’s country beyond the armed forces. I think encouraging some form of service after high school would have significant benefits.

[Imma]

In my opinion, 12 to 18 months of military service should be mandatory for everyone. Military service changed me from a child to a man. As a nice side effect, it may change the way our politicians look at war, or, more specific, how often they send their constituents' children in war zones around the world.

I respectfully disagree.  While I'm grateful for the courageous men and women who choose to serve in our military, and agree with your opinion on some of the upsides - particularly with how it might affect the way some of our leaders view military action, I don't think compulsory military service for everyone is a good idea.  It's an environment that some people will thrive in, but others are poorly suited for.  Trying to force-fit someone into the wrong mold isn't doing anyone any favors.

I might be persuaded otherwise if we expanded the concept of "service" beyond our armed forces and included other options for service to our country and its citizens - take FEMA and its disaster relief efforts as an example.

Yes to all of this. There are a lot of valuable ways to serve one’s country beyond the armed forces. I think encouraging some form of service after high school would have significant benefits.

It is strongly encouraged to do this during highschool in my country. I don't think it's mandatory (not when I was in school) but it's mentioned in an addendum to my diploma. I organised activities in a local care home. You're supposed to come up with your own ideas which makes it suitable for everyone, also for students with physical or learning disabilities. A boy with Down's syndrome in my street started to pick up litter in our neighbourhood after being encouraged at school. I also know more than one person who was so inspired by the volunteer work they did during school that they chose a career in that field.

[Luck12]

Are we talking about education or FIRE? Your post sounds bitter. We strive to avoid that here. No one says it's easy, just that it CAN be done.

I'm FIRED so GTFO with that bitterness bullshit.   Many things had to go right for me to FIRE at a very early age, but instead of being a holier than thou jerk and insisting that anyone can do it if they do X, Y, and Z, I look at things differently.  I'm grateful and don't want a society where people have to work 40 hours a week or do military service just to afford college.  We should not be asking "why don't you work full time/go to the military" and instead should be wondering how to make our society fairer and more efficient. 

It's not economically efficient to have a society where a higher % of upper income low scoring kids graduate from college than low income high scoring kids, nor is it remotely just.   It's not justice for low income students to have to work full time (and therefore have a lower GPA, lose out on valuable networking connections and extracurricular activities, etc) or risk graduating with tens of thousands of debt or lose their place in college/at a specific college.     

But I get it, most Americans are assholes and don't give a single fuck about what is right, they just want point their fingers at people and perpetuate this immoral system.

[Luck12]

In my opinion, 12 to 18 months of military service should be mandatory for everyone. Military service changed me from a child to a man. As a nice side effect, it may change the way our politicians look at war, or, more specific, how often they send their constituents' children in war zones around the world.

I respect your opinion with respect to how it might change the way leaders look at war, but I worry that mandatory military service might exacerbate the problem of authoritarian thinking among many Americans.   A lot of other problems as well, but not going to go into those. 

[Milizard]

Are we talking about education or FIRE? Your post sounds bitter. We strive to avoid that here. No one says it's easy, just that it CAN be done.

I'm FIRED so GTFO with that bitterness bullshit.   Many things had to go right for me to FIRE at a very early age, but instead of being a holier than thou jerk and insisting that anyone can do it if they do X, Y, and Z, I look at things differently.  I'm grateful and don't want a society where people have to work 40 hours a week or do military service just to afford college.  We should not be asking "why don't you work full time/go to the military" and instead should be wondering how to make our society fairer and more efficient. 

It's not economically efficient to have a society where a higher % of upper income low scoring kids graduate from college than low income high scoring kids, nor is it remotely just.   It's not justice for low income students to have to work full time (and therefore have a lower GPA, lose out on valuable networking connections and extracurricular activities, etc) or risk graduating with tens of thousands of debt or lose their place in college/at a specific college.     

But I get it, most Americans are assholes and don't give a single fuck about what is right, they just want point their fingers at people and perpetuate this immoral system.

+1

[DadJokes]

Are we talking about education or FIRE? Your post sounds bitter. We strive to avoid that here. No one says it's easy, just that it CAN be done.

I'm FIRED so GTFO with that bitterness bullshit.   Many things had to go right for me to FIRE at a very early age, but instead of being a holier than thou jerk and insisting that anyone can do it if they do X, Y, and Z, I look at things differently.  I'm grateful and don't want a society where people have to work 40 hours a week or do military service just to afford college.  We should not be asking "why don't you work full time/go to the military" and instead should be wondering how to make our society fairer and more efficient. 

It's not economically efficient to have a society where a higher % of upper income low scoring kids graduate from college than low income high scoring kids, nor is it remotely just.   It's not justice for low income students to have to work full time (and therefore have a lower GPA, lose out on valuable networking connections and extracurricular activities, etc) or risk graduating with tens of thousands of debt or lose their place in college/at a specific college.     

But I get it, most Americans are assholes and don't give a single fuck about what is right, they just want point their fingers at people and perpetuate this immoral system.

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others. There's another thread right now that asks people if they think they should earn their way to FI or if they'd be just as happy to receive an inheritance.

Calling people assholes for having a different perspective isn't going to create an atmosphere in which productive dialogue occurs.

[RetiredAt63]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others

Taken to its extreme, that gets a society back to where universities are very elite institutions with no state funding, attended only by the very wealthy.  Isn't a society better served by making education more accessible, not less?

The university system in the US, as far as I understand it, functions a lot like the medical system, great for those who can afford it, 2 tiered, and horrible if you are poor.

Canadian universities generally have 3 levels of tuition, in-Province students, out-of-province students, and international students.  McGill University is a world-class university (¹ #33), and look at its tuition fees.

https://www.mcgill.ca/undergraduate-admissions/yearly-costs

I suppose Quebec is a special case, high taxes and high support for post-secondary education.  CEGEP (= community college) has a 2 year pre-university program and a 3-year professional (technical) program - tuition is free for Quebec residents.


So I suppose I should look at Ontario, where Community Colleges charge fees.

University of Toronto, another world-class University (¹, #28)
https://utsc.utoronto.ca/admissions/tuition-fees

Algonquin College - I chose Vet tech because that has a lot of fairly expensive labs
https://www.algonquincollege.com/ro/pay/fee-estimator/?campus=ALL&startterm=2019F&residency=canadian&programFees=6320X01FWO#programDetail


¹ https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2019

(Just to show those are not fluke results, we also have University of British Columbia, #47, University of Alberta, # 109, McMaster University # 146, Université de Montréal # 149, University of Waterloo #163, etc. etc.)

[Bloop Bloop]

Are we talking about education or FIRE? Your post sounds bitter. We strive to avoid that here. No one says it's easy, just that it CAN be done.

