EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Ask your investment, budget, and other money related questions here
TopHatFox
Posts: 2322
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:07 pm
Location: FL; 25

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by TopHatFox »

Made $1500 this week :3

Bought the $6 hotdog at Rock that Burger instead :3

User avatar
Sclass
Posts: 2791
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:15 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Sclass »

Ego wrote:
Fri May 12, 2023 1:53 pm
Big Macs were not fifty cents in 1980.
Yeah. The little MacDonalds hamburgers were $0.50 back in the early 80s IIRC. The Big Mac was an entirely different level.

suomalainen
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by suomalainen »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu May 11, 2023 7:04 am
So, if you consider the micro-culture which is the socio-economic-generational-regional-etc. bubble in which you live, and you FITB for your micro-culture for the statement: "Any problem can be solved with _____ and ______.", you might reveal the coping mechanisms that could become problematic or expensive. OTOH, it might be the case that the bubble itself is the coping mechanism in which the problems and expenses are hidden, and you and your friends are living in a "doll house" version of the real world in which problems are really just simulations of problems.
@gravy and I went to our first bat-mitzvah a couple weeks ago. There's a (pretty boring / typical) religious meeting followed by a finger sandwich / salad lunch and then there was a dinner party at night, complete with raising people in the chair (I forget what it's called) and other cultural traditions. It made me think about the safety and comfort and desirability of being in an in-crowd, of belonging. That, I think, is an example of the bubble itself providing not only the vector for the coping mechanisms but being itself a coping mechanism (a la support system). Given my mormon background, I couldn't help but notice the similarities, and so my mind was immediately drawn to the dark recesses that such a "support system" can hide.

Anyway, great observation. My $.02 is that there's no single "timeless" solution to any "timeless" problems. Everyone and everything is in a chaotic system at all times. Some coping mechanisms will work for some people at some times and others will at other times for other people (or even the same person). You can't step in the same river twice, etc. I think your best bet is to have a bag of tricks (skills / knowledge) and a modicum of self-awareness, and each time you confront a problem (or are confronted with a problem if you didn't come to an awareness of it on your own), try out various techniques until you find a healthy way to deal with it.

That said, funny that all the various cultural adaptations appear to be arriving at roughly the same "answer", just lensed in ways that perhaps provide insight into cultural history. But, digging into the well again, I think they all can be boiled down to:
FBeyer wrote:
Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:47 am
Positive Psychology has boiled people's happiness down to three major components: The Sensory, the Engaged, and the Meaningful life.
Sensory: Eating, sex, hiking, good company, concerts, exhibitions etc. These things you get better at by training your ability to appreciate them ie Mindfulness. The primary pitfall of this is Hedonic Adaptation, naturally.
Engaged: Flow, put shortly. Something that really engages you and challenges you at the same time. Something you get good at by repeated practice and by seeking out challenges that are intellectually challenging to you and also fit within your framework of interests.
The Meaningful: Doing something for others while experiencing and appreciating the effect it has. Help someone move ahead in life, do something that reaches beyond you and help your community, for any given of definition of community.
Sensory seems to be the first thing we reach for, as it tends to be the easiest dopamine hit (just not long lasting). (The best part of) Religions try to tease out the meaningful. America is really focused on work as the primary vector for being engaged. But, you know, dark recesses, etc.

As it relates to the individual vs societal idea, I dunno. Greatest common factor is the limiter in these types of ideas. Most people simply aren't that capable.

llorona
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:44 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by llorona »

TopHatFox wrote:
Fri May 12, 2023 8:49 pm
Made $1500 this week :3

Bought the $6 hotdog at Rock that Burger instead :3
There you go.

Which did you enjoy more? The burger or the dog?

