Switch Theme:

A Xillenial speaks out.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





It's totally irrelevant and frankly a rude dismissal of the real issues faced but people.

 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Steve steveson wrote:
It's totally irrelevant and frankly a rude dismissal of the real issues faced but people.


What? You mean 'by people'?

Its certainly NOT irrelevant, and how the heck do you think its rude?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Steve steveson wrote:

Maybe not, but lack of decent housing and security of tenancy if having a serious impact on people's physical and mental health in the UK. We have a serious housing problem which is disproportionately effecting the young. And this is not a matter of national poverty. There is no need for it if we built enough houses and sorted out the massive number of small time buy to let landlords (who are almost all of one generation). What happens in poor countries or places with very limited land is irrelevant. .


I'm sorry, is the lack of decent housing and security of tenancy having a serious impact on the people's physical and mental health in the UK, or in the slums of Mumbai? Because from what little I know, I'll roll the dice on living in the UK.

I am not saying that the UK doesn't have problems, everywhere has problems. My point is that regardless of how crappy you might think you have it, others have it worse. And if they can get on, so can you. And no I don't say the slum is what you have to measure against, I am saying that you not being born into and currently living in a slum means you are lucky, and already doing much better than many others. You have opportunities many others do not, so make the best of them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/01 20:58:19


 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's rude because you can dismiss anything that anyone thinks or feels with "well, you're not shot and dying in this very moment so you're lucky!!"

Some people do need perspective but we need a much lower floor for being allowed to analyse your life situation and discuss injustices than "currently being carted off to Auschwitz".
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's rude because you can dismiss anything that anyone thinks or feels with "well, you're not shot and dying in this very moment so you're lucky!!"

Some people do need perspective but we need a much lower floor for being allowed to analyse your life situation and discuss injustices than "currently being carted off to Auschwitz".


Personally, I thank my lucky stars I was born to a middle class white family in the nicest part of Canada. It helps me when I'm feeling down about my life.

I do not use it as a stick to beat others with. Everyone has their own row to hoe.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Ketara, again from memory (and what I remember, who knows how things are today or even were at the time at other universities):

* most courses at German universities are graded solely on final exams and no other criteria. It is completely possible to never attend the classes at all and still pass with flying colors: Yes and no, It just depends on how the lecturer or professor manages things. Some were exactly like that (and they would provide you with all the files to download), others had weekly quizzes and assignments (that counted for half the grade), other had two exams and attendance was mandatory. Some exams were without supplies, for others you were allowed to use books and/or notes. It's not like there is much discussion to be had about the nature of a "1" or a "0" in early CS/mathematics lectures, that comes a bit later.

* In Germany, I have only one professor (out of six) who even bothered to learn the students' names at the beginning of the semester: Again, it depends. You can't learn the names of students in a big lecure in the Audimax with hundreds of people but in the surrounding seminars, homework groups, office hours, and all that you get to know people naturally.

* the staff is minimal: Yup, and they don't bend over backwards for you (typical german bureaucracy, it probably feels even harsher for somebody who's not used to it). It's up to you to be proactive and organise your life.

* campus life: Yup, there are no dorms as understood in the US (provided by university) but there are dorms in that there are some organisations related to the university that provide them (essentially cheaper than average rent for small rooms), and universities are not in one place (our old main math/CS/geology building was a few minutes on foot away form the main building, some medical/biotech institutes are near hospitals, we had the intro to chemistry across the city early in the mornings ). And yes the university focuses on being an university first (teaching and research) and not a "summer camp" like the post describes. That's part of the "students are not seen as customers that have to be pleased and coddled" thing that seems so normal in the US (because they want your tuition money). They just don't have to care about it here. So when somebody complains about whiny SJW in US colleges (and how it's the end of free speech, if not the whole world) and how the administration bends over backwards to not lose them as customers that just wouldn't happen here like that. There are student organisations and students might protest for stuff but they don't have that type of financial power over the university and have to fit their protesting into their schedule.