I'm FIRED so GTFO with that bitterness bullshit.   Many things had to go right for me to FIRE at a very early age, but instead of being a holier than thou jerk and insisting that anyone can do it if they do X, Y, and Z, I look at things differently.  I'm grateful and don't want a society where people have to work 40 hours a week or do military service just to afford college.  We should not be asking "why don't you work full time/go to the military" and instead should be wondering how to make our society fairer and more efficient. 

It's not economically efficient to have a society where a higher % of upper income low scoring kids graduate from college than low income high scoring kids, nor is it remotely just.   It's not justice for low income students to have to work full time (and therefore have a lower GPA, lose out on valuable networking connections and extracurricular activities, etc) or risk graduating with tens of thousands of debt or lose their place in college/at a specific college.     

But I get it, most Americans are assholes and don't give a single fuck about what is right, they just want point their fingers at people and perpetuate this immoral system.

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others. There's another thread right now that asks people if they think they should earn their way to FI or if they'd be just as happy to receive an inheritance.

Calling people assholes for having a different perspective isn't going to create an atmosphere in which productive dialogue occurs.

The other thing is, even if university entry were completely fair, and merit based (i.e. everyone had to take the Raven's Progressive Matrices or a similar test, and give an oral dissertation, to determine university entry, and the rules were deceitfully and arbitrarily changed each year to thwart preparation), people would still say it's not fair. Even in a truly meritocratic system like the NBA where talent / work ethic are the only factors to success in the big leagues, there are still losers.

[Cranky]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others

Taken to its extreme, that gets a society back to where universities are very elite institutions with no state funding, attended only by the very wealthy.  Isn't a society better served by making education more accessible, not less?

The university system in the US, as far as I understand it, functions a lot like the medical system, great for those who can afford it, 2 tiered, and horrible if you are poor.

Canadian universities generally have 3 levels of tuition, in-Province students, out-of-province students, and international students.  McGill University is a world-class university (¹ #33), and look at its tuition fees.

https://www.mcgill.ca/undergraduate-admissions/yearly-costs

I suppose Quebec is a special case, high taxes and high support for post-secondary education.  CEGEP (= community college) has a 2 year pre-university program and a 3-year professional (technical) program - tuition is free for Quebec residents.


So I suppose I should look at Ontario, where Community Colleges charge fees.

University of Toronto, another world-class University (¹, #28)
https://utsc.utoronto.ca/admissions/tuition-fees

Algonquin College - I chose Vet tech because that has a lot of fairly expensive labs
https://www.algonquincollege.com/ro/pay/fee-estimator/?campus=ALL&startterm=2019F&residency=canadian&programFees=6320X01FWO#programDetail


¹ https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2019

(Just to show those are not fluke results, we also have University of British Columbia, #47, University of Alberta, # 109, McMaster University # 146, Université de Montréal # 149, University of Waterloo #163, etc. etc.)

Those all seem crazy expensive to me.

There are plenty of state universities in the US with better tuition than that - as ever, just as from your example, it’s living expenses that exclude people.

There are homeless students living in their cars at dh’s (very cheap) university.

[NoVa]

Is this the same contingent as the ones who have Rolex collections because someone has convinced them they are “works of art” and “an investment”?

Some old and new wristwatches have designs I appreciate.

I've never seen a Rolex I REALLY liked; I find their designs uninspired.

I am in no way a connaisseuse of watches at all. And I don't think the doucheboy I know who is buying up multi-thousand-dollar watches is, either. I think he's mostly "inspired" by people seeing he has a Rolex on his wrist. At least, that's the impression I get by the near constant posts on FB and IG about them every time he buys a new one. Literally every picture of him just "coincidentally" features his left wrist prominently.

His latest one -- his third -- was purchased just last week. A Deepsea Sea Dweller 44mm. Ask me how I know.

Rolex, really?

Patek Philippe
Vacheron Constantin
.
.
.
.
.
Rolex

:)

[Kris]

Is this the same contingent as the ones who have Rolex collections because someone has convinced them they are “works of art” and “an investment”?

Some old and new wristwatches have designs I appreciate.

I've never seen a Rolex I REALLY liked; I find their designs uninspired.

I am in no way a connaisseuse of watches at all. And I don't think the doucheboy I know who is buying up multi-thousand-dollar watches is, either. I think he's mostly "inspired" by people seeing he has a Rolex on his wrist. At least, that's the impression I get by the near constant posts on FB and IG about them every time he buys a new one. Literally every picture of him just "coincidentally" features his left wrist prominently.

His latest one -- his third -- was purchased just last week. A Deepsea Sea Dweller 44mm. Ask me how I know.

Rolex, really?

Patek Philippe
Vacheron Constantin
.
.
.
.
.
Rolex

:)

Yeah, I knew nothing about those brands until today.

Googled Patek Philippe. It was... eye opening. Wow.

[former player]

Is this the same contingent as the ones who have Rolex collections because someone has convinced them they are “works of art” and “an investment”?

Some old and new wristwatches have designs I appreciate.

I've never seen a Rolex I REALLY liked; I find their designs uninspired.

I am in no way a connaisseuse of watches at all. And I don't think the doucheboy I know who is buying up multi-thousand-dollar watches is, either. I think he's mostly "inspired" by people seeing he has a Rolex on his wrist. At least, that's the impression I get by the near constant posts on FB and IG about them every time he buys a new one. Literally every picture of him just "coincidentally" features his left wrist prominently.

His latest one -- his third -- was purchased just last week. A Deepsea Sea Dweller 44mm. Ask me how I know.

Rolex, really?

Patek Philippe
Vacheron Constantin
.
.
.
.
.
Rolex

:)

Is this still the MMM forum?  Asking for a friend.

[RetiredAt63]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others

Taken to its extreme, that gets a society back to where universities are very elite institutions with no state funding, attended only by the very wealthy.  Isn't a society better served by making education more accessible, not less?

The university system in the US, as far as I understand it, functions a lot like the medical system, great for those who can afford it, 2 tiered, and horrible if you are poor.

Canadian universities generally have 3 levels of tuition, in-Province students, out-of-province students, and international students.  McGill University is a world-class university (¹ #33), and look at its tuition fees.

https://www.mcgill.ca/undergraduate-admissions/yearly-costs

I suppose Quebec is a special case, high taxes and high support for post-secondary education.  CEGEP (= community college) has a 2 year pre-university program and a 3-year professional (technical) program - tuition is free for Quebec residents.


So I suppose I should look at Ontario, where Community Colleges charge fees.