TopHatFox
Posts: 2322
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:07 pm
Location: FL; 25

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by TopHatFox »

@Llorana, I liked both equally, since they satisfied the urge to get out of the house and eat something savory

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

suomalainen wrote:That, I think, is an example of the bubble itself providing not only the vector for the coping mechanisms but being itself a coping mechanism (a la support system).
One thing I was considering was how the growing disparity between upper and lower middle/working class in the U.S. is now becoming multi-generational. So, the young adults in the upper strata are protected by a whole layer of social infrastructure in the same way affluent women often lived protected lives in the era of Ibsen, allowing them to maintain very child-like or genteel coping mechanisms, such as smelling salts and embroidery. The path to "adulting" is very different for the disadvantaged kids that I tutor vs some of my private students. For instance, consider the path of a kid with an IQ of 100 whose parents make $250,000/year vs path of a kid with IQ of 130 whose parent makes $25,000/year. The increasing prevalance of the former is even creating a whole new genre of fiction, which I can only describe as stupid-novels-with-smart-details. I do not excuse myself from this lens; I recognize that my permaculture projects are not entirely unlike Marie Antoinette's play farm. When I tire of hauling compost, one of my affluent partners will pick me up in his shiny car and take me out to dinner. My DD32 (who like Anesau is in 130+ IQ range) went to a top college largely attended by very wealthy kids, and her spouse has wealthy parentswho basically bought them a little house in which to set up their adult life. etc. etc. etc.

Anyways, if you FITB for the micro-culture which is ERE, you might get something like "Any problem can be solved with resource conservation and skill acquisition", but this is obviously a bit of a self-referential cheat. Also, as with any religious or just somewhat idealistic group, one could track the superficial rather than the stated, and come up with something more like "Any problem can be solved with a high paying tech/finance job and a solid workout routine/dietary regimen*."

Some of my private students are middle-class black kids. I was tutoring one of them last night, and an old white guy came up to our table at the cafe, and spoke to my student, "You got your own private teacher. That's great! I came up from nothing and became a doctor. Just remember, 'Inch by inch, it's a cinch!" Sometimes this forum vibes just a bit too much like that guy.


*Thus, the intense factional disagreements on paleo vs vegan etc.
Last edited by 7Wannabe5 on Tue May 23, 2023 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

zbigi
Posts: 978
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by zbigi »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 8:34 am
The increasing prevalance of the former is even creating a whole new genre of fiction, which I can only describe as stupid-novels-with-smart-details.
Interesting, can you give an example?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@zbigi:

I'll have to dig through my discards to come up with some examples. I might be being a bit harsh. There's nothing wrong with a light novel, or the Chick-lit genre in general. It's just that I'm noticing a trend in which the reading level of the novel is maybe 9th grade, but the protagonists are described as being huge fans of Austen or Nietzsche or having advanced degrees in difficult subjects from top universities, or careers that would also align, but their stream of consciousness is much more in alignment with the chat I might expect from a group of second grade teachers in rural Michigan. So, it's like the "reads Austen" is just being subbed in for "carries designer handbag" in a similar novel which would have been written 50 years ago.

Western Red Cedar
Posts: 1205
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:15 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Western Red Cedar »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 8:34 am
One thing I was considering was how the growing disparity between upper and lower middle/working class in the U.S. is now becoming multi-generational. So, the young adults in the upper strata are protected by a whole layer of social infrastructure in the same way affluent women often lived protected lives in the era of Ibsen, allowing them to maintain very child-like or genteel coping mechanisms, such as smelling salts and embroidery. The path to "adulting" is very different for the disadvantaged kids that I tutor vs some of my private students. For instance, consider the path of a kid with an IQ of 100 whose parents make $250,000/year vs path of a kid with IQ of 130 whose parent makes $25,000/year.
I followed more along the latter than the former path. In terms of working in professional environments, I've found that meritocracy still exists and the social/educational background matters very little. I attended regional state schools but regularly work with people who went to Ivy Leagues or more prestigious institutions. Once you get in the door, it is more about the ability to produce quality work, express ideas clearly, and follow through on commitments.

