EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Ask your investment, budget, and other money related questions here
chenda
Posts: 3281
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by chenda »

Henry wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 5:43 pm
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
According to the internet he was suspended without pay for 2 years and then reinstated at Harvard after apologising for inappropriate sexual behaviour.

Henry
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2022 1:32 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Henry »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8xWOlk3WIw

25 minute documentary.

It was a consensual relationship in which the partner never raised issues. It was the board digging on him.

He was hired back, but in a diminished capacity. His funding was cut off and he lost his lab.

suomalainen
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by suomalainen »

Ego wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 5:09 pm
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
The abstract didn't put it that way. The abstract says:
I find that individuals raised outside stable two-parent homes are much more mobile than individuals from stable two-parent families. ... Difficulties maintaining middle-class incomes create downward mobility among people raised outside stable two-parent homes. Regardless of parental income, these people are relatively likely to become low-income adults, reflecting a new form of perverse equality. People raised outside stable two-parent families are also less likely to become high-income adults than people from stable two-parent homes.
Two things (underlined in the quote):

1) The longer underlined section appears to indicate that it is the economic pressure created by divorce that "creates downward mobility" and not the mere presence of one or two parents.

2) The use of "stable" seems to be largely ignored when people talk about this. People love talking about "TWO-parent homes", but they gloss over the all-important adjective "stable". It's like ... well, it's survivorship bias. "Stable" marriages are the only marriages that produce good outcomes, right? Unstable marriages produce divorce or abuse or worse. Merely focusing on the number of co-habiting parents seems to hide the real issues. We don't need "people to stay in marriages". We need people to create, maintain, nurture GOOD marriages. Oftentimes, I wonder, as has been suggested by others, if those pushing for "once in a marriage, always in a marriage" are moralists who simply choose "commitment" as a higher virtue rather than, say, looking at why exactly it is that people leave marriages. Why blame the leaver? It comes across as trying to control / manipulate the leaver by invoking morality and blaming and shaming while ignoring the probable immorality of the non-leaver. Nobody leaves a happy marriage. Nobody.

User avatar
unemployable
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:36 am
Location: Homeless

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by unemployable »

Sclass wrote:
Fri May 12, 2023 9:10 pm
Yeah. The little MacDonalds hamburgers were $0.50 back in the early 80s IIRC. The Big Mac was an entirely different level.
I'm a little late to this, but here's a McD's menu board from 1984. A Big Mac was $1.35. A hamburger was 55¢.

User avatar
Seppia
Posts: 2009
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:34 am
Location: South Florida

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Seppia »

suomalainen wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 9:16 pm
Oftentimes, I wonder, as has been suggested by others, if those pushing for "once in a marriage, always in a marriage" are moralists who simply choose "commitment" as a higher virtue rather than, say, looking at why exactly it is that people leave marriages.

I feel like the “stable two parent households produce better outcomes” is a little bit like the “when an NBA 7 game series is tied 2-2, the winner of game 5 wins the series 80+% of the time*”.

doesn’t mean it is not a valuable indicator.
As you say, on average stable couples are made of more reasonable and level headed human beings, that are rational in choices etc.
So kinda obvious the outcomes are better.

Still, I do believe that (as with many things like ie investing) if people made their choices assuming they are forever and not “ehhh I kinda I’m into this let’s try it, worst case scenario I can bail lol YOLO”, they would raise their chances of success


*no shit.

zbigi
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by zbigi »

Scott 2 wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 3:13 pm
Do you regret that? I've never met an executive yet that I liked (by "executives" I mean people who have 100+ people under them). They're all tense assholes who take themselves way too seriously (or, at best, if they're not like that, they're depressed because they don't fit it). Not only you'd have to hang around them all day, you'd probably slowly morph into one of them.
BTW, the "depressed" cases most often occur one rung below - at the 20-40 headcount "director" level. From my observation, it's the level where you can see how the game is really played and, if you're essentially a good person, you see that it's not what you imagined. At the same time, you've invested way too much time into this career track already, to say go back to being an individual contributor. Hence, the depression and/or quiet quitting. I've seen it more than once.

Scott 2
Posts: 2820
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Scott 2 »

zbigi wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 3:01 am
Do you regret that? I've never met an executive yet that I liked
I didn't go far enough down the path to know. Is the point where one becomes a pillar in the company and community worth the sacrifice? Certainly growing at the middle manager level looks rough.

Having seen a few of my cohort head that way, I do think some good people thrive. I've also seen the ones who suffer. I believe bridging class lines makes the shift much harder.

In my own case, I had problems with authority. Leadership was a representative of the system, the man keeping us workers down. I lacked the necessary personal development, especially then. It would have been a difficult transition. I don't know if I would have overcome.

I now understand the leadership role as one of stewardship. Growing the firm, to create opportunity for the workers and their families. Bringing money into the community. Paradoxically, stepping away completely made me better equipped.


