The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Aelias on November 07, 2019, 12:38:54 PM
-
Interestingly, this article seems to have drawn its inspiration from a rather ancient thread on our very own MMM Forum.
Just look at a forum on the popular financial blog Mr. Money Mustache. The question asking whether 'the "everybody seems wealthy" illusion — is it really just fueled by debt?” attracted a wide variety of opinions, but more than a few expressed the sentiment of the commenter GeorgeC. “I often have this struggle where it seems as if everybody around me is wealthy,” he wrote, adding that he often wondered how people he knew earned as much or less than he did could afford things he could not. “To be honest, at times, it kind of makes me feel dumb and sometimes even like a failure at what I do,” he added.
If the NYT is looking to 3 year old forum threads for article ideas, then, after years of pointless chasing, it seems the personal finance internet had finally managed to catch its own tail.
Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/your-money/financial-security-envy.html?fallback=false&recId=547784252&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=MA&recAlloc=top_conversion&geoCountry=US&blockId=published-assets-bq&imp_id=780767371&action=click&module=Most%20Popular&pgtype=Homepage (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/your-money/financial-security-envy.html?fallback=false&recId=547784252&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=MA&recAlloc=top_conversion&geoCountry=US&blockId=published-assets-bq&imp_id=780767371&action=click&module=Most%20Popular&pgtype=Homepage)
Original 2016 Thread: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/the-'everybody-seems-wealthy'-illusion-is-it-really-just-all-fueled-by-debt/
-
I just read that article a few minutes ago, and the part that struck me was the suggestion that the real difference nowadays is "inconspicuous consumption":
The top 1 percent of households still spend money on conspicuous consumption but “the thing that really separates them is their spending on inconspicuous consumption,” said Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, who analyzed Americans’ spending habits for her book “The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class.”
Over the last few decades, wealthy people have increased how much of their spending they direct to education and retirement, compared with members of the middle class, whose expenditures in those areas have remained more or the less the same. For example, in 2014, the last year of Ms. Currid-Halkett’s analysis, the top 1 percent of American earners — those making at least $340,000 annually — directed, on average, 6 percent of their total expenditures to education. According to her research, that percentage has climbed significantly since 1996.
Only about 1 percent of the expenditures of the middle class — people making about $40,000 to $60,000 annually in 2014 — was devoted to education, a number that has stayed static for almost two decades, Ms. Currid-Halkett said.
And about 20 percent of the top earners’ expenditures go to personal insurance and pensions — an annual average of $32,500 in 2014 — compared with just under $4,000 or about 8 percent for the middle class.
This is certainly consistent with my own "stealth wealth" approach -- we have definitely prioritized college savings and retirement savings above everything else. And our UMC status rewards us for that, with deductions for 529 contributions and various work programs that allow us to put more money aside in tax-sheltered accounts (profit sharing, deferred comp, etc.).
What I would be interested in seeing is whether/how these numbers have changed over time. It makes perfect sense that people making $40-60K are going to put a lower percentage of their income toward tomorrow's needs, because a much higher percentage of their income is required to cover today's needs. But are wealthy people today putting more towards education/retirement than wealthy people 20 years ago? That would suggest that there are larger societal shifts going on that are converting education and retirement into luxuries that only the wealthy can afford. I suspect this is true given the spiraling cost of college tuition and medical costs/long-term care/etc. in old age, but I'd be interested in the data.
-
...snip...
That would suggest that there are larger societal shifts going on that are converting education and retirement into luxuries that only the wealthy can afford. I suspect this is true given the spiraling cost of college tuition and medical costs/long-term care/etc. in old age, but I'd be interested in the data.
Given that it is still pretty easy to access a free (or nearly free) education at a public school and the existence of the FIRE movement, I don't see how that can be true at the moment.
I would assume that diminishing returns are associated with throwing additional money at education beyond a certain point. Does spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on private school provide a substantially better education than public school if the parents are just as involved? I doubt it.
-
@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast (https://www.npr.org/2017/12/18/571181050/never-go-to-vegas-and-other-unspoken-rules-of-being-an-a-lister) from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.
-
I think most people would be shocked (and dismayed) if everyone walked around with a virtual call-out above their head that displayed their net wealth. The vast majority of wealth signifiers out there are really debt signifiers. The data on car loans alone is really depressing.
-
I used to wonder about this. How were people that I thought made less than me or at least about equal buying crazy expensive things I wouldn't buy. I learned it wasn't an income difference, it was a debt difference. The average american has a lot of debt...
-
I think most people would be shocked (and dismayed) if everyone walked around with a virtual call-out above their head that displayed their net wealth. The vast majority of wealth signifiers out there are really debt signifiers. The data on car loans alone is really depressing.
Wouldn’t this be interesting.. According to the article, my individual income is right about the 1% range..
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.
-
I think a lot of consumerism is designed to look expensive but is really not. One night's stay in a fancy hotel or a trip to an overseas destination is well within the reach of all middle-class earners - it just becomes a matter of what their savings rate will be afterwards. If they are comfortable with debt they can drive a plush car too.
If I were content for my savings rate to be 0% rather than 70% I could live like a frickin' king. Hookers and cocaine and first class flights and hatted restaurants. I can't imagine ever doing so, but it's clear that many people are content to have such a savings rate, so of course it's possible for them to live a really nice lifestyle.
Anyway to be honest I think really fancy trappings (car, holidays, lifestyle etc) are now seen as déclassé if you post about them on Instagram, or show off about them etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't indulge - by all means do so - but it's one thing to enjoy something and it's another to show off about it. As the article posted above states, it's mostly inconspicuous consumption now that is practised by the rich, and conspicuous consumption is something that the "new middle class" do.
-
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.
-
Anyway to be honest I think really fancy trappings (car, holidays, lifestyle etc) are now seen as déclassé if you post about them on Instagram, or show off about them etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't indulge - by all means do so - but it's one thing to enjoy something and it's another to show off about it. As the article posted above states, it's mostly inconspicuous consumption now that is practised by the rich, and conspicuous consumption is something that the "new middle class" do.
I’ve noticed that as well. Seems like a lot of folks are suddenly being very inconspicuous in their consumption habits. A fun people watching exercise is “spot the millionaire” at Aldi.
-
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
-
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
On top of that, the "Harvards" of the world tend to have more generous aid packages for lower and middle income students. My out of state school was the same cost as my in state school due to financial aid. Some of that is due to rising costs overall (my state school was just over $20k per year when I applied 9 years ago, now it's over $30k) but for the same price, the out of state school has more "signalling" power, if nothing else.
So part of the issue is lack of transparency - lopsided information is what makes scenarios like the current educational, health care, job, and even consumer markets so detrimental to the people who don't have the information. Similarly, in the initial article, the mirage of consumption makes those without full information feel worse and make worse choices. Transparency would help, but it would take the wind out of the sails of the competition the "winners" think they are "winning".
-
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.
-
I just read that article a few minutes ago, and the part that struck me was the suggestion that the real difference nowadays is "inconspicuous consumption":
The top 1 percent of households still spend money on conspicuous consumption but “the thing that really separates them is their spending on inconspicuous consumption,” said Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, who analyzed Americans’ spending habits for her book “The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class.”
Over the last few decades, wealthy people have increased how much of their spending they direct to education and retirement, compared with members of the middle class, whose expenditures in those areas have remained more or the less the same. For example, in 2014, the last year of Ms. Currid-Halkett’s analysis, the top 1 percent of American earners — those making at least $340,000 annually — directed, on average, 6 percent of their total expenditures to education. According to her research, that percentage has climbed significantly since 1996.
Only about 1 percent of the expenditures of the middle class — people making about $40,000 to $60,000 annually in 2014 — was devoted to education, a number that has stayed static for almost two decades, Ms. Currid-Halkett said.
And about 20 percent of the top earners’ expenditures go to personal insurance and pensions — an annual average of $32,500 in 2014 — compared with just under $4,000 or about 8 percent for the middle class.
This is certainly consistent with my own "stealth wealth" approach -- we have definitely prioritized college savings and retirement savings above everything else. And our UMC status rewards us for that, with deductions for 529 contributions and various work programs that allow us to put more money aside in tax-sheltered accounts (profit sharing, deferred comp, etc.).
What I would be interested in seeing is whether/how these numbers have changed over time. It makes perfect sense that people making $40-60K are going to put a lower percentage of their income toward tomorrow's needs, because a much higher percentage of their income is required to cover today's needs. But are wealthy people today putting more towards education/retirement than wealthy people 20 years ago? That would suggest that there are larger societal shifts going on that are converting education and retirement into luxuries that only the wealthy can afford. I suspect this is true given the spiraling cost of college tuition and medical costs/long-term care/etc. in old age, but I'd be interested in the data.
If you're old enough to remember the 2001 Bush ("I hit the trifecta.") tax cut (aka "EGTRRA"), you might remember how it led to large increases in 401(k) and IRA contribution limits.
The IRA limit was $2000 before Bush, increased to $5000 during his second term, and has been linked to inflation since then. Source (https://dqydj.com/historical-ira-contribution-limit/)
Similarly, the 401(k) limit was $10,500 when W. took office. EGTRRA raised it to $11,000 in 2002, up another $1,000 each year until 2006 when it reached $15,000, CPI-linked it since then. Source (https://dqydj.com/historical-401k-contribution-limit/)
I don't have hard data on actual retirement contributions, but the levels of tax-sheltered retirement contribution limits certainly increased both in nominal and real terms since 2001.
I leave exploration of the changes in 529s, ESAs, Coverdells - all tax-sheltered educational buckets - as an exercise to the reader, and suggest that the top 1% can also afford to "invest" in lobbying that serves their interests.
-
Anyway to be honest I think really fancy trappings (car, holidays, lifestyle etc) are now seen as déclassé if you post about them on Instagram, or show off about them etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't indulge - by all means do so - but it's one thing to enjoy something and it's another to show off about it. As the article posted above states, it's mostly inconspicuous consumption now that is practised by the rich, and conspicuous consumption is something that the "new middle class" do.
I’ve noticed that as well. Seems like a lot of folks are suddenly being very inconspicuous in their consumption habits. A fun people watching exercise is “spot the millionaire” at Aldi.
I hope it's less being "inconspicuous" and more being "intelligent". I think it's possible that going through the downturn in 2008 made lots of people realize that fancy cars (and houses) have fairly equal substitutes that cost significantly less.
-
I just read that article a few minutes ago, and the part that struck me was the suggestion that the real difference nowadays is "inconspicuous consumption":
The top 1 percent of households still spend money on conspicuous consumption but “the thing that really separates them is their spending on inconspicuous consumption,” said Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, who analyzed Americans’ spending habits for her book “The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class.”
Over the last few decades, wealthy people have increased how much of their spending they direct to education and retirement, compared with members of the middle class, whose expenditures in those areas have remained more or the less the same. For example, in 2014, the last year of Ms. Currid-Halkett’s analysis, the top 1 percent of American earners — those making at least $340,000 annually — directed, on average, 6 percent of their total expenditures to education. According to her research, that percentage has climbed significantly since 1996.
Only about 1 percent of the expenditures of the middle class — people making about $40,000 to $60,000 annually in 2014 — was devoted to education, a number that has stayed static for almost two decades, Ms. Currid-Halkett said.
And about 20 percent of the top earners’ expenditures go to personal insurance and pensions — an annual average of $32,500 in 2014 — compared with just under $4,000 or about 8 percent for the middle class.
This is certainly consistent with my own "stealth wealth" approach -- we have definitely prioritized college savings and retirement savings above everything else. And our UMC status rewards us for that, with deductions for 529 contributions and various work programs that allow us to put more money aside in tax-sheltered accounts (profit sharing, deferred comp, etc.).
What I would be interested in seeing is whether/how these numbers have changed over time. It makes perfect sense that people making $40-60K are going to put a lower percentage of their income toward tomorrow's needs, because a much higher percentage of their income is required to cover today's needs. But are wealthy people today putting more towards education/retirement than wealthy people 20 years ago? That would suggest that there are larger societal shifts going on that are converting education and retirement into luxuries that only the wealthy can afford. I suspect this is true given the spiraling cost of college tuition and medical costs/long-term care/etc. in old age, but I'd be interested in the data.
Did you read the book they mention in the article, I really loved it and it talks about this https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691162737/the-sum-of-small-things
It's essentially about how more and more people can now afford ("afford" in the sense of they will somehow get money to make this purchase, not necessarily it will be affordable to them in a Mustachian sense) traditional luxury products like cars and watches and high fashion and they most often will buy them and flaunt them because that is what they think the "next level" is, so the upper class people were "forced" to develop a new culture of their own that is much more subtle and takes a lot more implicit knowledge to be a part of than just having money.
In short, the middle class people can now use credit to buy what used to be upper middle class symbols, and the upper middle class can't necessarily inflate their consumption to multimillionaire level because that is one hell of a threshold so they invented this whole culture of moral superiority through conscious consumption that is difficult for an outsider to understand.
-
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.
That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."
My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.
As for the aid packages, I thought it was a scam to be told I could have 20 or 30k in scholarships/aid only to learn I'd still have to pay 20 or 30k plus the cost of living in a big city. At the end of the day, the education wasn't 200k but 100k. That was still 100k more than I had.
-
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.
That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."
My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.
As for the aid packages, I thought it was a scam to be told I could have 20 or 30k in scholarships/aid only to learn I'd still have to pay 20 or 30k plus the cost of living in a big city. At the end of the day, the education wasn't 200k but 100k. That was still 100k more than I had.
It’s absolutely a state leadership problem. Our legislature has systematically cut funding for public higher ed over the last couple of decades.
My hometown actually has a community college linked to the public school district (the two share a board of trustees and some funding). Although anyone can enroll, it’s a great deal for city residents who get special resident tuition rates. In the last few years, the comm. college has also implemented 5-year programs for academically eligible kids in the three city high schools. After dual-enrollment for the last 2 years of high school and 1 full-time college year, the kids graduate with both their diploma and an associate’s degree, at no extra charge. These are great and highly popular programs, and several friends have enrolled their kids. I would love to see more opportunities like that but recognize that my hometown is somewhat unique.
-
Did you read the book they mention in the article, I really loved it and it talks about this https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691162737/the-sum-of-small-things
It's essentially about how more and more people can now afford ("afford" in the sense of they will somehow get money to make this purchase, not necessarily it will be affordable to them in a Mustachian sense) traditional luxury products like cars and watches and high fashion and they most often will buy them and flaunt them because that is what they think the "next level" is, so the upper class people were "forced" to develop a new culture of their own that is much more subtle and takes a lot more implicit knowledge to be a part of than just having money.
In short, the middle class people can now use credit to buy what used to be upper middle class symbols, and the upper middle class can't necessarily inflate their consumption to multimillionaire level because that is one hell of a threshold so they invented this whole culture of moral superiority through conscious consumption that is difficult for an outsider to understand.
I read The Sum of Small Things in 2017, so I might be forgetting it, but I thought it was more about invisible consumption replacing physical consumption among the Upper Middle Class and Upper Class.
There has always been a disconnect between how one class thinks the class above them lives, and how that class actually lives. That's what's behind the whole concept of nouveau riche; that external class signifiers are subject to such Byzantine rules that no outsiders can mimic them without exposing themselves as outsiders. You can find this concept as far back as Shakespeare, Austen and Bronte, and probably further. There's a great quote from a former Tory MP describing a colleague as "the kind of person who bought his own furniture", which is a stunningly rich commentary on class divisions.
The difference with modern invisible consumption is that (1) it's specifically designed to consolidate wealth in future generations, and (2) unlike past "old-money" signifiers, where the lower classes would know that the rich had better stuff than them but just couldn't replicate the details to imitate them, the lower classes today by and large don't even realize the kind of money that goes into education and healthcare.
-
I think most people would be shocked (and dismayed) if everyone walked around with a virtual call-out above their head that displayed their net wealth. The vast majority of wealth signifiers out there are really debt signifiers. The data on car loans alone is really depressing.
Not sure where I first saw this, and wouldn't be surprised if this has been posted on this forum before:
(http://themetapicture.com/media/funny-net-worth-cartoon-homeless-man.jpg)
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
An interesting phenomenon I've noticed, is that whenever there is a problem with something often financial, any efforts to mitigate the problem simply result in a brief reprieve, a shifting of the balance point generally to someone completely unrelated's benefit, and the same problem remaining, because ultimately trying to apply an advantage across the board to make a finite resource (ie # of jobs in top 10%, number of homes, amount of waterfront property) more accessible, merely changes the balance point. An advantage given blindly to everyone is no advantage at all.
School was expensive and out of reach for people, so they instituted a vast loan system so people had access to more money. Well now that everyone has access to $40k/yr of student loans, university can now charge that, because people have access to the money. Before people simply did not, so they couldn't charge those rates except for a tiny minority of people who had access to it. The main benefactor here seems to be universities who can now charge much higher tuition to much higher numbers of people, and the result is those top jobs which is the reason why people wanted to get a degree in the first place are no more accessible, the costs and debt load are considerably worse, and the universities and banks are laughing.
When an improvement is made in any system, there are two things that can happen. Either the quality can improve with a system the same size (make school more affordable to a fixed number of people), or the quality can remain the same while the system gets bigger (school remains unaffordable, but student population grows 3x). You see this play out over and over again.
A car lets you commute 10x as fast as biking. You could use that to shave 90% off your commute time, but invariably people have chosen to maintain the 30 minute commute, but live 10x as far away arguably being no better off.
Money given to poverty stricken areas could be used to improve their quality of life. Instead it seems to simply allow for populations to expand, while maintaining that cusp of survival lifestyle.
People had a hard time coming up with 20% down payment for a home, and banks were hesitant to risk their own money. So make a gov't backed system where they guarantee the loans, and allow people to buy with only 5% down. This hugely increases the number of ppl able to buy, causes prices to rise, benefits the banks and previous home owners who enjoy higher prices, more and bigger loans which are less risky, and the bar has simply been moved that 5% is as much of a road block now as 20% was 30 years ago.
-
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.
Well, that's what happens when demand exceeds supply - prices go up.
Everyone thinks their child should go to college. People begin to think that any price is worth going, but not everyone can afford the price. The government steps in and starts guaranteeing loans for everyone, which allows colleges to simply charge more. It's absolutely a broken system, but the fix isn't going to be more government meddling; it's going to be when people realize that the cost of college outweighs the benefit of going.
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.
-
That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."
My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.
This is a problem that can be addressed on multiple levels. I don't mind it being addressed on the federal level, simply because more people would benefit - but in the absence of a federal action, no reason not to address it on the state or local level. Tennessee and Indiana are two examples of states that I know which are not thought of as progressive but took the right steps in higher ed.
And then, let's not forget about trades. Honest, well-paying, plentiful jobs and not that expensive to teach.
-
I read The Sum of Small Things in 2017, so I might be forgetting it, but I thought it was more about invisible consumption replacing physical consumption among the Upper Middle Class and Upper Class.
There has always been a disconnect between how one class thinks the class above them lives, and how that class actually lives. That's what's behind the whole concept of nouveau riche; that external class signifiers are subject to such Byzantine rules that no outsiders can mimic them without exposing themselves as outsiders. You can find this concept as far back as Shakespeare, Austen and Bronte, and probably further. There's a great quote from a former Tory MP describing a colleague as "the kind of person who bought his own furniture", which is a stunningly rich commentary on class divisions.
The difference with modern invisible consumption is that (1) it's specifically designed to consolidate wealth in future generations, and (2) unlike past "old-money" signifiers, where the lower classes would know that the rich had better stuff than them but just couldn't replicate the details to imitate them, the lower classes today by and large don't even realize the kind of money that goes into education and healthcare.
Well, yes, but I felt the theory was that the only reason the upper class is doing it is that it has become easy for the lower classes to emulate their previously stereotypical lifestyle. I mean, not consciously, it's not that the rich people are going around thinking "OMG this peasant has a Rolex, the only way for me to show I'm rich is to send my kids to a coding camp at Harvard", but that kind of spontaneously arose from the situation where you could no longer judge how "upper classy" someone is just based on their "stuff".
And that this is now actually creating even more of a class divide because it is so difficult for the poorer classes to even grasp.
I sort of get this impression observing my surroundings (and we live in Luxembourg which is pretty much an experiment in upper middle class lifestyle, given that you inevitably have to be rich to live here - median household net worth in Lux is over 500 000€, it's mostly in property but still, it's what it is). By any globally valid definition, pretty much everyone is wealthy here and still you can see the divide between the ultra high net worth individuals who live in their own universe, affluent people who are a part of this culture that the book talks about (who display very little obvious wealth but are raising a generation of extremely privileged kids who will be forever taken care of financially) and then all these paycheck to paycheck high earners who spend every cent they make on flashy stuff and are always one minor disaster away from having to leave the country with nothing but an expensive car full of expensive clothes.
-
That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."
My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.
This is a problem that can be addressed on multiple levels. I don't mind it being addressed on the federal level, simply because more people would benefit - but in the absence of a federal action, no reason not to address it on the state or local level. Tennessee and Indiana are two examples of states that I know which are not thought of as progressive but took the right steps in higher ed.
And then, let's not forget about trades. Honest, well-paying, plentiful jobs and not that expensive to teach.
Not to mention you can get a trades job without the opportunity cost of many years of studying. Also, tradespeople who want to strive for financial independence can become owners of lucrative businesses. A lot of money flows in the construction industry. I shake my head at attorneys who study for seven years, rack up the debt but then take a public job making less than a trades person with a few years of experience, no debt and better hours.
-
Anyway to be honest I think really fancy trappings (car, holidays, lifestyle etc) are now seen as déclassé if you post about them on Instagram, or show off about them etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't indulge - by all means do so - but it's one thing to enjoy something and it's another to show off about it. As the article posted above states, it's mostly inconspicuous consumption now that is practised by the rich, and conspicuous consumption is something that the "new middle class" do.
I’ve noticed that as well. Seems like a lot of folks are suddenly being very inconspicuous in their consumption habits. A fun people watching exercise is “spot the millionaire” at Aldi.
This surprised me the other at Aldi (arguably the "worst" one in our city but most convenient during the week) when I looked up and saw an older man in well worn but well made/cared for clothing who had that look about him. We exchanged a brief look that could be described as recognition, maybe of common purpose, maybe class. Meanwhile I have friends mortgaged to their eyeballs who wouldn't drive to that street, much less that store, and seem to be embarrassed at the suggestion that they might shop at an Aldi
-
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
On top of that, the "Harvards" of the world tend to have more generous aid packages for lower and middle income students. My out of state school was the same cost as my in state school due to financial aid. Some of that is due to rising costs overall (my state school was just over $20k per year when I applied 9 years ago, now it's over $30k) but for the same price, the out of state school has more "signalling" power, if nothing else.
So part of the issue is lack of transparency - lopsided information is what makes scenarios like the current educational, health care, job, and even consumer markets so detrimental to the people who don't have the information. Similarly, in the initial article, the mirage of consumption makes those without full information feel worse and make worse choices. Transparency would help, but it would take the wind out of the sails of the competition the "winners" think they are "winning".
Is that with room and board or without? My alma mater is $12k/yr for tuition and fees and the state school for the state I currently reside in is under $10k/yr. I don't think it's really fair to count room and board in the cost of education because that basically assumes it would be free for you to live and eat if you didn't go to school.
-
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.
Well, that's what happens when demand exceeds supply - prices go up.
Everyone thinks their child should go to college. People begin to think that any price is worth going, but not everyone can afford the price. The government steps in and starts guaranteeing loans for everyone, which allows colleges to simply charge more. It's absolutely a broken system, but the fix isn't going to be more government meddling; it's going to be when people realize that the cost of college outweighs the benefit of going.
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.
The issue in Michigan is that the state stopped funding the college's the way they used to.
-
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.
That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."
My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.
As for the aid packages, I thought it was a scam to be told I could have 20 or 30k in scholarships/aid only to learn I'd still have to pay 20 or 30k plus the cost of living in a big city. At the end of the day, the education wasn't 200k but 100k. That was still 100k more than I had.
It’s absolutely a state leadership problem. Our legislature has systematically cut funding for public higher ed over the last couple of decades.
My hometown actually has a community college linked to the public school district (the two share a board of trustees and some funding). Although anyone can enroll, it’s a great deal for city residents who get special resident tuition rates. In the last few years, the comm. college has also implemented 5-year programs for academically eligible kids in the three city high schools. After dual-enrollment for the last 2 years of high school and 1 full-time college year, the kids graduate with both their diploma and an associate’s degree, at no extra charge. These are great and highly popular programs, and several friends have enrolled their kids. I would love to see more opportunities like that but recognize that my hometown is somewhat unique.
My city has a new full-scholarship program for the cc for kids who graduate from the local school systems with a certain GPA. I was supposed to get the same deal nearly 30 years ago, but they cut that right before I graduated. Therefore, I'm not counting on it to still be around in a decade when my kid is old enough for it. I'm not sure if the same deal will be around when it would matter for my kids.
-
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.
-
I'm in the military so everyone's pay can easily be determined based on their rank and time in service. I had a financial planner who works for the military come in to give classes to my unit on budgeting, retirement, etc.
There's a lot of guys who have made good money and don't have a whole lot to show for it. Maybe some equity in a house, maybe some toys. But those toys (big trucks, camping trailers, boats, ATVs, etc.) either have debt on them, or have lost a significant amount of value due to depreciation. A military pension makes up for a fair amount of that. 2.5% per year of service - so 20 years gets you 50% of you final base pay. Still, 80% of people who join the military don't get a pension. So for those guys they might not have a whole lot to show for years of good income and having many of their expenses taken care of (housing, food, most clothing, etc.)