* the ratio: I would guess that it depends heavily on your area of study and that the ratio is a bit inflated by the really big lectures in the first semesters (it doesn't cost anything to enter, but some have a numerus clausus and medicine, law, and some others needing a latinum, meaning sufficient proficiency in latin). PhD students work more with students in later semesters the first few semesters have regular students from higher semester (roughly equivalent to somebody working on a masters degree) who help out with homework seminars and stuff like that but the real seminars were dealt with professors or staff from the corresponding research groups (post doc is the term, I think?) and we also had guest lecturers for their specialty who would take over for a few weeks from whoever was the regular lecturer. We had in-depth debates/arguments/discussion from the first semester with everyone (just not during the big lectures with hundreds of students). You could be working on homework between classes on benches outside the lecture halls and fuss out problems with other students, older students might drop by, and a nosy professor would look into what you are doing and start something. The ratio is probably higher but to me it never felt like there was a lack of challenges, feedback, or stimulation.

I really don't know what "equal and respectful level" is supposed to mean in that regard. We were treated respectfully like humans but we were not coddled (like explained above about german bureaucracy). You could have funny discussions with the staff and—as far as I know—nobody was dismissive or abusive (maybe sarcastic?) but one has to be able to take a joke if one feths up exceptionally. Maybe they are talking about administrative staff being overworked during periods of high activity (in my opinion: understandable) or individual people being donkey-caves (maybe having high tuition and students being customers forces them to be more nice to them) but in general I had just normal human interactions (and here we are not used to the perpetual fake smiling US service industry standard and would find that level of friendliness quite off-putting). The article being about the UK kinda makes me wonder how much of that "service sector friendliness" is happening/acceptable in the UK? I don't remember it being as extreme as the US? Because here it's just seen as fake and we would rather have a slightly grumpy but honestly grumpy waiter/helper than a perpetual smiler (that's just creepy).

   
Made in au
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator





Australia

KTG17 wrote:
You think you have it rough? You should look into what a 700 square foot apartment goes for in Hong Kong (one I read about just went for just under million dollars).

Soooo; Hong Kong is cheaper than Sydney. Good to know.


Also: see my Deviant Art for more. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Pendix wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
You think you have it rough? You should look into what a 700 square foot apartment goes for in Hong Kong (one I read about just went for just under million dollars).

Soooo; Hong Kong is cheaper than Sydney. Good to know.

Ya'll just need to pitch a tent with a moat of fire...

Why a moat of fire???

To keep the deathworld critters at bay of course!

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

I have a friend with Crohn's disease who just lost his insurance, but I'll be sure to cheer him up by reminding him at least he doesn't have Locked In Syndrome while burning to death with some parasitic fish living in his pee pee hole.

First world problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xillennials in any circumstances short of I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream should stop complaining, stop making their voices heard in a likely futile attempt to change anything, and be more grateful, says beneficiary from your loss of opportunity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Suicide hotline, how may I help you? Yeah. Uh huh. Uh huh. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Listen, you don't know anything about suffering or depression. Call me back when you've seen all your kids die of dysentery, you entitled whiner."

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/08/02 04:21:59


   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Ketara wrote:
With all due respect, your argument thus far sums up to 'I worked in a University that had an expensive humanities department, and tried to gauge what other universities did'.


You've missed a key part. It isn't "I worked in a university". It's "I worked in a university measuring and controlling costs, and part of that included national and international comparisons". This is my direct professional experience.

Which is fine, and I'm not trying to put down your personal empirical experience of things. But it's difficult enough to compare institutions within the same country (Oxford's finances and departmental layout will be very different to Bolton's). Trying to extrapolate from your one example in Australia across the entire global Higher Education sector is an order of a magnitude higher, and I wouldn't even begin to dream of making large scale generalisations on that basis without considerable data to back it up. Purely within this thread alone, we have the example of the German Universities, who very clearly have a statistical bent towards less staff, and maintain cheaper courses.


So you started with;
"If you're a standard humanities (history, english, philosophy, etc) or social sciences (anthropology, sociology, etc) student, the cost of the running the degree course is not expensive. Assuming you're running a standard degree program at a mid-tier University ? You're making a killing."

But now have switched to;
" But it's difficult enough to compare institutions within the same country"

It's almost as if you made a big statement that was mistaken, and are now walking it back while doing everything you can to admit that's what you're doing.

What I can extrapolate from the current publicly available data


That is not a useful process.

When you start talking about things like 'support staff, grounds and facilities', those are fixed costs shared with every other course in the University. Not departmental. The same goes for 'club support', your local SU branches here in the UK handle that end of things, and just get a small budget set by the institution as a whole.


Of course they are institutional. But unless the institution has seperate revenue sources to cover those costs, then each department must bear their own share of the institution's indirect costs.

