Are you above or below average?

Of course the hypothetical ppeople here are really good consumers... probably why they're allowed to make that much money.

We can't all be rock stars

"

Boem wrote:

I wonder how many people faerwin knows that continuesly force their children to do something against their will.

Peace,

-Boem-

As a kid, I was in a baseball league and soccer league. The answer is: quite a few.

There was many MANY kids that didn't want to be doing those sports but were forced by their parents. I highly doubt that this would change with high income households.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

I wonder how many people faerwin knows that continuesly force their children to do something against their will.

Peace,

-Boem-

As a kid, I was in a baseball league and soccer league. The answer is: quite a few.

There was many MANY kids that didn't want to be doing those sports but were forced by their parents. I highly doubt that this would change with high income households.

They didn't have fun?

And i'm asking that seriously. To give an example, my nephew that goes to the music language class sometimes says "pffs its borring and not fun" and then when he is there he is singing and smiling doing all the usual routines and stuff.

I think the clearest way to say what i mean is that sometimes it appears to me that he remembers it more poorly then when he is actually there engaging in the activity.

There is like "the dreath" of going there, but then there is actual "joy" when he is in the activity itself.

Also i think sometimes it can be very beneficial to force a kid to do some things against their will. They are after all, still kids.

My sister for example sometimes lets him dictate the entire day's events.
I think that's extremely poor parenting. I'm not inclined to go into details as to why, but feel free to ask if interested.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Guys. Theyre not even in grade school.

Piano, violin, sports, top of the line daycare, and Chinese lessons. All to make them attractive to private school opportunities.

These kids are absolutely not 'choosing' this. We are looking at classic 'tiger parents' here.

That isn't to say the kids don't enjoy it but it's almost a given they have no agency here.

I don't really think anybody here is taking the representation seriously?

Just hammering on minutiae i think for the fun of it.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

鬼殺し wrote:

That is my point. We should take it seriously, just not as a measure of our wealth or status.

Your gonna have to set the tone though.

There's about nine angles in my mind to tackle that and i think six or so wont interest you at all or be propostrous far field notions.

You talking living beyond your means to mimic an upper-class in hopes of fooling society and get your children "up there" whatever that fictional there might be.

The effect on a marriage/relation and children under constant pressure of debt?

Forcing children into fantasized notions of "perfection" mentally burdening them with a pressure they are not really capable of coping with?

The inneptitude of transfering monetary wealth to other people to raise your children in your stead?(how many hours are people working that make that amount of bling and what kind of stress do they bring home in the few hours they actually engage their children, i hope those children aren't to much children in those hours)

How about the fact this is presented as a standart people should achieve for? While going by the people so far in here being a completely alien concept of a family.

Extend the olive branch because i can't read minds.

Or you just wanted to point that you can contemplate stuff like that based on these kind of things?

Peace,

-Boem-

Aside from being a dumb nudge to go and seek advice from the Finance Ninja dude,

The graphic shows that spending enlarges according to income, unless people are smart about it and find ways to divert at least some of it to investments that pay off. We've all gotten payrises, and spent more as a result. Boem has gotten more sandwiches and eaten them all instead of selling them to a passing tinker, maybe even with smoked salmon and capers instead of the egg curry which he could have gotten a few roubles for.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

So the two children arent even in grade school. They are being given everything these parents think they need to get into a super prestigious school. This includes, of all things, Mandarin lessons. And, of course, living in NYC itself. So what we have is two young professionals in life-long debt determined to give their kids what they think they'll need to not be so burdened. I am not casting any judgment here, just inferring.

Amusingly, this background knowledge renders the point of this thread moot, since it applies to a situation completely alien to any of us. Above or below average is a stupid way to frame this, since this is not an average situation at all.

You're right we can't know, but I'm happy to make some generalisations. While not common, those figures are not uncommon either. It's partly an investment mindset, investing in children so that they go on to make even more money than the parents and are closely tied and give back in the form of buying the parents things such as holidays, houses, and cars, as well as increasing social status and giving them something to be proud of.

It's a bourgeois version of the old story of dynastic wealth and power. It's funny that these people don't intermarry their kids, and spend way too much for themselves rather than invest in the dynasty - but you see why would you when there's no title, no estates, no real underlying reason for any of it aside from the material and you deserve a nice lifestyle because you work so hard.

We can't know what the parents are compensating for or not in this or any example. It's likely to be a factor, giving the kids opportunities that they may not have had - there's so much money to be made from parental guilt, desire for safety for their kids, and wanting smart, accomplished, occupied kids.