University of Toronto, another world-class University (¹, #28)
https://utsc.utoronto.ca/admissions/tuition-fees

Algonquin College - I chose Vet tech because that has a lot of fairly expensive labs
https://www.algonquincollege.com/ro/pay/fee-estimator/?campus=ALL&startterm=2019F&residency=canadian&programFees=6320X01FWO#programDetail


¹ https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2019

(Just to show those are not fluke results, we also have University of British Columbia, #47, University of Alberta, # 109, McMaster University # 146, Université de Montréal # 149, University of Waterloo #163, etc. etc.)

Those all seem crazy expensive to me.

There are plenty of state universities in the US with better tuition than that - as ever, just as from your example, it’s living expenses that exclude people.

There are homeless students living in their cars at dh’s (very cheap) university.

Given Canada's climate living in your car as a student is not a good idea.
Pretty much every major Canadian city has at least one major university so students can live at home if they can manage the commute. It's small town and rural students who really get hit.

[okits]

Is this the same contingent as the ones who have Rolex collections because someone has convinced them they are “works of art” and “an investment”?

Some old and new wristwatches have designs I appreciate.

I've never seen a Rolex I REALLY liked; I find their designs uninspired.

I am in no way a connaisseuse of watches at all. And I don't think the doucheboy I know who is buying up multi-thousand-dollar watches is, either. I think he's mostly "inspired" by people seeing he has a Rolex on his wrist. At least, that's the impression I get by the near constant posts on FB and IG about them every time he buys a new one. Literally every picture of him just "coincidentally" features his left wrist prominently.

His latest one -- his third -- was purchased just last week. A Deepsea Sea Dweller 44mm. Ask me how I know.

Rolex, really?

Patek Philippe
Vacheron Constantin
.
.
.
.
.
Rolex

:)

Yeah, I knew nothing about those brands until today.

Googled Patek Philippe. It was... eye opening. Wow.

Yeah, I'm just hearing about these brands here on this thread, too.  I would guess I'm of the social class that interacts with the hired help of the people wearing those watches.  😆

(Also learned about Essie "ballet slippers" nail polish.  If I want to costume aspirationally, that I can afford!)

[Morning Glory]

On the military/college thing: I graduated in 99 and lots of my classmates had that idea. Join the military, party in Germany or Korea for a couple years, get your college paid for...or join in the reserve and do 2 weekends per month...yeah... nope. Guess what happened before their 2 years was up? My cousin had to go twice because his first tour was less than a year. Even girls were getting called up and sent to Iraq. I did not personally know anyone who got killed but I know many who came back with scars visible and invisible.

I am an "old millennial" from a lower middle class background, had good test scores but grades weren't top notch, and not much family support. I went to cc when it was still cheap, got my LPN + an Associate degree in biology, while supporting myself waitressing. Went without health insurance for a couple years (part of why I did the LPN first, it got me a union job with good benefits). Got a scholarship for about 75% off at a private school to get my RN and bachelor's, but worked full time to pay for living expenses and the rest of the tuition (graduated with only 8k loans). Was lucky because housing was cheap where I lived, which was also near a private University with a good endowment. A few years later my Master's was paid for by employer reimbursement (again I got lucky because tuition has gone up since then but reimbursement hasn't). I think today it would be much harder to do what I did, just because housing, healthcare, and education are so much more expensive.

[bacchi]

. . .snip . . .

Are there 2 channels of aspirational classes? One is going to farmer's markets and doing yoga and the other buys expensive handbags and wants to live closer to the country club? (There is overlap, of course.)

According to the author her use of aspirational is super specific and definitely does not include expensive handbags (well - logo-i-fied handbags anyway). The latest fancy handbag is decidedly middle class.

For the person who coined the term, the aspiration is about aspiring to be a better sort of person. Here is a check list she wrote:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-ways-to-tell-if-you-belong-to-the-aspirational-class-2017-06-26

And the whole Rolex thing, everyone know that a real rich person wears an understated Chopard or Patek Phillipe :)

Right, I listened to the podcast and read some reviews about the book.

The old-school "aspirational class" is still around though. The old-school not-quite-wealthy buy expensive hand bags second hand and used Rolex watches (because a Phillipe is too expensive) and go golfing to try and fit in with the older country club set.

Simply picking something because your liberal, urban, peers do it -- and using that choice to elevate yourself above others -- doesn't make one "a better sort of person." To put it another way, the new aspirational class are social climbers like the old social climbers. As she mentioned on the podcast, they simply changed the rules because it became too easy for anyone to buy status signalling material goods (except for driving a 4WD Subaru, of course).

[Luck12]

The other thing is, even if university entry were completely fair, and merit based (i.e. everyone had to take the Raven's Progressive Matrices or a similar test, and give an oral dissertation, to determine university entry, and the rules were deceitfully and arbitrarily changed each year to thwart preparation), people would still say it's not fair. Even in a truly meritocratic system like the NBA where talent / work ethic are the only factors to success in the big leagues, there are still losers.

Sure, but we should always being trying to progress as a society and increase justice and not just say "well there's always some unfairness" and throw up our hands.  Simple concept to me. 

And I will reiterate this isn't just a matter of injustice.  It's also about inefficient use of intellectual capacity and a matter of the economy not reaching its full productive potential.   So even if you don't give a fuck about injustice you should at least care about these things.         

[Luck12]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others. There's another thread right now that asks people if they think they should earn their way to FI or if they'd be just as happy to receive an inheritance.

Calling people assholes for having a different perspective isn't going to create an atmosphere in which productive dialogue occurs.

Yeah, no.  It strains credulity to think it's fair that Person A has to work 3X as hard/end up in thousands of debt and lose out on intangible benefits (e.g.connections) to end up with the same degree as person B all because Person A comes from a poor background (you know, children can't really control their socioeconomic status).   Your way of thinking perpetuates economic immobility.   I'm sure you and your ilk already know this and just don't care.       

[Luck12]

On the military/college thing: I graduated in 99 and lots of my classmates had that idea. Join the military, party in Germany or Korea for a couple years, get your college paid for...or join in the reserve and do 2 weekends per month...yeah... nope. Guess what happened before their 2 years was up? My cousin had to go twice because his first tour was less than a year. Even girls were getting called up and sent to Iraq. I did not personally know anyone who got killed but I know many who came back with scars visible and invisible.

Yeah that is totally fair LOL.   All you have to do is dramatically increase your chances of death or injury and bam college paid for.  Yep, totally a just system of college financing.   What a joke that half this country seriously thinks what I just wrote sarcastically. 

[marty998]

. . .snip . . .

Are there 2 channels of aspirational classes? One is going to farmer's markets and doing yoga and the other buys expensive handbags and wants to live closer to the country club? (There is overlap, of course.)

According to the author her use of aspirational is super specific and definitely does not include expensive handbags (well - logo-i-fied handbags anyway). The latest fancy handbag is decidedly middle class.