-
As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.
Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.
For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!
PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.
I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees. The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch. It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school. I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.
Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.
That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."
My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.
As for the aid packages, I thought it was a scam to be told I could have 20 or 30k in scholarships/aid only to learn I'd still have to pay 20 or 30k plus the cost of living in a big city. At the end of the day, the education wasn't 200k but 100k. That was still 100k more than I had.
It’s absolutely a state leadership problem. Our legislature has systematically cut funding for public higher ed over the last couple of decades.
My hometown actually has a community college linked to the public school district (the two share a board of trustees and some funding). Although anyone can enroll, it’s a great deal for city residents who get special resident tuition rates. In the last few years, the comm. college has also implemented 5-year programs for academically eligible kids in the three city high schools. After dual-enrollment for the last 2 years of high school and 1 full-time college year, the kids graduate with both their diploma and an associate’s degree, at no extra charge. These are great and highly popular programs, and several friends have enrolled their kids. I would love to see more opportunities like that but recognize that my hometown is somewhat unique.
My city has a new full-scholarship program for the cc for kids who graduate from the local school systems with a certain GPA. I was supposed to get the same deal nearly 30 years ago, but they cut that right before I graduated. Therefore, I'm not counting on it to still be around in a decade when my kid is old enough for it. I'm not sure if the same deal will be around when it would matter for my kids.
There are still decent rates for community colleges in MI though. GRCC charges $115/hour. WCC charges $108/hour and $95 for online. With financial aid the $48-75k income range pays ~$6800 a year. 50% of incoming freshmen to UofM get scholarships (70% of in state) averaging $17000k per student (tuition + housing appears to be around $25000)
There has been an interesting shift in many colleges and universities around tuition. Tuition keeps going up but the amount of scholarships and aid is increasing faster. Beyond covering classes and books there are now programs to supply students in need with laptops and software, covering or greatly supplementing a study abroad. To be honest I'm not sure the logistics of it all in terms of where the money comes from (international + wealthy students + tax deductions for scholarships?) but the list price for a degree is becoming more like the list price for a car: almost no one pays that
-
@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast (https://www.npr.org/2017/12/18/571181050/never-go-to-vegas-and-other-unspoken-rules-of-being-an-a-lister) from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.
Hadn't heard that one - thanks for sharing!
I was really intrigued by her use of breast feeding and funeral practices to illustrate her point.
-
I'm in the military so everyone's pay can easily be determined based on their rank and time in service. I had a financial planner who works for the military come in to give classes to my unit on budgeting, retirement, etc.
There's a lot of guys who have made good money and don't have a whole lot to show for it. Maybe some equity in a house, maybe some toys. But those toys (big trucks, camping trailers, boats, ATVs, etc.) either have debt on them, or have lost a significant amount of value due to depreciation. A military pension makes up for a fair amount of that. 2.5% per year of service - so 20 years gets you 50% of you final base pay. Still, 80% of people who join the military don't get a pension. So for those guys they might not have a whole lot to show for years of good income and having many of their expenses taken care of (housing, food, most clothing, etc.)
I recall not long ago reading an article about lottery winners and why so many end up broke, and it made what to me was a new and very useful distinction - that there are assets which make you money and assets which take your money. Houses (that you live in yourself), and cars and boats and jewellery and horses and so on are assets that take your money, whereas investments (index funds, income-generating property) are assets that make you money. Without that understanding, it would be easy to buy "assets", end up with nothing and not quite know why.
-
@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast (https://www.npr.org/2017/12/18/571181050/never-go-to-vegas-and-other-unspoken-rules-of-being-an-a-lister) from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.
Hadn't heard that one - thanks for sharing!
I was really intrigued by her use of breast feeding and funeral practices to illustrate her point.
Agreed! Listened to this last night and enjoyed it. Like the host and the guest, I recognized myself in a number of the class signaling behaviors that they discussed. In fact, I was actually breastfeeding my daughter while listening to an NPR podcast, which more or less says it all. Recognizing myself, I felt something like guilt or shame that I fit so precisely into the description, a feeling they noted in the podcast. But, it’s worth noting that none of the behaviors are necessarily shame-worthy in the abstract—breastfeeding is a good idea if you can make it work. Same with doing yoga and buying local produce. I think it’s just important to recognize, even if you’re doing these things for valid reasons, that these are definitely elite cultural signifiers and people who don’t share them may well feel excluded and looked down upon. And you may be taking up these interests because others in your in-group are doing them too.
TL/DR — It’s fine to do yoga and eat kale. Enjoy! Just don’t pretend it makes you better than anyone else.
-
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.
-
@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast (https://www.npr.org/2017/12/18/571181050/never-go-to-vegas-and-other-unspoken-rules-of-being-an-a-lister) from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.
Hadn't heard that one - thanks for sharing!
I was really intrigued by her use of breast feeding and funeral practices to illustrate her point.
Agreed! Listened to this last night and enjoyed it. Like the host and the guest, I recognized myself in a number of the class signaling behaviors that they discussed. In fact, I was actually breastfeeding my daughter while listening to an NPR podcast, which more or less says it all. Recognizing myself, I felt something like guilt or shame that I fit so precisely into the description, a feeling they noted in the podcast. But, it’s worth noting that none of the behaviors are necessarily shame-worthy in the abstract—breastfeeding is a good idea if you can make it work. Same with doing yoga and buying local produce. I think it’s just important to recognize, even if you’re doing these things for valid reasons, that these are definitely elite cultural signifiers and people who don’t share them may well feel excluded and looked down upon. And you may be taking up these interests because others in your in-group are doing them too.
TL/DR — It’s fine to do yoga and eat kale. Enjoy! Just don’t pretend it makes you better than anyone else.
A recent WaPo article mentioned that there's a whole subculture of young men that are aspiring for vintage expensive watches. One of them is in my extended family.
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.)
-
@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast (https://www.npr.org/2017/12/18/571181050/never-go-to-vegas-and-other-unspoken-rules-of-being-an-a-lister) from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.
Hadn't heard that one - thanks for sharing!
I was really intrigued by her use of breast feeding and funeral practices to illustrate her point.
Agreed! Listened to this last night and enjoyed it. Like the host and the guest, I recognized myself in a number of the class signaling behaviors that they discussed. In fact, I was actually breastfeeding my daughter while listening to an NPR podcast, which more or less says it all. Recognizing myself, I felt something like guilt or shame that I fit so precisely into the description, a feeling they noted in the podcast. But, it’s worth noting that none of the behaviors are necessarily shame-worthy in the abstract—breastfeeding is a good idea if you can make it work. Same with doing yoga and buying local produce. I think it’s just important to recognize, even if you’re doing these things for valid reasons, that these are definitely elite cultural signifiers and people who don’t share them may well feel excluded and looked down upon. And you may be taking up these interests because others in your in-group are doing them too.
TL/DR — It’s fine to do yoga and eat kale. Enjoy! Just don’t pretend it makes you better than anyone else.
A recent WaPo article mentioned that there's a whole subculture of young men that are aspiring for vintage expensive watches. One of them is in my extended family.
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”? If so, I know one of those. He’s a totally materialistic douchebro.
-
[quote author=DadJokes link=topic=109216.msg2494459#msg2494459 date=1573315638
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.
[/quote]
Come on, get real. Nobody should have to do military service to graduate debt free. Specifically, I would've hated to do military service for a country that shits on the poor and minorities. You know they've done research on this stuff. Scholarships are difficult to get. It's a competitive process and most often doesn't make a large dent in college costs. Not to mention they just cut your financial aid by the amount of the scholarships, ask me how I know. Working full time makes it a lot more difficult to get a certain GPA, do extracurriculars, network, etc.
Your ideas don't do anything to solve the larger systemic issues, just more of the usual American conservative/republican "why don't you pull yourself up by the bootstraps" idiotic cruel bullshit.
That's great that you managed to pull it off, doesn't mean it's so easy and anyone can do it.
-
This is a reoccurring theme. This is usually covered extensively in books about accumulating wealth. There is also a growing gap between the top 1% and the rest of population and the middle class continues to shrink. There are many factors playing into this, (changes in the financial markets, self-serving politicians, increasing power of lobbyists, our debt based monetary system, consumerism, the need for instant gratification, etc), but our personal choices can still make a significant impact on our ability to build wealth. Many choose debt as a way to maintain their desired lifestyle. When available, some use assistance from relatives as the solution. Ego, the need to "keep up with the Jones" and popular culture drive people to hide their use of debt and/or assistance from family members. Planning, compromise, and adhering to fiscally responsible financial choices are not glamorous or inline with what is driven by the media or society in general.
Healthcare and education have both gotten out of hand in the US. Until Obamacare, employer group health insurance was the only real option for many. Its far from ideal from a cost or taxpayer value perspective. Unfortunately, government tends to throw money at issues, instead of addressing root causes and/or creating incentives that address them. As for education, employers is also one of our best options for paying this expense. It's how I paid for 95% of my higher education. Once again it's not an ideal solution, but it is an option that most can utilize.
BJ
-
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.
College used to be cheap because state schools were part of the public school system. What was expensive was being out of the labor market for 4 years. Similarly, 100 years ago not so many people graduated from high school, not because you had to pay tuition but because your family had to support you while you went to school.
As states have cut taxes, they yanked funding for colleges, making colleges far more dependent on tuition (and fees, which are a way to disguise tuition increases these days.) There are lots of ways to get around the tuition, but you are still stuck with the issue of supporting yourself.
My youngest dd insisted on working her way through college and it took her 8 years.
-
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.
-
[quote author=DadJokes link=topic=109216.msg2494459#msg2494459 date=1573315638
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.
Come on, get real. Nobody should have to do military service to graduate debt free. Specifically, I would've hated to do military service for a country that shits on the poor and minorities. You know they've done research on this stuff. Scholarships are difficult to get. It's a competitive process and most often doesn't make a large dent in college costs. Not to mention they just cut your financial aid by the amount of the scholarships, ask me how I know. Working full time makes it a lot more difficult to get a certain GPA, do extracurriculars, network, etc.
Your ideas don't do anything to solve the larger systemic issues, just more of the usual American conservative/republican "why don't you pull yourself up by the bootstraps" idiotic cruel bullshit.
That's great that you managed to pull it off, doesn't mean it's so easy and anyone can do it.
[/quote]
No one has to do military service, but some choose to do military service. It can be an effective way of paying for school. My spouse served in the Army reserve, which helped with his engineering degree, and he was also eligible for a VA home loan, which helped us get a jump on home ownership -- no down payment, no mortgage insurance. And he enjoyed his time in the military.
-
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.
-
[quote author=DadJokes link=topic=109216.msg2494459#msg2494459 date=1573315638
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.
Come on, get real. Nobody should have to do military service to graduate debt free. Specifically, I would've hated to do military service for a country that shits on the poor and minorities. You know they've done research on this stuff. Scholarships are difficult to get. It's a competitive process and most often doesn't make a large dent in college costs. Not to mention they just cut your financial aid by the amount of the scholarships, ask me how I know. Working full time makes it a lot more difficult to get a certain GPA, do extracurriculars, network, etc.
Your ideas don't do anything to solve the larger systemic issues, just more of the usual American conservative/republican "why don't you pull yourself up by the bootstraps" idiotic cruel bullshit.
That's great that you managed to pull it off, doesn't mean it's so easy and anyone can do it.
No one has to do military service, but some choose to do military service. It can be an effective way of paying for school. My spouse served in the Army reserve, which helped with his engineering degree, and he was also eligible for a VA home loan, which helped us get a jump on home ownership -- no down payment, no mortgage insurance. And he enjoyed his time in the military.
[/quote]
What about people who don't meet the physical requirements for military service?
-
Military isn't for everyone. Thankfully there are other paths that people can pursue. In addition to joining the military, my spouse and all of his siblings went to community college than transferred to a 4-year school. This was another great way to save.
College isn't for everyone either. Everyone has to assess their situation and choose their best path.
-
@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast (https://www.npr.org/2017/12/18/571181050/never-go-to-vegas-and-other-unspoken-rules-of-being-an-a-lister) from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.
Hadn't heard that one - thanks for sharing!
I was really intrigued by her use of breast feeding and funeral practices to illustrate her point.
Agreed! Listened to this last night and enjoyed it. Like the host and the guest, I recognized myself in a number of the class signaling behaviors that they discussed. In fact, I was actually breastfeeding my daughter while listening to an NPR podcast, which more or less says it all. Recognizing myself, I felt something like guilt or shame that I fit so precisely into the description, a feeling they noted in the podcast. But, it’s worth noting that none of the behaviors are necessarily shame-worthy in the abstract—breastfeeding is a good idea if you can make it work. Same with doing yoga and buying local produce. I think it’s just important to recognize, even if you’re doing these things for valid reasons, that these are definitely elite cultural signifiers and people who don’t share them may well feel excluded and looked down upon. And you may be taking up these interests because others in your in-group are doing them too.
TL/DR — It’s fine to do yoga and eat kale. Enjoy! Just don’t pretend it makes you better than anyone else.
All things being equal, eating healthy and breastfeeding your kid is a much better practice than eating greasy and not breastfeeding your kid (I understand that not all mums can breastfeed; that is a separate issue). Some lifestyle choices may be made for reasons of class or taste but they may also be objectively good lifestyle choices. Of course, making good lifestyle choices doesn't make you a 'better' person since the concept of "betterness" when it comes to humans is a strange one - I don't think I am better or worse than anyone else and I don't aspire to be. I do however aspire to be someone who makes better choices!
-
. . .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 :)
-
That's great that you managed to pull it off, doesn't mean it's so easy and anyone can do it.
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.
-
[quote author=DadJokes link=topic=109216.msg2494459#msg2494459 date=1573315638
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.
Come on, get real. Nobody should have to do military service to graduate debt free. Specifically, I would've hated to do military service for a country that shits on the poor and minorities. You know they've done research on this stuff. Scholarships are difficult to get. It's a competitive process and most often doesn't make a large dent in college costs. Not to mention they just cut your financial aid by the amount of the scholarships, ask me how I know. Working full time makes it a lot more difficult to get a certain GPA, do extracurriculars, network, etc.
Your ideas don't do anything to solve the larger systemic issues, just more of the usual American conservative/republican "why don't you pull yourself up by the bootstraps" idiotic cruel bullshit.
That's great that you managed to pull it off, doesn't mean it's so easy and anyone can do it.
No one has to do military service, but some choose to do military service. It can be an effective way of paying for school. My spouse served in the Army reserve, which helped with his engineering degree, and he was also eligible for a VA home loan, which helped us get a jump on home ownership -- no down payment, no mortgage insurance. And he enjoyed his time in the military.
What about people who don't meet the physical requirements for military service?
Yep--love these statements about how the military is always a great solution for people who want to go to college. The military was never an option for me, but that's been a known fact since well before I started looking at schools/costs so I never thought much about it (except to roll my eyes at the people who insist that the military is always an option even when they're told flat out that it's not). On the other hand, a guy I went to school with had been planning on going into the military for basically his entire life since that was how his father and grandfathers had paid for their schooling. Guess how much support he got when about halfway through his freshman year those 'zone outs' he sometimes had were diagnosed as epilepsy? I probably should have said 'started school with' because no, once ROTC dropped him, full time work on top of his classes absolutely did not pay the bill.
And as someone who did treat applying for scholarships as a full time job and generally got multiple a year? If it hadn't been for also working, and also having most of my tuition covered by an exchange program, I would have come out in debt too. That's what happens when you live in a state with one of the worst higher ed systems in the country to the point where it's cheaper to leave (bizarrely enough, said state also has one of the highest levels of poverty in the country too. Hmm...). 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!)
-
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.
-
. . .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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
. . .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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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) .
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
Inherited watches are a pain in the arse. You have to keep them safe, and get them valued and repaired, and try to work out the best way to sell them. If you are not interested in watches the whole thing is just an added difficulty at the time you least want added difficulties. If you are thinking that your kids will thank you for handing them an expensive watch when you die please think again.
-
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.
I did some math and I've looked at my watch tens of thousands of times since it was gifted to me and I do get a little moment of joy because it reminds me of my wife when I use it. It also has a slide rule built into it which I use quite regularly for off the cuff math.
But aside from sentimental value it's proved much more reliable than shitty watches with plastic or cheap glass crystals. I used to go through a watch per year because they get so scratched up. But the sapphire does not scratch so the watch itself looks new though the band is getting beat up.
I also like nice calculators...
Bwahaa, I totally forgot... My wife also has a $10k Rolex that she wears daily. She loves that watch and was recently talking about upgrading it. Frankly I much prefer the Breitling over the Rolex but it makes her happy so there's that.
-
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.
Hmm...sounds like she may have worked where I worked, assuming she was in the Navy, that is. Not many women for sure.
My parents were poor and divorced, my dad refused to even fill out forms, much less pay for anything. The university assumed $1800/yr from him (it would have been 0...which is was for my mom). This meant: more loans, even after the ROTC scholarship.
So, it's not necessarily ONLY about $48k (it was her parents' choice to not pay), but essentially may have been a much bigger $$ value (my total tuition was more than that). EFC doesn't mean she wouldn't have had to take out more loans without ROTC. I am NOT explaining myself well, and I'm sorry.
I met my husband in the Navy, and he had the same flow as your friend. ROTC, engineering job in the Navy, left after 5 years to get a PhD (on the 7 year plan), started earning real $ at 33. But he was actually earning real $ while an officer in the Navy AND our experience in the military was a HUGE help for both work after and grad school. More focused.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
100%
If you value watches as jewelry, then they have whatever value you choose to assign to them. I don't judge anyone for what they choose to value.
However, I do take issue with people trying to justify personal taste and satisfaction with some kind of utility or inherent value.
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
Again, I have no problem with people assigning value to what they value, I literally just spent nearly $2000 on a fucking cat, we all have our priorities. I'm not about to say shit like "life is too short for cheap cats" just because I personally find value in my preferred cat breed.
-
I've had quite a few nice classic cars, and a few nice classic watches. Funny thing is, I always make money when selling!
My Breitling Navitimer Cosmonaute I bought for $1,600 and sold it a couple years later for $3,450, if memory serves me. Would be worth over $5K now.
I sold various Rolexes, including the one I inherited from my dad, and made money. Sold an early Heuer (pre-Tag), and made money. Still have a Tudor Homeplate Chrono that I'll be selling soon, and a couple of old Panerais, which I will probably keep. None of these watches will get cheaper as time passes by.
Is a fancy watch needed? Of course not! Neither is a Tesla or even Nissan Leaf. It's just that we all have things we like, value, and enjoy.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
100%
If you value watches as jewelry, then they have whatever value you choose to assign to them. I don't judge anyone for what they choose to value.
However, I do take issue with people trying to justify personal taste and satisfaction with some kind of utility or inherent value.
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
Again, I have no problem with people assigning value to what they value, I literally just spent nearly $2000 on a fucking cat, we all have our priorities. I'm not about to say shit like "life is too short for cheap cats" just because I personally find value in my preferred cat breed.
Did I trigger you with my "life is too short" comment? Seems that way.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
100%
If you value watches as jewelry, then they have whatever value you choose to assign to them. I don't judge anyone for what they choose to value.
However, I do take issue with people trying to justify personal taste and satisfaction with some kind of utility or inherent value.
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
Again, I have no problem with people assigning value to what they value, I literally just spent nearly $2000 on a fucking cat, we all have our priorities. I'm not about to say shit like "life is too short for cheap cats" just because I personally find value in my preferred cat breed.
Did I trigger you with my "life is too short" comment? Seems that way.
Lol, you obviously don't know me.
ETA: "Life is too short for cheap cats" is now my DH's favourite phrase of all time. He literally hasn't stopped laughing since I quoted it to him.
-
(http://)
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
100%
If you value watches as jewelry, then they have whatever value you choose to assign to them. I don't judge anyone for what they choose to value.
However, I do take issue with people trying to justify personal taste and satisfaction with some kind of utility or inherent value.
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
Again, I have no problem with people assigning value to what they value, I literally just spent nearly $2000 on a fucking cat, we all have our priorities. I'm not about to say shit like "life is too short for cheap cats" just because I personally find value in my preferred cat breed.
Did I trigger you with my "life is too short" comment? Seems that way.
Lol, you obviously don't know me.
ETA: "Life is too short for cheap cats" is now my DH's favourite phrase of all time. He literally hasn't stopped laughing since I quoted it to him.
-
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.
Hmm...sounds like she may have worked where I worked, assuming she was in the Navy, that is. Not many women for sure.
My parents were poor and divorced, my dad refused to even fill out forms, much less pay for anything. The university assumed $1800/yr from him (it would have been 0...which is was for my mom). This meant: more loans, even after the ROTC scholarship.
So, it's not necessarily ONLY about $48k (it was her parents' choice to not pay), but essentially may have been a much bigger $$ value (my total tuition was more than that). EFC doesn't mean she wouldn't have had to take out more loans without ROTC. I am NOT explaining myself well, and I'm sorry.
I met my husband in the Navy, and he had the same flow as your friend. ROTC, engineering job in the Navy, left after 5 years to get a PhD (on the 7 year plan), started earning real $ at 33. But he was actually earning real $ while an officer in the Navy AND our experience in the military was a HUGE help for both work after and grad school. More focused.
Oh, you are right that a $12k EFC would mean $12k for her parents and probably more loans for her. And I'm sure the time in the military has benefited her quite a bit, but it was a bitter pill to swallow given all the restrictions it put on her life.
And yes, you likely worked the same place and possibly were contemporaries! Small world.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
100%
If you value watches as jewelry, then they have whatever value you choose to assign to them. I don't judge anyone for what they choose to value.
However, I do take issue with people trying to justify personal taste and satisfaction with some kind of utility or inherent value.
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
Again, I have no problem with people assigning value to what they value, I literally just spent nearly $2000 on a fucking cat, we all have our priorities. I'm not about to say shit like "life is too short for cheap cats" just because I personally find value in my preferred cat breed.
Did I trigger you with my "life is too short" comment? Seems that way.
Lol, you obviously don't know me.
ETA: "Life is too short for cheap cats" is now my DH's favourite phrase of all time. He literally hasn't stopped laughing since I quoted it to him.
Idk, you've quoted it in three posts already. Makes me wonder if I struck a nerve.
But in any case you'll spend more on your cat than I'll spend on my Breitling so whatever. I have spent about $6k on my turtle's aquarium so I know the feeling.
-
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.
Again that's great, but do you care at all that people lose out on opportunities because they have to work full time through college? Working full time = less chance to attain a certain GPA and many companies have GPA cutoffs. You are truncated and won't even get the chance to explain why your GPA isn't 3.9 or explain why you're so awesome for the job. Do you care at all about trying to ameliorate the economic injustice in our society?
Thanks to the many people who agree with me. People who actually want to improve upon our existing system of inequality of opportunity, wow, the insanity of that.
-
(http://)It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
100%
If you value watches as jewelry, then they have whatever value you choose to assign to them. I don't judge anyone for what they choose to value.
However, I do take issue with people trying to justify personal taste and satisfaction with some kind of utility or inherent value.
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
Again, I have no problem with people assigning value to what they value, I literally just spent nearly $2000 on a fucking cat, we all have our priorities. I'm not about to say shit like "life is too short for cheap cats" just because I personally find value in my preferred cat breed.
Did I trigger you with my "life is too short" comment? Seems that way.
Lol, you obviously don't know me.
ETA: "Life is too short for cheap cats" is now my DH's favourite phrase of all time. He literally hasn't stopped laughing since I quoted it to him.
I get all my cats for free.
-
(http://)It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
100%
If you value watches as jewelry, then they have whatever value you choose to assign to them. I don't judge anyone for what they choose to value.
However, I do take issue with people trying to justify personal taste and satisfaction with some kind of utility or inherent value.
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
Again, I have no problem with people assigning value to what they value, I literally just spent nearly $2000 on a fucking cat, we all have our priorities. I'm not about to say shit like "life is too short for cheap cats" just because I personally find value in my preferred cat breed.
Did I trigger you with my "life is too short" comment? Seems that way.
Lol, you obviously don't know me.
ETA: "Life is too short for cheap cats" is now my DH's favourite phrase of all time. He literally hasn't stopped laughing since I quoted it to him.
I get all my cats for free.
Still not cheap, in my experience anyway.
-
I get all my cats for free.
Free cats come with free fur
-
I get all my cats for free.
Free cats come with free fur
The paradox of cats:
They are total freeloaders, and yet totally earn their keep.
-
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
They don't even keep time better when compared to a simple quartz watch!
Otherwise, if you are going to talk about 'inherent value', then other than things like food or shelter, nothing has inherent value. Each person creates his or her inherent value. And so I think the person who said "life is too short for cheap watches" really meant "life is too short to not spend reasonable amounts on things that you assign inherent value to", and that makes a lot of sense to me. After all nearly everything that is not food or water comes down to personal taste and satisfaction.
-
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
It's actually the opposite, time keeping wise. A $10 Casio with a quartz movement is orders of magnitude more accurate than any watch with a mechanical movement, which nearly all high end collectible watches have.
But of course it ain't about accuracy or utility, fancy watches are about appreciating high end design and craftsmanship, communicating status, specific sentimental attachments, etc. They're absolutely luxury items, and as such I agree mustachians are duty bound to question the value per dollar they bring.
