• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Millennials Who Are Thriving Financially Have One Thing in Common

I wonder what effect family size has on this. Parents who have 1 or 2 children will be able to provide more financial help per child than those have 3 or 4.
Not sure it's that important.
Depends on the country and the cost of education of course, but an important effect of parents wealth (not necessarily 1% wealth, just them being comfortable), is financial safety. When you know you have the safety net of the parents being there to help you through a rough time (car breaking down, health accident, one more semester needed, opportunity for international experience, etc) it's much easier to concentrate on your courses or your first job(s) than when you must plan ahead and save for contingencies. And I'm not even talking about rental deposits or things like that, much easier to find a place to live on your first job when you have solid back-up than when you're on your own.
I know that, despite costing my parents only lodging (we still have free tuition around here), that could have been covered by a student loan, I'm not sure my brothers and I would have made the same life choices, and now be at the same place, without the parental back-up.

Note that I'm talking middle-class here, not wealthy, but I wanted to get down from the tip of the iceberg, there's more to parental support than money actually flowing down.

I don't see how that renders my point unimportant. To what extent is the amount of support your parents were able to provide you affected by the existence of your brothers? And suppose they had had three more children. Would they have provided you with less support?
 
Not sure it's that important.
Depends on the country and the cost of education of course, but an important effect of parents wealth (not necessarily 1% wealth, just them being comfortable), is financial safety. When you know you have the safety net of the parents being there to help you through a rough time (car breaking down, health accident, one more semester needed, opportunity for international experience, etc) it's much easier to concentrate on your courses or your first job(s) than when you must plan ahead and save for contingencies. And I'm not even talking about rental deposits or things like that, much easier to find a place to live on your first job when you have solid back-up than when you're on your own.
I know that, despite costing my parents only lodging (we still have free tuition around here), that could have been covered by a student loan, I'm not sure my brothers and I would have made the same life choices, and now be at the same place, without the parental back-up.

Note that I'm talking middle-class here, not wealthy, but I wanted to get down from the tip of the iceberg, there's more to parental support than money actually flowing down.

I don't see how that renders my point unimportant. To what extent is the amount of support your parents were able to provide you affected by the existence of your brothers? And suppose they had had three more children. Would they have provided you with less support?
Because the importance is not the amount of money flowing down. The importance is that there is back-up money up there, and the simplification of life that comes with that safety net. So you don't have to divide it between the kids. (to a reasonnable extent of course, but your initial point was comparison of 2 vs 4)

I had two brothers, I don't think being an only child would have changed much. My friends from the same place/socio-economic level who were only children had more pocket money or nicer cars, but that was all, we still lived roughly the same way. While those, only child or not, whose parents were living hand to mouth, had to grow up very fast and took a long time to recover each time life decided to take a swing at them, and only a couple of them ended at the same place than us middle-class kids in the end, despite having the same abilities in terms of studies at the start.

Three more kids might have cramped things with my parents, with all the extra costs involved, the back-up money might have been eaten early, or the odds of rough times for two kids at the same time would have been high enough to warrant a double back-up, but your post was about 1 or 2 vs 3 or 4, not 6. Can't be sure where the cut-off number is, the only family of 9 I know was political refugees, so money-less from the get-go, not a good comparison point.
 
I don't see how that renders my point unimportant. To what extent is the amount of support your parents were able to provide you affected by the existence of your brothers? And suppose they had had three more children. Would they have provided you with less support?
Because the importance is not the amount of money flowing down. The importance is that there is back-up money up there, and the simplification of life that comes with that safety net. So you don't have to divide it between the kids. (to a reasonnable extent of course, but your initial point was comparison of 2 vs 4)

I had two brothers, I don't think being an only child would have changed much. My friends from the same place/socio-economic level who were only children had more pocket money or nicer cars, but that was all, we still lived roughly the same way. While those, only child or not, whose parents were living hand to mouth, had to grow up very fast and took a long time to recover each time life decided to take a swing at them, and only a couple of them ended at the same place than us middle-class kids in the end, despite having the same abilities in terms of studies at the start.