For the person who coined the term, the aspiration is about aspiring to be a better sort of person. Here is a check list she wrote:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-ways-to-tell-if-you-belong-to-the-aspirational-class-2017-06-26

And the whole Rolex thing, everyone know that a real rich person wears an understated Chopard or Patek Phillipe :)

Right, I listened to the podcast and read some reviews about the book.

The old-school "aspirational class" is still around though. The old-school not-quite-wealthy buy expensive hand bags second hand and used Rolex watches (because a Phillipe is too expensive) and go golfing to try and fit in with the older country club set.

Simply picking something because your liberal, urban, peers do it -- and using that choice to elevate yourself above others -- doesn't make one "a better sort of person." To put it another way, the new aspirational class are social climbers like the old social climbers. As she mentioned on the podcast, they simply changed the rules because it became too easy for anyone to buy status signalling material goods (except for driving a 4WD Subaru, of course).

I'm sure the VAT paid on some of those watches is more than the VAT I would contribute in a year.

The watchmakers have to buy parts, build offices, employ staff.... manufacturing, construction, services.... lots of different industries in that supply chain. I'd be ecstatic if the rich keep buying shit like this. It keeps the economy going.

Your wealthy folk know how to evade income taxes. What they can't evade to the same degree is consumption taxes. If shit like these watches helps convert their wealth into business consumption and investment then that definately helps all the rest of us.

A watch doesn't seem like a heavy burden on the environment either.... not like some of the other status symbols going around.

[KBecks]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others. There's another thread right now that asks people if they think they should earn their way to FI or if they'd be just as happy to receive an inheritance.

Calling people assholes for having a different perspective isn't going to create an atmosphere in which productive dialogue occurs.

Yeah, no.  It strains credulity to think it's fair that Person A has to work 3X as hard/end up in thousands of debt and lose out on intangible benefits (e.g.connections) to end up with the same degree as person B all because Person A comes from a poor background (you know, children can't really control their socioeconomic status).   Your way of thinking perpetuates economic immobility.   I'm sure you and your ilk already know this and just don't care.     

Have you ever heard the phrase, life isn't fair?  It's not.

[ministashy]

Have you ever heard the phrase, life isn't fair?  It's not.

Life might not be fair, but that doesn't mean people can't be.  I'm reminded of a Terry Pratchett quote, from 'Hogfather' (the conversation is between the protagonist, Susan, and Death):

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

So life isn't fair.  That doesn't mean we have to throw up our hands and absolve ourselves of any responsibility for trying to make the world a little bit better, or a little bit more fair.  And as Luck12 points out--how many geniuses, artists, and great people have been discarded by the wayside, because they had the bad luck to be born in the wrong economic class, the wrong gender, the wrong skin color?  How much better would our country (and the world) be if we gave those people a hand up, rather than ignoring them--or worse, kicking dirt on them as we go by?

There's always room for improvement. 

[former player]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others. There's another thread right now that asks people if they think they should earn their way to FI or if they'd be just as happy to receive an inheritance.

Calling people assholes for having a different perspective isn't going to create an atmosphere in which productive dialogue occurs.

Yeah, no.  It strains credulity to think it's fair that Person A has to work 3X as hard/end up in thousands of debt and lose out on intangible benefits (e.g.connections) to end up with the same degree as person B all because Person A comes from a poor background (you know, children can't really control their socioeconomic status).   Your way of thinking perpetuates economic immobility.   I'm sure you and your ilk already know this and just don't care.     

Have you ever heard the phrase, life isn't fair?  It's not.

If life were fair you would be poorer, less educated, less healthy, less free and quite likely without access to contraception or the internet.  You (and all the rest of us on these boards) have benefitted mightily from life not being fair.  Some of us do what we can to make it a bit fairer than it is, which helps us all.

[Aelias]

Simply picking something because your liberal, urban, peers do it -- and using that choice to elevate yourself above others -- doesn't make one "a better sort of person." To put it another way, the new aspirational class are social climbers like the old social climbers. As she mentioned on the podcast, they simply changed the rules because it became too easy for anyone to buy status signalling material goods (except for driving a 4WD Subaru, of course).

I think the tricky part is that the adoption of these behaviors can be driven by subconscious social pressures.  You may think you’re going to the farmers market because the produce is better and you’re supporting local business.  And that may indeed be part of it.  But it may be equally true that all your friends go to farmers markets and that’s what planted the idea in your head in the first place.

Motivation is complicated.

[DadJokes]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others. There's another thread right now that asks people if they think they should earn their way to FI or if they'd be just as happy to receive an inheritance.

Calling people assholes for having a different perspective isn't going to create an atmosphere in which productive dialogue occurs.

Yeah, no.  It strains credulity to think it's fair that Person A has to work 3X as hard/end up in thousands of debt and lose out on intangible benefits (e.g.connections) to end up with the same degree as person B all because Person A comes from a poor background (you know, children can't really control their socioeconomic status).   Your way of thinking perpetuates economic immobility.   I'm sure you and your ilk already know this and just don't care.     

What exactly is my ilk?

Again, insulting others doesn’t lend yourself much credibility.

[oldtoyota]

Yet my DD is a beat up 1999 Toyota Camry. As I drive it through my major metropolitan I realize I typically have one of the crappier (yet very reliable) cars on the road.. I seriously smile on a weekly basis about my reliable heap vs my income.

About two years ago I had to run down to our local Fidelity office in person to turn in a 401K form.  Unfortunately, I got tied up beforehand dealing with a troublesome tree I was taking down, so I ended up having to rush down there at the end of the day without time to clean up.  Torn jeans, tree dust all over me, leaf scraps in my hair, dirty arms, sweaty as hell...I was a mess.

Surprisingly, the lobby staff and the account supervisor were both super gracious to me right from the start despite my shabby appearance.   When I complimented the account super on their customer service, he said a decent portion of their customers with significant assets come in looking differently than you might expect.  He was quite charitable about it...windblown and threadbare was how I think he put it.

Makes sense to some extent.  It's easier to build wealth if you aren't too concerned with keeping up with social expectations or status signaling.

Camrys are a good ride.  Lots of them out there with hundreds of thousands of miles on them.

Ideally, they would be kind to anyone regardless of assets...yet I know what you are getting at...

I like Toyotas!

[oldtoyota]

The people I have known who were Really Rich all had family trusts dedicated to education. They didn’t spend their income on that, but when they die some of their capital goes back into the trust. It’s like not buying your own furniture - some earlier person in your family did that, and you just have it reupholstered. Then you wear your grandfathers dinner jacket until it literally falls apart.

I think I am too "low class" to understand the furniture statement. When someone else here mentioned that a MP referenced a colleague who "bought his own furniture," I thought the person who said it meant that the truly rich would hire other people to buy furniture *for them*. But did he mean that you would **already** have inherited furniture so you would not need to buy any unless of a lower class?