I think most here would agree that if you aren't FI yet you should be putting that money into index funds rather than wearing it on your wrist, but perhaps not.
-
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
They don't even keep time better when compared to a simple quartz watch!
Otherwise, if you are going to talk about 'inherent value', then other than things like food or shelter, nothing has inherent value. Each person creates his or her inherent value. And so I think the person who said "life is too short for cheap watches" really meant "life is too short to not spend reasonable amounts on things that you assign inherent value to", and that makes a lot of sense to me. After all nearly everything that is not food or water comes down to personal taste and satisfaction.
...shows what I know about watches
I haven't owned one since undergrad
-
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
They don't even keep time better when compared to a simple quartz watch!
Otherwise, if you are going to talk about 'inherent value', then other than things like food or shelter, nothing has inherent value. Each person creates his or her inherent value. And so I think the person who said "life is too short for cheap watches" really meant "life is too short to not spend reasonable amounts on things that you assign inherent value to", and that makes a lot of sense to me. After all nearly everything that is not food or water comes down to personal taste and satisfaction.
...shows what I know about watches
I haven't owned one since undergrad
That hasn't stopped you from having strong opinions about what value other people should place on their watches though.
-
If you don't give a fuck about watches, then very expensive watches hold little value beyond very marginally holding time better.
They don't even keep time better when compared to a simple quartz watch!
Otherwise, if you are going to talk about 'inherent value', then other than things like food or shelter, nothing has inherent value. Each person creates his or her inherent value. And so I think the person who said "life is too short for cheap watches" really meant "life is too short to not spend reasonable amounts on things that you assign inherent value to", and that makes a lot of sense to me. After all nearly everything that is not food or water comes down to personal taste and satisfaction.
...shows what I know about watches
I haven't owned one since undergrad
That hasn't stopped you from having strong opinions about what value other people should place on their watches though.
???
I specifically said that I have no opinion about the value that other people put on watches. That's why I jokingly brought up spending thousands on a cat. We all have our priorities.
I interpreted "life is too short for cheap watches" to mean a generalization that cheap watches are shit. However, I'm totally amenable to being corrected that the statement was actually meant as a personal preference.
If you love your watch, then great. I love my weird ass expensive cat.
As I said, you clearly don't know me. I don't judge anyone for what they choose to spend on. I *do* tend to be a pain in the ass about generalizations though.
Not just here, I drive people crazy with it IRL too.
-
I’ve spent money on CKC purebred dogs, flavor of the year watches, S550, M2M suits, and lots of junk. You might as well spend it because you won’t be able to take it with you. Besides, if I didn’t spend it, somebody else sure as hell will
-
Some of you are definitely on the wrong forum. Before spending money on ridiculous crap I would donate it to a cause I care about.
-
Some of you are definitely on the wrong forum. Before spending money on ridiculous crap I would donate it to a cause I care about.
What's ridiculous about having a cat?
-
Some of you are definitely on the wrong forum. Before spending money on ridiculous crap I would donate it to a cause I care about.
What's ridiculous about having a cat?
It's not a dog?
-
I get all my cats for free.
Free cats come with free fur
The paradox of cats:
They are total freeloaders, and yet totally earn their keep.
+1 Our cats give far more than they take...
-
Some of you are definitely on the wrong forum. Before spending money on ridiculous crap I would donate it to a cause I care about.
What's ridiculous about having a cat?
Nothing is ridiculous about having a cat.
Spending $2,000 to purchase a cat from a breeder (and by doing so, encouraging more breeding) when there are thousands if not millions of lovely shelter cats desperate for homes that are available for free, well.
-
Some of you are definitely on the wrong forum. Before spending money on ridiculous crap I would donate it to a cause I care about.
What's ridiculous about having a cat?
Nothing is ridiculous about having a cat.
Spending $2,000 to purchase a cat from a breeder (and by doing so, encouraging more breeding) when there are thousands if not millions of lovely shelter cats desperate for homes that are available for free, well.
There is a huge difference between a dedicated breeder of a particular breed and a backyard breeder, just as the same difference exists for dogs. I don't know the finances for cats, but a good dog breeder is not likely to make much, if any, money on the puppies. They are doing it for love of the breed. Backyard breeders, on the other hand . . . Can't say enough bad things about them, would never buy from them.
And my beloved dogs were all from breeders, all the same breed, because I just love that breed. And all healthy, my maintenance costs were low until they got really old, because health is something that a good breeder is selecting for.
-
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 (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.
I dunno what happened to the rest of my post. That's what happens when I tap away on my phone in the dark. I'm not disagreeing with you, really. I think that there is a lot of outrage about college costs in the US right now, but I think that there are plenty of ways around them. I just don't think those ways are accessible to everyone. College doesn't have to be more expensive in the US than in Canada.
I just am uneasy with a system that increasingly lets some families buy better SAT scores, while telling others that their kids should join the military if they want to go to college. (And the student vets at dh's college don't seem like they are having an easy financial time of it, either - they all seem to have jobs, too.)
-
Some of you are definitely on the wrong forum. Before spending money on ridiculous crap I would donate it to a cause I care about.
What's ridiculous about having a cat?
Nothing is ridiculous about having a cat.
Spending $2,000 to purchase a cat from a breeder (and by doing so, encouraging more breeding) when there are thousands if not millions of lovely shelter cats desperate for homes that are available for free, well.
I mean, I did specifically share it as an example of ridiculous spending...that was kind of the point.
Granted, I do have my reasons, but those would take away from my example being ridiculous.
-
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.
Hmm...sounds like she may have worked where I worked, assuming she was in the Navy, that is. Not many women for sure.
My parents were poor and divorced, my dad refused to even fill out forms, much less pay for anything. The university assumed $1800/yr from him (it would have been 0...which is was for my mom). This meant: more loans, even after the ROTC scholarship.
So, it's not necessarily ONLY about $48k (it was her parents' choice to not pay), but essentially may have been a much bigger $$ value (my total tuition was more than that). EFC doesn't mean she wouldn't have had to take out more loans without ROTC. I am NOT explaining myself well, and I'm sorry.
I met my husband in the Navy, and he had the same flow as your friend. ROTC, engineering job in the Navy, left after 5 years to get a PhD (on the 7 year plan), started earning real $ at 33. But he was actually earning real $ while an officer in the Navy AND our experience in the military was a HUGE help for both work after and grad school. More focused.
Oh, you are right that a $12k EFC would mean $12k for her parents and probably more loans for her. And I'm sure the time in the military has benefited her quite a bit, but it was a bitter pill to swallow given all the restrictions it put on her life.
And yes, you likely worked the same place and possibly were contemporaries! Small world.
I can imagine. I was in ROTC when DADT passed. I saw it as a step up, but always thought that people should be able to serve openly - so I was thrilled (but long out of the military) when that finally changed. I did get to see at least one college ROTC classmate who was still in the Navy actually get to marry his now husband. So that was nice.
-
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.
Again that's great, but do you care at all that people lose out on opportunities because they have to work full time through college? Working full time = less chance to attain a certain GPA and many companies have GPA cutoffs. You are truncated and won't even get the chance to explain why your GPA isn't 3.9 or explain why you're so awesome for the job. Do you care at all about trying to ameliorate the economic injustice in our society?
Thanks to the many people who agree with me. People who actually want to improve upon our existing system of inequality of opportunity, wow, the insanity of that.
My biggest complaint was the assertion at the beginning that "anyone can do it" - later back-tracked to "most". That's a huge pet peeve for me - people who see things in black and white and state "anyone", "everyone", "always", "never", etc. I will always argue...
I'm also not a fan of any kind of thought process that states that 60-80 hr weeks are expected. Whether it be actual paid work or work + school, it is draining and not at all healthy for many, if not most, people.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.
Yes, like anything else, including jewelry/rug/sofa, there is clearly a wide middle ground between dollar store quality and luxury class. Most people who acquire and/or display expensive luxury items convince themselves that the quality is better, but that's true only up to a certain point. Personally, when I see someone wearing an obviously expensive watch, I see it as a red flag (that they make poor financial decisions in general).
-
I dunno what happened to the rest of my post. That's what happens when I tap away on my phone in the dark. I'm not disagreeing with you, really. I think that there is a lot of outrage about college costs in the US right now, but I think that there are plenty of ways around them. I just don't think those ways are accessible to everyone. College doesn't have to be more expensive in the US than in Canada.
I just am uneasy with a system that increasingly lets some families buy better SAT scores, while telling others that their kids should join the military if they want to go to college. (And the student vets at dh's college don't seem like they are having an easy financial time of it, either - they all seem to have jobs, too.)
I agree, better to subsidize at source (i.e. the college or university) than provide huge student loans that are hard to repay, and encourage institutions to increase tuition because they are not getting other financial support.
Re the Canadian tuition costs, multiply by about .75 to convert to US dollars. Yes, the exchange rate sucks.
I have no idea what is happening re "buying" SAT scores - I don't think DD even did that, she went to CEGEP in Quebec and then transferred to University in Ontario. Waaaay back when I was in HS, we did PSATs the year before graduation (sort of a practice run) and then SATs the graduation year. I remember doing some prep for them, practice tests to see how they set things out, but nothing major. But that was too long ago to be relevant.
I have zero military experience, but I could see that it would be good experience for someone who was young and undisciplined, to get some time to mature and learn self-discipline. And possibly be exposed to career paths that were not even imagined before. But solely as a way to afford education? No.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.
You might just like certain nice things. Unless everything in your life comes from Goodwill, there is a degree of 'niceness' to most people's spending. True, you'd have to look at surrounding circumstances to see if the spending is proportionate to the earning.
Someone who spends $10k on a watch might be said to have made a bad financial decision...but what if she really loves watches? Or what if she is good enough at being a surgeon or investment banker that she earned $400k that year? I'd say she overall would have made a good financial decision - if the watch brings her a lot of joy - as long as her overall finances meet whatever savings/retirement goals she has.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.
You might just like certain nice things. Unless everything in your life comes from Goodwill, there is a degree of 'niceness' to most people's spending. True, you'd have to look at surrounding circumstances to see if the spending is proportionate to the earning.
Someone who spends $10k on a watch might be said to have made a bad financial decision...but what if she really loves watches? Or what if she is good enough at being a surgeon or investment banker that she earned $400k that year? I'd say she overall would have made a good financial decision - if the watch brings her a lot of joy - as long as her overall finances meet whatever savings/retirement goals she has.
Well I'd argue that her love in particular doesn't have any bearing on whether it was a good financial decision. Neither really does her retirement goal. I have lots of friends whose retirement goals of saving 10% of their income and retirement at 67 are on track despite the fact that they are usually in debt and paying interest.
And why does she really love watches? It strikes me that someone who "loves" expensive objects tends to be so enamored because of the high price tag and how wearing/displaying it makes them feel about themselves (ie, better). Isn't that all there really is to a 10K watch?
-
"Well I'd argue that her love in particular doesn't have any bearing on whether it was a good financial decision. "
That only makes sense if you are going to judge everyone by your standards. Which doesn't make much sense. For example imagine if the surgeon on 400k a year started judging others for not being able to save as much has her - "Why didn't they just get 1600 on their SATs and get into medical school like me? They should've made a good financial decision which would allow them to maximise their earnings."
"And why does she really love watches? It strikes me that someone who "loves" expensive objects tends to be so enamored because of the high price tag and how wearing/displaying it makes them feel about themselves (ie, better). Isn't that all there really is to a 10K watch? "
You are making presumptions about other people's values.
And let's say for example that you're right. But the surgeon still saves $200k a year and funnels it into her retirement. Can you criticise her for that - for self-indulgence?
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.
You might just like certain nice things. Unless everything in your life comes from Goodwill, there is a degree of 'niceness' to most people's spending. True, you'd have to look at surrounding circumstances to see if the spending is proportionate to the earning.
Someone who spends $10k on a watch might be said to have made a bad financial decision...but what if she really loves watches? Or what if she is good enough at being a surgeon or investment banker that she earned $400k that year? I'd say she overall would have made a good financial decision - if the watch brings her a lot of joy - as long as her overall finances meet whatever savings/retirement goals she has.
Well I'd argue that her love in particular doesn't have any bearing on whether it was a good financial decision. Neither really does her retirement goal. I have lots of friends whose retirement goals of saving 10% of their income and retirement at 67 are on track despite the fact that they are usually in debt and paying interest.
And why does she really love watches? It strikes me that someone who "loves" expensive objects tends to be so enamored because of the high price tag and how wearing/displaying it makes them feel about themselves (ie, better). Isn't that all there really is to a 10K watch?
This is how I often feel about the "personal value" argument. I'm open to the idea that nice things that don't offer utility can still provide value if they truly bring someone joy, but that leaves the question of why does the item bring joy?
Is it an inherent attraction to a thing? Or is it because other people within your community or society at large have decided that the thing is valuable? Even the people participating in conspicuous consumption can make that argument, as in, "it makes me happy when other people think I'm very wealthy". Where does the justification end?
Then again, does it matter why something brings joy? Is the joy of conspicuous consumption real joy? perhaps. But generally speaking I suspect that this kind of joy is much more fleeting and susceptible to the hedonic treadmill than the kind of joy we get from other sources.
-
I'm not sure that anyone has to justify personal value/joy to anyone but himself or herself. You're right to say that it's important to examine whether you're buying something because you genuinely like it or because you think you have to as part of herd mentality. But once that's examined, there's no more doubting to be done. I spent a fair sum on a car that I really like which sits in my garage when I'm not driving it and which almost none of my colleagues or anyone outside my family knows about (I think the car is great but I understand not everyone's a gear-head and I make no effort to convert people). Beyond justifying the purchase to myself (and justifying it financially), as you say, why does it matter why it brings me joy?
Sure, others might see it and wonder how much debt I went into to purchase it (which is none of their business, really) but that's a matter for them and not me.
-
My biggest complaint was the assertion at the beginning that "anyone can do it" - later back-tracked to "most". That's a huge pet peeve for me - people who see things in black and white and state "anyone", "everyone", "always", "never", etc. I will always argue...
I'm also not a fan of any kind of thought process that states that 60-80 hr weeks are expected. Whether it be actual paid work or work + school, it is draining and not at all healthy for many, if not most, people.
I will always argue...
Pot, meet kettle :)
-
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.
Hmm...sounds like she may have worked where I worked, assuming she was in the Navy, that is. Not many women for sure.
My parents were poor and divorced, my dad refused to even fill out forms, much less pay for anything. The university assumed $1800/yr from him (it would have been 0...which is was for my mom). This meant: more loans, even after the ROTC scholarship.
So, it's not necessarily ONLY about $48k (it was her parents' choice to not pay), but essentially may have been a much bigger $$ value (my total tuition was more than that). EFC doesn't mean she wouldn't have had to take out more loans without ROTC. I am NOT explaining myself well, and I'm sorry.
I met my husband in the Navy, and he had the same flow as your friend. ROTC, engineering job in the Navy, left after 5 years to get a PhD (on the 7 year plan), started earning real $ at 33. But he was actually earning real $ while an officer in the Navy AND our experience in the military was a HUGE help for both work after and grad school. More focused.
The relative who went the ROTC route may have delayed their best salary by their time in the military but without the military they might never achieved their best salary otherwise.
I can say with much confidence that without my Navy enlistment, I would be a much less accomplished adult. The Navy helped me get my life/self/shit in order and be a better human being than I would have been without the Navy. They also paid for my college after the fact (GI Bill) b/c I did not have it together enough to push myself through university beforehand and thus do my time in service as a better paid officer. Had I been an officer I might have stayed in the Navy but part of my life-education was realizing after the fact (always after the fact) the opportunities I had available to me in the Navy. However, I was homesick or thought I was.
Not to say life hasn't been wonderful after the Navy b/c it has been. Met my wife, raised our kids, friends, good jobs, nice home, etc. I returned to a messy extended family in typical ways and had to establish boundaries for them. Once that was done, life got easier.
-
I've had quite a few nice classic cars, and a few nice classic watches. Funny thing is, I always make money when selling!
My Breitling Navitimer Cosmonaute I bought for $1,600 and sold it a couple years later for $3,450, if memory serves me. Would be worth over $5K now.
I sold various Rolexes, including the one I inherited from my dad, and made money. Sold an early Heuer (pre-Tag), and made money. Still have a Tudor Homeplate Chrono that I'll be selling soon, and a couple of old Panerais, which I will probably keep. None of these watches will get cheaper as time passes by.
Is a fancy watch needed? Of course not! Neither is a Tesla or even Nissan Leaf. It's just that we all have things we like, value, and enjoy.
Ever worry about watches being old fashioned and falling in resale value?
When I was a kid there was a whole category of old cars (Ford Model 'A' for example) that were hot topics. Now, not so much. Their values seem to be topped out or falling slightly. My kids' generation aren't nearly as interested in owning or driving a car as my generation was let alone owning antique cars with points ignition, mechanical brakes and six volt electrics.
I'd love to own a little Model 'A' and a gold pocket watch. ;)
-
Material things lose their luster shortly after purchase. Hedonic treadmill and all. Once I realized this, it became harder to covet material things
I was especially dumb and bought a lot of stupid stuff. Most people learn quicker
-
Personally, when I see someone wearing an obviously expensive watch, I see it as a red flag (that they make poor financial decisions in general).
This may be true generally but it may not
As a wealthy person once told me, “If you have stupid money, you can buy stupid things. Problems happen when you don’t have stupid money and you buy stupid things”
-
I would not know an expensive watch if it bit me on the face. I did hear about the inherited furniture thing from an episode of Downton Abbey.
-
If a watch bites you in the face, check if it is in fact an alligator wearing a watch.
-
Personally, when I see someone wearing an obviously expensive watch, I see it as a red flag (that they make poor financial decisions in general).
This may be true generally but it may not
As a wealthy person once told me, “If you have stupid money, you can buy stupid things. Problems happen when you don’t have stupid money and you buy stupid things”
True, I can only go on my personal experience, which is that the person with the fanciest watch is usually one paycheck away from a crisis. And the actual wealthy folks are much less flashy (the aspirational class I guess).
Most of our furniture is "inherited," as in I got it from a deceased relative or other family member. Most of it probably isn't worth much but it's good quality and looks nice. So, I may not always buy things second hand, but when I don't, they are usually free.
-
Personally, when I see someone wearing an obviously expensive watch, I see it as a red flag (that they make poor financial decisions in general).
This may be true generally but it may not
As a wealthy person once told me, “If you have stupid money, you can buy stupid things. Problems happen when you don’t have stupid money and you buy stupid things”
I know a guy who has a lot of expensive watches. Last time I saw him, he was wearing a Rolex Skydweller, an 18k gold model that goes for at least $40,000.
The thing is, he makes so much money that spending $40k on a watch is meaningless. And yes, he has donated millions to charity, etc, so it's not like he spends it all on himself.
He would tell you that the financial decisions he made when he was young are what allow him to do and buy whatever he wants at this point in his life.
-
Personally, when I see someone wearing an obviously expensive watch, I see it as a red flag (that they make poor financial decisions in general).
This may be true generally but it may not
As a wealthy person once told me, “If you have stupid money, you can buy stupid things. Problems happen when you don’t have stupid money and you buy stupid things”
I know a guy who has a lot of expensive watches. Last time I saw him, he was wearing a Rolex Skydweller, an 18k gold model that goes for at least $40,000.
The thing is, he makes so much money that spending $40k on a watch is meaningless. And yes, he has donated millions to charity, etc, so it's not like he spends it all on himself.
He would tell you that the financial decisions he made when he was young are what allow him to do and buy whatever he wants at this point in his life.
I think that the "if someone's wearing a nice watch/driving a nice car, he's probably one pay cheque away from being broke" assumption is an example of wishful thinking. Maybe if the nice car is just a typical brand new Honda you might be onto something. If the guy's wearing an IWC or driving a Bentley I'm fairly sure he's not one pay cheque away from being broke. That doesn't mean the car or watch was a good financial decision, but as you say, some people earn enough that they can get away with making "bad" financial decisions.
My own car is not a Bentley, but it is a lot more than what most here would consider reasonable, but once you take into account the low depreciation, the tax advantages of having a "business" vehicle which means I get to write off most of the running costs [even though it's only very nominally a work vehicle], and the joy it gives me, I think it was a great purchase. Everyone can make his or her own decisions.
-
Personally, when I see someone wearing an obviously expensive watch, I see it as a red flag (that they make poor financial decisions in general).
This may be true generally but it may not
As a wealthy person once told me, “If you have stupid money, you can buy stupid things. Problems happen when you don’t have stupid money and you buy stupid things”
I know a guy who has a lot of expensive watches. Last time I saw him, he was wearing a Rolex Skydweller, an 18k gold model that goes for at least $40,000.
The thing is, he makes so much money that spending $40k on a watch is meaningless. And yes, he has donated millions to charity, etc, so it's not like he spends it all on himself.
He would tell you that the financial decisions he made when he was young are what allow him to do and buy whatever he wants at this point in his life.
I think that the "if someone's wearing a nice watch/driving a nice car, he's probably one pay cheque away from being broke" assumption is an example of wishful thinking. Maybe if the nice car is just a typical brand new Honda you might be onto something. If the guy's wearing an IWC or driving a Bentley I'm fairly sure he's not one pay cheque away from being broke. That doesn't mean the car or watch was a good financial decision, but as you say, some people earn enough that they can get away with making "bad" financial decisions.
My own car is not a Bentley, but it is a lot more than what most here would consider reasonable, but once you take into account the low depreciation, the tax advantages of having a "business" vehicle which means I get to write off most of the running costs [even though it's only very nominally a work vehicle], and the joy it gives me, I think it was a great purchase. Everyone can make his or her own decisions.
If you are referring to me who said one paycheck away from a crisis, as stated, I was referring to actual knowledge. I don't assuming anyone with an expensive car is almost broke - I do assume that they like to waste their money (borrowed or otherwise) on expensive cars. Of course that's their prerogative. And of course you think you made a great purchase (though not suggesting you didn't) - post-purchase bias naturally occurs after the decision is made.
Just as much as people are entitled to buy luxury items that bring them "joy," others are entitled to judge that the former don't share their values. They may decide to overlook those differences or not, usually factoring in other considerations. And vice versa. I don't think anyone should be overly concerned about if/how they are being judged for owning a Bentley, or whatnot. But this is the MMM forum, so you already know where most of us stand on the topic.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.
You might just like certain nice things. Unless everything in your life comes from Goodwill, there is a degree of 'niceness' to most people's spending. True, you'd have to look at surrounding circumstances to see if the spending is proportionate to the earning.
Someone who spends $10k on a watch might be said to have made a bad financial decision...but what if she really loves watches? Or what if she is good enough at being a surgeon or investment banker that she earned $400k that year? I'd say she overall would have made a good financial decision - if the watch brings her a lot of joy - as long as her overall finances meet whatever savings/retirement goals she has.
Yeah, no. We make a lot of money. We are already FI. I used some of that extra money to buy a StupidCar. It's the best decision I've ever made in terms of fun. But it is in no way justifiable as a good financial decision, in any universe. It was a giant, dumb-ass financial decision. I took a big fat chunk of cash and put it in an asset that not only depreciates, but that costs me multiple times what my old car did in terms of insurance, maintenance, and repairs. I can practically hear the giant sucking sound coming from my garage.
And that's ok. IMO, part of the fun of being FI and saving my money for 25 years is being able to do whatever stupid-ass thing I want to with my extra money without having to justify a damn thing to anyone. But that doesn't make it a good financial decision. And telling yourself otherwise is just part of the self-delusion mindset that enables people to rationalize making stupid decisions to buy the ShinyPretty that they can't afford. Sure, maybe I'll have lucked into something that's "collectible" 20 years down the road, and someone who's even more stupid than I am will pay me even stupider money to have it. But that's not why I bought it -- and if it were, that would have been even stupider of me, because that's speculation, not investment.
Tl;dr: An "investment" is something that puts money in your pocket on a regular basis by throwing off cash, such as corporate profits or rent. Buying other things hoping they'll go up in value is at best speculation, and at worst self-delusion. As Michelle Singletary says, if it's on your ass, it's not an asset. So buy whatever the hell you want -- just don't bullshit yourself about how it's an "investment" instead of flat-out, unadulterated consumption.
-
Personally, when I see someone wearing an obviously expensive watch, I see it as a red flag (that they make poor financial decisions in general).
True, I can only go on my personal experience, which is that the person with the fanciest watch is usually one paycheck away from a crisis. And the actual wealthy folks are much less flashy (the aspirational class I guess).
An "obviously expensive" watch . . . or "fancy watch" . . . would be something like a (1) diamond-crusted Rolex or a (2) 18K Cartier Tank. Something (1) a black rapper or ballplayer would wear, or (2) Kim Kardashian. Yep, they certainly make poor financial decisions, but I'm not sure they are one paycheck away from a crisis.
I dare to guess that most folks would not have a second look at a Patek Philippe Calatrava, to name one example watch afficionados lust for:
https://www.chrono24.com/patekphilippe/calatrava-5227g-001-new-white-gold-black-strap-white-dial--id11638069.htm (https://www.chrono24.com/patekphilippe/calatrava-5227g-001-new-white-gold-black-strap-white-dial--id11638069.htm)
To the casual observer, it looks like a cheap Timex, but it costs hundreds of times as much.