Three more kids might have cramped things with my parents, with all the extra costs involved, the back-up money might have been eaten early, or the odds of rough times for two kids at the same time would have been high enough to warrant a double back-up, but your post was about 1 or 2 vs 3 or 4, not 6. Can't be sure where the cut-off number is, the only family of 9 I know was political refugees, so money-less from the get-go, not a good comparison point.

The curious thing here is the attempt by some here to cast parental support as a bad thing. Helping their kids have a better life is one of the reason people go off to work everyday. I imagine it's been a motivator for parents in every culture since the dawn of man. The desire to help one's kids has worked out pretty well for the species.


Now "progressives" are against it? I'd like to see how far a politician who works to block parents from helping their kids makes it.
 
People who are successful are either connected to the underworld (hidden power structure) or overworld (visible power structure). All of them have backers on one side, or both.

I am spectacularly unsuccessful at everything other than philosophy and drug use. I can't even get a minimum wage job, although to tell you the truth, I might go postal. I'd like to work for the postal service. Or And be a drug dealer. :D
Do both at the same time and be spectacularly successful. Or go to prison.

To the point: Money gifted does not have the same value as money earned. Oftentimes, parents do their children no favor by giving them a full and free ride. Make sure they have suffered and learned their financial lesson first.
And I beat the free education drum again. This should be on the gubbermint.

My children are examples of millennials who have done extremely well because their parents gave them a full and a free ride. They both went to private schools through high school. They both went to Georgia Tech, without question one of the absolute best engineering universities in the world. They both worked hard and graduated with honors. They both went on to post undergraduate schools paid for by their parents.

The only schooling that we didn't pay for was their undergraduate at Georgia Tech. They both earned and kept the Hope scholarships, paid for by the state out of the lottery funds. We briefly struggled with the irony of accepting the scholarship for my oldest, my son. We always opposed the lottery. It is a case of largely poor people buying lottery tickets supporting upper middle class kids tuition.

What we finally did was to give him the the relatively small amount of money that had been set aside for college by his grandparents, about $10,000, with the understanding that if he lost the scholarship he would have to use that money to pay tuition before we would step in to pay it. We obviously made the same deal for my daughter. How much this helped to provide incentive for them to work hard in school is up to serious question. Both were focused on doing well in school without added incentives.

I never encouraged my children to work while they were in school, including summers. I told them that their job and their responsibility was to learn. They spent their summers learning to drive, to fly, to speed read, to speak another language, to ride horses, to deep drive, to rock climb, etc.

Possibly the best that they did was to tutor other kids. You don't really understand something until you have to teach it. When I was working out of the country they would join me, even to go to school in Germany, Canada and the PRC. Who can argue that they would have been better off to have worked in a typical teenager's summer job?

In turn my wife and I thought that our main job was to educate our children. We never thought that a new house or car or a vacation should come before that.

It was an unspoken deal, my children worked hard learning because they knew that we worked hard to provide them the chance to learn.

I can't say that this would work for everyone or even for anyone else. But I do agree that society as a whole should pay tuition for anyone to go to a public college. This is the single best thing we could do for the future of the country.

Yes, I know that college isn't suitable for everyone. But the current waste is that there are kids for whom college is important and suitable and who can't go because they don't have the money and there are college graduates who are so burdened with college debt that they have a hard time starting their lives after school. As a wedding present, we paid off my daughter in law's undergraduate and law school student loans from . She told us that it was the single best thing anyone had ever done for her. It allowed her to look forward for the first time in her life.

To a large degree education is a matter of meeting expectations. The higher the expectations the higher the achievement. I saw this over and over in the military. Kids who had never been expected to do anything, who had never been asked to achieve something, were put into a situation where the only thing that could prevent them from a goal was themselves. Not all of them succeeded but an impressively high number did, a near majority.

I would have the government pay a graduation bonus instead of what we currently do, saddle them with debt. Money to use to buy a house, to buy a car, to start a business. On the order of $10 to $25,000, possibly graduated by class standing.
 