The 'History' student society has absolutely nothing to do with the 'History' department, officially. You can't finger the history department specifically because IT's budget is too tight to hire another person due to the history department only generating three times what it cost to run the course instead of three and a half times. Expenditures like those are shared across the institution as whole.


Actually cost sharing models will allocate those costs down, or at the very least operate a revenue retention model that takes a % of student fees & govt attached subsidies to cover uni wide costs.

So. Given that the Uni Of Leicester history undergrad course is generating 7.2 million, staffing costs are likely at the 2 million mark using nation wide averages, and we're knocking off another 3 million for tax, incidental departmental costs, Whirlwind's unexpected overrun, and a reasonable contribution towards fixed costs?


Serious question - did you just take a reported student number, multiply it by the tuition fee, and then compare that to what you guess staff numbers might be based on your guess at student teacher ratios? Is that what you did?

I want to hear about it. It'll help the general discussion along as to whether or not uni education should be free.


The question about whether uni should be free is a bad question. Right now government pays too much, and the student pays too much. This is because the real issue is the huge waste in the sector as a whole. This waste is due to poor financial controls and bloated administrations, and also because the institutions are still largely built around traditional 'higher minds' models, despite most activity in the unis now geared towards vocational qualifications.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote:
In some part, yes.

And its hard to feel bad for people who are doing better than 80% of the rest of the people on the planet.


Why does this have to have anything to do with feeling sorry for people?

I mean, consider if I ride to school every day with a friend. His bike gets nicked, and he will half to walk. He asks if he can ride my old bike that I don't use any more. I reply that I won't give him the bike, I don't feel sorry for him because while he will have to walk it isn't anywhere near as long a distance as some other people half to walk.

It's ridiculous, obviously. We know in that personal story that someone doesn't have to be an objective of absolute pity before we help them out. We are decent people who help others without thinking too much about it. But then if we talk about government programs then suddenly our thinking changes, and we start talking about how one person's suffering isn't so bad because of the abject poverty suffered by people on the other side of the planet.

And for the record, I've been to India, and I didn't see any dead bodies but I did see a lot of poverty. Mumbai has nothing on places like Kolkota. The big thing I took away was the complexity of the issue. Before I went there I thought the slums would be full of people destitute and begging - they're actually giant, ramshackle workshops, full of intense economic activity, albeit low skilled, ultra-low capital economic activity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/02 06:47:21


 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran






KTG17 wrote:
In some part, yes.

And its hard to feel bad for people who are doing better than 80% of the rest of the people on the planet.


Dont you worry, I reckon it aint gonna be too long before we start seeing slumtowns in the west too! Then they will finally have deserved our pity the moochers
   
Made in gb
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor




 sebster wrote:

And for the record, I've been to India, and I didn't see any dead bodies but I did see a lot of poverty. Mumbai has nothing on places like Kolkota. The big thing I took away was the complexity of the issue. Before I went there I thought the slums would be full of people destitute and begging - they're actually giant, ramshackle workshops, full of intense economic activity, albeit low skilled, ultra-low capital economic activity.


It's much the same in West-Africa.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Bran Dawri wrote:
It's much the same in West-Africa.


Interesting. I would have guessed as much but its interesting to see it confirmed.
   
Made in gb
Infiltrating Broodlord




The Faye

What are peoples thoughts about inheritance? I've been talking to friends and through personal experience there's a definite change in attitude between boomer generations an the previous gen.

My parents both inherited their parents savings and property and my dad also inherited his aunts too. My other half's parents inherited from their parents too. Similar story with many of my friends and co-workers.

When it comes to the boomers (my parents generation) my mum has said she doesn't plan to leave anything to us,my other half's mum is the same to her, and again a bunch of my friends have echoed this.

I've spoken to a few boomer age people about this and they point out about "the bank of mum and dad" they call it. Where they've had to lend money to their children so that they can afford things like deposits on houses, paying for education or a car repair bill stuff like that.

And this is true. I borrowed £10k from my parents so I could fund my Microsoft certifications, the thing is, it was a loan, not a gift and I paid them back for it. Every boomer I've spoken to has send they've loaned money, implying that they do expect it to be paid back.

Others have said that they'd rather wait and decide to give money in later years so they can see the family enjoy it whilst they're alive to see it.