-
Charis - what to you might be a 'waste' might to others be a 'spend'; my point is that different people have different values. And even though this is a MMM forum, blanket statements about other people's approaches based on one data point are not always accurate. And even if accurate, they are not always useful. Very few people on this forum would say of someone, "Oh, he settled for a 9-5 job in IT earning $60k a year instead of busting his arse to become a specialist on $250k." But if you're going to judge others' spending, what stops you from judging others' earning? My approach is to only assess one in the context of the other, and to not usually judge in either case.
That said, I agree a lot of luxury spending is entirely un-gratifying even for the buyer, but it varies by the individual.
Laura - yeah, I shouldn't have said it was a good 'financial decision', since on a financial basis any luxury spending is a bad decision. I meant that it was a good life decision in the context of their particular finances.
-
If I were content for my savings rate to be 0% rather than 70% I could live like a frickin' king. Hookers and cocaine and first class flights and hatted restaurants.
What exactly does "hatted restaurants" mean? A quick search only turned up the not unsuprising description of ~"best", but such an idiom must have a meaning it comes from.
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.
That sounds like you don't know the MMM standard book "The millionaire next door"??
In short, the middle class people can now use credit to buy what used to be upper middle class symbols, and the upper middle class can't necessarily inflate their consumption to multimillionaire level because that is one hell of a threshold so they invented this whole culture of moral superiority through conscious consumption that is difficult for an outsider to understand.
I read: Starbucks
"See that logo on my overpriced coffee mug? I can afford to pay a ton of one for bad coffee!"
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.
Good ol' Vimes Boots Theory!
https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness
-
To everyone arguing that a purchase can be justified if it brings the purchaser enough joy, you're not wrong, but consider this: Anyone who decides to purchase anything has decided that the personal value of the item they buy is equal to or greater than the cost. Otherwise, why would they have bought it?
Does this maybe shed some light on why other posters are reluctant to accept that reasoning? The theory is sound but in practice it's not quite so simple.
The trouble is, humans tend to be quite bad at predicting what will make them happy in the future. The questioning of these decisions you see on the forums isn't about judging or shaming*, it's a reminder to question your feelings and be honest with yourself. Why will this purchase make me happier? Will the happiness be long term or short term? Am I upgrading something that made me perfectly happy last year? Is this something that I see advertised often? Are my feelings influenced by what the people around me are doing? And so many more to consider.
*ok, maybe sometimes. I can't speak for everyone :)
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.
You might just like certain nice things. Unless everything in your life comes from Goodwill, there is a degree of 'niceness' to most people's spending. True, you'd have to look at surrounding circumstances to see if the spending is proportionate to the earning.
Someone who spends $10k on a watch might be said to have made a bad financial decision...but what if she really loves watches? Or what if she is good enough at being a surgeon or investment banker that she earned $400k that year? I'd say she overall would have made a good financial decision - if the watch brings her a lot of joy - as long as her overall finances meet whatever savings/retirement goals she has.
Yeah, no. We make a lot of money. We are already FI. I used some of that extra money to buy a StupidCar. It's the best decision I've ever made in terms of fun. But it is in no way justifiable as a good financial decision, in any universe. It was a giant, dumb-ass financial decision. I took a big fat chunk of cash and put it in an asset that not only depreciates, but that costs me multiple times what my old car did in terms of insurance, maintenance, and repairs. I can practically hear the giant sucking sound coming from my garage.
And that's ok. IMO, part of the fun of being FI and saving my money for 25 years is being able to do whatever stupid-ass thing I want to with my extra money without having to justify a damn thing to anyone. But that doesn't make it a good financial decision. And telling yourself otherwise is just part of the self-delusion mindset that enables people to rationalize making stupid decisions to buy the ShinyPretty that they can't afford. Sure, maybe I'll have lucked into something that's "collectible" 20 years down the road, and someone who's even more stupid than I am will pay me even stupider money to have it. But that's not why I bought it -- and if it were, that would have been even stupider of me, because that's speculation, not investment.
Tl;dr: An "investment" is something that puts money in your pocket on a regular basis by throwing off cash, such as corporate profits or rent. Buying other things hoping they'll go up in value is at best speculation, and at worst self-delusion. As Michelle Singletary says, if it's on your ass, it's not an asset. So buy whatever the hell you want -- just don't bullshit yourself about how it's an "investment" instead of flat-out, unadulterated consumption.
I'm calling BS on your bolded. If you're rich and FI and you spend extra money on something that brings your life joy and doesn't hurt others then it's a good financial decision for you. By your definition above anything above pure life-sustaining sustenance is a stupid financial decision, which makes no sense.
If the lady makes a 7-figure+ income, has a stash of multiple millions with no debt...and loves her watch, she made a good financial decision.
-
A hatted restaurant is one that received a Good Food Guide chef's hat, similar to Michelin stars. It means a good restaurant.
As for the question, "Anyone who decides to purchase anything has decided that the personal value of the item they buy is equal to or greater than the cost. Otherwise, why would they have bought it?" the answer is that a purchase might be driven by:
- compulsion
- keeping up with the Joneses
- need need or perceived need
- retail therapy
etc
So the approach would be to try to ascertain what joy you would get from the item itself and not from extraneous things. That said, there is a grey area. Your intrinsic appreciation of craftsmanship can be influenced by what others and reviewers say. So you have to think critically about which opinions you take into account. And of course you have to try to honestly evaluate whether you're getting enough out of your toy to justify ongoing costs.
Whilst in practice it's not simple, neither is it simple to evaluate the time/money equation (when working/seeking FI), nor is it easy to evaluate the work/money equation when deciding how far you want to push your career and advance your earnings. It seems that some on this forum will critique spending somewhat cynically, fair enough, but they don't take the same critical view when it comes to, say, career advancement.
-
Man...it's almost like this whole personal finance and happiness thing is deeply personal...
Hmm...
The thing about copious consumerism is that it doesn't usually make people happy, it usually actually makes them less happy. There is a distinct and important difference between desperately wanting to own something, and something making the person happier to own it.
Buying things is usually more akin to addiction, where purchasing something alleviates the craving to own it.
If spending on something *truly* does add to a person's happiness, then yes, they should spend on it. The key is in recognizing what actually makes you happy.
Happiness being the elusive and tricky thing that it is, that isn't always so easy.
-
Man...it's almost like this whole personal finance and happiness thing is deeply personal...
Hmm...
The thing about copious consumerism is that it doesn't usually make people happy, it usually actually makes them less happy. There is a distinct and important difference between desperately wanting to own something, and something making the person happier to own it.
Buying things is usually more akin to addiction, where purchasing something alleviates the craving to own it.
If spending on something *truly* does add to a person's happiness, then yes, they should spend on it. The key is in recognizing what actually makes you happy.
Happiness being the elusive and tricky thing that it is, that isn't always so easy.
You actually do lead to a good point. Neither of us were born rich, and many years ago we were actually in pretty steep debt and had only our 401ks when we discovered MMM 5 years ago. We turned our shit around and the income level also went up a couple orders of magnitude. Now we find ourselves on the opposite end of the income spectrum.
I have found over and over again, with virtually every purchase, that buying something that is well made and is of quality makes my life much more enjoyable. It's not so much just buying more shit, it's that what we do buy is much higher quality. I'm always going to have a watch in life, have since I was a little kid. Instead of buying my umpteenth ironman triathlon cheap ass watch that gets scratched up in a year and has dust under the crystal and a broken band...I received a Breitling. It's beautiful, well made, functional, has lasted forever. It just improves my life. It was a good financial decision, its ROI for my life happiness is very positive which is about all you can ask from a financial transaction once you have the basics covered.
Laura apparently made a stupid financial decision buying her car. Maybe in her case she did, but that's her own situation and her own opinion, and clearly doesn't apply to the watch owner.
-
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.
That's a very unfair Ikea comment! We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class. With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong. Like new, looks great. I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids. I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!
-
That's a very unfair Ikea comment! We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class. With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong. Like new, looks great. I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids. I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!
The founder of IKEA, Ingvar Kamprad (he died last year), was a Mustachian. Although his net worth was about $58,700,000,00.00 (!), he drove a 1993 Volvo 240 wagon 'til the very end.
-
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.
That's a very unfair Ikea comment! We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class. With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong. Like new, looks great. I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids. I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!
I was just referring to furniture made from mdf or particle board vs solid wood. Sorry for insulting your Ikea. (jeesh)
-
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.
I am not disabled, and would never have passed my nursing program had I been trying to work full time while going to school. I dedicated almost all my time to classes and studying and testing and was rewarded with a good GPA discount. I worked part time to full time when I was out of school for breaks, and I worked as a CNA, that paid higher than minimum wage I picked up a shift at a few times a month(12 hour shifts). Owing to this dedication(pretty much my life for 3 years consisted of classes, studying and tests, almost no social life), several scholarships and the good GPA discount, years of savings mandated by my parents when I was working summer jobs before I graduated High School, and attending a university that was comparatively inexpensive, I was able to graduate debt free. My dedication to getting a great GPA started as requirements for my program, less than a 75% in any class and you failed out of the program with no option to repeat, and when I realized the university offered a good GPA discount for those who maintained GPA levels at a certain percentage, and carried a certain number of credits it became even more motivation to study instead of play.
-
The founder of IKEA, Ingvar Kamprad (he died last year), was a Mustachian. Although his net worth was about $58,700,000,00.00 (!), he drove a 1993 Volvo 240 wagon 'til the very end.
The most telling story about him is when his son's soccer team needed new shirts and Mr. IKEA reluctantly agreed to fork out the money. He only bough 11 of them as in his reasoning "the substitutes don't need a shirt"
(for those not into soccer, a team has 11 players on the field at the same time and anywhere from 3-10 substitutes on the bench).
-
The founder of IKEA, Ingvar Kamprad (he died last year), was a Mustachian. Although his net worth was about $58,700,000,00.00 (!), he drove a 1993 Volvo 240 wagon 'til the very end.
The most telling story about him is when his son's soccer team needed new shirts and Mr. IKEA reluctantly agreed to fork out the money. He only bough 11 of them as in his reasoning "the substitutes don't need a shirt"
(for those not into soccer, a team has 11 players on the field at the same time and anywhere from 3-10 substitutes on the bench).
Okay, that might border onto being cheap.
-
That's a very unfair Ikea comment! We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class. With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong. Like new, looks great. I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids. I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!
Eight figures? Good for you!
No real opinions on IKEA, we didn't have it in our area for a long time, but we certainly got by with inexpensive furniture basics when starting out. I have read that some of the IKEA stuff does not survive moving and re-assembly very well. We put an IKEA vanity in a bathroom remodel because we like the drawer design and it was a good deal.
-
https://youtu.be/r0HX4a5P8eE
There's the answer to the question posed.
-
Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.
-
IKEA is definitely hit and miss. Its solid wood items are usually... solid. The rest - less so. But even the really cheap stuff can perform admirably: we used a particle board/honeycomb cardboard piece as a stand for a fairly big fish tank, and it served for over a decade despite being periodically flooded.
Having said that, more expensive furniture is also often hit and miss. Our kids broke a made-in-Italy, custom-built, ordered in an upscale store sofa. I set to repair it and found that the materials composing a frame of it were inferior to those Ikea uses (turns out, it is possible), and it was assembled with little more than chewing gum and duct tape. The upholstery was top-notch, though, and we were really happy until the repair. Astonishingly, someone hand-written "Italia" on the inside - people were clearly proud of their work...
-
Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.
Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.
A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.
-
Laura apparently made a stupid financial decision buying her car. Maybe in her case she did, but that's her own situation and her own opinion, and clearly doesn't apply to the watch owner.
Uhhh, I think you missed my point. I made a great decision for my daily happiness; it's the only car I've owned that literally makes me smile every time I drive it. But it's still a dumb-ass financial decision.
A good financial decision is one that hits the knee of the curve for your own needs -- one that maximizes utility and value for the price you pay, and that is within your budget. It's not about buying the cheapest of everything -- unless you have no money at all -- but about paying more when it actually gets you better longevity and cheaping out when it doesn't. E.g., we paid more money for our bedframe, because we sleep on it every night, and the cheap one we had broke in the middle support seam after a couple of years. OTOH, we have a cheap bedframe in the guest room, because it gets slept on a few times a year.
The "need" that a car serves is reliable transportation; the need a watch serves is telling time. So, yes, unless you have a huge number of kids or haul stuff every day, there's no financial justification for spending more than about $10K on a reliable, used sedan,* just like there's no financial justification for buying anything beyond a simple Timex. Yet many, many people choose more expensive versions, for comfort, or style, or prestige, or whatever. Personally, DH chose a vehicle with three rows of seats, both because he likes the feel of a larger vehicle, and because it made carpooling easier.** That doesn't make it a good financial decision -- that makes it a lifestyle choice that can be either good or bad based on how well the extra money serves those needs, and how well you predict the extent to which that extra money will improve your life.
Here's the thing: there's nothing bad or wrong about making a lifestyle choice. We all have areas where those "extras" matter to us, and areas where they don't. Just don't justify those extras as awesome financial decisions. Because every single time we choose more than what we need, there is a tradeoff in personal freedom. We trade days, weeks, or even years at a paying job for the beauty of rich Corinthian leather. The balance point for a happy life is when you have sufficient extras to be willing to work as long as you need to to fund them, but no more.
Now, as to collectibles: IMO, that's still a stupid financial decision. It is not a "smart" financial decision to buy something with no intrinsic value, in the hope that someone else will be willing to pay you more for it tomorrow. That's pure speculation. Even if it hits, that just means you're lucky, not smart. My car may well be a collectible in 20 years; it's the last model before they started putting mini-turbos in everything, and it's more performance-oriented than your normal version. Still doesn't mean it was a smart financial decision. A smart financial decision would have been putting the money in stocks or rental real estate instead of into a probably-depreciating asset that shoots dollar bills out of my tailpipe every time I drive it. But life isn't just about finances, and I consider that car the smartest stupid financial decision I ever made.
I just refuse to justify a luxury purchases as being financially "smart" as well. Why not just be straight and admit that you bought it because you liked it, and the financial hit was worth it to you for the value it brings to your life?
*Actually, I'd go up to maybe $15K if that's what you need to spend to find active crash-avoidance features.
**That could be a good financial decision if you carpool enough that you drive significantly less with a bigger vehicle than a smaller one. But that wasn't our situation -- for us, it was a luxury.
-
Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.
Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.
A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.
In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.
-
Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.
Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.
A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.
In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.
Yep
The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"
The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"
The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell
Ugh...still angry about those heels
-
Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.
Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.
A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.
In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.
Yep
The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"
The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"
The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell
Ugh...still angry about those heels
Makes sense. In other words, value is inversely related to number of expletives used to describe a product.
-
Makes sense. In other words, value is inversely related to number of expletives used to describe a product.
Sounds accurate
-
Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.
Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.
A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.
In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.
Yep
The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"
The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"
The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell
Ugh...still angry about those heels
To carry it further: the cute black T-strap heels I bought at Target on clearance for $7.99 and proceeded to wear for more than a decade of concerts and other dressy events until the heel on one finally cracked beyond repair = cheap but not cheap ass. I still miss those shoes. The $60 replacements I bought in 2017 are not as comfortable.
-
Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.
Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.
A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.
In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.
Yep
The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"
The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"
The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell
Ugh...still angry about those heels
To carry it further: the cute black T-strap heels I bought at Target on clearance for $7.99 and proceeded to wear for more than a decade of concerts and other dressy events until the heel on one finally cracked beyond repair = cheap but not cheap ass. I still miss those shoes. The $60 replacements I bought in 2017 are not as comfortable.
The Frye boots I got on Poshmark for $55 (retail new for $388) were cheap, but they are freaking awesome and will last me probably until I die: cheap.
The shitty boots I bought for probably twice that price, which fell apart after less than two seasons: cheap-ass.
-
Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.
Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.
A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.
In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.
Yep
The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"
The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"
The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell
Ugh...still angry about those heels
oh no! were they FiFilles? I've heard that those have had issues with heel snaps. Also, my understanding is Nordstrom will take them back (even if you don't buy them from Nordstrom) as long as they sell that shoe.
I may have it wrong, but I've heard that is part of the deal Nordstrom makes with certain brands. I tried to exchange a pair (of a different brand) once a few years ago and the brand's customer service rep told me to go to Nordstrom, sure enough they exchanged it for an shoe of that brand that was within $20 of retail price.
In any case - I was so blown away by Nordies customer service that I always try to buy my nice shoes there now.
-
Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.
Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.
A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.
In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.
Yep
The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"
The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"
The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell
Ugh...still angry about those heels
To carry it further: the cute black T-strap heels I bought at Target on clearance for $7.99 and proceeded to wear for more than a decade of concerts and other dressy events until the heel on one finally cracked beyond repair = cheap but not cheap ass. I still miss those shoes. The $60 replacements I bought in 2017 are not as comfortable.
The Frye boots I got on Poshmark for $55 (retail new for $388) were cheap, but they are freaking awesome and will last me probably until I die: cheap.
The shitty boots I bought for probably twice that price, which fell apart after less than two seasons: cheap-ass.
I paid $260 for a new pair of Frye boots 6 years ago and have no regrets. Although I need to have them resoled, I can't imagine that I won't be wearing them regularly a decade from now. They are that sturdy and comfortable.
-
I have a pair of beautiful looking Frye boots that I got from a friend for free...turns out it's because they are almost impossible to put on and off. Can only put them on if sliding my foot in with a plastic bag. What is up with that? They were also ridiculously slippery and I figure they definitely need better soles if they're to be worn but I am not sure I can do the bag thing all the time. I never had that problem with my cheap boots bought on random sales with no real intent to wear them forever (only now I can think about being more sustainable, up until now I was moving a lot across countries all alone without a car, my whole buying philosophy had to be the literal opposite of buying for life, it had to be stuff I can give away guilt free before a move and buy again on destination).
-
I might have to check out Frye boots after my current Mephisto one's die in 2-4 years of constant use.
-
I have a pair of beautiful looking Frye boots that I got from a friend for free...turns out it's because they are almost impossible to put on and off. Can only put them on if sliding my foot in with a plastic bag. What is up with that? They were also ridiculously slippery and I figure they definitely need better soles if they're to be worn but I am not sure I can do the bag thing all the time. I never had that problem with my cheap boots bought on random sales with no real intent to wear them forever (only now I can think about being more sustainable, up until now I was moving a lot across countries all alone without a car, my whole buying philosophy had to be the literal opposite of buying for life, it had to be stuff I can give away guilt free before a move and buy again on destination).
Fryes — at least the harness style ones I have — can be a challenge to get on and off, but you get used to it and learn to just jam your feet in there. Or at least I did. And once they’re on they’re super-comfy.
As far as the soles go, I’ve never had that problem — even new, I’ve found they rough up quickly just walking on the sidewalk.
-
I have a pair of beautiful looking Frye boots that I got from a friend for free...turns out it's because they are almost impossible to put on and off. Can only put them on if sliding my foot in with a plastic bag. What is up with that? They were also ridiculously slippery and I figure they definitely need better soles if they're to be worn but I am not sure I can do the bag thing all the time. I never had that problem with my cheap boots bought on random sales with no real intent to wear them forever (only now I can think about being more sustainable, up until now I was moving a lot across countries all alone without a car, my whole buying philosophy had to be the literal opposite of buying for life, it had to be stuff I can give away guilt free before a move and buy again on destination).
Fryes — at least the harness style ones I have — can be a challenge to get on and off, but you get used to it and learn to just jam your feet in there. Or at least I did. And once they’re on they’re super-comfy.
As far as the soles go, I’ve never had that problem — even new, I’ve found they rough up quickly just walking on the sidewalk.
Yeah, I have the Harness 12R style and my experience putting them on was like yours. The original soles were fine, but I might see if the local shoe repair can replace them with a lug sole because that would be even better on snow/ice.
-
I might have to check out Frye boots after my current Mephisto one's die in 2-4 years of constant use.
Yeah, these threads can get spendy. I have three pairs of LaCanadiennes, bought 2nd hand and I'm sticking with them. No need to shop.
-
I might have to check out Frye boots after my current Mephisto one's die in 2-4 years of constant use.
Check Poshmark -- it's definitely possible to find them for a great price. And again, Fryes basically never wear out (except, of course, for soles needing to be replaced now and again). They tend to run true to size, but if you aren't used to them, trying them on the first time you might be tempted to size up because of the aforementioned difficulty getting them on. Pro tip: don't.
-
Anyway to be honest I think really fancy trappings (car, holidays, lifestyle etc) are now seen as déclassé if you post about them on Instagram, or show off about them etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't indulge - by all means do so - but it's one thing to enjoy something and it's another to show off about it. As the article posted above states, it's mostly inconspicuous consumption now that is practised by the rich, and conspicuous consumption is something that the "new middle class" do.
I’ve noticed that as well. Seems like a lot of folks are suddenly being very inconspicuous in their consumption habits. A fun people watching exercise is “spot the millionaire” at Aldi.
This surprised me the other at Aldi (arguably the "worst" one in our city but most convenient during the week) when I looked up and saw an older man in well worn but well made/cared for clothing who had that look about him. We exchanged a brief look that could be described as recognition, maybe of common purpose, maybe class.
I find eyeglass frames to be a surprisingly common signifier. The wearers look pretty normal, might just be wearing sweatpants and flip-flops, but they are wearing very high-end stylish eyeglass frames. They can afford excellent ophthalmological care and purchase well-made frames at the associated glasses boutique, which suit their face shape and/or are not made of plastic by Zenni dot com.
And then they get on the plane and take their seat in first class or in the upper cabin on that 777 or whatever.
*Please note we get my kid's glasses from the excellent online glasses company Zenni dot com.
-
Friends of ours are spenders.. Have a fabulous house, 2 new SUV's and earn about the same as what we used to.
A while ago the Hubby points out to me that "it really pisses him off that I'm retired"..
So I asked him.. Without telling me any numbers..
1) Do you know what is your current net worth?
2) Do you know What are your 401k's invested in?
3) Do you know What fees are you paying on your investments?
4) Do you fix your own cars? (He is a mechanical engineer BTW).
5) Do you max out your 401k contributions?
6) Have you paid off all consumer debt including your cars and school loans?
Answer to all of the above was "No"... My answer before I FIRED was "yes"... plus a lot more besides as it relates to #5.
So why does it piss you off that I worked so hard and achieved my goal, when you have done pretty much nothing?
Then his Wife went on this mini rant about how she thinks they are doing pretty well because they earn so much...
Ok then, We are multi millionaires who earn basically no income at all.. OK i didn't say that last part.
-
Friends of ours are spenders.. Have a fabulous house, 2 new SUV's and earn about the same as what we used to.
A while ago the Hubby points out to me that "it really pisses him off that I'm retired"..
So I asked him.. Without telling me any numbers..
1) Do you know what is your current net worth?
2) Do you know What are your 401k's invested in?
3) Do you know What fees are you paying on your investments?
4) Do you fix your own cars? (He is a mechanical engineer BTW).
5) Do you max out your 401k contributions?
6) Have you paid off all consumer debt including your cars and school loans?
Answer to all of the above was "No"... My answer before I FIRED was "yes"... plus a lot more besides as it relates to #5.
So why does it piss you off that I worked so hard and achieved my goal, when you have done pretty much nothing?
Then his Wife went on this mini rant about how she thinks they are doing pretty well because they earn so much...
Ok then, We are multi millionaires who earn basically no income at all.. OK i didn't say that last part.
Well, you do earn income...off of all of your little green soldiers!
-
I really do not spend my time trying to guess how much other people make and how they fund their lifestyle. However, I have definitely received comments from other people directed at me.
Most of the comments are negative implying that I'm cheap. "Why don't you buy a new car? It's time."
Then I buy a rental house and it's negative again. "Must be nice."
I bought a house in 2012 and a co-worker questioned my ability to purchase a home because I had a lower ranking title than him. "How can you buy a house? You are only a ...."
It turns out that banks only care about income and debt. They do not give loans based on the social status of a position.
-
So why does it piss you off that I worked so hard and achieved my goal, when you have done pretty much nothing?
Because it makes them realize how shitty they are. And that is bad for your self-esteem, so you have to kick down someone else.
Normal human behavior. Just look at the Trump fans (the poor people coming from XXX who will work harder than me) or climate change (If that is true I have to stop being a wasteful idiot, so it can't be true).
-
Perhaps pertinent to this thread: a while ago someone on the forum mentioned "The Old Money Book." It was 99 cents so I grabbed it on amazon and now follow the guy's blog. Others here might enjoy it! The latest post is on buying used cars.
https://theoldmoneybook.com/
-
Friends of ours are spenders.. Have a fabulous house, 2 new SUV's and earn about the same as what we used to.
A while ago the Hubby points out to me that "it really pisses him off that I'm retired"..
So I asked him.. Without telling me any numbers..
1) Do you know what is your current net worth?
2) Do you know What are your 401k's invested in?
3) Do you know What fees are you paying on your investments?
4) Do you fix your own cars? (He is a mechanical engineer BTW).
5) Do you max out your 401k contributions?
6) Have you paid off all consumer debt including your cars and school loans?
Answer to all of the above was "No"... My answer before I FIRED was "yes"... plus a lot more besides as it relates to #5.
So why does it piss you off that I worked so hard and achieved my goal, when you have done pretty much nothing?
Then his Wife went on this mini rant about how she thinks they are doing pretty well because they earn so much...
Ok then, We are multi millionaires who earn basically no income at all.. OK i didn't say that last part.
Why are you friends with people who get angry and rant at you for your personal finance choices?
-
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.
That's a very unfair Ikea comment! We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class. With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong. Like new, looks great. I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids. I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!