This is a rather fascinating little detail.

[Milizard]

The people I have known who were Really Rich all had family trusts dedicated to education. They didn’t spend their income on that, but when they die some of their capital goes back into the trust. It’s like not buying your own furniture - some earlier person in your family did that, and you just have it reupholstered. Then you wear your grandfathers dinner jacket until it literally falls apart.

I think I am too "low class" to understand the furniture statement. When someone else here mentioned that a MP referenced a colleague who "bought his own furniture," I thought the person who said it meant that the truly rich would hire other people to buy furniture *for them*. But did he mean that you would **already** have inherited furniture so you would not need to buy any unless of a lower class?

This is a rather fascinating little detail.

I'm guessing it's about buying such high quality that it lasts forever, unlike cheap throwaway stuff like IKEA.

[merula]

The people I have known who were Really Rich all had family trusts dedicated to education. They didn’t spend their income on that, but when they die some of their capital goes back into the trust. It’s like not buying your own furniture - some earlier person in your family did that, and you just have it reupholstered. Then you wear your grandfathers dinner jacket until it literally falls apart.

I think I am too "low class" to understand the furniture statement. When someone else here mentioned that a MP referenced a colleague who "bought his own furniture," I thought the person who said it meant that the truly rich would hire other people to buy furniture *for them*. But did he mean that you would **already** have inherited furniture so you would not need to buy any unless of a lower class?

This is a rather fascinating little detail.

I'm guessing it's about buying such high quality that it lasts forever, unlike cheap throwaway stuff like IKEA.

No, it's about your family having already accumulated so much furniture that you yourself never go to a furniture store (nor does anyone go on your behalf). You go to the attic in one of the family homes and pick out whatever you need for your pied-a-terre or townhouse. Might need to be refinished, but that's why God gave us cabinetmakers and upholsterers, and household staff to talk to them, am I right?

[former player]

The people I have known who were Really Rich all had family trusts dedicated to education. They didn’t spend their income on that, but when they die some of their capital goes back into the trust. It’s like not buying your own furniture - some earlier person in your family did that, and you just have it reupholstered. Then you wear your grandfathers dinner jacket until it literally falls apart.

I think I am too "low class" to understand the furniture statement. When someone else here mentioned that a MP referenced a colleague who "bought his own furniture," I thought the person who said it meant that the truly rich would hire other people to buy furniture *for them*. But did he mean that you would **already** have inherited furniture so you would not need to buy any unless of a lower class?

This is a rather fascinating little detail.

I'm guessing it's about buying such high quality that it lasts forever, unlike cheap throwaway stuff like IKEA.

No, it's about your family having already accumulated so much furniture that you yourself never go to a furniture store (nor does anyone go on your behalf). You go to the attic in one of the family homes and pick out whatever you need for your pied-a-terre or townhouse. Might need to be refinished, but that's why God gave us cabinetmakers and upholsterers, and household staff to talk to them, am I right?

This.  It's another level up from people who inherit the family antiques after their parents have died, which tends to happen only later in life.

[big_owl]

In my opinion, 12 to 18 months of military service should be mandatory for everyone. Military service changed me from a child to a man. As a nice side effect, it may change the way our politicians look at war, or, more specific, how often they send their constituents' children in war zones around the world.

Going to the theater in 1986 and watching the Transformers Movie did the same thing for me.   I think it should be mandatory viewing for all kids.

[big_owl]

Is this the same contingent as the ones who have Rolex collections because someone has convinced them they are “works of art” and “an investment”?

Some old and new wristwatches have designs I appreciate.

I've never seen a Rolex I REALLY liked; I find their designs uninspired.

I am in no way a connaisseuse of watches at all. And I don't think the doucheboy I know who is buying up multi-thousand-dollar watches is, either. I think he's mostly "inspired" by people seeing he has a Rolex on his wrist. At least, that's the impression I get by the near constant posts on FB and IG about them every time he buys a new one. Literally every picture of him just "coincidentally" features his left wrist prominently.

His latest one -- his third -- was purchased just last week. A Deepsea Sea Dweller 44mm. Ask me how I know.

Rolex, really?

Patek Philippe
Vacheron Constantin
.
.
.
.
.
Rolex

:)

Yeah, I knew nothing about those brands until today.

Googled Patek Philippe. It was... eye opening. Wow.

My wife got me a Breitling as an engagement gift a decade and a half ago.  I've worn that thing every day for almost 15yrs and I'll be damned if it doesn't still keep perfect time.  Just this past weekend I noticed some moisture in it so I have to go to Annapolis to get it sent out and fixed.  Life's too short for cheap ass watches. 

[Milizard]

Are you kidding?  THis is the only watch worth getting:

https://www.mrporter.com/en-us/mens/product/roger-dubuis/dress-watches/excalibur-aventador-s-limited-edition-skeleton-45mm-carbon-rubber-and-alcantara-watch-ref-no-rddbex0686/990541377779236?cm_mmc=Google-ProductSearch-US--c-_-MRP_EN_US_PLA-_-MRP+-+US+-+GS+-+Luxury+Watches+-+New+Customer+-+Medium--Lux+Watch+-+Roger+Dubuis_AM&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgZnxzrPi5QIVBtVkCh1wEAlQEAQYAiABEgK52vD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds




As I sit here with my $40 watch on my wrist.  It also counts my steps and can measure my BP and heart rate.  It works fine.  That thing above costs nearly twice what I paid for my 1700 sf home.

[big_owl]

Are you kidding?  THis is the only watch worth getting:

https://www.mrporter.com/en-us/mens/product/roger-dubuis/dress-watches/excalibur-aventador-s-limited-edition-skeleton-45mm-carbon-rubber-and-alcantara-watch-ref-no-rddbex0686/990541377779236?cm_mmc=Google-ProductSearch-US--c-_-MRP_EN_US_PLA-_-MRP+-+US+-+GS+-+Luxury+Watches+-+New+Customer+-+Medium--Lux+Watch+-+Roger+Dubuis_AM&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgZnxzrPi5QIVBtVkCh1wEAlQEAQYAiABEgK52vD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds




As I sit here with my $40 watch on my wrist.  It also counts my steps and can measure my BP and heart rate.  It works fine.  That thing above costs nearly twice what I paid for my 1700 sf home.

That thing is ugly AF. The only aventador I'd ever own is the car. But $40 watches are also ugly, you at least need a sapphire lens so it doesn't scratch when you're splitting firewood.

[Metalcat]

My wife got me a Breitling as an engagement gift a decade and a half ago.  I've worn that thing every day for almost 15yrs and I'll be damned if it doesn't still keep perfect time.  Just this past weekend I noticed some moisture in it so I have to go to Annapolis to get it sent out and fixed.  Life's too short for cheap ass watches.