One lady said that they felt sorry for their own mum being so tight with her purse strings and going without so that she could leave more to her family. She said when she gets to her mums age she'll spend the last of her money going on holiday and enjoying her twilight years.

It its their money and they can do what they want with it. I don't need an inheritance from my family and don't begrudge them it.

There just seems to be a big shift in attitudes between those generations.

Every generation up to the boomers has done better economically than the generation before. There has been investment in roads and public services put in place by previous generations. But once we reach the boomers it goes the other way. They had the free education and had it cut for their children, they had the cheap house prices but did not build enough for the next generation.

I'm curious about what may have brought this change about in the last generation that the trend seems to be a focus on the self over their children.

Does anyone else have similar, or differing experiences?

We love what we love. Reason does not enter into it. In many ways, unwise love is the truest love. Anyone can love a thing because. That's as easy as putting a penny in your pocket. But to love something despite. To know the flaws and love them too. That is rare and pure and perfect.

Chaos Knights: 2000 PTS
Thousand Sons: 2000 PTS - In Progress
Tyranids: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Mechanicus: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Custodes: 2000 PTS - In Progress 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 sebster wrote:

You've missed a key part. It isn't "I worked in a university". It's "I worked in a university measuring and controlling costs, and part of that included national and international comparisons". This is my direct professional experience.

Okay? Appeal to your own authority is less strong a piece of evidence when discussing things online then you seem to believe it is? You worked at one university in one country, and did some benchmarking against whatever data you could get your hands on. Which is great, and totally relevant (no sarcasm). But it's not the be-all and end all that lets you proclaim from the heavens that all humanities courses worldwide are losing money hand over fist. So again, do you have any data comparing humanities departments in different positions across the world? Because if so, I would genuinely be interested to see it.

So you started with;
"If you're a standard humanities (history, english, philosophy, etc) or social sciences (anthropology, sociology, etc) student, the cost of the running the degree course is not expensive. Assuming you're running a standard degree program at a mid-tier University ? You're making a killing."

But now have switched to;
" But it's difficult enough to compare institutions within the same country"

It's almost as if you made a big statement that was mistaken, and are now walking it back while doing everything you can to admit that's what you're doing.

We were discussing universities within the UK at the time for the most part (that was what I was responding to), so I didn't feel the need to qualify it within an international context. I also made the specific point of qualifying 'standard degree program at a mid tier University' to separate out the institutions at the bottom end of the market who are currently struggling due to several unrelated factors.

The minute that switched around and Australian Universities came up, I qualified that if academics there were not earning substantially more, it should be the same. I'd be open to being shown Australian specific factors that make running a humanities course there more difficult though, in the same way that when German institutions came up as a variation, I got quite interested in trying to figure out how they do it more cheaply.

If you'd been following the discussion, you should be aware of this. I'm very happy to be proven wrong by people in other countries that I know less about. Means I learn something. Wouldn't be much of an academic otherwise.

Serious question - did you just take a reported student number, multiply it by the tuition fee, and then compare that to what you guess staff numbers might be based on your guess at student teacher ratios? Is that what you did?


No. I took their actual academic staff numbers, calculated their collective salary using the average academic salary in the UK (which will have overstated it by anything up to a fifth, given the fixed term contract conditions currently prevailing amongst even full time staff here now), then I took the actual number of administrative staff employed within the department, did the same thing, and came up with a collective averaged salary bill (minus things like pension contributions, of course).

Then I took their actual undergraduate numbers (I ignored the postgrad because whilst they're likely to still be making money off of them, the council funding for PhD's would complicate matters), calculated the total fees paid, and set it against the departmental salary costs stated earlier. Then because I know that Leicester own their buildings, I discounted rent. Then I allocated a reasonable sum towards janitorial costs, library costs (which I actually know in detail myself, I've seen the invoices), electric/power bills, and general support towards central administrative expenditure.

And then once I'd done that, I doubled it in line with Whirlwind's theory that everything probably costs twice as much as you expect it to. Which should easily cover pensions, conferences, and various other incidentals on top. Leaving us still with a good two million in the budget.


But then, if you've been following the thread, you should be aware of this. You've also contributed absolutely nothing in support of your very sweeping statement, despite me very politely asking what you think might have been missed in previous discussion. Instead, it feels like you've taken a somewhat aggressive and patronising tone whilst avoiding my queries for specifics.