I do regret the internship thing. I spent my Summers coding in Fortran 77 on ancient Unix systems. The intern event was a lunch with my advisor at Olive garden. I could've been at ground zero for .NET or Gmail. I think that would have been much better.

ducknald_don
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:31 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by ducknald_don »

Scott 2 wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 6:21 am
I now understand the leadership role as one of stewardship. Growing the firm, to create opportunity for the workers and their families. Bringing money into the community. Paradoxically, stepping away completely made me better equipped.
Those days are long gone, we are in a world of multinationals now. How much do you think the boss of Unilever thinks about your local community. These businesses know how to squeeze every last drop of blood out of their resources and it makes it a miserable experience to work for them.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I agree that part of what might be contributing to the trend of upper-middle class kids being protected from downward mobility would be the fact that their parents are more likely to marry at an older age and, therefore, also be less likely to divorce. When I think of the few anecdotal examples in my social circle where kids actually moved up after divorce, it was because their mother's second husband was older and more affluent than their father. It would be interesting to determine whether and to what extent adult children in their 30s might still be economically impacted by their 60-something year old parents divorcing. I waited to divorce until my kids were 19 and a very mature 16, and it still wasn't easy being a single mom. However, the fact that my ex currently lives with his own mother might give some clue to the extent that I was propping him up in the role of paterfamilias for 20 years. I'm exhausted again just thinking about it.

Based on my reading, and personal experience, it's actually disruption of peer group associated with divorce that is the largest factor. For instance, when my bi-polar disease suffering and yet unmedicated mother separated from my father for around a year when I was 13/14, she also moved us from an upper-middle-middle class neighborhood where the home prices were 3X the median to a more median working class neighborhood in the same school district. So, we ran completely wild with the burn-out kids until my father came back to the rescue and moved us out to a very nice house on a small lake. Then the same thing happened again when I was 18/19, and I was left pretty much on my own to support myself while away at college on academic scholarship, and my youngest sister was left alone with my cuckoo-bananas mother who neglected her to the extent that there was no food in the apartment where they were living. So, my poor frugal father had to reconcile with my mother again after two financially disastrous legal separations, so he rented an apartment in most educated city in the U.S., and stored his sailboat in an abandoned swimming pool. So, then we all ended up with G-Ladder Level Yellow-ish offspring-of-academics peer groups. Which is one of the reasons why I am more concerned with doing interesting things than being conventionally Level Orange (B-O-R-I-N-G) successful :lol:

Scott 2
Posts: 2820
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Scott 2 »

ducknald_don wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 7:19 am
Those days are long gone
I've never worked for a multinational. I have zero perspective on that scale. I know there's a lot of opportunity well below it though.

The people I've seen make it, lead software products, serving high margin industries. The business model included development of promising candidates into partners. Partner teams essentially ran their own business, within the business.

Within that industry, a big part of leading was your C level connections. Those start young - fraternities, chairing conference boards, the associate level grind, wining and dining, etc. The guy shotgunning beers with you at twenty, might be running things at 40.


Leading at the scales I have seen, requires making imperfect decisions with incomplete information. It means you are going to hurt people. The first couple times an Us who became Them did that to me, I was pissed. But now I see it as an unavoidable part of the job.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

“Scott 2” wrote: The guy shotgunning beers with you at twenty, might be running things at 40.
AKA the most boring men on the planet and terrible in bed- because on some level “turned on” by engaging as submissive in rigid hierarchy with other men AND habituated to alcohol numbed sexuality. IOW, belonging to a fraternity is as directly correlated with causing women to think about their shopping list while you are f*cking them as having a single mom is correlated with lack of economic mobility.

As contrast, I would suggest Elliot Gould as a man who was divorced 3x, but was probably a decent father and great in bed.

In general, self-made men, independents, artists, intellectuals, and rebels are the sexiest and most interesting men.
Last edited by 7Wannabe5 on Wed May 24, 2023 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

chenda
Posts: 3281
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by chenda »

Henry wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 6:28 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8xWOlk3WIw
'the soft porn of black pain, an empty endless recitation of victimhood which gives ample moral pleasure to the audience but actually accomplices nothing'. Reminds me very much the 'famine porn' narrative common amongst popular (mis)understandings of Irish history.

white belt
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 12:15 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by white belt »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 9:56 am
AKA the most boring men on the planet and terrible in bed- because on some level “turned on” by engaging as submissive in rigid hierarchy with other men AND habituated to alcohol numbed sexuality. IOW, belonging to a fraternity is as directly correlated with causing women to think about their shopping list while you are f*cking them as having a single mom is correlated with lack of economic mobility.