Life is too expensive for fancy watches.

Scratches head and double checks what forum we're on...

If artisanal watches are your thing and worth spending thousands and thousands of dollars on, then cool, enjoy your watch. However if keeping time is your priority, countless nurses with cheap scrub watches would argue that you don't need an artisanal timepiece, even when keeping time is critical to keeping people alive.

[KBecks]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others. There's another thread right now that asks people if they think they should earn their way to FI or if they'd be just as happy to receive an inheritance.

Calling people assholes for having a different perspective isn't going to create an atmosphere in which productive dialogue occurs.

Yeah, no.  It strains credulity to think it's fair that Person A has to work 3X as hard/end up in thousands of debt and lose out on intangible benefits (e.g.connections) to end up with the same degree as person B all because Person A comes from a poor background (you know, children can't really control their socioeconomic status).   Your way of thinking perpetuates economic immobility.   I'm sure you and your ilk already know this and just don't care.     

Have you ever heard the phrase, life isn't fair?  It's not.

If life were fair you would be poorer, less educated, less healthy, less free and quite likely without access to contraception or the internet.  You (and all the rest of us on these boards) have benefitted mightily from life not being fair.  Some of us do what we can to make it a bit fairer than it is, which helps us all.

Yeah, I found out this morning that a student's mom died a little over a month ago.  He is high-functioning autistic and he is now living with an uncle and taking the public bus to school (very uncommon in our area).  Life is not fair.

This weekend I watched a Shakespeare in central park performance with an entirely African American cast and it was incredible.

[StarBright]

Simply picking something because your liberal, urban, peers do it -- and using that choice to elevate yourself above others -- doesn't make one "a better sort of person." To put it another way, the new aspirational class are social climbers like the old social climbers. As she mentioned on the podcast, they simply changed the rules because it became too easy for anyone to buy status signalling material goods (except for driving a 4WD Subaru, of course).

I think the tricky part is that the adoption of these behaviors can be driven by subconscious social pressures.  You may think you’re going to the farmers market because the produce is better and you’re supporting local business.  And that may indeed be part of it.  But it may be equally true that all your friends go to farmers markets and that’s what planted the idea in your head in the first place.

Motivation is complicated.

+1.

I feel a little attacked by bacchi's original comment :)

I am another person who checks most of the boxes of the author's aspirational class and I don't think I'm trying to elevate myself above others, but knowing I have the means and ability to do things like breastfeed, buy organic/local, save for college for my children, etc, well - my research has convinced me those things have value and so I do them when I can.

I am also very careful to not blame others who don't do them. Most of my family circle is decidedly blue collar and we don't have a lot in common. But I love them and I try to understand the choices they make. They love me and try to understand the choices I make.

I think the thing that is sort of interesting about the idea of the aspirational class is that it isn't necessarily income dependent but based on lifestyle and choices and it lends itself to career types, but not necessarily income. So an artist working for themselves, an academic, an accountant, and a software developer, a nurse and a nuclear plant manager might all fall under the same class while having vastly different salaries (this list was drawn from a real life group of my friends) .

[Cranky]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others

Taken to its extreme, that gets a society back to where universities are very elite institutions with no state funding, attended only by the very wealthy.  Isn't a society better served by making education more accessible, not less?

The university system in the US, as far as I understand it, functions a lot like the medical system, great for those who can afford it, 2 tiered, and horrible if you are poor.

Canadian universities generally have 3 levels of tuition, in-Province students, out-of-province students, and international students.  McGill University is a world-class university (¹ #33), and look at its tuition fees.

https://www.mcgill.ca/undergraduate-admissions/yearly-costs

I suppose Quebec is a special case, high taxes and high support for post-secondary education.  CEGEP (= community college) has a 2 year pre-university program and a 3-year professional (technical) program - tuition is free for Quebec residents.


So I suppose I should look at Ontario, where Community Colleges charge fees.

University of Toronto, another world-class University (¹, #28)
https://utsc.utoronto.ca/admissions/tuition-fees

Algonquin College - I chose Vet tech because that has a lot of fairly expensive labs
https://www.algonquincollege.com/ro/pay/fee-estimator/?campus=ALL&startterm=2019F&residency=canadian&programFees=6320X01FWO#programDetail


¹ https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2019

(Just to show those are not fluke results, we also have University of British Columbia, #47, University of Alberta, # 109, McMaster University # 146, Université de Montréal # 149, University of Waterloo #163, etc. etc.)

Those all seem crazy expensive to me.

There are plenty of state universities in the US with better tuition than that - as ever, just as from your example, it’s living expenses that exclude people.

There are homeless students living in their cars at dh’s (very cheap) university.

Given Canada's climate living in your car as a student is not a good idea.
Pretty much every major Canadian city has at least one major university so students can live at home if they can manage the commute. It's small town and rural students who really get hit.

NE Ohio is not all that conducive to living in your car, either, as far as I’m concerned, but not everyone has a family who will let them live at home. I have actually known several high school students so spent a year or two coach surfing to finish high school.

[RetiredAt63]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others

Taken to its extreme, that gets a society back to where universities are very elite institutions with no state funding, attended only by the very wealthy.  Isn't a society better served by making education more accessible, not less?

The university system in the US, as far as I understand it, functions a lot like the medical system, great for those who can afford it, 2 tiered, and horrible if you are poor.

Canadian universities generally have 3 levels of tuition, in-Province students, out-of-province students, and international students.  McGill University is a world-class university (¹ #33), and look at its tuition fees.

https://www.mcgill.ca/undergraduate-admissions/yearly-costs

I suppose Quebec is a special case, high taxes and high support for post-secondary education.  CEGEP (= community college) has a 2 year pre-university program and a 3-year professional (technical) program - tuition is free for Quebec residents.


So I suppose I should look at Ontario, where Community Colleges charge fees.

University of Toronto, another world-class University (¹, #28)
https://utsc.utoronto.ca/admissions/tuition-fees

Algonquin College - I chose Vet tech because that has a lot of fairly expensive labs
https://www.algonquincollege.com/ro/pay/fee-estimator/?campus=ALL&startterm=2019F&residency=canadian&programFees=6320X01FWO#programDetail


¹ https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2019

(Just to show those are not fluke results, we also have University of British Columbia, #47, University of Alberta, # 109, McMaster University # 146, Université de Montréal # 149, University of Waterloo #163, etc. etc.)

Those all seem crazy expensive to me.

There are plenty of state universities in the US with better tuition than that - as ever, just as from your example, it’s living expenses that exclude people.

There are homeless students living in their cars at dh’s (very cheap) university.

Given Canada's climate living in your car as a student is not a good idea.
Pretty much every major Canadian city has at least one major university so students can live at home if they can manage the commute. It's small town and rural students who really get hit.