The latter path is certainly more challenging, and it may require learning an entirely new form of communication, but there are many paths forward. I was recently talking with a large group of friends, all of whom grew up lower-middle class or near the poverty line. Most of us consider that background critical to our success. Those with children worried that they would be too sheltered or shielded from some of the adversity that ultimately led to their professional success.

Scott 2
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Scott 2 »

You might be underestimating advantages offered to the upper strata. Those kids get adversity too, only it is carefully dosed, and comes with training and support.

I spent some time at a gym where that $250k group sends their kids for swimming and tennis. The coaching isn't like you get at a public program. It's much better. More coaches, with more experience. They are developing these kids constantly. The 1 on 1 coaching can start in grade school.

At the same time, I know there's another level. The country clubs with similar amenities, that run another 10x per month. I worked with one of those kids. On multiple charitable boards before 30. Personally mentored by the owner of our company. Her Dad was good friends with the guy. Yes, she measured up well in the "meritocracy". She worked hard. But the path was completely inequitable.


There's a good chance you'd be well into the executive class, with those same advantages. Your ivy league coworkers might be your support staff.

Western Red Cedar
Posts: 1205
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:15 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Western Red Cedar »

@Scott2 - Fair point. I'm generally in agreement with you and @7w5's broader point. I suppose I'm just not convinced that I'd be any happier in the executive class. I also think there are still plenty of opportunities for those coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Some of my blue collar friends who barely graduated high school are doing better financially than those of us who went through graduate school and joined the professional class.

Did you notice that educational background or social connections made a significant difference in the tech world? From the outside looking in, that seems like an industry that doesn't necessarily cater to that dynamic.

mathiverse
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:40 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by mathiverse »

Educational background and social connections make a big difference tech. Just the name on your resume makes a big difference in some cases.

The biggest problem with going to a non-target tech schools if you want to start a start up, work in elite trading companies, or work in big, fancy tech is that you have to find a way to bootstrap yourself up with the knowledge to break in successfully and succeed. Things are easier when upperclassmen tell you how to study, give you recommendations for the best companies, and tell you what questions this or that company asked you. If you go to MIT (or similar), you'll quickly realize the game and how to play it because you'll notice what your classmates are doing. I've talked to students going to random, noncompetitive schools and they don't even know companies will pay for them to work and live in California for a summer (thus they are limiting themselves to local companies or even eschewing internships altogether for useless, no-skill, summer jobs for no reason). Some noncompetitive schools have f'ed up curriculums that result in students not learning interview-essential knowledge until junior or senior year thus ruining their chances to get into FAANG-type companies. On the other hand, if you go to CMU or MIT, then you'll be getting tech interview questions as homework problems during the intro class, so by the time you see them in interviews, you'll have a chance a solving them. Oh, also, most top companies recruit directly at top CS schools, so even getting a foot in the door is considerably easier. Being a drop out from a top school or a non-CS major from a top school will sometimes look better than being a CS major from a no-name school. It's crazy the advantage you get from being in a school with a pipeline to big tech/start ups/etc.

It's even more important if you want to get venture capital money for your start up. Connections, flashy experience, and background will make a significant difference in your outcome. At the very least, many top CS schools have investment funds you can get access to only if you're an alumni.

Fortunately, there are ways to break in without them. If you read enough, you'll figure out the right way to get into those companies despite your background. The difference in required amount of hustle/self-education/knowledge/drive coming from a target vs non-target school is significant.

If you don't want to make it into "top companies" or start a "venture-backed start up," then this advantage is less relevant. If you just want to make a living, then coming from a non-competitive school doesn't matter.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Ego »

The largest predictor of economic mobility is not wealth or connections or intelligence. It is having a two parent family.

suomalainen
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by suomalainen »

Ego wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 1:46 pm
The largest predictor of economic mobility is not wealth or connections or intelligence. It is having a two parent family.
Source? I imagine it's hard to tease out "two parent family" from "wealth". My impression at least (i.e., I have no source) is that single mothers tend to be poorer than single fathers (to the extent there even are any) than married couples. And then wealth correlates with neighborhood safety and social connections, etc. Not sure how you tease all that out to ascribe accurate percentages to various highly-correlated factors.