To cut it simple mate, either play nice and have a proper friendly chat in which we all get to learn things and enjoy ourselves, or find someone else to debate with. I've got better things to do then measure e-schlongs across a timezone over budgetary matters. Christ knows I get enough of that off the web right now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote:

Yes and no, It just depends on how the lecturer or professor manages things.....Again, it depends.

It seems like there's a lot of variation in the staffing levels and one to one. Perhaps it's a departmental thing? Certain subjects are better staffed and give smaller classes? That or what Bran Dawri said earlier about certain subjects sharing more classes earlier on. Or maybe a mixture of the two? It would be interesting to find out. It certainly seems less clear cut now!

The ratio is probably higher but to me it never felt like there was a lack of challenges, feedback, or stimulation.

That's good to know. Did you ever have much trouble though that could have meant that you needed extra support? If you don't mind me prying that is. Some students have various mental health issues and suchlike that mean that they need a little bit of extra support/interaction to reach their potential, and I can't help but feel like that might be difficult in an institution laid out as the German ones seem to be.

The article being about the UK kinda makes me wonder how much of that "service sector friendliness" is happening/acceptable in the UK? I don't remember it being as extreme as the US? Because here it's just seen as fake and we would rather have a slightly grumpy but honestly grumpy waiter/helper than a perpetual smiler (that's just creepy).

It's not nearly as bad as in the US, but as the Government has been trying to exert greater control over the university sector, they keep trying to pick arbitrary benchmarks to do it with. One of them, sadly, is student satisfaction, and another is how the students do after leaving. Now that there's no limit on how many students a uni can take anymore either, upper administrative university staff are also working to attract quantity over quality also, and the way they try and do that is by ensuring they all have a 'good' time.

So we're not there yet, but we've been moving in that direction for a while (despite the resistance of most academics). We'll have to see how things pan out in the long run.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/08/02 14:26:00


 
   
Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





 obsidianaura wrote:
What are peoples thoughts about inheritance? I've been talking to friends and through personal experience there's a definite change in attitude between boomer generations an the previous gen.

My parents both inherited their parents savings and property and my dad also inherited his aunts too. My other half's parents inherited from their parents too. Similar story with many of my friends and co-workers.

When it comes to the boomers (my parents generation) my mum has said she doesn't plan to leave anything to us,my other half's mum is the same to her, and again a bunch of my friends have echoed this.

I've spoken to a few boomer age people about this and they point out about "the bank of mum and dad" they call it. Where they've had to lend money to their children so that they can afford things like deposits on houses, paying for education or a car repair bill stuff like that.

And this is true. I borrowed £10k from my parents so I could fund my Microsoft certifications, the thing is, it was a loan, not a gift and I paid them back for it. Every boomer I've spoken to has send they've loaned money, implying that they do expect it to be paid back.

Others have said that they'd rather wait and decide to give money in later years so they can see the family enjoy it whilst they're alive to see it.

One lady said that they felt sorry for their own mum being so tight with her purse strings and going without so that she could leave more to her family. She said when she gets to her mums age she'll spend the last of her money going on holiday and enjoying her twilight years.

It its their money and they can do what they want with it. I don't need an inheritance from my family and don't begrudge them it.

There just seems to be a big shift in attitudes between those generations.

Every generation up to the boomers has done better economically than the generation before. There has been investment in roads and public services put in place by previous generations. But once we reach the boomers it goes the other way. They had the free education and had it cut for their children, they had the cheap house prices but did not build enough for the next generation.

I'm curious about what may have brought this change about in the last generation that the trend seems to be a focus on the self over their children.

Does anyone else have similar, or differing experiences?


Sounds about the experience I have seen. I don't begrudge people spending their money as they wish. Whilst it will impact my generation (my parents had about £200k of inheritance from my grandparents. I don't expect to see anything like that) I also believe that it will make things better for my children, as it releases money in to the wider community, where as inheritance concentrates it. This is one place I see the selfishness as being a good thing in the end.

What I have an issue with is the equity release market. Baby boomers releasing money from their house so they can spend it, whilst retaining control of the asset. Sell up and spend it, and let someone else use the property you no longer need, or you need it then don't go mortgaging it away.

 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Rosebuddy wrote:
It's rude because you can dismiss anything that anyone thinks or feels with "well, you're not shot and dying in this very moment so you're lucky!!"

Some people do need perspective but we need a much lower floor for being allowed to analyze your life situation and discuss injustices than "currently being carted off to Auschwitz".