Because the importance is not the amount of money flowing down. The importance is that there is back-up money up there, and the simplification of life that comes with that safety net. So you don't have to divide it between the kids. (to a reasonnable extent of course, but your initial point was comparison of 2 vs 4)

I had two brothers, I don't think being an only child would have changed much. My friends from the same place/socio-economic level who were only children had more pocket money or nicer cars, but that was all, we still lived roughly the same way. While those, only child or not, whose parents were living hand to mouth, had to grow up very fast and took a long time to recover each time life decided to take a swing at them, and only a couple of them ended at the same place than us middle-class kids in the end, despite having the same abilities in terms of studies at the start.

Three more kids might have cramped things with my parents, with all the extra costs involved, the back-up money might have been eaten early, or the odds of rough times for two kids at the same time would have been high enough to warrant a double back-up, but your post was about 1 or 2 vs 3 or 4, not 6. Can't be sure where the cut-off number is, the only family of 9 I know was political refugees, so money-less from the get-go, not a good comparison point.

The curious thing here is the attempt by some here to cast parental support as a bad thing. Helping their kids have a better life is one of the reason people go off to work everyday. I imagine it's been a motivator for parents in every culture since the dawn of man. The desire to help one's kids has worked out pretty well for the species.


Now "progressives" are against it? I'd like to see how far a politician who works to block parents from helping their kids makes it.
You must be reading a different thread.
 
Can we all agree that there's also at least a small correlation between skill level and success?
Attributing success entirely to inherited wealth and not at all to genetics is a fallacious extreme.

Obviously wealth helps a lot, but it's not a solitary factor. People from poor families can in fact become successful given the right abilities and motivations. That's not to say the game isn't rigged and doesn't need tipping towards the poor, but yes.. sometimes person [x] is more capable than person [y], and that's why they're wealthier.
 
Except of course in the US where you need to go 80k in debt to get an English degree.
 
Can we all agree that there's also at least a small correlation between skill level and success?
Attributing success entirely to inherited wealth and not at all to genetics is a fallacious extreme.

Obviously wealth helps a lot, but it's not a solitary factor. People from poor families can in fact become successful given the right abilities and motivations. That's not to say the game isn't rigged and doesn't need tipping towards the poor, but yes.. sometimes person [x] is more capable than person [y], and that's why they're wealthier.

Sssshhhh! You can't say that. You can't notice that genes do, in fact, matter. Better to pick an "ism" to blame, or otherwise it's off to the re-education camp for you!
 
Can we all agree that there's also at least a small correlation between skill level and success?
Attributing success entirely to inherited wealth and not at all to genetics is a fallacious extreme.

Obviously wealth helps a lot, but it's not a solitary factor. People from poor families can in fact become successful given the right abilities and motivations. That's not to say the game isn't rigged and doesn't need tipping towards the poor, but yes.. sometimes person [x] is more capable than person [y], and that's why they're wealthier.

Sssshhhh! You can't say that. You can't notice that genes do, in fact, matter. Better to pick an "ism" to blame, or otherwise it's off to the re-education camp for you!

Heh. From a social perspective difference in ability is also inherited and by chance, so it's still an issue that needs fixing, but a different aspect of material differences nonetheless.

If one agrees that collective good is a goal we should strive for, then working against the ways in which natural law fucks us over is a good place to start.
 
Sssshhhh! You can't say that. You can't notice that genes do, in fact, matter. Better to pick an "ism" to blame, or otherwise it's off to the re-education camp for you!

Heh. From a social perspective difference in ability is also inherited and by chance, so it's still an issue that needs fixing, but a different aspect of material differences nonetheless.

If one agrees that collective good is a goal we should strive for, then working against the ways in which natural law fucks us over is a good place to start.

It's time to appoint the Handicapper General. :joy:
 
Heh. From a social perspective difference in ability is also inherited and by chance, so it's still an issue that needs fixing, but a different aspect of material differences nonetheless.

If one agrees that collective good is a goal we should strive for, then working against the ways in which natural law fucks us over is a good place to start.

It's time to appoint the Handicapper General. :joy:

Or you could just do something like.. I don't know.. implement better safety nets for the disadvantaged, as has been kosher in most societies throughout the entirety of human history.
 
Can we all agree that there's also at least a small correlation between skill level and success?
Attributing success entirely to inherited wealth and not at all to genetics is a fallacious extreme.