theanimal
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by theanimal »

suomalainen wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 2:44 pm
Source?
The Nuclear Family is Still Indispensable (links to individual studies within the article)
Sara McLanahan of Princeton University and Gary Sandefur of the University of Wisconsin have found that the average child raised by a “mother and grandmother is doing about the same as the average child raised by a single mother” on outcomes such as dropping out of high school or having a teen birth. And in the absence of both parents, children raised by their extended kin, such as an aunt or uncle, are significantly more likely to have, in the words of one study, “higher levels of internalizing problems”—including loneliness and sadness—compared to their peers raised by married parents. As for other emerging forms of family, such as forged families, there are well-founded reasons for skepticism about the role unrelated adults might play in raising a child. Over the years, study after study has detailed the many possible downsides to introducing unrelated adults, especially men, into children’s lives without the presence of those children’s married parents.

This is because, sadly, adults who are unrelated to children are much more likely to abuse or neglect them than their own parents are. One federal report found that children living in a household with an unrelated adult were about nine times more likely to be physically, sexually, or emotionally abused than children raised in an intact nuclear family. All this is to say that, for kids, it matters if all the pairs of arms raising them include—first and foremost—those of their own parents.

The positive effects of stable marriage and stable nuclear families also spill over. Neighborhoods, towns, and cities are more likely to flourish when they are sustained by lots of married households. The work of the Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson tells us that neighborhoods with many two-parent families are much safer. In his own words: “Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor[s] of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.”

His Harvard colleagues, the economists Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, have drawn similar conclusions about the relationship between the health of the American dream and the presence of two-parent families in a community. Working with a team of scholars, they found that black boys are more likely to achieve upward economic mobility if there are more black fathers in a neighborhood—and more married couples, as well. And for poor children of all races, Chetty and his team have found that the fraction of children with single parents in a given community is the strongest and most robust predictor of economic mobility—or its absence. Children raised in communities with high percentages of single mothers are less likely to move up. In other words, it takes a village—but of married people—to raise the odds that a poor child will have a shot at the American dream.


For Richer or Poorer: How Family Structures Economic Success in America
Growing up with both parents (in an intact family) is strongly associated with more education, work, and income among today’s young men and women. Young men and women from intact families enjoy an annual “intact-family premium” that amounts to $6,500 and $4,700, respectively, over the incomes of their peers from single-parent families.

Men obtain a substantial “marriage premium” and women bear no marriage penalty in their individual incomes, and both men and women enjoy substantially higher family incomes, compared to peers with otherwise similar characteristics. For instance, men enjoy a marriage premium of at least $15,900 per year in their individual income compared to their single peers.

These two trends reinforce each other. Growing up with both parents increases your odds of becoming highly educated, which in turn leads to higher odds of being married as an adult. Both the added education and marriage result in higher income levels. Indeed, men and women who were raised with both parents present and then go on to marry enjoy an especially high income as adults. Men and women who are currently married and were raised in an intact family enjoy an annual “family premium” in their household income that exceeds that of their unmarried peers who were raised in nonintact families by at least $42,000.

There's plenty more elsewhere if you're interested in reading about it. It is a well researched but for whatever reason, a not very popular idea.

Scott 2
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Scott 2 »

Western Red Cedar wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 1:20 pm
Did you notice that educational background or social connections made a significant difference in the tech world?
Yeah, I was in classes with kids in the early 2000's who interned at Google and Microsoft. My grades matched theirs. I switched from a hard to get into Phd feeder program to CS, because it was easier.

Meanwhile I interned for a local lab, where I mostly read magazines in the library. So close, but so far. I didn't grow up with the social connections. I didn't know how to use the elite education.

Those misses continued through my career. Because the scraps I did get, felt luxurious to me. I was thrilled with the spoils of being the help.