Well, I've passed on a nice solid IKEA table to one of my kids, so some IKEA furniture is pretty decent. However, none of my family is even remotely in the Old Money category.
-
We went out to a bar with friends this weekend. It's been a while since I've been in a bar, but I know they charge $10+ for drinks. I decided to mustachian it up.
I had three pints of beer before I left the house.
The bar offered a free Natty Light if you were wearing local sports team colors on game day, so I made sure to support my team (who got curb-stomped that night).
Since it was Natty Light, none of the other friends wanted it, so they all gave me their free beer.
At that point, I had spent $3 and had three pints and five 10 oz. beers.
The bar also sold pitchers of beer. Natty Light was $6, and the next cheapest was $16. When I went with the Natty, one of my friends said, "We've learned a lot about DJ tonight." Yeah, you learned that it doesn't have to cost $50+ to have a good time.
-
Life's too short to drink cheap-ass beer ;)
-
Life's too short to drink cheap-ass beer ;)
Lol, the secret is to drink "acceptable" beer at home beforehand. Once you are a little buzzed, your taste buds care a lot less what you are drinking.
-
Life's too short to drink cheap-ass beer ;)
Lol, the secret is to drink "acceptable" beer at home beforehand. Once you are a little buzzed, your taste buds care a lot less what you are drinking.
So the doctor tells me "you've gotta stop drinking" back in early May. I'm thinking "I might have 3-5 drinks in a week, so I doubt that's it, but whatever, we'll give it a try - too young to have a fatty liver". So I more or less stopped drinking - had 4 drinks total on a 2 week vacation, a couple of beers after we got home from that and one or two glasses of wine when my mom visited. Sitting on < 10 drinks overall in 4+ months when September rolls around. My friend asks "want to go to the Raiders game this weekend?" Never been to an NFL game, so sure. Big time splurge, but whatever. I needed something to eat at the stadium and the beverage options at the only stand without an absurd line were lemonade for $7, and beers were only $9.50 (very good price at a major sporting event - horrifically expensive in almost any other scenario) - I bought a beer. I just asked for "the red one" as I could read the labels on all the other ones and knew I didn't want them. Turns out "the red one" is Budweiser - just regular Bud. Dammit if that was not the tastiest beer I've ever had. Switching from the double IPAs and imperial stouts to "water" seems to have reset my taste buds.
-
Life's too short to drink cheap-ass beer ;)
Lol, the secret is to drink "acceptable" beer at home beforehand. Once you are a little buzzed, your taste buds care a lot less what you are drinking.
So the doctor tells me "you've gotta stop drinking" back in early May. I'm thinking "I might have 3-5 drinks in a week, so I doubt that's it, but whatever, we'll give it a try - too young to have a fatty liver". So I more or less stopped drinking - had 4 drinks total on a 2 week vacation, a couple of beers after we got home from that and one or two glasses of wine when my mom visited. Sitting on < 10 drinks overall in 4+ months when September rolls around. My friend asks "want to go to the Raiders game this weekend?" Never been to an NFL game, so sure. Big time splurge, but whatever. I needed something to eat at the stadium and the beverage options at the only stand without an absurd line were lemonade for $7, and beers were only $9.50 (very good price at a major sporting event - horrifically expensive in almost any other scenario) - I bought a beer. I just asked for "the red one" as I could read the labels on all the other ones and knew I didn't want them. Turns out "the red one" is Budweiser - just regular Bud. Dammit if that was not the tastiest beer I've ever had. Switching from the double IPAs and imperial stouts to "water" seems to have reset my taste buds.
Alcoholic or non alcoholic fatty liver?
Because you can get one from sugar too. Even if you never drink any alcohol. So stay away from all those oversugared soft drinks too ;)
-
Friends of ours are spenders.. Have a fabulous house, 2 new SUV's and earn about the same as what we used to.
A while ago the Hubby points out to me that "it really pisses him off that I'm retired"..
So I asked him.. Without telling me any numbers..
1) Do you know what is your current net worth?
2) Do you know What are your 401k's invested in?
3) Do you know What fees are you paying on your investments?
4) Do you fix your own cars? (He is a mechanical engineer BTW).
5) Do you max out your 401k contributions?
6) Have you paid off all consumer debt including your cars and school loans?
Answer to all of the above was "No"... My answer before I FIRED was "yes"... plus a lot more besides as it relates to #5.
So why does it piss you off that I worked so hard and achieved my goal, when you have done pretty much nothing?
Then his Wife went on this mini rant about how she thinks they are doing pretty well because they earn so much...
Ok then, We are multi millionaires who earn basically no income at all.. OK i didn't say that last part.
Why are you friends with people who get angry and rant at you for your personal finance choices?
Good question. The guy is an old college friend of DW's and I just met them a couple of years back.
Personally I don't care if we are friends with them or not, I do find some amusement listening to some of their friends complain about the $700 it costs to service their new BMW..:)
-
I really do not spend my time trying to guess how much other people make and how they fund their lifestyle. However, I have definitely received comments from other people directed at me.
Most of the comments are negative implying that I'm cheap. "Why don't you buy a new car? It's time."
Then I buy a rental house and it's negative again. "Must be nice."
I bought a house in 2012 and a co-worker questioned my ability to purchase a home because I had a lower ranking title than him. "How can you buy a house? You are only a ...."
It turns out that banks only care about income and debt. They do not give loans based on the social status of a position.
This makes me smile.
-
Life's too short to drink cheap-ass beer ;)
Lol, the secret is to drink "acceptable" beer at home beforehand. Once you are a little buzzed, your taste buds care a lot less what you are drinking.
So the doctor tells me "you've gotta stop drinking" back in early May. I'm thinking "I might have 3-5 drinks in a week, so I doubt that's it, but whatever, we'll give it a try - too young to have a fatty liver". So I more or less stopped drinking - had 4 drinks total on a 2 week vacation, a couple of beers after we got home from that and one or two glasses of wine when my mom visited. Sitting on < 10 drinks overall in 4+ months when September rolls around. My friend asks "want to go to the Raiders game this weekend?" Never been to an NFL game, so sure. Big time splurge, but whatever. I needed something to eat at the stadium and the beverage options at the only stand without an absurd line were lemonade for $7, and beers were only $9.50 (very good price at a major sporting event - horrifically expensive in almost any other scenario) - I bought a beer. I just asked for "the red one" as I could read the labels on all the other ones and knew I didn't want them. Turns out "the red one" is Budweiser - just regular Bud. Dammit if that was not the tastiest beer I've ever had. Switching from the double IPAs and imperial stouts to "water" seems to have reset my taste buds.
Alcoholic or non alcoholic fatty liver?
Because you can get one from sugar too. Even if you never drink any alcohol. So stay away from all those oversugared soft drinks too ;)
Pretty sure non-alcoholic. I gotta get back on the diet train. Lost ~30 lbs, because in addition to the "stop drinking" I finally made some better diet choices and stuck with them. Cross-country move and I've given probably 10 - 15 lbs back already in a month. Gotta get back on the salad train.
-
If I were content for my savings rate to be 0% rather than 70% I could live like a frickin' king. Hookers and cocaine and first class flights and hatted restaurants. I can't imagine ever doing so, but it's clear that many people are content to have such a savings rate, so of course it's possible for them to live a really nice lifestyle.
The funny thing is, we 70-percenters live better than kings did.
Not even the wealthiest monarchs of the middle ages had closed climate control, refrigerators, automobiles, radio communication, television, DVD players, digital streaming, or the internet. Hell, even some of the wealthiest people in the 1960s didn't have a few of the things on that list, and the 60s aren't exactly ancient history.
The modern middle class standard of living is much higher than that of the wealthiest people of times past, yet we imagine ourselves to be impoverished or just scraping by. What we consider to be the "standard" is very arbitrary, as expectations advance along with technology.
If you can be pragmatic and look at the bottom line, then you can live quite comfortably and buy your freedom early in life, and all on a middle class income.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.
You might just like certain nice things. Unless everything in your life comes from Goodwill, there is a degree of 'niceness' to most people's spending. True, you'd have to look at surrounding circumstances to see if the spending is proportionate to the earning.
Someone who spends $10k on a watch might be said to have made a bad financial decision...but what if she really loves watches? Or what if she is good enough at being a surgeon or investment banker that she earned $400k that year? I'd say she overall would have made a good financial decision - if the watch brings her a lot of joy - as long as her overall finances meet whatever savings/retirement goals she has.
Yeah, no. We make a lot of money. We are already FI. I used some of that extra money to buy a StupidCar. It's the best decision I've ever made in terms of fun. But it is in no way justifiable as a good financial decision, in any universe. It was a giant, dumb-ass financial decision. I took a big fat chunk of cash and put it in an asset that not only depreciates, but that costs me multiple times what my old car did in terms of insurance, maintenance, and repairs. I can practically hear the giant sucking sound coming from my garage.
And that's ok. IMO, part of the fun of being FI and saving my money for 25 years is being able to do whatever stupid-ass thing I want to with my extra money without having to justify a damn thing to anyone. But that doesn't make it a good financial decision. And telling yourself otherwise is just part of the self-delusion mindset that enables people to rationalize making stupid decisions to buy the ShinyPretty that they can't afford. Sure, maybe I'll have lucked into something that's "collectible" 20 years down the road, and someone who's even more stupid than I am will pay me even stupider money to have it. But that's not why I bought it -- and if it were, that would have been even stupider of me, because that's speculation, not investment.
Tl;dr: An "investment" is something that puts money in your pocket on a regular basis by throwing off cash, such as corporate profits or rent. Buying other things hoping they'll go up in value is at best speculation, and at worst self-delusion. As Michelle Singletary says, if it's on your ass, it's not an asset. So buy whatever the hell you want -- just don't bullshit yourself about how it's an "investment" instead of flat-out, unadulterated consumption.
Is a StupidCar (no trademark) a different brand than the HyperCar(TM) found at alt.pave.the.earth or https://www.reddit.com/r/pavetheearth/ or https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.pave.the.earth/u2j8FQZbyBA ?
Yes, it's satire people!
-
There are still decent rates for community colleges in MI though. GRCC charges $115/hour. WCC charges $108/hour and $95 for online. With financial aid the $48-75k income range pays ~$6800 a year. 50% of incoming freshmen to UofM get scholarships (70% of in state) averaging $17000k per student (tuition + housing appears to be around $25000)
There has been an interesting shift in many colleges and universities around tuition. Tuition keeps going up but the amount of scholarships and aid is increasing faster. Beyond covering classes and books there are now programs to supply students in need with laptops and software, covering or greatly supplementing a study abroad. To be honest I'm not sure the logistics of it all in terms of where the money comes from (international + wealthy students + tax deductions for scholarships?) but the list price for a degree is becoming more like the list price for a car: almost no one pays that
Crazy. In California, community college is $46 a unit. 15 years ago it was $20. Pretty eye opening seeing some LCOL states having such high costs in education.
-
I just checked the local community college cost per credit. It is $185 per credit when you include mandatory fees. This is in Minnesota.
-
I just checked the local community college cost per credit. It is $185 per credit when you include mandatory fees. This is in Minnesota.
120 hours * $185 per hour = $22,200. Add in books and a local student can get a 4 year degree (if offered) for less than the cost of an average new car purchase. Or a 2 year degree for less than the cost of an inexpensive new car.
That's affordable.
-
My university degree (MSc in computer science) was about 100 bucks per year + living costs and books. So all 5 years combined of tuition, visiting the professors etcetc about the cost of a high-end gore-tex jacket. That's affordable.
-
My university degree (MSc in computer science) was about 100 bucks per year + living costs and books. So all 5 years combined of tuition, visiting the professors etcetc about the cost of a high-end gore-tex jacket. That's affordable.
That's more than affordable, that's dirt cheap!
-
I just checked the local community college cost per credit. It is $185 per credit when you include mandatory fees. This is in Minnesota.
120 hours * $185 per hour = $22,200. Add in books and a local student can get a 4 year degree (if offered) for less than the cost of an average new car purchase. Or a 2 year degree for less than the cost of an inexpensive new car.
That's affordable.
Those tuition rates are for the first two years. If one wants a four year degree they will have to transfer. Instate tuition only at the U of MN is over $14,000 per year. It would be 11,200 for the first two years and 28,000 for the next two for a total of almost $40,000 for tuition. This doesn’t include books or living costs for four years.
-
I just checked the local community college cost per credit. It is $185 per credit when you include mandatory fees. This is in Minnesota.
120 hours * $185 per hour = $22,200. Add in books and a local student can get a 4 year degree (if offered) for less than the cost of an average new car purchase. Or a 2 year degree for less than the cost of an inexpensive new car.
That's affordable.
Those tuition rates are for the first two years. If one wants a four year degree they will have to transfer. Instate tuition only at the U of MN is over $14,000 per year. It would be 11,200 for the first two years and 28,000 for the next two for a total of almost $40,000 for tuition. This doesn’t include books or living costs for four years.
NC has much more affordable 4 year state colleges. 5 of them cost less (for all 4 years total) than an inexpensive new car if you're a local. In-state costs + room and board are still lower than the average new car price.
Other NC state universities have higher tuition but are still much cheaper in case folks want to remain local.
-
I just checked the local community college cost per credit. It is $185 per credit when you include mandatory fees. This is in Minnesota.
120 hours * $185 per hour = $22,200. Add in books and a local student can get a 4 year degree (if offered) for less than the cost of an average new car purchase. Or a 2 year degree for less than the cost of an inexpensive new car.
That's affordable.
But that is also only if you can get through the required coursework in 4 years. My husband spent a couple of years teaching in a community college system in NC and they were notorious for not offering the coursework in a way structured for a 4 year plan. They were also really bad about offering classes that transferred to 4 year schools.
They were working on the transfer issue when we moved because students would do 2-3 years of the community school and then end up having to do 4 years when they would transfer to State or the UNC system. In many fields it was neither more efficient or cheaper to start in the CC system.
-
There are still decent rates for community colleges in MI though. GRCC charges $115/hour. WCC charges $108/hour and $95 for online. With financial aid the $48-75k income range pays ~$6800 a year. 50% of incoming freshmen to UofM get scholarships (70% of in state) averaging $17000k per student (tuition + housing appears to be around $25000)
There has been an interesting shift in many colleges and universities around tuition. Tuition keeps going up but the amount of scholarships and aid is increasing faster. Beyond covering classes and books there are now programs to supply students in need with laptops and software, covering or greatly supplementing a study abroad. To be honest I'm not sure the logistics of it all in terms of where the money comes from (international + wealthy students + tax deductions for scholarships?) but the list price for a degree is becoming more like the list price for a car: almost no one pays that
Crazy. In California, community college is $46 a unit. 15 years ago it was $20. Pretty eye opening seeing some LCOL states having such high costs in education.
Are those low rates the true cost or do the taxpayers subsidize the cost?
My suspicion is that the true cost is at least three times higher.
-
Are those low rates the true cost or do the taxpayers subsidize the cost?
My suspicion is that the true cost is at least three times higher.
The true cost of providing education varies wildly from subject to subject. It probably varies a fair bit from system to system, but in general medical school tends to be among the most expensive per credit (or per student or whatever) and some engineering degrees are also quite pricey for the university to provide. On the other side of the spectrum you find a lot in the humanities and social sciences where you can lecture a large amount of students at the same time and they don't require labs with fancy equipment and such.
Some numbers I saw from Norway was that the most expensive medical school costs about 85000 dollars / student / year while on the cheapest end of the spectrum the annual cost per student was about 8000 dollars / student / year. On average the cost is 2.5 times as high in a university for the same course as in a sort-of-community-college over here due to lots more support functions and research going on at universities.
The students never see these costs as higher education is funded over the public budget by taxpayers, hence my direct cost for a 5-year MSc was about 500 bucks or so + living costs and books.
-
That's a very unfair Ikea comment! We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class. With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong. Like new, looks great. I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids. I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!
Agreed - there are some quite durable items at IKEA. Tunhem bookcase, Poang chairs and footrests, whatever our kitchen table is. Decades at this point.
OTOH, I'm not thrilled with the durability of the "25 year" mattress.
-
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.
Yep. It's a way for "old money" to distinguish their status. New money goes and buys suites of furniture. Old money has all sorts of high quality family furniture to pass down when youngsters establish their households.
An older British friend of mine was once wistfully talking about the original Hepplewhite furniture the family had broken up and burned for heat during WWII (when he was a kid).
-
We must be "old money" then! When my inlaws died, none of my husband's three siblings or their young adult children wanted their furniture, which was high quality solid wood stuff. Our place at that time was sparcely furnished so, being the frugal people that we are, we hired a van and brought the lot to the city where we live. Husband's siblings and their adult children all said "we don't want that icky old stuff. We'd rather go to IKEA."
-
Old money had heirloom furniture for you when you first set up your household - not waiting for someone else to kick off.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.
That's not true at all. There are a lot of watch enthusiasts that simply love high end mechanical watches and can easily afford them, has nothing to do with displaying their wealth.
-
Are those low rates the true cost or do the taxpayers subsidize the cost?
My suspicion is that the true cost is at least three times higher.
The true cost of providing education varies wildly from subject to subject. It probably varies a fair bit from system to system,
My question was aimed at Johnez, he's in California, a state with very high taxes and I suspect some of that money subsidize his low figure for an hour of college. California is not a cheap state to live in and I don't believe they can make a college run at 1/3 the price in other states.
-
It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.
If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.
That's not true at all. There are a lot of watch enthusiasts that simply love high end mechanical watches and can easily afford them, has nothing to do with displaying their wealth.
Agreed completely.
This does vary wildly from person to person. Some will flaunt their brand name watches - post pics of it on social media, point it out to people in casual conversation, etc.
Others will truly value the quality of the watch and never do any of these things. If I didn’t use my Apple Watch so much, I’d certainly have a very nice watch as I can appreciate things of good quality.
Along the same lines - I have a LOT of very very expensive clothes that probably 99.9% of people have never heard of the name brands. Jeans, boots, flannel shirts.. I really aim for things made in U.S.A, Canada, and Japan. The materials are leaps and bounds ahead of much of the crap from SE Asia.. Again - these aren’t a status symbol because no one has ever heard of them, just good quality products that I find value in..
-
There are still decent rates for community colleges in MI though. GRCC charges $115/hour. WCC charges $108/hour and $95 for online. With financial aid the $48-75k income range pays ~$6800 a year. 50% of incoming freshmen to UofM get scholarships (70% of in state) averaging $17000k per student (tuition + housing appears to be around $25000)
There has been an interesting shift in many colleges and universities around tuition. Tuition keeps going up but the amount of scholarships and aid is increasing faster. Beyond covering classes and books there are now programs to supply students in need with laptops and software, covering or greatly supplementing a study abroad. To be honest I'm not sure the logistics of it all in terms of where the money comes from (international + wealthy students + tax deductions for scholarships?) but the list price for a degree is becoming more like the list price for a car: almost no one pays that
Crazy. In California, community college is $46 a unit. 15 years ago it was $20. Pretty eye opening seeing some LCOL states having such high costs in education.
Are those low rates the true cost or do the taxpayers subsidize the cost?
My suspicion is that the true cost is at least three times higher.
In California, about 60% of community college funds come from Prop 98, which is the same source of funding for public K-12 schools. It's part of public education system, and about 10-11% of the total Prop 98 funds go to community colleges.
Remember that the students who attend CC are often taxpayers, and their families are taxpayers.
-
There are still decent rates for community colleges in MI though. GRCC charges $115/hour. WCC charges $108/hour and $95 for online. With financial aid the $48-75k income range pays ~$6800 a year. 50% of incoming freshmen to UofM get scholarships (70% of in state) averaging $17000k per student (tuition + housing appears to be around $25000)
There has been an interesting shift in many colleges and universities around tuition. Tuition keeps going up but the amount of scholarships and aid is increasing faster. Beyond covering classes and books there are now programs to supply students in need with laptops and software, covering or greatly supplementing a study abroad. To be honest I'm not sure the logistics of it all in terms of where the money comes from (international + wealthy students + tax deductions for scholarships?) but the list price for a degree is becoming more like the list price for a car: almost no one pays that
Crazy. In California, community college is $46 a unit. 15 years ago it was $20. Pretty eye opening seeing some LCOL states having such high costs in education.
In California, community colleges are heavily subsidized (such as through the BOG waiver) so tuition can be quite cheap. However, the waiver doesn't look closely at what kind of education is being pursued. Tax payers could just as easily be paying for nonsense as they could for someone's undergraduate credits in engineering.
-
The problem is in defining "nonsense". Different people and segments of society value different things. While the value of an engineering degree is apparent to all, there are not so clear uses for other degrees. But all degrees have some value; if only in preserving that knowledge and passing it on to the next generation via teaching or writing a book. It's more about the motivation and ambition of the student than the actual degree that determine success and usefulness.
So things like theater arts may seem like nonsense to some, but the jobs are plentiful in the right locations. You don't have to be in front of the camera to make money or have this degree be useful. The world loves to be entertained and has demonstrated it will pay for the privilege. Even if you don't go into the entertainment industry the skills translate as soft skills in many industries. High level sales anyone? Everybody knows about the butt kisser who "manages up" and never seems to have a down day. There is some serious acting skill involved in that. It also helps with public speaking - giving presentations and being able to train others effectively. I took both theater and creative writing classes in college, and they have served me well in my STEM career. I cannot tell you how useful it is to be able to write well about technical things and explain them to non technical folks.
Even a course in underwater basket weaving could be useful for developing dexterity under difficult situations, so maybe helpful for emergency responders or Coast Guard. I could on, but you get the idea.
-
There has been an interesting shift in many colleges and universities around tuition. Tuition keeps going up but the amount of scholarships and aid is increasing faster. Beyond covering classes and books there are now programs to supply students in need with laptops and software, covering or greatly supplementing a study abroad. To be honest I'm not sure the logistics of it all in terms of where the money comes from (international + wealthy students + tax deductions for scholarships?) but the list price for a degree is becoming more like the list price for a car: almost no one pays that
You can go ahead and believe that. My older son is going into his last semester at his private college. He's taken stafford loans. No aid otherwise. Next year on campus full boat is about $75k. It was $60k when he started. We've paid full price and received zero aid. I'm no 1%er. Just an engineer with a wife doing 4 nursing shifts a month.
-
I did both law and cultural history. While I've got a career in law now, I know I use the skills I gained from my cultural history classes every single day. Subjects like historiography may sound a lot like underwater basket weaving, but the skills in source criticism I gained from it are very useful in my job. And more importantly, while my law degree taught me practical skills, cultural history shaped my thinking and my analytic skills.
Some people on this forum heavily promote STEM subjects as the only way to get ahead in life. It's true that those subjects often lead to jobs, which is important, but the #1 skill you are supposed to gain at university has nothing to do with math but is gaining an academic mindset. In some fields, like engineering/ or law, a specific degree is important, but for most professional jobs, the academic mindset, the analytical and critical thinking skills are way more important than very specific factual knowledge.
-
What do you mean by academic mindset?
In STEM an overly academic approach can be a disadvantage...
-
✄----------
for most professional jobs, the academic mindset, the analytical and critical thinking skills are way more important than very specific factual knowledge.
Completely agree, and I think so would Elon Musk and Mark Cuban. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/26/the-skill-mark-cuban-and-elon-musk-say-is-critical-to-success.html
The thing is, professional skills are trainable. The raw abilities of critical thinking and analysis are tougher to become proficient at. I will hire someone with raw horse power (IQ) combined with analytical and critical thinking ability that I can train over someone that merely has learned skills every time.
-
I just checked the local community college cost per credit. It is $185 per credit when you include mandatory fees. This is in Minnesota.
120 hours * $185 per hour = $22,200. Add in books and a local student can get a 4 year degree (if offered) for less than the cost of an average new car purchase. Or a 2 year degree for less than the cost of an inexpensive new car.
That's affordable.
But that is also only if you can get through the required coursework in 4 years. My husband spent a couple of years teaching in a community college system in NC and they were notorious for not offering the coursework in a way structured for a 4 year plan. They were also really bad about offering classes that transferred to 4 year schools.
They were working on the transfer issue when we moved because students would do 2-3 years of the community school and then end up having to do 4 years when they would transfer to State or the UNC system. In many fields it was neither more efficient or cheaper to start in the CC system.
This is also true at the University of Minnesota. It would be incredibly rare for a student to do two years at a CC and finish at the U in an additional two. That's partly because the average time to degree at the U is 6-7 years, partly because the student will come from CC underprepared, and partly because for a variety of reasons both academic and personal they have a low likelihood of consistently completing 16-20 credits each semester.
The possibility of spending two years at a CC and completing a bachelors degree in an additional two from an even mildly selective university in a moderately demanding field is mostly a myth. Not that there aren't a handful of people who have done it, but they're unicorns. I would never advise a person I cared about and thought had real potential to try to save money by going to a CC and then transferring to a good university.
-
This is also true at the University of Minnesota. It would be incredibly rare for a student to do two years at a CC and finish at the U in an additional two. That's partly because the average time to degree at the U is 6-7 years, partly because the student will come from CC underprepared, and partly because for a variety of reasons both academic and personal they have a low likelihood of consistently completing 16-20 credits each semester.
The possibility of spending two years at a CC and completing a bachelors degree in an additional two from an even mildly selective university in a moderately demanding field is mostly a myth. Not that there aren't a handful of people who have done it, but they're unicorns. I would never advise a person I cared about and thought had real potential to try to save money by going to a CC and then transferring to a good university.