People like this tend to think "money spent = outcome", ie I spent $x on this wine, it had better be good. Did I get value for this? It cost a lot, so I expect so. I worked hard for that. And this thinking applies to their kids. It kind of does for everyone, as they cost ... money, which we use to value things. Most of us aren't on that executive scale money, though so it's
a background thought. Even with the best intentions, mixing money and friendship we say is bad, goodness, what about kids?

"

Charan wrote:

This isn't unusual with 'upper class' parents, of course, but it's a dangerous gamble because while the parents might see it as giving their kids the best, the kids can just as easily see it as the parents giving them nothing of any real value at all. It's an old, old story that we can only glimpse through the data provided.

Right there is the rub: some kids just won't like being, or feeling like they are, investment objects. They will jack up about it because all kids (we) really want to know that they are loved for who they are, not what they can do for their parents' social standing and ego. Even if your motive of wanting better for their kids is true, it won't be the whole truth and sensitive kids with a nose for bullshit will pick it, as well as the school bullshit too. Some kids will go along, and some won't.

There's no philosophy lessons there, or how to be a good person, or how to cope with life. Useful things, all. The funny thing is, kids are ... human! In the age of the internet and individuality. Eat your parents alive. Old people are killing the earth. Nature nurture. It's funny as hell, applying spreadsheet logic to this.

Seen it play out well for some families that do this, so-so for others, and really badly for a few. Depends a lot on human factors - personalities of the parents and kids, which can't be predicted in the case of the kids, and with the parents, usually these types are highly conscientious, goal-oriented, and struggle with anything outside their expectations, partly because they just don't have time. So, there's a weakness right there.

Yet, in a hothouse culture, that strategy outlined carries a lot of families a long way as being this way is the norm. So, the parents and kids are all doing it, the teachers and coaches are being paid to support it, and it becomes normal. It's how private schools produce what they do - the next generation of safe professionals, and interesting to see how much more corporate the schools have become. They used to be more focused on culture and values, questionable as those were, and with the same old boy network outcome, now it's percentage of leavers who got into X course with Y score. There's always a few kids in this that go on to be fuckups, some quite famously and successfully so. Can imagine the parents roll with it, for the rock stars and rich artists among them. Maybe not, though, they might not speak at all. Wise investment? Haha, that's why it's funny, because who can say? At this point, we might be in a Wes Anderson film or we might be sending Jason to rehab, yet again, or... talking general, people make our way.

Maybe the lawyers in our original example have a sense of humour, maybe the kids do too. maybe they're ok people. Stranger things have happened.

To wind up, Doubtful that it produces out of the box thinkers, or great resilience, all those lessons and being around privilege all the time, and going on school camps to Borneo to measure pond water levels with expensive equipment with guides that make sure you don't get mugged for your phone and fancy watch.

But, some of those kids are crazy good at getting into all kids of trouble on those trips. No wonder.

"

Boem wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

I wonder how many people faerwin knows that continuesly force their children to do something against their will.

Peace,

-Boem-

As a kid, I was in a baseball league and soccer league. The answer is: quite a few.

There was many MANY kids that didn't want to be doing those sports but were forced by their parents. I highly doubt that this would change with high income households.

They didn't have fun?

And i'm asking that seriously. To give an example, my nephew that goes to the music language class sometimes says "pffs its borring and not fun" and then when he is there he is singing and smiling doing all the usual routines and stuff.

I think the clearest way to say what i mean is that sometimes it appears to me that he remembers it more poorly then when he is actually there engaging in the activity.

There is like "the dreath" of going there, but then there is actual "joy" when he is in the activity itself.

Also i think sometimes it can be very beneficial to force a kid to do some things against their will. They are after all, still kids.

My sister for example sometimes lets him dictate the entire day's events.
I think that's extremely poor parenting. I'm not inclined to go into details as to why, but feel free to ask if interested.

Peace,

-Boem-

No, they didn't. Especially baseball because the sport is very slow paced.

Bit of physical conditioning is better than keto. Kids will grumble, goodness, back in my days growing up in Sparta, we left kids out to die after baseball practice if they got speared by a javelin and couldn't get up. I remember Telepelleron, he got carried off by an eagle while in the outfield, you know, pretty sure he sacrified a nut to Zeus for that, Telle's parents were so strict he had to make his own mitt from his own butt cheek. The right, if I recall correctly, was a long time ago.

i have no job

"

FarmerTed wrote:

Honestly, I am a bit envious of him. I have a fuckton of hobbies and interests that are mothballed because work eats up too much of my freetime.

That's life. On the positive side, with your work you enable people like Boem to keep their lifestyle.

"

FarmerTed wrote:

On the plus side, he has developed a symbiotic relationship with his environment that is at worst commensalistic, and he leaves a spot open in the workplace that someone else, who may have more need, can fill.

Hardly the case with his social environment.