I declined my invitation into the executive class several times. Only I didn't understand I was doing it. I thought I was intelligently choosing work life balance. Which is true - I didn't want to hang out with other executives all day, including on my play time.

But for the upper strata kids, that's not even a decision. They keep hanging out with their friends. They've been playing with the executives the entire time.

suomalainen
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by suomalainen »

And for poor children of all races, Chetty and his team have found that the fraction of children with single parents in a given community is the strongest and most robust predictor of economic mobility—or its absence. Children raised in communities with high percentages of single mothers are less likely to move up. In other words, it takes a village—but of married people—to raise the odds that a poor child will have a shot at the American dream.
Growing up with both parents increases your odds of becoming highly educated, which in turn leads to higher odds of being married as an adult. Both the added education and marriage result in higher income levels.
Yeah, I'd read the first one previously. That actually was what I was dimly remembering when I made my unsupported claim. I still think it's too simplistic to suggest that either of those articles support the thesis that having a two-parent family is the largest predictor of economic stability. The first discusses community, but really from a safety standpoint. So the direct cause is safety. The indirect cause is a a community full of two-parent families. It is unclear whether a single mom would benefit from the community effect. The second discusses education and marriage as direct causes and married parents as indirect causes. So, again, I just think it's more complex.

For example, from the second one:
The retreat from marriage—a retreat that has been concentrated among lower-income Americans—plays a key role in the changing economic fortunes of American family life.
So, is it the poverty that creates the broken family that creates the poverty? Or the other way 'round?

Edit: similarly, from the first one:
This is because, sadly, adults who are unrelated to children are much more likely to abuse or neglect them than their own parents are.
So, is it the not-having-two-parents or is it the abuse?

These things are just so conflated with each other that I think it's impossible to slice one thread out of the rope and say that THIS one is the most important one. Having a safe home is important. Having a safe neighborhood is important. Having a non-poor home is important. Having emotionally available parents is important. All these things are supported by having two good parents in the home. But we shouldn't overlook the "good" and focus merely on the "two".

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Ego »

suomalainen wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 3:15 pm
So, is it the poverty that creates the broken family that creates the poverty? Or the other way 'round?
The author of this study calls it a perverse equality that those raised in wealthy single-parent families are far more likely to be low-income adults.

https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/ ... nerational

ertyu
Posts: 2893
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by ertyu »

suomalainen wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 3:15 pm
So, is it the not-having-two-parents or is it the abuse?
This. Assuming the one-person household didn't happen via car accident or freak illness (which I аssume to be the minority of cases), if the parents are divorced it's because at least one of them ... let's put it like this: has a disordered personality structure. This could mean outright abuse, but it might also mean avoiding responsibility and being another child to take care of, lacking empathy and being selfish, not having healthy communication and problem resolution skills, not having worked through their own trauma and acting it out on their loved ones, and so on and so forth (cheating can be argued to result from several of the above).

All else equal, it seems like a no-brainer to me that the children of psychologically healthy, mature adults would fare better.

If the parents' personality/psychological problems (I count addiction as a psychological problem) were so severe children had to end up with unrelated adults, the issues multiply.
Last edited by ertyu on Tue May 23, 2023 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Henry
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2022 1:32 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Henry »

Unfortunately, pure sociology no longer exists. It is no longer a discipline but a tool to rationalize an ideology and these studies are funded by organizations that are either trying to increase or decrease funding into government and institutional programs. You have two competing philosophies/standards: equality measured by outcome vs equality measured by opportunity. The former increases external intervention the latter decreases external intervention. Do I believe that two parent families increase odds of success? Yes. But I also believe that any study that proves it is a think tank or organization funded by Conservative slash Christian dollars. Roland Fryer, the African American Harvard sociologist who statistically proved common assumptions on police violence were unsubstantiated, and then was subsequently fired for trumped up charges of misbehavior is an example of how sociology has become a tool of economic and political interests i.e. the thesis flows from the politics not politics flowing from the thesis.

Post Reply