Exactly! Even schools that deliberately try to funnel students to the U do a terrible job of it these days. I'll be honest, my FIL did this (Century to U, biology and chemistry) in the 1970s, but it's not possible anymore. The rigor isn't there at the CCs. Century, Inver Hills, HCTC all have 3 credit-hour intro physics/bio courses. The U requires 4 credit hour. There's probably an argument to be made about who caused the disconnect (lack of rigor vs deliberately changing requirements), but it's there.
-
The possibility of spending two years at a CC and completing a bachelors degree in an additional two from an even mildly selective university in a moderately demanding field is mostly a myth. Not that there aren't a handful of people who have done it, but they're unicorns. I would never advise a person I cared about and thought had real potential to try to save money by going to a CC and then transferring to a good university.
This isn’t universally true. My spouse just did two years at a CC and two yours at a land grant university and ended with a degree just four years ago. He also didn’t need to take more than 16 credit hours/semester. Caveats: he completed a degree in that wasn’t a hard science, so not a lot of lab courses. And his minor was a social science. And the Cc/University have an agreement worked out that guarantees four year graduation if you meet certain criteria. He fully met all of the criteria for graduation without any modifications to the requirements, though. This is in Iowa - the system appears to work if your situation is right (majors in business, social science, English, communications, etc. probably not for hard sciences or engineering, but I have no data on that part as I never tried it myself)
So basically, what I’m saying is don’t let your knee-jerk reaction against it bias you without looking into the details for every program (or send your kid south to Iowa ;)
-
This is also true at the University of Minnesota. It would be incredibly rare for a student to do two years at a CC and finish at the U in an additional two. That's partly because the average time to degree at the U is 6-7 years, partly because the student will come from CC underprepared, and partly because for a variety of reasons both academic and personal they have a low likelihood of consistently completing 16-20 credits each semester.
The possibility of spending two years at a CC and completing a bachelors degree in an additional two from an even mildly selective university in a moderately demanding field is mostly a myth. Not that there aren't a handful of people who have done it, but they're unicorns. I would never advise a person I cared about and thought had real potential to try to save money by going to a CC and then transferring to a good university.
Exactly! Even schools that deliberately try to funnel students to the U do a terrible job of it these days. I'll be honest, my FIL did this (Century to U, biology and chemistry) in the 1970s, but it's not possible anymore. The rigor isn't there at the CCs. Century, Inver Hills, HCTC all have 3 credit-hour intro physics/bio courses. The U requires 4 credit hour. There's probably an argument to be made about who caused the disconnect (lack of rigor vs deliberately changing requirements), but it's there.
The bigger issue is that most students entering community colleges come in woefully unprepared. They then are funneled into what are essentially college prep classes in order to get them to be able to perform at the undergraduate level.
For a student that is choosing community college solely on the basis of cost rather than because they can’t get in to the college of their choice, there are in my understanding usually courses that are the equivalent of four year college courses so that you can transition easily after you get your associates degree. Community colleges develop what are called articulation agreements with four year colleges that make this explicit so students know what courses will transfer over and which won’t.
-
But joking aside, I do think some majors need to be disqualified from public funding unless it can be shown to be a useful and marketable skill.
You are aware that "useful" and "marketable" are not the same? In fact, according to the woefully scarce research into that (I wonder why...) it is generally the proportional opposite.
The more valuable your job is for society the worse it gets paid (think of nurses and hospital cleaning staff), while those who actually destroy worth for the society (investment bankers) often get paid a lot.
Do mind that "worth for society" and "makes money" are not the same. Steal a tank, roll through some houses, and you have greatly increased the GDP with the repair effort, but that hardly qualifies as useful or of worth to society, right?
-
I did both law and cultural history. While I've got a career in law now, I know I use the skills I gained from my cultural history classes every single day. Subjects like historiography may sound a lot like underwater basket weaving, but the skills in source criticism I gained from it are very useful in my job. And more importantly, while my law degree taught me practical skills, cultural history shaped my thinking and my analytic skills.
Some people on this forum heavily promote STEM subjects as the only way to get ahead in life. It's true that those subjects often lead to jobs, which is important, but the #1 skill you are supposed to gain at university has nothing to do with math but is gaining an academic mindset. In some fields, like engineering/ or law, a specific degree is important, but for most professional jobs, the academic mindset, the analytical and critical thinking skills are way more important than very specific factual knowledge.
Historiography was possibly the most interesting and useful class I took in grad school - thinking about thinking is a valuable long term skill.
And I’ll say it again - my dd has an undergraduate degree in English and a graduate degree in theology. She’s a technical writer for a medical software company, and they recruited her. There aren’t nearly as many English majors as people imagine there to be, either.
-
I work for a subprime auto lender and as an email administrator, I see lots of email traffic both from employees and customers. I can share that ALOT of people are living far beyond their means and are living paycheck to paycheck yet on the surface have outrageously nice lifestyles. They are on borrowed time, for sure.
-
This is also true at the University of Minnesota. It would be incredibly rare for a student to do two years at a CC and finish at the U in an additional two. That's partly because the average time to degree at the U is 6-7 years, partly because the student will come from CC underprepared, and partly because for a variety of reasons both academic and personal they have a low likelihood of consistently completing 16-20 credits each semester.
The possibility of spending two years at a CC and completing a bachelors degree in an additional two from an even mildly selective university in a moderately demanding field is mostly a myth. Not that there aren't a handful of people who have done it, but they're unicorns. I would never advise a person I cared about and thought had real potential to try to save money by going to a CC and then transferring to a good university.
Exactly! Even schools that deliberately try to funnel students to the U do a terrible job of it these days. I'll be honest, my FIL did this (Century to U, biology and chemistry) in the 1970s, but it's not possible anymore. The rigor isn't there at the CCs. Century, Inver Hills, HCTC all have 3 credit-hour intro physics/bio courses. The U requires 4 credit hour. There's probably an argument to be made about who caused the disconnect (lack of rigor vs deliberately changing requirements), but it's there.
This is not the case where I am in California. It's quite common to transfer from CC to UC or CSU, and there are specific pathways (and guarantees of the transfer, depending on the grades) for this.
Of course, our local CC is one of the top ones in the nation.
-
This is also true at the University of Minnesota. It would be incredibly rare for a student to do two years at a CC and finish at the U in an additional two. That's partly because the average time to degree at the U is 6-7 years, partly because the student will come from CC underprepared, and partly because for a variety of reasons both academic and personal they have a low likelihood of consistently completing 16-20 credits each semester.
The possibility of spending two years at a CC and completing a bachelors degree in an additional two from an even mildly selective university in a moderately demanding field is mostly a myth. Not that there aren't a handful of people who have done it, but they're unicorns. I would never advise a person I cared about and thought had real potential to try to save money by going to a CC and then transferring to a good university.
Exactly! Even schools that deliberately try to funnel students to the U do a terrible job of it these days. I'll be honest, my FIL did this (Century to U, biology and chemistry) in the 1970s, but it's not possible anymore. The rigor isn't there at the CCs. Century, Inver Hills, HCTC all have 3 credit-hour intro physics/bio courses. The U requires 4 credit hour. There's probably an argument to be made about who caused the disconnect (lack of rigor vs deliberately changing requirements), but it's there.
This is not the case where I am in California. It's quite common to transfer from CC to UC or CSU, and there are specific pathways (and guarantees of the transfer, depending on the grades) for this.
Of course, our local CC is one of the top ones in the nation.
In florida, a person can get a bachelors at all community colleges. And if they want to tranfer to the university, all credits transfer if they were on the AS or AA path. AAS credits do not all transfer and are meant for students entering the work force after their 2 years.
I don't think there is a reason to pay premium prices for college, at least none to complain about because they are a choice. If its too expensive in your own state, numerous states offer an out of state exemption. Take Mississippi. Most of their universities will waive out of state tuition for students with a 3.0 gpa and a certain test score.
Then there is living at home and going to cc. My son started at cc here in florida and I had 24K saved for his college. 3 years later now he has finished 2 years (currently doing his reserve military training). His college fund is right at 20k due to market changes while he was in college. He will finish at FSU when he returns and get the GI bill, a monthly drill check, and still have over 20k in his 529. He should graduate debt free.
-
Interesting articles. I think a lot of this conspicuous consumption is also related to self-esteem issues. I have seen it over the years in my family. My two brothers were always spenders and I was always a saver. My one sister-in-law had a rough childhood and is the one I think has low self-esteem. She had to be driving Lincolns and wearing designer clothing though out her working years. Her husband, my brother, always liked to call us cheap! We didn't care, 'cause my husband and I both have good self esteem and had set goals of saving in order to have a good retirement. So, we would just basically "laugh all the way to the bank" when he would make fun of us for buying old cars and shopping at thrift stores.
Now we retired a little bit earlier than normal and my brothers are still working and wondering when they can retire. We are travelling to places like Europe and renting a place down in Florida for the winter months. We are doing whatever we want to. And yes, we still like to go to thrift stores, but we did buy a vehicle that wasn't used, but plan to keep for many years.
Whenever I see someone with fancy cars and huge houses, I just see a lot of debt and heartache down the road.
Miss Prim
-
I'm not a fan of IKEA stores. They skeeve me out. What I do like is their crazy product names. Makes it easy to search CL for deals on second-hand stuff. There's only one IKEA thing in my house that was purchased new, and that was for my MIL's room and needed to be a specific size. Well, I don't have much else from there, but what there is was acquired via CL.
When I worked at Nordstrom, I got a screaming deal on a gold Raymond Weil watch. I loved it and wore it every day. Since I retired, it's been sitting in the box in the back of a drawer. I dont even break it out for special occasions. Makes me glad I never succumbed to the siren call of a Cartier Tank Watch. I did buy a Burberry trench coat from an actual Burberry store, because they carried tall sizes. A few years later, I took up yoga, my shoulders expanded and it never fit again. Somehow i managed to scratch a few itches and still make it to FIRE.
-
I'm not a fan of IKEA stores. They skeeve me out. What I do like is their crazy product names.
The names of IKEA products are generally swedish/scandinavian names of persons (not famous, just random names),places in Scandinavia or various stuff. Apparantly there is actually some logic to it:
https://qz.com/896146/how-ikea-names-its-products-the-curious-taxonomy-behind-billy-poang-malm-kallax-and-rens/
Reading strange-sounding Swedish words is part of the joy of shopping at IKEA. Within the labyrinth of stylish flat pack furniture is a pänoply of ödd, åccented pröduct nämes, printed on hang tags, walls and banners. What most shoppers don’t know is that the names of those 12,000 products conform to a strict internal logic that offers a peek into Scandinavian culture.
...
The rules for naming were devised by IKEA’s founder Ingvar Kamprad, who struggled with dyslexia and had trouble remembering the order of numbers in item codes. The name IKEA itself is acronym for Ingvar, Kamprad, Elmtaryd (his family’s farm) and Agunnaryd (the village in Småland where he grew up in).
...
Bathroom articles = Names of Swedish lakes and bodies of water
Bed textiles = Flowers and plants
Beds, wardrobes, hall furniture = Norwegian place names
Bookcases = Professions, Scandinavian boy’s names
Bowls, vases, candle and candle holders = Swedish place names, adjectives, spices, herbs, fruits and berries
Boxes, wall decoration, pictures and frames, clocks = Swedish slang expressions, Swedish place names
Children’s products = Mammals, birds, adjectives
Desks, chairs and swivel chairs = Scandinavian boy’s names
Fabrics, curtains = Scandinavian girl’s names
Garden furniture = Scandinavian islands
Kitchen accessories = Fish, mushrooms and adjectives
Lighting = Units of measurement, seasons, months, days, shipping and nautical terms, Swedish place names
Rugs = Danish place names
Sofas, armchairs, chairs and dining tables = Swedish place names
-
I do believe that we’re going to be a lot like the people we hang out with. Amongst most of my social circle, scoring a deal and living frugally are very desirable.
I think we just assume that someone who is living a flashy lifestyle is doing it through debt. To the extent that my kids refer to newish cars as “debt-mobiles.” My friends tend to fix their own stuff, grow gardens, brew their own, and know where the thrift shop deals are to be found.
-
I do find some amusement listening to some of their friends complain about the $700 it costs to service their new BMW..:)
I love BMWs, but the owner “community” leaves a bit to be desired. Most of the time, I’ve found that people complaining about their expensive car bills are just humble bragging.
“Gah! I bought this expensive car because I make so much money, and now my expensive car is causing me to use the large piles of money I make! Good thing I have a big income! Admire me!”
-
I do find some amusement listening to some of their friends complain about the $700 it costs to service their new BMW..:)
I love BMWs, but the owner “community” leaves a bit to be desired. Most of the time, I’ve found that people complaining about their expensive car bills are just humble bragging.
“Gah! I bought this expensive car because I make so much money, and now my expensive car is causing me to use the large piles of money I make! Good thing I have a big income! Admire me!”
Haha, yes! We have friends who complain similarly about their clown houses.
-
I shake my head at attorneys who study for seven years, rack up the debt but then take a public job making less than a trades person with a few years of experience, no debt and better hours.
A public job is a public service. Do you also shake your head at teachers who could have been plumbers instead?
-
My DD is home from college for break, and she is telling me that all the girls there are wearing these golden goose shoes -- I, of course, had never heard of them, but it's apparently this: https://shop.nordstrom.com/brands/golden-goose--8437. I thought she was asking for a pair -- but no, turns out she was horrified by the very idea of shoes that cost that much. I feel good that I have done at least one thing right as a parent. ;-)
Meanwhile, I can't help but think how these parents afford shoes like that while they're paying college tuitions -- because I know what that school costs (and they don't give a lot of merit aid), I know what I make, and I sure as hell would never outfit my kid in $500 tennis shoes (and, presumably, all the other high-end clothes that go with it). Wonder how many of those parents/kids took out loans to pay for school or are complaining about how crappy their financial aid package was. . . .
-
Then there is living at home and going to cc. My son started at cc here in florida and I had 24K saved for his college. 3 years later now he has finished 2 years (currently doing his reserve military training). His college fund is right at 20k due to market changes while he was in college. He will finish at FSU when he returns and get the GI bill, a monthly drill check, and still have over 20k in his 529. He should graduate debt free.
That's doing it right.
-
My DD is home from college for break, and she is telling me that all the girls there are wearing these golden goose shoes -- I, of course, had never heard of them, but it's apparently this: https://shop.nordstrom.com/brands/golden-goose--8437. I thought she was asking for a pair -- but no, turns out she was horrified by the very idea of shoes that cost that much. I feel good that I have done at least one thing right as a parent. ;-)
Good for you!
I followed the link and it looks like the $500 tennis shoes are also pre-scuffed. Heck, I've got some scuffed tennis shoes I'll let go for a mere $200!
-
I shake my head at attorneys who study for seven years, rack up the debt but then take a public job making less than a trades person with a few years of experience, no debt and better hours.
A public job is a public service. Do you also shake your head at teachers who could have been plumbers instead?
Yes. Maybe not plumbers, but that's probably sexist of me.
My wife is a teacher, and she definitely wishes that she had gotten a degree that would have led to a higher income.
-
My DD is home from college for break, and she is telling me that all the girls there are wearing these golden goose shoes -- I, of course, had never heard of them, but it's apparently this: https://shop.nordstrom.com/brands/golden-goose--8437. I thought she was asking for a pair -- but no, turns out she was horrified by the very idea of shoes that cost that much. I feel good that I have done at least one thing right as a parent. ;-)
Good for you!
I followed the link and it looks like the $500 tennis shoes are also pre-scuffed. Heck, I've got some scuffed tennis shoes I'll let go for a mere $200!
I'd never heard of them either. Ugly!! But of course that's not the point.
-
I shake my head at attorneys who study for seven years, rack up the debt but then take a public job making less than a trades person with a few years of experience, no debt and better hours.
A public job is a public service. Do you also shake your head at teachers who could have been plumbers instead?
Yes. Maybe not plumbers, but that's probably sexist of me.
My wife is a teacher, and she definitely wishes that she had gotten a degree that would have led to a higher income.
Why can’t a man be a plumber?
-
On a site where we frequently criticise people for not restraining their spending, I think it is also open to criticise people for not maximising their earning.
If they go into their profession with eyes wide open and voluntarily take a lower-paying job for career satisfaction, then that's fine. It's analogous to a person consciously deciding to buy an expensive item because he or she really likes it.
But someone who muddles around and wants to earn decent money but fails to do so due to life choices can be criticised as much as someone who muddles around financially and leaks money here and there.
I see a lot of unsympathetic face punches for people who gamble, smoke, buy expensive things needlessly etc - those are objectively bad choices but they can be subjectively understandable responses to a hard life or poor conditions or misplaced yearning - so anyone who is going to face punch those people must also be prepared to face punch people who want to earn more but are failing to do it.
-
I'm not a fan of IKEA stores. They skeeve me out. What I do like is their crazy product names. Makes it easy to search CL for deals on second-hand hand stuff. There's only one IKEA thing in my house that was purchased new, and that was for my MIL's room and needed to be a specific size. Well, I don't have much else from there, but what there is was acquired via CL....
I have the same reaction to Ikea. You would think it was the Second Coming the way people awaited the opening of an IKEA here.
The crazy roundabout floor plan just depresses me,
I don’t know where I am going or where I have been. Their upholstered furniture is, for the most part, junk. Not even gonna mention the crappy MDF hard pieces.
But their names are funny. DH and I would come back from a visit there and would, for about 24 hours after, shout randomly made up Swedish sounding words like “skorsgard!” and “oberming!” to amuse ourselves.
-
The problem is in defining "nonsense". Different people and segments of society value different things. While the value of an engineering degree is apparent to all, there are not so clear uses for other degrees. But all degrees have some value; if only in preserving that knowledge and passing it on to the next generation via teaching or writing a book. It's more about the motivation and ambition of the student than the actual degree that determine success and usefulness.
So things like theater arts may seem like nonsense to some, but the jobs are plentiful in the right locations. You don't have to be in front of the camera to make money or have this degree be useful. The world loves to be entertained and has demonstrated it will pay for the privilege. Even if you don't go into the entertainment industry the skills translate as soft skills in many industries. High level sales anyone? Everybody knows about the butt kisser who "manages up" and never seems to have a down day. There is some serious acting skill involved in that. It also helps with public speaking - giving presentations and being able to train others effectively. I took both theater and creative writing classes in college, and they have served me well in my STEM career. I cannot tell you how useful it is to be able to write well about technical things and explain them to non technical folks.
Even a course in underwater basket weaving could be useful for developing dexterity under difficult situations, so maybe helpful for emergency responders or Coast Guard. I could on, but you get the idea.
I haven't seen too many basket weaving majors in the coast guard academy. Engineer yes, basket weaver English lit, no. Even us lowly enlisted need skills to drive the boats, ships, planes and helicopters and to make them go vroom-vroom to rescue your sweet ass from a watery grave ;-).
With that I'll tell a story, I used to work on a Marina, it had a large parking area with water on three sides. I was in my boat when I heard a loud unusual noise. I hesitated a minute but then decided to go see what it could have been. I was docked on one side of the parking lot and about 100ft across on the other side people were starting to line the railing which had a part of it missing. When I got over there, there was a car floating about 75 ft from the railing with, I found out later an 80 year old man. He had been parked and when he started the car it he went forward right through the railing. As he was out in the water floating he had moved over to the passenger seat and was trying to push the windshield out. All he did was manage to crack it.
There were several healthy young guys there but none ventured into the admittedly cool water, even though it was Florida. By this time maybe 6 or 7 minutes had passed and the car is still floating. The saving grace was a large coast guard boat had stopped to to get fuel. Someone had summoned them and they dropped a smaller boat off the side to come to the rescue.
However when they got to the boat they made a couple of circles around it, but they had no way to enter the car and nothing aboard to break the windows. Then someone on the marina with a wrecking bar got their attention and they maneuvered over to the marina wall to retrieve it. They returned to the boat broke a window and got him out with even getting him wet. The car lasted just 2 or 3 more minutes and sunk. They really arrived just in time.
I don't know why he couldn't operate a window, maybe they didn't work when needed. maybe he was too confused. Always carry something in your car to break a window if needed.
-
On a site where we frequently criticise people for not restraining their spending, I think it is also open to criticise people for not maximising their earning.
If they go into their profession with eyes wide open and voluntarily take a lower-paying job for career satisfaction, then that's fine. It's analogous to a person consciously deciding to buy an expensive item because he or she really likes it.
But someone who muddles around and wants to earn decent money but fails to do so due to life choices can be criticised as much as someone who muddles around financially and leaks money here and there.
I see a lot of unsympathetic face punches for people who gamble, smoke, buy expensive things needlessly etc - those are objectively bad choices but they can be subjectively understandable responses to a hard life or poor conditions or misplaced yearning - so anyone who is going to face punch those people must also be prepared to face punch people who want to earn more but are failing to do it.
You post this often, and every time I see it, I reply that those people *are* criticized, quite heavily here. Not in a Facepunch way, because it's not something that they can fix overnight like spending on lunches everyday, but the immediate response to a case study or any Ask A Mustachian thread when the income is low or the career doesn't seem to be particularly promising, is to work on the career/income side.
In fact, I find that that advice is thrown around with no regard for whether or not the person actually wants a career change at all. It's often the #1 recommendation.
It's fair to focus on the income side of the equation, but it is completely unfair to categorize this community as being ignorant of the importance of career and income.
-
Put it this way - go into the "What were the first 3 things you did after coming across MMM" thread and you will see that I am the only poster who stated anything that related to an increase in income. Everyone else listed three things that relate to debt or savings.
There are things you can do literally overnight to increase your income earning potential. Talk to a recruiter the next morning, for example. Set up a coffee. Talk to friends who work at competitor firms. Not everyone can do this, but much of the MMM demographic can. Not everyone has the means or willpower to do these things, but it applies equally to spending hacks.
I see people face punching others (in the Anti-Mustachian forums - not other posters, but other internet examples) quite justifiably for silly spending or financing overpriced clown cars. But I never see anyone face punching an internet case example for under-earning, doing poorly in school, making poor career choices. It's really two sides of the same coin though.
People will criticise others' lack of control in spending - no one criticises lack of discipline or ability in earning.
Someone who makes unwise financial choices in spending (wasting money on a car loan, etc) might just lack the discipline, education or intellectual capacity to know better. In a way it's mean-spirited to criticise such people, though many on these forums indulge in it. That's all fine, and it's what the Anti-MMM sub-forum is for, but remember that such criticism is no different from criticising someone who didn't study well in school and therefore couldn't get a well-paying job (and no, not everyone in a modest-paying job is there out of necessity - some took it out of choice - but I'm not talking about those people; just like not everyone who's not a frugal spender is a poor financial chooser).
So I didn't say that the community is ignorant of it, but rather that there are double standards, or at least double emphases.
-
But “increase income” and “spend income” is pretty much the default mode among humans. MMM doesn’t need to change the former, only the latter
-
Some of the posters above are acting as if not spending an extra dollar is equivalent to earning an extra dollar, whereas the former is far more effective in boosting your FIRE date.
Not only do you get an already taxed dollar to save versus having to pay the taxes on that extra dollar of income, but you reduce your need for invested dollars at retirement time by $25 due to reduced expenses.
Of course earning more makes things easier! However, unless you get out of the “earn more spend more” mindset, you will be right back where you started. That change only comes from spending less. Thus the face punching is appropriately skewed towards spendypants folks.
The advice to earn more tends to be directed at folks who are already spending close to a barebones budget and for whom the easiest way to move towards FIRE faster is to earn more.
-
Put it this way - go into the "What were the first 3 things you did after coming across MMM" thread and you will see that I am the only poster who stated anything that related to an increase in income. Everyone else listed three things that relate to debt or savings.
There are things you can do literally overnight to increase your income earning potential. Talk to a recruiter the next morning, for example. Set up a coffee. Talk to friends who work at competitor firms. Not everyone can do this, but much of the MMM demographic can. Not everyone has the means or willpower to do these things, but it applies equally to spending hacks.
Ya think if the topic was "What were the next three things you did...?" You'd be happier with the responses? Frankly, saying something like "Talk to a Recruiter" or "Set up a coffee" would be kind of a BS "First Three" answer. No, for the vast majority of humankind, it is not possible to increase one's earning potential overnight. Sure, one can take steps to increase their earnings, but these things take a little longer.
Asking what were your immediate steps is a very entertaining topic. It's easy for people to relate to. If that helps someone else get or stay motivated, hooray!
There are a million ways to FIRE...
-
Why would "Talk to a recruiter" be a BS first answer? It's applicable to anyone who's in a professional job.
Does it take longer to set up, or organise, or does it have a lesser payoff/value equation than -
- carpooling?
- switching 401k?
- downsizing family home?
- paying off student loans?
- firing the gardener?
Those are all great things to do, but none is a day-1 proposition either, at least no less so than what I suggested.
Also, I'm aware that saving a dollar of spending is worth more in the long run than earning an extra dollar. My point is that for each person you have to gauge how much energy will lead to how much gains. If your income is, for example, 3x year spending, then it may well be that 50 energy/discipline points might increase your income by 5% over a year, or might decrease your spending by 3%, and the former will give you 5x the benefit (or 3.5x the benefit after tax), so it's up to you to then work out the equation.
I have seen how extra work and initiative can double your salary in 3 years (and then double it again) during the formative years of a professional career.
None of the above will work optimally for everyone. But neither will carpooling or downsizing or cooking at home, etc. Horses for courses. You've only got so many energy/discipline points to allocate. Think carefully before you do.