NE Ohio is not all that conducive to living in your car, either, as far as I’m concerned, but not everyone has a family who will let them live at home. I have actually known several high school students so spent a year or two coach surfing to finish high school.

We have strayed far from the point I was trying to make, which was that if a society decides to subsidize education it can.  If tuition is reasonable (I know, define "reasonable") then summer jobs and part time jobs can carry a lot of the costs.  Student loans can be used for housing if necessary.  And I have personally known lots of students who lived in what would be considered sub-standard housing while in school.  The "McGill ghetto" was named that for a reason.

One of the benefits of a strong community college system is that it provides training for a lot of jobs.
This is an interesting overview of the end result of the Canadian system.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171129/dq171129a-eng.htm

Of course some people will have more of life's crap thrown at them, and their lives will be harder.  As others have discussed, life isn't fair.  But we can make it generally fairer than it is now.

[mm1970]

For what it's worth, I graduated two years ago and didn't pay a dime for school. In fact, I received extra money on top of my tuition being paid. It's certainly possible to graduate debt-free still. Anyone who wants to get a degree without going into debt can. But they aren't willing to put in the work for that, and I don't think we should subsidize their laziness.

Not necessarily laziness, but also ability.

Not everyone can work full time and go to school full time.  Or work part time, live at home, and go to school full time.  Or afford to live for the 10 years it takes to work and save up enough money to go to college.  Everyone has different levels of health, brain function, energy, family obligations, family support, etc.

Aka, just because you did it doesn't mean everyone can do it.

Or do 3 years of military service. Or apply for scholarships as a full time job.

Also, anyone (who isn't disabled) can work full time while going to school.

Shh...don't tell anyone my secret (I was in ROTC, in school full time, and had a part time job so that I could eat).

I will repeat though...
- Not everyone is eligible for military service.  Especially these days.
- There's no excuse to not apply for scholarships...your success in getting them will depend on family income, grades, location, choice of school.  When my mom remarried while I was in college I lost a scholarship because she moved from the city to the county.  I was no longer eligible.
- Not everyone can work full time while going to school.  Most people can work full time, and perhaps take a couple of classes a semester - that only works if you have a work place willing to work around your college schedule.  If you want to take 2 classes, may even be harder.

Also, working full time while going to school STILL might not be affordable, if you end up having to use all of your income to pay for rent and food - assuming, of course, that your parents cannot help or you do not live where you can attend school.

Just because I did it doesn't mean everyone can do it...

[mm1970]

There seem to be a lot of assumptions made on this board about how if Person A can do it in Person A's location with Person A's background and advantages, obviously Person B in a completely different location with a completely different background and advantages can obviously do the exact same thing.  I don't know about other countries, but in the US there are 50 states with 50 different sets of college programs, and 'well, just move' is easy to say, but do you know how long is required to establish residency in a given state to take advantage of the various programs?  I think in every state I've lived in it's a minimum of one year, and no, just going to college somewhere doesn't establish residency.

I managed to get out of college debt free, so even if my state was of zero help clearly it can be done.  Can it be done by everyone?  No idea, and I'm sure as hell not going to make that blanket assumption or heap scorn on people coming in from different backgrounds/with different challenges because their world looks different than mine.

Yup

[Just Joe]

In my opinion, 12 to 18 months of military service should be mandatory for everyone. Military service changed me from a child to a man. As a nice side effect, it may change the way our politicians look at war, or, more specific, how often they send their constituents' children in war zones around the world.

I'll second this. Not everyone ought to be subjected to combat but definitely everything else - responsibility, weird hours, moving away from home, long days and nights, etc.

I also think every politician ought to have been in the military. Might make them think twice about using the military for needless military actions.

Am gently pushing my eldest teenager to follow me with an enlistment in the military. Similar path: engineering job, not combat. Teenager is a bit directionless right now. This would lead eldest to consider alternatives to the military if military does not appeal to them. I joined, learned pretty quick I did not want to make a career of it, did fine with my six years, and by the time I finished I was eager to complete college and pursue other dreams with gusto. Funny thing is occasionally I still miss it.

I do wish I could do it over (time machine) b/c I would have taken better advantage of opportunities presented to me along the way. Happy with the outcome but I could have chased more training and saved more money along the way.

Definitely a great way to get a start in life and pay for college. Save money along the way and GI Bill.

[Just Joe]

My wife got me a Breitling as an engagement gift a decade and a half ago.  I've worn that thing every day for almost 15yrs and I'll be damned if it doesn't still keep perfect time.  Just this past weekend I noticed some moisture in it so I have to go to Annapolis to get it sent out and fixed.  Life's too short for cheap ass watches.

Life is too expensive for fancy watches.

Scratches head and double checks what forum we're on...

If artisanal watches are your thing and worth spending thousands and thousands of dollars on, then cool, enjoy your watch. However if keeping time is your priority, countless nurses with cheap scrub watches would argue that you don't need an artisanal timepiece, even when keeping time is critical to keeping people alive.

There are clocks everywhere. Don't need a watch. Can't justify anything fancy. I do admire antique gold pocket watches though.

[Cranky]

That depends on what you consider "fair" or "right." Some people might consider it fair that people have to earn their own way without being subsidized by others

Ah. Well I agree with that point, but I actually think the US does that. We have community colleges and lower tier state universities with cheap tuition and plenty of out of state universities offer in state tuition to neighboring states.

Taken to its extreme, that gets a society back to where universities are very elite institutions with no state funding, attended only by the very wealthy.  Isn't a society better served by making education more accessible, not less?

The university system in the US, as far as I understand it, functions a lot like the medical system, great for those who can afford it, 2 tiered, and horrible if you are poor.

Canadian universities generally have 3 levels of tuition, in-Province students, out-of-province students, and international students.  McGill University is a world-class university (¹ #33), and look at its tuition fees.

https://www.mcgill.ca/undergraduate-admissions/yearly-costs

I suppose Quebec is a special case, high taxes and high support for post-secondary education.  CEGEP (= community college) has a 2 year pre-university program and a 3-year professional (technical) program - tuition is free for Quebec residents.


So I suppose I should look at Ontario, where Community Colleges charge fees.

University of Toronto, another world-class University (¹, #28)
https://utsc.utoronto.ca/admissions/tuition-fees

Algonquin College - I chose Vet tech because that has a lot of fairly expensive labs
https://www.algonquincollege.com/ro/pay/fee-estimator/?campus=ALL&startterm=2019F&residency=canadian&programFees=6320X01FWO#programDetail


¹ https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2019

(Just to show those are not fluke results, we also have University of British Columbia, #47, University of Alberta, # 109, McMaster University # 146, Université de Montréal # 149, University of Waterloo #163, etc. etc.)

Those all seem crazy expensive to me.