I am certainly not dismissing everything everyone thinks (Lord knows I have had my ups and downs too, and thought thru some of them that they were the end of the world). What I am saying is that I am constantly reminding myself how good I have it right now, and are thankful of that, as since I have traveled not only around the US, but some 30 countries and have seen how bad poverty is in most of the world. So yes, while some of us might be going through tough economic times here in the developed world, there is a whole host of people out in the world who probably laughs at our hardships, yet they get it on and do the best they can, working much harder than we do. Some of you dream of owning a home, etc, and these people dream of having a job. We have more choices here. If you live in an expensive area, that is your choice. You have the freedom of giving up one career for another and moving somewhere else to work. You may choose not to. Some of you are teachers, and while I recognize that teaching is no doubt one of the most fundamentally important parts of our society, I've known since middle school listening to teachers bitch about their pay that teaching didn't seem like a great career choice, so I chose something else. But you might really enjoy teaching, and that itself is rewarding. Its up to you to gauge what is more important. My dad was in banking and constantly told me, "If you are happy digging ditches, dig ditches." but either way you can't complain about the pay, cause you probably knew going into it that it would suck.

There are many things outside of our control, but we are well informed of the status of most. You have choices. One of the wealthiest people my family knows is a Cuban immigrant who came over in the 60s with nothing and now owns a mansion in West Palm Beach and owns luxury sports cars and several boats. An immigrant. He busted his ass and yes, got some luck. But if an immigrant can come here and do that, you think you can convince me you can't? You choose to be where you are. If you were hungry and more ambitious, you would be doing more.

You can blame the world for holding you back, but if you spend some time thinking about you, you'll most likely find that the number one thing holding yourself back, is you.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

I, too, think society's losers would benefit from traveling to 30 countries for a little perspective.

   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

 obsidianaura wrote:
What are peoples thoughts about inheritance?


I am a bit old fashioned, but much of what I do, is with the thought of generational wealth in mind. I personally will never be a "rich" 1%er. However, I plan to get into the top 20% and then my kid can build fromt here and maybe if she is lucky her kid will be a 1%.

I was lucky to be born in a white, middle class family in a first world country. College/University was an expectation. I was the first in my family to graduate College/Uni. It was expected that I would be a corporate drone with a good job. I lived up to those expectations.

It soon became obvious to me that the way of the corporate drone is just wage-slavery. The best way to create generational wealth is in ownership, but not just ownership in "stuff" but stuff that cretes income streams and ROI. That is why I am an aggressive entrepreneur and business owner. Some are larger than others, but all of them can be passed on to my descendants so they can have a source of income and can mkae true choices about their life.

Income streams= freedom in our society. I want my progeny to have freedom.

Sorry for the crazy talk.

Edit: Between "Luck" and "Hard Work".... luck played a much bigger part. I know tons of people poorer than me that work much, much, much harder. My employees, the services I hire out for, etc. They all are working harder than me, yet somehow I have the money? Luck.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/02 14:42:23


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






KTG17 wrote:
You have the freedom of giving up one career for another and moving somewhere else to work.


Uh, no, you really don't. You have the option to change jobs easily, in the sense that you can go from Walmart to McDonalds, but you aren't changing careers without a massive investment. Most jobs that can fairly be considered "careers" require education and experience, things that cost a lot of time and money. And there are a lot of people with nowhere near enough money to take a few years off and go back to school (or go to college in the first place).

either way you can't complain about the pay, cause you probably knew going into it that it would suck.


Lolwut? Even if you acknowledge that, on a personal level, you accepted a career with low pay you can still point out the fact that we massively undervalue teachers and should pay them much better.

But if an immigrant can come here and do that, you think you can convince me you can't?


You said it yourself, he had luck. You might as well point to professional athletes and say "kids, if you try hard enough you too can make millions to play a sport".

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






Southeastern PA, USA

KTG17 wrote:
You can blame the world for holding you back, but if you spend some time thinking about you, you'll most likely find that the number one thing holding yourself back, is you.


I think you misunderstand the thread. As I learned pages ago and should have realized from the original post, people aren't participating in this thread to find advice or discuss solutions -- they're here to gripe. Which can be a completely valid thread purpose, as everyone needs to vent sometimes.

The funny part is all the stereotyping of a generation while complaining about generational stereotypes.