-
Put it this way - go into the "What were the first 3 things you did after coming across MMM" thread and you will see that I am the only poster who stated anything that related to an increase in income. Everyone else listed three things that relate to debt or savings.
What percentage of people answering that thread were already making enough money?
What percentage of people are part of a dual-income couple, and thus less able to move for a better paying job?
-
The problem is in defining "nonsense". Different people and segments of society value different things. While the value of an engineering degree is apparent to all, there are not so clear uses for other degrees. But all degrees have some value; if only in preserving that knowledge and passing it on to the next generation via teaching or writing a book. It's more about the motivation and ambition of the student than the actual degree that determine success and usefulness.
So things like theater arts may seem like nonsense to some, but the jobs are plentiful in the right locations. You don't have to be in front of the camera to make money or have this degree be useful. The world loves to be entertained and has demonstrated it will pay for the privilege. Even if you don't go into the entertainment industry the skills translate as soft skills in many industries. High level sales anyone? Everybody knows about the butt kisser who "manages up" and never seems to have a down day. There is some serious acting skill involved in that. It also helps with public speaking - giving presentations and being able to train others effectively. I took both theater and creative writing classes in college, and they have served me well in my STEM career. I cannot tell you how useful it is to be able to write well about technical things and explain them to non technical folks.
Even a course in underwater basket weaving could be useful for developing dexterity under difficult situations, so maybe helpful for emergency responders or Coast Guard. I could on, but you get the idea.
I haven't seen too many basket weaving majors in the coast guard academy. Engineer yes, basket weaver English lit, no. Even us lowly enlisted need skills to drive the boats, ships, planes and helicopters and to make them go vroom-vroom to rescue your sweet ass from a watery grave ;-).
But joking aside, I do think some majors need to be disqualified from public funding unless it can be shown to be a useful and marketable skill. Here in Calif we have lots of community recreation courses that offer classes in such things and at no public taxpayer expense. They are fee-based and aren't too expensive.
Are you 100% sure there were no underwater basket weaver majors on board? They may have lied when you asked them because they knew you'd ridicule them or have no confidence in the transfer-ability of their skill set. I knew a woman who was not be allowed to be a lab director under certain regulations because she majored in Dance (although she minored in a STEM subject) regardless of her other coursework or years of experience in the lab. Being graceful in the lab is helpful from a safety perspective. Though I will admit, you need the other head knowledge as well.
-
Put it this way - go into the "What were the first 3 things you did after coming across MMM" thread and you will see that I am the only poster who stated anything that related to an increase in income. Everyone else listed three things that relate to debt or savings.
What percentage of people answering that thread were already making enough money?
What percentage of people are part of a dual-income couple, and thus less able to move for a better paying job?
Excellent point. I'm in that "already making enough" category; my salary is set by my East Coast HCOL manager at our East Coast HCOL-headquartered MegaCorp, even though I live in a MCOL city. I'm somewhere in the 75-80th percentile of household income as a single earner.
My opportunities to earn more money are:
-Work for a different company in my industry, all of which are in the suburbs, meaning I'd need to buy a car or spend an additional two hours per day commuting via bike or transit. Moving close to my job would also require a car, as these suburbs aren't served by transit.
-Move to a HCOL city where more companies are within bike/transit distance and there's a solid transit network, for a COLA of approx 4%.
-Switch to a different track at my current company, which would be an additional 10-20 hours per week for ~20% pay increase. Since my current track is almost always 40 hours/week, that's effectively an hourly pay cut.
-Go to law school, incurring that time and monetary cost for approx 30-40% pay increase, with 5-10 additional hours per week of work at my current company, or 40-60 additional hours per week for a BigLaw job but with a 100% pay increase.
That's it, and I've decided that none of these options are worth the non-monetary costs. There's not an entry-level position that I could take that would increase my pay, other than with a law degree. There is not a different industry that would pay me more at this point in my career. I'm ~4-6 years from FIRE, currently have great work/life balance and two elementary-school aged kids.
You won't find me citing "considered alternatives to increase earnings" in any "what did you do after finding MMM" thread, because my consideration of the above facts hasn't changed since I've found MMM, and even if it had, I wouldn't consider it something I did, because I didn't take any action.
-
Put it this way - go into the "What were the first 3 things you did after coming across MMM" thread and you will see that I am the only poster who stated anything that related to an increase in income. Everyone else listed three things that relate to debt or savings.
What percentage of people answering that thread were already making enough money?
What percentage of people are part of a dual-income couple, and thus less able to move for a better paying job?
How would I know? Are you suggesting that everyone in that thread bar me had a look at their financial position, after first coming across MMM, and immediately thought to themselves "I'm already making enough money"? Because it seems like everyone here can find spending hacks to save a bit of spending, so I'm sure many could be entrepreneurial enough to come up with income hacks to get a bonus or promotion or open up a side source of income.
Also, you don't have to move cities to get a better paying job. You could -
- Do some consulting work on the side
- Start your own business
- See a recruiter and ask for a lateral transfer
- Agitate within your own company for a raise
- Renegotiate your bonus component
etc
Sure, you can always find ways to say "enough is enough". But the same goes for spending. Yet it seems like an awful amount gets written on these forums about reducing spending, in comparison to increasing earning.
-
As long as we're coming up with reasons that we don't face punch people for not earning enough-
What is an appropriate cutoff where we should/shouldn't face punch? Is $30k/year too little? $50k? $100k?
Perhaps the appropriate amount varies based on individual ability but how should we as internet strangers determine the maximum ability to earn for each person we share a few lines of text with. And even if we could, the question of "is it mustachian?" should also take into account the life energy given to increase earnings. It's not about maximum earnings, it's about maximum value.
What I'm getting at is that it's far too complicated to know if someone can or even should pursue a higher salary. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could use a wake up call with regard to their income but I haven't got a clue who they are.
-
I spent a year looking into increasing my income. Sure, I could have increased my income by getting a new job, but then I would have given up benefits, flexibility, and balance that far outweigh the potential income increase. In the end, I took a lateral transfer that did not offer a pay raise but did offer more rewarding work.
And all of that was after a year of searching and interviewing.
On the other hand, I could cut spending dramatically and optimize investing with only a few hours of work.
As to why this forum focuses on spending over earning in general? MMM has said that he is a lifestyle blogger who happens to write about personal finance (paraphrasing). How much a person earns means diddly for their lifestyle. How much they consume, on the other hand, means a lot. Consuming more increases your environmental impact and very likely decreases your life satisfaction. With that in mind, it would only make sense that the forum for MMM focus on the same things that the blog focuses on.
I'll have to find that forum post about the first 3 things people did and read through it. I had quite a shift when I discovered MMM.
-
Put it this way - go into the "What were the first 3 things you did after coming across MMM" thread and you will see that I am the only poster who stated anything that related to an increase in income. Everyone else listed three things that relate to debt or savings.
What percentage of people answering that thread were already making enough money?
What percentage of people are part of a dual-income couple, and thus less able to move for a better paying job?
How would I know? Are you suggesting that everyone in that thread bar me had a look at their financial position, after first coming across MMM, and immediately thought to themselves "I'm already making enough money"? Because it seems like everyone here can find spending hacks to save a bit of spending, so I'm sure many could be entrepreneurial enough to come up with income hacks to get a bonus or promotion or open up a side source of income.
Also, you don't have to move cities to get a better paying job. You could -
- Do some consulting work on the side
- Start your own business
- See a recruiter and ask for a lateral transfer
- Agitate within your own company for a raise
- Renegotiate your bonus component
etc
Sure, you can always find ways to say "enough is enough". But the same goes for spending. Yet it seems like an awful amount gets written on these forums about reducing spending, in comparison to increasing earning.
K...
Except, yet again, the advice to earn more and develop a side hustle is rampant here. Also, very high incomes are extremely common here.
I honestly feel like you and I read different forums sometimes.
-
Put it this way - go into the "What were the first 3 things you did after coming across MMM" thread and you will see that I am the only poster who stated anything that related to an increase in income. Everyone else listed three things that relate to debt or savings.
What percentage of people answering that thread were already making enough money?
What percentage of people are part of a dual-income couple, and thus less able to move for a better paying job?
How would I know? Are you suggesting that everyone in that thread bar me had a look at their financial position, after first coming across MMM, and immediately thought to themselves "I'm already making enough money"? Because it seems like everyone here can find spending hacks to save a bit of spending, so I'm sure many could be entrepreneurial enough to come up with income hacks to get a bonus or promotion or open up a side source of income.
Also, you don't have to move cities to get a better paying job. You could -
- Do some consulting work on the side
- Start your own business
- See a recruiter and ask for a lateral transfer
- Agitate within your own company for a raise
- Renegotiate your bonus component
etc
Sure, you can always find ways to say "enough is enough". But the same goes for spending. Yet it seems like an awful amount gets written on these forums about reducing spending, in comparison to increasing earning.
K...
Except, yet again, the advice to earn more and develop a side hustle is rampant here. Also, very high incomes are extremely common here.
I honestly feel like you and I read different forums sometimes.
Yep...always the side hustle recommendations and such.
My side hustle(s) are my kids.
My second side hustle is my spouse (who gets paid straight time for overtime, rare)
My bonus is non-existent. We don't do that.
Consulting work...eh, you know a couple of years ago, I put out a few feelers. But you know, two parents, two full time jobs...extra work just isn't happening.
Agitating for a raise...well that's obvious, and I recommend it a lot (doesn't always work for me or others, but it's a no brainer). But...I see that recommendation on this board quite a lot.
I see both "decrease spending" and "increase saving" recommendations on here...a lot.
Obviously with low incomes, there tends to be emphasis on BOTH.
But high incomes? I mean, for many people it's as simple has learning to cook instead of ordering in. But also, simple savings can be a phone call away, like insurance costs or such.
But side hustles or starting your own business are hardly going to be fast and easy.
-
I'm not a fan of IKEA stores. They skeeve me out. What I do like is their crazy product names. Makes it easy to search CL for deals on second-hand hand stuff. There's only one IKEA thing in my house that was purchased new, and that was for my MIL's room and needed to be a specific size. Well, I don't have much else from there, but what there is was acquired via CL....
I have the same reaction to Ikea. You would think it was the Second Coming the way people awaited the opening of an IKEA here.
The crazy roundabout floor plan just depresses me,
I don’t know where I am going or where I have been. Their upholstered furniture is, for the most part, junk. Not even gonna mention the crappy MDF hard pieces.
But their names are funny. DH and I would come back from a visit there and would, for about 24 hours after, shout randomly made up Swedish sounding words like “skorsgard!” and “oberming!” to amuse ourselves.
That's how I feel. That floor plan! Yuck!
We do have two IKEA pieces that I've had recovered. Love the shape and feel of them. We lucked out with these. I would never buy their MDF furniture again, though. A bed we bought there broke pretty quickly. Learned my lesson.
-
As long as we're coming up with reasons that we don't face punch people for not earning enough-
What is an appropriate cutoff where we should/shouldn't face punch? Is $30k/year too little? $50k? $100k?
As with expenditure, it depends on the person's background, ability, family situation, desires, needs etc
So I wouldn't give out face punches, obviously, on the basis that someone is not earning enough. Unless it was really clear this person wanted to earn more but was slacking off in his or her job and wilfully refusing to improve, or something similar.
But, for the same reason, I don't agree with face punches for things like a "clown house" or "clown car" without understanding another person's financial situation and needs, desires and so on. Unfortunately MMM tends to use this language quite loosely.
-
How would I know? Are you suggesting that everyone in that thread bar me had a look at their financial position, after first coming across MMM, and immediately thought to themselves "I'm already making enough money"? Because it seems like everyone here can find spending hacks to save a bit of spending, so I'm sure many could be entrepreneurial enough to come up with income hacks to get a bonus or promotion or open up a side source of income.
Also, you don't have to move cities to get a better paying job. You could -
- Do some consulting work on the side
- Start your own business
- See a recruiter and ask for a lateral transfer
- Agitate within your own company for a raise
- Renegotiate your bonus component
etc
Sure, you can always find ways to say "enough is enough". But the same goes for spending. Yet it seems like an awful amount gets written on these forums about reducing spending, in comparison to increasing earning.
[/quote]
Add me in as someone who came to this site after I'd already figured out my income is sufficient and like Bloop Bloop any change would be a major change, as in starting a whole new career. And honestly I don't come here to "get rich quicker," I was already getting rich on my own timeline that hasn't changed. I like it hear because of the question what is enough, what do I need for my life. Since I've found this site, some spending has gone down, some has gone up dramatically because I use it to reflect on life. In other words MMM, appeals to my inner environmental hippy tendencies.
As to answer what I could still do to up income if I so desired. Here a my "excuses." Also I am a government worker so yes when I talk about salary I know, I'm not guessing.
Consulting on the side. I basically have a "noncompete," any skill that I earned in my current career while I'm still working for my current employer basically belongs to them. Any side job no matter what the industry must be approved per my contract and they will deny any directly related consulting as a conflict of interest.
Start your own business, why, I don't need the money and I don't have an idea of a business outside of my current skill which I can not use in a non-compete. I also have no desire to run a business.
Lateral transfer, my industry that would mean a lateral salary, I am at the top of my industries pay range for my position.
Ask for a raise, again I am at the high end of the pay range for my industry.
Bonus, what's a bonus they don't really exist in my industry.
-
Wow, I normally don't agree with @Bloop Bloop , but I think he stumbled upon something here.
These excuses for not raising income sound suspiciously like the complainlypants excuses people use when they can't save.
"Gah, I'm just too BUSY to cook, so I HAVE to go out to eat!"
"I HAVE to have a maid clean my house because I'm too TIRED when I get home to put my shit away!"
vs
"The company I work for doesn't DO bonuses, so I can't possibly get a bigger one!"
"I'm too BUSY to consult for extra money!"
I think the point that bloop bloop is making is that you can do all kinds of shit you don't want to do to SAVE money, but for some reason its frowned upon in this forum to do shit you don't want to do to MAKE money. And if you just don't want to do stuff, own it the same way you would if you were to cop out and spend more money on the easy way, like grabbing takeout when you're tired. Just be aware that there are other options.
-
I sort of thought the whole premise of MMM was that people were already doing shit they didn't want to do to *make* money, so if they spent less of it they could quit doing the shit they didn't like doing?
Since my goal was always different than that, I've never paid much attention to the "make more money" end of things.
-
As long as we're coming up with reasons that we don't face punch people for not earning enough-
What is an appropriate cutoff where we should/shouldn't face punch? Is $30k/year too little? $50k? $100k?
As with expenditure, it depends on the person's background, ability, family situation, desires, needs etc
So I wouldn't give out face punches, obviously, on the basis that someone is not earning enough. Unless it was really clear this person wanted to earn more but was slacking off in his or her job and wilfully refusing to improve, or something similar.
But, for the same reason, I don't agree with face punches for things like a "clown house" or "clown car" without understanding another person's financial situation and needs, desires and so on. Unfortunately MMM tends to use this language quite loosely.
Except that rampant consumerism is a huge societal problem, the vast majority of people are wastefully spending and society leaves them almost entirely unchallenged on it.
If anything, there's an overall sentiment that this place has gotten extremely soft on spending, and I couldn't agree more.
Absolutely, each person needs to find their own balance, and that is very much respected here, but that doesn't mean that that spending should be sacred and left unchallenged.
A Facepunch is not a decree that you cannot spend, it's a signal to contemplate if that spending really will improve your life. We have deeply respected members who talk openly about their luxury cars and enormous houses with no facepunches at all except from themselves, so I'm not sure where you are seeing this excessive judgement on people's spending with no regard for their personal circumstances.
You've made it very very clear that you are high income and that you are comfortable with a high spend. Cool, so have many, many, many, many other posters here, and literally no one is attacking you or any of us for it.
I'm typically actually shocked by how little criticism I get for what I admit to spending on. I'm generally left alone for what could be considered absolutely ludicrous spending choices as long as I provide the slightest of context for my decision.
I'm actually frequently disappointed by how little this place challenges me to consider spending less. I'm always going to do what I feel like doing, but I like having my own thinking challenged. It's why I bother spending time here.
So again, I feel like you and I read two completely different forums sometimes.
Contrary to how it might sound, I'm not actually criticizing you, I'm more fascinated by how we can have such wildly different interpretations of the exact same material.
-
Wow, I normally don't agree with @Bloop Bloop , but I think he stumbled upon something here.
These excuses for not raising income sound suspiciously like the complainlypants excuses people use when they can't save.
"Gah, I'm just too BUSY to cook, so I HAVE to go out to eat!"
"I HAVE to have a maid clean my house because I'm too TIRED when I get home to put my shit away!"
vs
"The company I work for doesn't DO bonuses, so I can't possibly get a bigger one!"
"I'm too BUSY to consult for extra money!"
I think the point that bloop bloop is making is that you can do all kinds of shit you don't want to do to SAVE money, but for some reason its frowned upon in this forum to do shit you don't want to do to MAKE money. And if you just don't want to do stuff, own it the same way you would if you were to cop out and spend more money on the easy way, like grabbing takeout when you're tired. Just be aware that there are other options.
Well...except the entire point of this whole thing is to live your best life and be happier.
Often making more money does come at an enormous cost to a person's well being and life balance. There are of course exceptions, but in my line of work, I'm typically advising more people to cut back than to take on more.
The drive to make more in our society is already pretty extremely intense.
-
As long as we're coming up with reasons that we don't face punch people for not earning enough-
What is an appropriate cutoff where we should/shouldn't face punch? Is $30k/year too little? $50k? $100k?
As with expenditure, it depends on the person's background, ability, family situation, desires, needs etc
So I wouldn't give out face punches, obviously, on the basis that someone is not earning enough. Unless it was really clear this person wanted to earn more but was slacking off in his or her job and wilfully refusing to improve, or something similar.
But, for the same reason, I don't agree with face punches for things like a "clown house" or "clown car" without understanding another person's financial situation and needs, desires and so on. Unfortunately MMM tends to use this language quite loosely.
Except that rampant consumerism is a huge societal problem, the vast majority of people are wastefully spending and society leaves them almost entirely unchallenged on it.
If anything, there's an overall sentiment that this place has gotten extremely soft on spending, and I couldn't agree more.
Absolutely, each person needs to find their own balance, and that is very much respected here, but that doesn't mean that that spending shouldn't be sacred and left unchallenged.
A Facepunch is not a decree that you cannot spend, it's a signal to contemplate if that spending really will improve your life. We have deeply respected members who talk openly about their luxury cars and enormous houses with no facepunches at all except from themselves, so I'm not sure where you are seeing this excessive judgement on people's spending with no regard for their personal circumstances.
You've made it very very clear that you are high income and that you are comfortable with a high spend. Cool, so have many, many, many, many other posters here, and literally no one is attacking you or any of us for it.
I'm typically actually shocked by how little criticism I get for what I admit to spending on. I'm generally left alone for what could be considered absolutely ludicrous spending choices as long as I provide the slightest of context for my decision.
I'm actually frequently disappointed by how little this place challenges me to consider spending less. I'm always going to do what I feel like doing, but I like having my own thinking challenged. It's why I bother spending time here.
So again, I feel like you and I read two completely different forums sometimes.
Contrary to how it might sound, I'm not actually criticizing you, I'm more fascinated by how we can have such wildly different interpretations of the exact same material.
+1.
-
As long as we're coming up with reasons that we don't face punch people for not earning enough-
What is an appropriate cutoff where we should/shouldn't face punch? Is $30k/year too little? $50k? $100k?
As with expenditure, it depends on the person's background, ability, family situation, desires, needs etc
So I wouldn't give out face punches, obviously, on the basis that someone is not earning enough. Unless it was really clear this person wanted to earn more but was slacking off in his or her job and wilfully refusing to improve, or something similar.
But, for the same reason, I don't agree with face punches for things like a "clown house" or "clown car" without understanding another person's financial situation and needs, desires and so on. Unfortunately MMM tends to use this language quite loosely.
If your stance is that we shouldn't be criticizing anyone for their financial choices then that's quite different than what your posts seemed to suggest. But in that case, you're not alone. Lots of posters push back on the idea that certain types of spending can't be justified and say that it all comes down to personal values. I actually agree in a lot of ways. This forum has taught me that there a lots of exceptions to what I thought were rules, whether financial or otherwise.
However, I still believe there are situations where we can say with a high level of confidence that someone is spending money on something that doesn't bring the value to their life that they think it does. Car insurance for example. I grew up being taught that having full coverage is the responsible thing to do and I'm sure I'm not alone in that experience. Now that I understand the math and the reasoning behind insurance better, I'm confident in my choice to carry minimal insurance on my vehicle knowing that I can replace it in the worst case scenario.
Speaking of vehicles, this is another area where people tend to drastically overestimate how much value spending more on a vehicle will bring to their life. Many mustachians have experienced this phenomenon and since come to realize either through math or a better understanding of hedonic adaptation that their car doesn't bring them the value that they thought it would. Now they can look at someone who hasn't put that time and thought into the decision and tell them, "I've been there, I understand how you feel, and I think you're making a big mistake".
The difference between this and telling someone they ought to be earning more is that, as we've discussed, job choice is so much more complicated and has so many more personal variables than vehicle choice.
-
As long as we're coming up with reasons that we don't face punch people for not earning enough-
What is an appropriate cutoff where we should/shouldn't face punch? Is $30k/year too little? $50k? $100k?
As with expenditure, it depends on the person's background, ability, family situation, desires, needs etc
So I wouldn't give out face punches, obviously, on the basis that someone is not earning enough. Unless it was really clear this person wanted to earn more but was slacking off in his or her job and wilfully refusing to improve, or something similar.
But, for the same reason, I don't agree with face punches for things like a "clown house" or "clown car" without understanding another person's financial situation and needs, desires and so on. Unfortunately MMM tends to use this language quite loosely.
Except that rampant consumerism is a huge societal problem, the vast majority of people are wastefully spending and society leaves them almost entirely unchallenged on it.
If anything, there's an overall sentiment that this place has gotten extremely soft on spending, and I couldn't agree more.
Absolutely, each person needs to find their own balance, and that is very much respected here, but that doesn't mean that that spending should be sacred and left unchallenged.
A Facepunch is not a decree that you cannot spend, it's a signal to contemplate if that spending really will improve your life. We have deeply respected members who talk openly about their luxury cars and enormous houses with no facepunches at all except from themselves, so I'm not sure where you are seeing this excessive judgement on people's spending with no regard for their personal circumstances.
You've made it very very clear that you are high income and that you are comfortable with a high spend. Cool, so have many, many, many, many other posters here, and literally no one is attacking you or any of us for it.
I'm typically actually shocked by how little criticism I get for what I admit to spending on. I'm generally left alone for what could be considered absolutely ludicrous spending choices as long as I provide the slightest of context for my decision.
I'm actually frequently disappointed by how little this place challenges me to consider spending less. I'm always going to do what I feel like doing, but I like having my own thinking challenged. It's why I bother spending time here.
So again, I feel like you and I read two completely different forums sometimes.
Contrary to how it might sound, I'm not actually criticizing you, I'm more fascinated by how we can have such wildly different interpretations of the exact same material.
It is interesting, isn’t it? The assumption that most of us haven’t done our own cost/benefit analyses is also interesting (and insulting).
I’m here because it has been amazing and empowering to learn that it will be completely possible for husband and me to retire in our early 60s on our modest (over the US median but modest relative to the forum) household income. We had fully internalized the mass media message that our generation wouldn’t ever get to retire, and by the way, you should take on another auto loan and of course everyone carries credit card debt.
We’ve both been through work-related burnout; in my case, it wrecked my health for a few years. I’m now a happy freelancer on contracts and might make more money as a W-2 employee, but that would require taking on an hour-plus daily commute (I work at home) with all the related car expenses. I would also lose the time in my day that I use to cook from scratch to accommodate our dietary restrictions and keep our food budget fairly low. We could also make more if we moved far out of state, but that would increase our COL and take us away from our elderly parents and young niece and nephew. I’m an only child and dad just turned 70 so being thousands of miles away is not appealing.
Ergo, we spend less. It’s Jan. 7, and all monthly bills are paid except the ones that haven’t arrived yet, and some money went into savings. I haven’t even received payment from December’s invoices yet (those will arrive mid-month). We have no debt other than $50k on a mortgage. We have more than enough money to cover our modest expenses (thanks to spending cuts and refusal to inflate our lifestyle) and set aside a decent chunk. We have time to spend with family and friends, volunteer, and DIY many things that our busier, spendier friends outsource. More money is nice, but I love my life already. I thought that was the point.
-
Jeepers, I thought the message of MMM was that the vast majority of people are doing money and life wrong, and the way to do it right was to change the fundamentals of your lifestyle. Yeah, that's super arrogant and exclusionary, but it was an effective clubhouse motto for the membership.
Now it seems like there are three camps:
1) People who are anti-consumerist and are willing to reconsider their lifestyle all the way down, from the clown house, to the clown commute, to the cleaning service.
2) People who want to be frugal in the little and medium stuff, but aren't willing to abandon the clown lifestyle.
3) People who are conventionally rich and mostly want to be affirmed.
The more the tone shifts toward 2 and 3, the more it becomes like every other tired bit of personal finance media. Maybe MMM can sell the blog to Forbes in a few years.
-
Wow, I normally don't agree with @Bloop Bloop , but I think he stumbled upon something here.
These excuses for not raising income sound suspiciously like the complainlypants excuses people use when they can't save.