There are plenty of state universities in the US with better tuition than that - as ever, just as from your example, it’s living expenses that exclude people.

There are homeless students living in their cars at dh’s (very cheap) university.

Given Canada's climate living in your car as a student is not a good idea.
Pretty much every major Canadian city has at least one major university so students can live at home if they can manage the commute. It's small town and rural students who really get hit.

NE Ohio is not all that conducive to living in your car, either, as far as I’m concerned, but not everyone has a family who will let them live at home. I have actually known several high school students so spent a year or two coach surfing to finish high school.

We have strayed far from the point I was trying to make, which was that if a society decides to subsidize education it can.  If tuition is reasonable (I know, define "reasonable") then summer jobs and part time jobs can carry a lot of the costs.  Student loans can be used for housing if necessary.  And I have personally known lots of students who lived in what would be considered sub-standard housing while in school.  The "McGill ghetto" was named that for a reason.

One of the benefits of a strong community college system is that it provides training for a lot of jobs.
This is an interesting overview of the end result of the Canadian system.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171129/dq171129a-eng.htm

Of course some people will have more of life's crap thrown at them, and their lives will be harder.  As others have discussed, life isn't fair.  But we can make it generally fairer than it is now.

[DadJokes]

For what it's worth, I graduated two years ago and didn't pay a dime for school. In fact, I received extra money on top of my tuition being paid. It's certainly possible to graduate debt-free still. Anyone who wants to get a degree without going into debt can. But they aren't willing to put in the work for that, and I don't think we should subsidize their laziness.

Not necessarily laziness, but also ability.

Not everyone can work full time and go to school full time.  Or work part time, live at home, and go to school full time.  Or afford to live for the 10 years it takes to work and save up enough money to go to college.  Everyone has different levels of health, brain function, energy, family obligations, family support, etc.

Aka, just because you did it doesn't mean everyone can do it.

Or do 3 years of military service. Or apply for scholarships as a full time job.

Also, anyone (who isn't disabled) can work full time while going to school.

Shh...don't tell anyone my secret (I was in ROTC, in school full time, and had a part time job so that I could eat).

I will repeat though...
- Not everyone is eligible for military service.  Especially these days.
- There's no excuse to not apply for scholarships...your success in getting them will depend on family income, grades, location, choice of school.  When my mom remarried while I was in college I lost a scholarship because she moved from the city to the county.  I was no longer eligible.
- Not everyone can work full time while going to school.  Most people can work full time, and perhaps take a couple of classes a semester - that only works if you have a work place willing to work around your college schedule.  If you want to take 2 classes, may even be harder.

Also, working full time while going to school STILL might not be affordable, if you end up having to use all of your income to pay for rent and food - assuming, of course, that your parents cannot help or you do not live where you can attend school.

Just because I did it doesn't mean everyone can do it...

Just because not everyone can do it does not mean that most can’t. I’ve yet to see these swathes of people who can’t work full-time while going to school.

Heck, my wife was a terrible student but managed to work full time and pay her way through 3/4 years. Student teaching took away that opportunity in her last year, but one year’s worth of student loans were a lot easier to manage than the large amount that others choose to take out.

[SimpleCycle]

I find this discussion of the military to pay for school interesting, as it overlooks the HUGE opportunity cost of joining the military if it's not something you really want to do.

There is someone in my family who did ROTC to pay for college.  Her dream was to get a PhD in physics and become a professor, but her family refused to pay for any college, despite their EFC being $12k or so.  So she did ROTC and took the most academically oriented job she could find, which came with five years of service.  Yes, she was being paid while she was in the military, but it was not the life she wanted for herself, especially since she is LGBT and this was during don't ask don't tell.  She wasn't able to start her PhD until she was 28, and started her career in earnest at almost 34.  All over $48k, which is not very much compared to her career earnings.

[Bloop Bloop]

My wife got me a Breitling as an engagement gift a decade and a half ago.  I've worn that thing every day for almost 15yrs and I'll be damned if it doesn't still keep perfect time.  Just this past weekend I noticed some moisture in it so I have to go to Annapolis to get it sent out and fixed.  Life's too short for cheap ass watches.

Life is too expensive for fancy watches.

Scratches head and double checks what forum we're on...

If artisanal watches are your thing and worth spending thousands and thousands of dollars on, then cool, enjoy your watch. However if keeping time is your priority, countless nurses with cheap scrub watches would argue that you don't need an artisanal timepiece, even when keeping time is critical to keeping people alive.

Everyone has different financial priorities and means. I don't think it's anti-Mustachian to have a nice watch as long as it's well within your financial band. I mean when you look at the price of a nice watch and compare that to the price of say daycare or private school then it pales in comparison. And at least you get something tangible out of the watch.

One of the reasons I want to retire early is that I want to be able to spend a lot of quality time with kids. I think I could educate them a lot better than any school. So I guess that makes me a member of the aspirational class talked about in the article. I will never pay for private school (no value for money, plus I think having the diversity of a public school makes kids more well-rounded) nor private tuition, but I guess in paying my retirement time and devoting part of that to nurturing the kids, I'm spending a far more valuable and scarce resource.

[Metalcat]

My wife got me a Breitling as an engagement gift a decade and a half ago.  I've worn that thing every day for almost 15yrs and I'll be damned if it doesn't still keep perfect time.  Just this past weekend I noticed some moisture in it so I have to go to Annapolis to get it sent out and fixed.  Life's too short for cheap ass watches.

Life is too expensive for fancy watches.

Scratches head and double checks what forum we're on...

If artisanal watches are your thing and worth spending thousands and thousands of dollars on, then cool, enjoy your watch. However if keeping time is your priority, countless nurses with cheap scrub watches would argue that you don't need an artisanal timepiece, even when keeping time is critical to keeping people alive.

Everyone has different financial priorities and means. I don't think it's anti-Mustachian to have a nice watch as long as it's well within your financial band. I mean when you look at the price of a nice watch and compare that to the price of say daycare or private school then it pales in comparison. And at least you get something tangible out of the watch.

One of the reasons I want to retire early is that I want to be able to spend a lot of quality time with kids. I think I could educate them a lot better than any school. So I guess that makes me a member of the aspirational class talked about in the article. I will never pay for private school (no value for money, plus I think having the diversity of a public school makes kids more well-rounded) nor private tuition, but I guess in paying my retirement time and devoting part of that to nurturing the kids, I'm spending a far more valuable and scarce resource.

Spending on anything isn't "anti Mustachian", each individual has their priorities; however, I take issue with sentiments like "life is too short for cheap watches", when watches are possibly the most obvious example where goibg cheap gets you just as much utility for thousanths of the price.

That said, I have no problem with people valuing artisanal time pieces, I just don't buy for a fucking second that they have any real life value above a dollar store watch.