In general, self-made men, independents, artists, intellectuals, and rebels are the sexiest and most interesting men.
I don't disagree, but if that were the case why are men in uniform like military, police, and firefighters generally perceived to be more attractive? Any of those career fields require a man to "engage as a submissive" even more so than a fraternity.

The last sentence just sounds like you are projecting based on your Gentry class roots.

zbigi
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by zbigi »

white belt wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 2:58 pm
I don't disagree, but if that were the case why are men in uniform like military, police, and firefighters generally perceived to be more attractive? Any of those career fields require a man to "engage as a submissive" even more so than a fraternity.
Because they actually boldly put themselves on the line (as opposed to "boldly leading teams" via spreadsheets and powerpoint presentations)? It shows character, and specificaly the kind that women want to see - that the guy will not back away from the danger when it comes to protecting her. That's my theory anyway.

Kriegsspiel
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by Kriegsspiel »

white belt wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 2:58 pm
I don't disagree, but if that were the case why are men in uniform like military, police, and firefighters generally perceived to be more attractive? Any of those career fields require a man to "engage as a submissive" even more so than a fraternity.
I'd assume it's because those populations are in better physical condition (more physically dominant) than most "civilians." Athletes are also uniform-wearing and drink more alcohol than non-athletes, and are members of somewhat of a male hierarchy (coach, first string, bench players, rookies, semi-pro, etc). I think I agree with you about 7 projecting.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

white belt wrote:I don't disagree, but if that were the case why are men in uniform like military, police, and firefighters generally perceived to be more attractive? Any of those career fields require a man to "engage as a submissive" even more so than a fraternity.
Good question. I have three possible answers. The first would be in alignment with the note that zbigi made. Putting yourself on the line in dangerous situation to aid community has been shown to be highly correlated with high testosterone levels. My second answer would be that because those uniformed professions are more associated with the L (labor) ladder, the men who enter into them would be more likely to have already been acculturated towards displaying dominance prior to being "broken" into conformity with the group. IOW, it would be more likely that they already had some swagger by the time they were in their early teens. That's why self-made L to G ladder men are actually the sexiest, IMO*. My third answer would be that if a hetero-female is dressing a man up in a uniform in her fantasy-stream, then she is actually projecting him into an objectified more submissive role by making him into more of a "toy" than an "actor." It's entirely possible that there is a tribe of hetero-females who dress men up in golfing clothes in their fantasy-streams, but I think it is more likely that they are sublimating their "marble counter top" drive.
white belt wrote:The last sentence just sounds like you are projecting based on your Gentry class roots.
Absolutely, but I was doing that so that I could put it out where I could take a look at it, because I hate being predictable. Also, it was towards being an amusing (to me) forwarding of Henry's take on the single mother studies; anybody can come up with a convincing "scientific-ey" theory to promote their own preferences or agenda. Also, it may have something to do with another study I read which indicated that although men with IQ over 140 become more socially benign with age, women with IQ over 140 become increasing socially obnoxious with age. However, it is true that I would much rather have a dinner date with Stephen Wolfram or Elliot Gould than some repulsive L to E track specimen such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though I really, really like a nice pair of guns on a guy.



*For instance, one guy I dated in my early 40s grew up in the projects with a single mom, went to school with a lot of Hassidic Jewish kids whose neighborhood boundaried his, got a scholarship to minor Ivy League school. became involved in the arts, played drums for semi-famous Detroit garage band, won awards and prestigious museum job for his photography, and he was also a serious 9.5 sexually. Downside being that he was so attractive that a number of years later I heard that he also dated a cute-nerd friend of my daughter :o

bridgebetween
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:44 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by bridgebetween »

The burger question...

Is the burger meal at $30 going to be 3 times better than a $10 meal in BK ?
I doubt it.
Why is the OP even questioning this?
Theres a fancy burger joint near me... Five Gays .... it was rammed with people for 6 months ... now daily its got 1 - 2 people in it.
The fact that people are paying this amount... either they have too much disposable income, they are living for today, or they are shit with money.
I dont buy this crap about increased overheads.... they either reduce their costs, or close up.
Theres only one person managing my finances, or telling me what to spend money on.. and thats me.

chenda
Posts: 3281
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by chenda »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 7:13 am
Putting yourself on the line in dangerous situation to aid community has been shown to be highly correlated with high testosterone levels.
This may be why my dad strictly forbid me from ever dating police officers or soldiers. I never knew why but it's a rule I've duly followed.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@chenda:

I've also never dated a police officer or a soldier. I did date a firefighter once. Unfortunately, that was during my phase when I was experimenting with exuding feminine energy, so I actually said something like "I need a man, because I don't want to kill my own snakes" (which I lifted verbatim from a book on how to exude feminine energy) to him, AND IT WORKED!

chenda
Posts: 3281
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: EVERYTHING Too $$$ Now

Post by chenda »

@7wannabe5 haha, I might use that line on my tinder profile :)

Post Reply