So regarding inheritance -- any investment professional will tell you that securing your own retirement comes FIRST. What you don't want to do is pay for your kids' college, support them into adulthood and/or build a nestegg for them, but end up with little retirement savings and become a financial burden in your elderly years for those same children. That's a *worse* situation. Millennials sometimes don't get this because their parents aren't at that age yet.

It's also important to note that Boomers aren't all sitting pretty in retirement, no matter how broad of a brush people in this thread choose to paint with. In fact, many don't have enough saved. This is partly because that generation tends to spend more than save, but also because many were affected when pensions started disappearing a couple *decades* ago and never really made up the difference.

So even if you want it to be all about you, and complain that your parents/grandparents/whatever won't share their money, it's important to consider what the future impact could be on you if they did spread it around. Financially secure older relatives are a *good thing* for you as a younger person.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/02 15:14:06


My AT Gallery
My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:

Uh, no, you really don't. You have the option to change jobs easily, in the sense that you can go from Walmart to McDonalds, but you aren't changing careers without a massive investment. Most jobs that can fairly be considered "careers" require education and experience, things that cost a lot of time and money. And there are a lot of people with nowhere near enough money to take a few years off and go back to school (or go to college in the first place).


Um, yeah, you do. Is it going to be easy? Prob not. But I guess that's the repeating theme here, everyone expects everything to fall into place and be easy. No, you have to bust your ass for it. And if you are busting your ass and NOT succeeding, then you are obviously doing something wrong and need a new plan.

And not all careers involve having to graduate from college. Most of the world doesn't even get the luxury of going to college. And many who have gone, have completely useless degrees.

Lolwut? Even if you acknowledge that, on a personal level, you accepted a career with low pay you can still point out the fact that we massively undervalue teachers and should pay them much better.


Fine. But expecting the world to change and suddenly start paying more for not only teachers, but cops, firemen, garbage men, and so on isn't going to solve paying rent either.

You said it yourself, he had luck. You might as well point to professional athletes and say "kids, if you try hard enough you too can make millions to play a sport".


Your counter-arguments are exactly the self-defeating kind that fill this thread. "I made a choice, I don't feel it was a good one, and it takes too much effort to get me out of this situation and into a better one." Boo-hoo. Sounds like complete BS. You know who makes that argument? Softies. People who lack ambition. People to expect the world to never change. People who vote for Bernie Sanders. Are you going to be a wolf or a sheep? You think living in society is any different than living in nature? There are animals that succeed and fail, only succeeding usually means living long enough to mate and failing means dying. You think our world is any different? There are those who play the game well, and those that don't, and a bunch that don't even try. If you are one of those failing and not changing your game, or not even trying, you think you deserve a piece of the pie? You think its just going to be given to you? Yeah sure, maybe you'll get the basics and some table scraps now and then, but if you want more, you have to be hungry and go out and get it. I am certainly not giving up my piece for free.

Its the difference between being an Alpha and a Beta. You can choose to be one or the other.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 gorgon wrote:


I think you misunderstand the thread. As I learned pages ago and should have realized from the original post, people aren't participating in this thread to find advice or discuss solutions -- they're here to gripe. Which can be a completely valid thread purpose, as everyone needs to vent sometimes.


Well maybe so. But feeling sorry for one's self typically isn't enough to change one's situation. You actually have to DO something, which is the point of what I am trying to make.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/02 15:51:55


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Problem is the person that got lucky on the first time succeeds and took the opportunity from someone who didn't get lucky.

Plus the person that didn't get lucky the first time doesn't always have the resources to try again.

But keep on repeating the lie that hard work is all you need...Working hard gets you used and thrown away unless you are lucky.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

This conversation is circling the drain. As soon as the alpha/beta shtick is trotted out, it's all but over.

No one is saying it's all hard work, and luck plays no part. Just being born in the wealthy, stable part of the world is incredible luck to begin with, and the doctor hasn't even smacked your arse yet.

Again, for ME PERSONALLY, I remind myself how much, much worse my life could be when I'm feeling discouraged about my life. It helps me.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
-






-

 feeder wrote:
This conversation is circling the drain.


I agree...

And since the word "Xillenial" is annoying as all get out, we're really going to need this thread to stay on topic (?) and stop toeing the line of Rule #1 as well.

   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I was taught that the philosophy of Social Darwinism died in World War One.