Obviously wealth helps a lot, but it's not a solitary factor. People from poor families can in fact become successful given the right abilities and motivations. That's not to say the game isn't rigged and doesn't need tipping towards the poor, but yes.. sometimes person [x] is more capable than person [y], and that's why they're wealthier.
(note: I'm defining success as reasonnably comfortable or middle-class, I don't know about high-level success)
Yes on a statistical standpoint. There is indeed a small correlation.
But on a personnal standpoint, it's still one big gamble.

As I already wrote, it's not that money buys you success, it's that money gets you a safety net.
I certainly didn't buy my degree, I worked my ass off to get it, despite my parents having some SimpleDon-like approach "your job is to study".
But for a kid from a poor family to success, he has to work his ass off AND everything has to go right in life around. Illness? Dependant family member? Messy divorce in your family? That is going to seriously cramp your good student lifestyle.

I saw a girl abandon a path toward a promising degree because she would have had to move and she had to support her mother. I saw a boy berated by his mother for having succeeded entering the path to a difficult degree because that meant "I still have to support you for 3 more years!"
On the other hand, I've seen middle-class and upper-class students turn okay, study-wise, after car crashes, illnesses or bouts of depression, problems with drugs/alcohol (and in one case with the police)
In my class of 80 towards my own degree, there was only one lower-class student, I think it's telling, and that was 20 years ago, I've heard from nephews that the situation is worse now. (due to the banks requiring more financial security from the family to grant a student loan, now that even things like engineering degrees don't guarantee you a job)
 
Can we all agree that there's also at least a small correlation between skill level and success?
Attributing success entirely to inherited wealth and not at all to genetics is a fallacious extreme.

Obviously wealth helps a lot, but it's not a solitary factor. People from poor families can in fact become successful given the right abilities and motivations. That's not to say the game isn't rigged and doesn't need tipping towards the poor, but yes.. sometimes person [x] is more capable than person [y], and that's why they're wealthier.
(note: I'm defining success as reasonnably comfortable or middle-class, I don't know about high-level success)
Yes on a statistical standpoint. There is indeed a small correlation.
But on a personnal standpoint, it's still one big gamble.

As I already wrote, it's not that money buys you success, it's that money gets you a safety net.
I certainly didn't buy my degree, I worked my ass off to get it, despite my parents having some SimpleDon-like approach "your job is to study".
But for a kid from a poor family to success, he has to work his ass off AND everything has to go right in life around. Illness? Dependant family member? Messy divorce in your family? That is going to seriously cramp your good student lifestyle.

I saw a girl abandon a path toward a promising degree because she would have had to move and she had to support her mother. I saw a boy berated by his mother for having succeeded entering the path to a difficult degree because that meant "I still have to support you for 3 more years!"
On the other hand, I've seen middle-class and upper-class students turn okay, study-wise, after car crashes, illnesses or bouts of depression, problems with drugs/alcohol (and in one case with the police)
In my class of 80 towards my own degree, there was only one lower-class student, I think it's telling, and that was 20 years ago, I've heard from nephews that the situation is worse now. (due to the banks requiring more financial security from the family to grant a student loan, now that even things like engineering degrees don't guarantee you a job)

I have no doubt about all that, my life is a testament to it, but my point is only that the genetic component is a real thing, which people don't seem comfortable admitting. Anecdotally, I haven't met too many dumb but wealthy people, and I also haven't met a lot of smart, but poor people (although they're becoming more common these days).
 
Anecdotally, I haven't met too many dumb but wealthy people, and I also haven't met a lot of smart, but poor people (although they're becoming more common these days).

You should get out more.
 
Anecdotally, I haven't met too many dumb but wealthy people, and I also haven't met a lot of smart, but poor people (although they're becoming more common these days).

You should get out more.

You do live in the US, which has every indicator of being a rich person's paradise, and a poor person's nightmare. Where I'm from I can think of very few examples of competent people without a decent job and ok financial success, as well as very few people that are on the lower end of the bell curve in competence who don't struggle.

In the college program I just completed, if you charted out post-grad salary vs GPA I'm certain you'd see a pretty linear curve. But again, I'm not here to say the world's a meritocracy, I'm just also not here to walk liberal talking points.
 
Back
Top Bottom