"Gah, I'm just too BUSY to cook, so I HAVE to go out to eat!"
"I HAVE to have a maid clean my house because I'm too TIRED when I get home to put my shit away!"
vs
"The company I work for doesn't DO bonuses, so I can't possibly get a bigger one!"
"I'm too BUSY to consult for extra money!"
I think the point that bloop bloop is making is that you can do all kinds of shit you don't want to do to SAVE money, but for some reason its frowned upon in this forum to do shit you don't want to do to MAKE money. And if you just don't want to do stuff, own it the same way you would if you were to cop out and spend more money on the easy way, like grabbing takeout when you're tired. Just be aware that there are other options.
Well...except the entire point of this whole thing is to live your best life and be happier.
Often making more money does come at an enormous cost to a person's well being and life balance. There are of course exceptions, but in my line of work, I'm typically advising more people to cut back than to take on more.
The drive to make more in our society is already pretty extremely intense.
Yup
As OtherJen put it:
It is interesting, isn’t it? The assumption that most of us haven’t done our own cost/benefit analyses is also interesting (and insulting).
This right here.
"I'm too BUSY to consult for extra money!"
I'm almost 50 with a full time, demanding job, a husband who works overtime, two kids at two different schools (one of the kids is SEVEN for shit's sake, do you know how much work a 7 year old is?) FUCK CONSULTING. I think I've done my cost/benefit analyses thankyouverymuch. If I want to spend 5 hours a week cooking from scratch instead of consulting, I've kinda earned the right. Peace out. (Plus, we make a shit ton of money and have a good NW.)
Someone who is making $50k a year with a bunch of debt and little upside to their job? Yeah, consulting probably a much better choice for them.
-
As to why this forum focuses on spending over earning in general? MMM has said that he is a lifestyle blogger who wants to save the planet from overconsumption, for which the best way to do it happens to write about personal finance (paraphrasing).
I respectfully inserted the important part, because it easily answers the question.
You could also say he wants sto make people happier, which in 90%+ of cases does not mean "chase the highest income".
Maybe MMM can sell the blog to Forbes in a few years.
In that case he should just close it down.
-
Maybe MMM can sell the blog to Forbes in a few years.
In that case he should just close it down.
[/quote]
I guess that's the point: the further we get from anti-consumerist facepunches, the closer we get to the useless Forbes personal finance clickbait garbage.
-
If anything, there's an overall sentiment that this place has gotten extremely soft on spending, and I couldn't agree more.
Absolutely, each person needs to find their own balance, and that is very much respected here, but that doesn't mean that that spending should be sacred and left unchallenged.
A Facepunch is not a decree that you cannot spend, it's a signal to contemplate if that spending really will improve your life. We have deeply respected members who talk openly about their luxury cars and enormous houses with no facepunches at all except from themselves, so I'm not sure where you are seeing this excessive judgement on people's spending with no regard for their personal circumstances.
I think rothwem does a good job to express my point perhaps in a better way. I couldn't agree more that spending needs to be analysed and you need to figure out whether it "really will improve your life" as opposed to being mindless spending borne of laziness or a desire to keep up with the Joneses. I generally don't see any excessive judgment on people's spending except in the Anti-Mustachian threads where there's a humorous pile-on but that's to be expected.
My point is though, if you're going to put the magnifying glass on spending, the same goes for earning. So it seems interesting that you would say:
"I'm actually frequently disappointed by how little this place challenges me to consider spending less."
But not:
"I'm actually frequently disappointed by how little this place challenges me to consider earning more."
As rothwem said, there are usually ways of earning more - they may take a day, a month, a year or three years; they may be completely suitable or completely unsuitable...but just as people in society have a very wide range of spending, they also have a very wide range of earning.
And I don't think all high income earners get there by chance.
It's trite to say there are two ways to FIRE - high earning and/or low spending. My only point is that this site tends to concentrate very heavily on the latter.
I also think it's interesting that many people in this thread have said that they are quite happy with their earning scenarios and the cost/benefit to any moonlighting or consulting etc is not worth it to them. I accept that at face value, of course. But the same way that MMM has clearly struck a chord with people by showing them ways that their spending might have been out of whack, I think there's an argument that for a lot of people (perhaps not those on this thread, except me) their earning might be out of whack too.
I would find it surprising if people looking for personal finance advice online all preternaturally had clownish spending habits (of the type MMM wants to solve) but at the same time had all optimised their earning. My belief is that most people who haven't come across MMM/personal finance have probably optimised neither. And it may be that we only have energy to optimise one, fine. It's worthwhile discussing which it is that we should do.
I thought I was quite happy with my earning till a few years ago when I bumped into a few people and learned how to accelerate my earnings. They offered me a great part-time working from home opportunity. I sell these special pills and I get income while I sleep. It was amazing! I didn't have to be a 9-5 rat any more, I just had to rely on my downline.
(Haha. Kidding on the last part.)
-
Jeepers, I thought the message of MMM was that the vast majority of people are doing money and life wrong, and the way to do it right was to change the fundamentals of your lifestyle. Yeah, that's super arrogant and exclusionary, but it was an effective clubhouse motto for the membership.
Now it seems like there are three camps:
1) People who are anti-consumerist and are willing to reconsider their lifestyle all the way down, from the clown house, to the clown commute, to the cleaning service.
2) People who want to be frugal in the little and medium stuff, but aren't willing to abandon the clown lifestyle.
3) People who are conventionally rich and mostly want to be affirmed.
The more the tone shifts toward 2 and 3, the more it becomes like every other tired bit of personal finance media. Maybe MMM can sell the blog to Forbes in a few years.
This is the sort of judgey behaviour that I refer to. If your'e going to refer to people who are objectively not frugal as having made clown decisions (without any reference to their individual goals or wants), then you are surely justified in doing so, at least part of the time, but not perhaps all of the time. But why only judge (if you're going to do so) on one side of the ledger?
Davnasty makes a good point - there are some expenses which objectively are "clownish" regardless of what your needs or desires might be. Not shopping around for insurance or a mortgage is a very hard thing to justify. For the same reason though, you could say the same about anyone who hasn't shopped around competitors for a higher salary, who hasn't spoken to recruiters, who hasn't done this or that. It's not universally applicable, but it has enough application to be an important point, yet the balance of discussion tends away from it.
Malkynn also makes a good point in that a higher salary sometimes or maybe usually comes at a cost. But then, a lot of savings measures also come at a cost in terms of energy/discipline points. You can't just analyse the cost; you have to analyse the benefit too. And the analysis is a worthwhile one.
-
If anything, there's an overall sentiment that this place has gotten extremely soft on spending, and I couldn't agree more.
Absolutely, each person needs to find their own balance, and that is very much respected here, but that doesn't mean that that spending should be sacred and left unchallenged.
A Facepunch is not a decree that you cannot spend, it's a signal to contemplate if that spending really will improve your life. We have deeply respected members who talk openly about their luxury cars and enormous houses with no facepunches at all except from themselves, so I'm not sure where you are seeing this excessive judgement on people's spending with no regard for their personal circumstances.
I think rothwem does a good job to express my point perhaps in a better way. I couldn't agree more that spending needs to be analysed and you need to figure out whether it "really will improve your life" as opposed to being mindless spending borne of laziness or a desire to keep up with the Joneses. I generally don't see any excessive judgment on people's spending except in the Anti-Mustachian threads where there's a humorous pile-on but that's to be expected.
My point is though, if you're going to put the magnifying glass on spending, the same goes for earning. So it seems interesting that you would say:
"I'm actually frequently disappointed by how little this place challenges me to consider spending less."
But not:
"I'm actually frequently disappointed by how little this place challenges me to consider earning more."
As rothwem said, there are usually ways of earning more - they may take a day, a month, a year or three years; they may be completely suitable or completely unsuitable...but just as people in society have a very wide range of spending, they also have a very wide range of earning.
And I don't think all high income earners get there by chance.
It's trite to say there are two ways to FIRE - high earning and/or low spending. My only point is that this site tends to concentrate very heavily on the latter.
I also think it's interesting that many people in this thread have said that they are quite happy with their earning scenarios and the cost/benefit to any moonlighting or consulting etc is not worth it to them. I accept that at face value, of course. But the same way that MMM has clearly struck a chord with people by showing them ways that their spending might have been out of whack, I think there's an argument that for a lot of people (perhaps not those on this thread, except me) their earning might be out of whack too.
I would find it surprising if people looking for personal finance advice online all preternaturally had clownish spending habits (of the type MMM wants to solve) but at the same time had all optimised their earning. My belief is that most people who haven't come across MMM/personal finance have probably optimised neither. And it may be that we only have energy to optimise one, fine. It's worthwhile discussing which it is that we should do.
I thought I was quite happy with my earning till a few years ago when I bumped into a few people and learned how to accelerate my earnings. They offered me a great part-time working from home opportunity. I sell these special pills and I get income while I sleep. It was amazing! I didn't have to be a 9-5 rat any more, I just had to rely on my downline.
(Haha. Kidding on the last part.)
Well, as I said, I'm fascinated that we're reading the same forum and seeing a completely different reality.
-
You've made it very very clear that you are high income and that you are comfortable with a high spend. Cool, so have many, many, many, many other posters here, and literally no one is attacking you or any of us for it.
Wait a minute.... Bloop Bloop makes a lot of money?!?
-
This is the sort of judgey behaviour that I refer to. If your'e going to refer to people who are objectively not frugal as having made clown decisions (without any reference to their individual goals or wants), then you are surely justified in doing so, at least part of the time, but not perhaps all of the time. But why only judge (if you're going to do so) on one side of the ledger?
Going back to the question of, why are the first 3 things people do all about spending less, not earning more? Easy answer is: spending cuts are easier and faster. No need to wait around for your first consulting gig before cutting your premium cable membership.
Pete addressed this question as well (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/11/14/doubling-your-salary/). If you focus on earning more and don't get your spending under control, you could end up spending that increased income anyway. Plus, cutting a dollar from your budget is more powerful than adding a dollar to your income. It reduces the stash needed for retirement by $25, it gives you more income to invest, and it's a post-tax dollar, not pre-tax income. (I can't find the post that discusses this aspect in more detail.)
Why judge over-consumption more harshly than under-earning? Because of the below bolded bit. Let's say there are two choices:
1) Rearrange our cities to make them more walkable and bikeable, significantly decrease our consumption, but we work median income jobs forever
2) Keep the car culture and Amazon habit but we all get lucrative gigs that allow us to FIRE at 35
I would bet money that Pete chooses option #1. Early retirement is the draw to get people who already make plenty of money to spend less of it on garbage.
As to why this forum focuses on spending over earning in general? MMM has said that he is a lifestyle blogger who wants to save the planet from overconsumption, for which the best way to do it happens to write about personal finance (paraphrasing).
I respectfully inserted the important part, because it easily answers the question.
-
If your'e going to refer to people who are objectively not frugal as having made clown decisions (without any reference to their individual goals or wants), then you are surely justified in doing so, at least part of the time, but not perhaps all of the time. But why only judge (if you're going to do so) on one side of the ledger?
In addition to everything @MonkeyJenga says above that's spot on, I'll just add that most of the folks I know who are seriously under-earning their potential are highly educated, extremely self aware, and they've made very deliberate choices about their occupation. Their under-earning is usually in service of others. I'm going to presume the commendability of that choice until proven otherwise.
-
Going back to the question of, why are the first 3 things people do all about spending less, not earning more? Easy answer is: spending cuts are easier and faster. No need to wait around for your first consulting gig before cutting your premium cable membership.
Yes, no doubt. But of course easiness and quickness are not the only measures of effectiveness.
The blog post you linked to contains an example of someone for whom doubling income was less effective than reducing consumption. This might well be right. But the point is that you can make spending and earning choices independently; it's not a binary proposition. You might choose to put 30% of your energy towards earning more and 70% towards spending less, or vice versa. Whatever works for you. I'm sure you would agree that different things work for different people - but I'm still awaiting the MMM post that talks about someone whose income maximisation paid dividends.
In my case, it has. I worked my butt off in my own business and I'm confident that the burst of hard work has helped my FIRE trajectory more significantly than an equivalent amount of effort in cutting down expenses. It probably helps that my expenses have always been moderate (using the standard for a median earner) so there just wasn't that much fat to trim without impinging on things I liked.
Also, a lot of 'convenience spends' - e.g. eating out, or employing a housekeeper, or paying someone else to service your car - are not necessarily permanent. Someone with good insight and self-control might choose to employ them only during part of their work career.
Again, I'm not saying that this will work for you. I'm saying that it might work for a significant number of people, and it's underrepresented.
Why judge over-consumption more harshly than under-earning? Because of the below bolded bit. Let's say there are two choices:
1) Rearrange our cities to make them more walkable and bikeable, significantly decrease our consumption, but we work median income jobs forever
2) Keep the car culture and Amazon habit but we all get lucrative gigs that allow us to FIRE at 35
I would bet money that Pete chooses option #1. Early retirement is the draw to get people who already make plenty of money to spend less of it on garbage.
Well, when I look at the net worth threads, most of it is people whose FIRE plans depend on the share market and / or lucrative gigs. One way or another they are tapping into that consumerism, even if they themselves share no part in it. So while Pete might agree with median income jobs forever, I think a lot of people here don't. The share market gains we've seen rely on overconsumption as fuel.
If your'e going to refer to people who are objectively not frugal as having made clown decisions (without any reference to their individual goals or wants), then you are surely justified in doing so, at least part of the time, but not perhaps all of the time. But why only judge (if you're going to do so) on one side of the ledger?
In addition to everything @MonkeyJenga says above that's spot on, I'll just add that most of the folks I know who are seriously under-earning their potential are highly educated, extremely self aware, and they've made very deliberate choices about their occupation. Their under-earning is usually in service of others. I'm going to presume the commendability of that choice until proven otherwise.
Why do you assume that under-earning must be a deliberate choice by people who choose careers beneath their earning potential in order to serve society? That's one form of under-earning, but not the only form. For example, I have a friend who's a very successful worker who was offered a 5% raise by her firm. Market standard is 4%. She was going to put 7% and accept that, but with my help and a bit of coaching she eventually got a 12% raise plus a significant increase to her bonus. She is a very smart person who just didn't quite maximise her market worth, because she didn't play the market, nor have the contact with recruiters that I have. I would be willing to bet that many people could tweak their finances in a similar way. That is the sort of maximisation, over time, that I am talking about. It doesn't usually change the actual parameters of the work.
It's not for everyone, but I think your characterisation of "under-earning" is a very limited one when you look at the entire scope of ways to increase income. Of course, increasing income usually requires some research and some serious work on communication/negotiation skills, but that's well within the ability of anyone who's smart enough to be reading these forums.
-
My point is though, if you're going to put the magnifying glass on spending, the same goes for earning. So it seems interesting that you would say:
"I'm actually frequently disappointed by how little this place challenges me to consider spending less."
But not:
"I'm actually frequently disappointed by how little this place challenges me to consider earning more."
As rothwem said, there are usually ways of earning more - they may take a day, a month, a year or three years; they may be completely suitable or completely unsuitable...but just as people in society have a very wide range of spending, they also have a very wide range of earning.
You are spot on. Whether or not we already do this is immaterial, we should always do so in the future.
And I don't think all high income earners get there by chance.
It's trite to say there are two ways to FIRE - high earning and/or low spending. My only point is that this site tends to concentrate very heavily on the latter.
I also think it's interesting that many people in this thread have said that they are quite happy with their earning scenarios and the cost/benefit to any moonlighting or consulting etc is not worth it to them. I accept that at face value, of course. But the same way that MMM has clearly struck a chord with people by showing them ways that their spending might have been out of whack, I think there's an argument that for a lot of people (perhaps not those on this thread, except me) their earning might be out of whack too.
Spending cuts should generally be done first because the odds are overwhelming that the cuts can be done more quickly than increasing income. Some spending cuts are 100% in the control of the family. Increased earnings not only (usually) take more time but also (typically) rely on cooperation of others outside the family unit.
But we should be asking people, what have you considered doing to increase your income? What are your strengths and weaknesses? What are you going to do to improve your strengths and reduce, workaround or mitigate your weaknesses?
-
Regarding the division over whether the forum challenges the reader to increase their income: from my perspective, it does, but in a more general and less useful way. When it comes to reducing expenses, the advice is specific and can be acted upon. We love our spending-reducing advice, here, and it's well-tailored. When it comes to increasing income, though, the advice is more like an overview. This is somewhat a consequence of there being a million kinds of jobs and a million careers, but even so, the reader can't use it to figure out if they're on the right track or not. You can figure out if you're doing well on spending, but we don't have an agreed-upon way to decide if a person is using their skills to their best income potential. We just kinda state big numbers and expect people to be inspired by them.
This isn't to say the income-increasing advice doesn't give any direction at all, though. Such advice is generally one of the following: 1) Get a better job, 2) Negotiate with your employer, preferably by leveraging a job offer you got elsewhere, 3) Start a side hustle, 4) Be self-employed, or 5) Start a business. 1) and 2) are essentially the same thing. 3), 4), and 5) are also sort of the same idea.
Personally, I'm a bit stuck on 1 & 2 because I'm in the Mecca of North America for my field, which is an engineering field, and have still hit a wall. I have a median-income position here, but in applying to other companies, I haven't get gotten further than a phone interview--let alone a job offer. This method works for other Mustachians, including MMM himself, who has a blog post describing the job search and interviewing process as something wonderfully encouraging. On the forum, I see stories of people so skilled they control negotiations with the managers of U.S. government departments. So it might work for other members of the forum, too, who have median incomes and are looking to raise the bar. On the other hand, I'm skeptical if this actually works for normal people like me, to be blunt. I've had such a defeating experience with the job search that my perceptions are distorted; it's very difficult to stay calm and non-miserable in the process.
I'm also stuck on 3 through 5--the best thing I can come up with using my own skills would be less than half of the hourly wage of, say, a weekend job working in fast food. However, side hustling is very popular, and on this forum full of people sensible about money, so is starting one's own business. Being one's own boss is empowering, after all.
(This post might come across as personal Complainypants-ing, and that's because...yeah, it is.)
-
Personally, I'm a bit stuck on 1 & 2 because I'm in the Mecca of North America for my field, which is an engineering field, and have still hit a wall. I have a median-income position here, but in applying to other companies, I haven't get gotten further than a phone interview--let alone a job offer. This method works for other Mustachians, including MMM himself, who has a blog post describing the job search and interviewing process as something wonderfully encouraging. On the forum, I see stories of people so skilled they control negotiations with the managers of U.S. government departments. So it might work for other members of the forum, too, who have median incomes and are looking to raise the bar. On the other hand, I'm skeptical if this actually works for normal people like me, to be blunt. I've had such a defeating experience with the job search that my perceptions are distorted; it's very difficult to stay calm and non-miserable in the process.
This is an important point to bring up too. I think that MMM is exceptional. I think that a lot of people on this board are "exceptional". Engineers, lawyers, businessmen and women. When you are exceptional - whether it be because of sheer brute force hard work, skill, or intelligence - it can be a lot easier to move yourself into a better position. If you are known in your field, doors open. If your former coworkers LOVE you, doors open. If you are exceptionally skilled at interviewing (even if not great at jobs), doors open. (We had a few years where we hired 5-6 middle-aged duds who KNEW THE LINGO but could not perform at the level we needed.)
Most people in the world, in the US, or whatever, are not exceptional. They are average. Their results will be average. They can try really hard, and still be average. That doesn't mean you don't TRY, but... it can eventually get tiring. I can spend an intense amount of time, effort, and training to get faster at running and still never break a 1 hour 10k. Likewise, I have spent quite a bit of effort in the past looking for a new job - time on the weekends and at night applying, days taken off work to prepare technical presentations and full day interviews...all to result in no new job. (On the flip side, in good times, I can get a new job with a few phone calls because the right people are hiring at the right time.)
Working very hard and spending a great deal of time for months or years on end to improve your situation is commendable, but it can also be very taxing.
-
Personally, I'm a bit stuck on 1 & 2 because I'm in the Mecca of North America for my field, which is an engineering field, and have still hit a wall. I have a median-income position here, but in applying to other companies, I haven't get gotten further than a phone interview--let alone a job offer. This method works for other Mustachians, including MMM himself, who has a blog post describing the job search and interviewing process as something wonderfully encouraging. On the forum, I see stories of people so skilled they control negotiations with the managers of U.S. government departments. So it might work for other members of the forum, too, who have median incomes and are looking to raise the bar. On the other hand, I'm skeptical if this actually works for normal people like me, to be blunt. I've had such a defeating experience with the job search that my perceptions are distorted; it's very difficult to stay calm and non-miserable in the process.
I'm right there with you. I was unemployed at this time last year. I applied for over 30 jobs and only got 1 interview. I was fortunate to land that job because I don't know how much longer I would have been unemployed otherwise. Frankly, I have neither the energy nor the desire to attempt to get another (higher paying) job right now. I'm pretty close to my barebones FI number, so to me it's just not worth the effort. Looking for a new job takes a lot of time, and I'd rather be enjoying what free time I have than looking for another job I really don't want. And the fact that I can't even imagine a job I would enjoy makes the process even worse. I guess I might be willing to put in more of an effort to get a better job if I knew what job I wanted.
-
Why do you assume that under-earning must be a deliberate choice by people who choose careers beneath their earning potential in order to serve society? That's one form of under-earning, but not the only form. For example, I have a friend who's a very successful worker who was offered a 5% raise by her firm. Market standard is 4%. She was going to put 7% and accept that, but with my help and a bit of coaching she eventually got a 12% raise plus a significant increase to her bonus. She is a very smart person who just didn't quite maximise her market worth, because she didn't play the market, nor have the contact with recruiters that I have. I would be willing to bet that many people could tweak their finances in a similar way. That is the sort of maximisation, over time, that I am talking about. It doesn't usually change the actual parameters of the work.
Perhaps this is a case where we all see the world through the lens of our own unique experiences.
I think there are all sorts of reasons people don't have much bargaining power in salary negotiations, but I'll give you an example from my own field. I live in a metro of a couple million. Within this metro, there are maybe five positions that are roughly equivalent to mine. Typical longevity within those positions is 20-30 years. So, the chance of finding a local position to leverage is basically nil, especially since those positions pay about my current salary.
I could leave the field to make more money, but much of my expertise is institutional, and moving would mean doing different work under conditions I don't want. Or, I could look nationally (there are about 20 positions in my field per year nationally), and maybe five of them pay substantially more than I make now. So, I'd literally be trying to get one of five jobs in the country, in hopes of leveraging it in my current position, a move that would be unlikely to work since the person approving salaries knows I don't want to pack up and move across the country.
As a person develops highly specialized, niche skills, it become harder rather than easier to negotiate salary, especially if you're not willing to pack up and move.
I think when people write about salary negotiation, they're often doing so with the presumption of a large pool of jobs and workers, but that's often not the reality of the labor market for senior professionals.
But here's the good news about frugality and anti-consumerism: I don't care. I'm not going to waste my life chasing another buck. I don't have to because I already have more than enough. Why would I compromise my quality of life for a dollar I don't need?
-
And you make room for the next person to move into that specialized career path.
-
Perhaps this is a case where we all see the world through the lens of our own unique experiences.
I think there are all sorts of reasons people don't have much bargaining power in salary negotiations, but I'll give you an example from my own field. I live in a metro of a couple million. Within this metro, there are maybe five positions that are roughly equivalent to mine. Typical longevity within those positions is 20-30 years. So, the chance of finding a local position to leverage is basically nil, especially since those positions pay about my current salary.
I could leave the field to make more money, but much of my expertise is institutional, and moving would mean doing different work under conditions I don't want.
Thanks for your example. No doubt, everything is seen through a personal lens. If your job has only a couple of dozen equivalent positions in the whole country and only a half dozen in your city, and you don't want to use your transferable skills to go to a different sector, then no doubt your income will be hemmed in. It's similar to someone who owns a lovely colonial house not wanting to move to any other sort of house because he or she is perfectly happy with that style of house. A rational decision but one which would limit their ability to save on housing costs.
As a person develops highly specialized, niche skills, it become harder rather than easier to negotiate salary, especially if you're not willing to pack up and move.
It would depend on the field. I don't think you can generalise what you just say to most "senior professionals". In my field (law), we all have niche expertise but the general skills of client contact, negotiation, written advocacy and oral advocacy are easily transferable and there are lots of moves across practice areas, firms and locales. Even as we tend to specialise more, as our reputation and experience grow, our negotiating power increases. As you go up the pyramid, there are fewer people with your level of skill and experience and therefore it's easier to set your rates high, and easier to use your friends to get you desirable jobs.
That's only my experience - as you say, a lot of it has a personal flavour and depends on your type of work - but having spoken to friends in accounting, finance, consulting and banking, most of them say similar. However, my dad, who is a very good medical researcher (much more talented at what he does than me at what I do, yet paid less than me), tells me similar to what you tell me.
-
A rational decision but one which would limit their ability to save on housing costs.
Everything in life is a trade-off. One must determine which trade-offs yield the greatest benefits (which are not merely financial) for one's personal situation.
(As an aside, your father is correct about available opportunities in medical research. Once you hit the doctoral level, the field narrows considerably, especially by region. Here in the US, funding opportunities and job positions have been cut so severely over the last 20 years [I entered the field in 2001 and watched prospects get steadily worse] that I and nearly all of my grad school cohort decided to leave research and pursue more stable opportunities. I wasn't aware that the field was just as narrow in Australia. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that.)