I guess we have Zombie Social Darwinism now? Maybe Vampire is a better metaphor?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

 Alpharius wrote:
And since the word "Xillenial" is annoying as all get out

Man, I could not agree more . Just stick to "Generation Y" or something!
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

I feel a lot of hate from Mods upon us Xillenials

We can't help being labeled like a forgettable alien race from a bad episode of ST: Voyager!

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






Southeastern PA, USA

 feeder wrote:
I feel a lot of hate from Mods upon us Xillenials

We can't help being labeled like a forgettable alien race from a bad episode of ST: Voyager!


Do Xillennials have pinchy, lumpy foreheads? Most ST aliens can be distinguished from humans by their foreheads and little else.

My AT Gallery
My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 obsidianaura wrote:
What are peoples thoughts about inheritance? I've been talking to friends and through personal experience there's a definite change in attitude between boomer generations an the previous gen.

My parents both inherited their parents savings and property and my dad also inherited his aunts too. My other half's parents inherited from their parents too. Similar story with many of my friends and co-workers.

When it comes to the boomers (my parents generation) my mum has said she doesn't plan to leave anything to us,my other half's mum is the same to her, and again a bunch of my friends have echoed this.

I've spoken to a few boomer age people about this and they point out about "the bank of mum and dad" they call it. Where they've had to lend money to their children so that they can afford things like deposits on houses, paying for education or a car repair bill stuff like that.

And this is true. I borrowed £10k from my parents so I could fund my Microsoft certifications, the thing is, it was a loan, not a gift and I paid them back for it. Every boomer I've spoken to has send they've loaned money, implying that they do expect it to be paid back.

Others have said that they'd rather wait and decide to give money in later years so they can see the family enjoy it whilst they're alive to see it.

One lady said that they felt sorry for their own mum being so tight with her purse strings and going without so that she could leave more to her family. She said when she gets to her mums age she'll spend the last of her money going on holiday and enjoying her twilight years.

It its their money and they can do what they want with it. I don't need an inheritance from my family and don't begrudge them it.

There just seems to be a big shift in attitudes between those generations.

Every generation up to the boomers has done better economically than the generation before. There has been investment in roads and public services put in place by previous generations. But once we reach the boomers it goes the other way. They had the free education and had it cut for their children, they had the cheap house prices but did not build enough for the next generation.

I'm curious about what may have brought this change about in the last generation that the trend seems to be a focus on the self over their children.

Does anyone else have similar, or differing experiences?

I expect 0$ inheritance.... that way, if I do I'd be pleasantly surprised. I even told my folks that... it's their money as they see fit and they shouldn't be obligated or pressured to "leave some scratch" when they're gone.

Granted, if I had to guess, my folks would indeed leave something substantial to me and my siblings... but no, I neither expect nor feel "owed" an inheritance.


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in gb
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor




KTG17 wrote:
[
I am certainly not dismissing everything everyone thinks (Lord knows I have had my ups and downs too, and thought thru some of them that they were the end of the world). What I am saying is that I am constantly reminding myself how good I have it right now, and are thankful of that, as since I have traveled not only around the US, but some 30 countries and have seen how bad poverty is in most of the world. So yes, while some of us might be going through tough economic times here in the developed world, there is a whole host of people out in the world who probably laughs at our hardships, yet they get it on and do the best they can, working much harder than we do. Some of you dream of owning a home, etc, and these people dream of having a job. We have more choices here.


Tl;dr: "Moar Bootstrahps is waht you need".

Seriously though, no one is arguing that people in the west are as bad off as people in third world countries.
What we're complaining about is that the general societal trend is moving in a direction that will create the same kind of wealth disparity in the West as already exist in those countries, and current politics and leadership rather than trying to reverse the process seem to be helping it along - and we don't even get a say in it, because both politics and corporate leadership are dominated by the people wanting it that way. In essence, the entire concept of each generation building on the success of the previous one is being dismantled, and while we seem to be working and paying for their rewards, we can see quite well that we are not or will not be getting our own rewards in turn.

Yes, we still have more choices and wealth here than say Africa, but those choices and wealth are diminishing, and this development has to stop.

With regards to inheritance, I don't want to inherit anything from my parents. Not because I don't want it, but because anything you inherit in the Netherlands is subject to an inheritance tax. That's X% of money that's already been taxed at 30-50% when it was earned being stolen by the taxman.
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: