Best, Brightest – and Saddest?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
My wife and I struggle with this constantly - income and ability to acquire resources vs. quality of life. While I'm struggling through University while working full-time (and trying to find time for vacations, and time with the wife) and looking forward to a life of working 9-5 (more like 8-7 these days), we also think about the toll this takes on people.
Not going to lie, we've been looking at various locations where the cost of living is low (actually, more like where you can get by and start a business with a more reasonable amount of capital), and we can basically live a simpler, higher-quality life. The 'grind' as it is in North America is gruelling, I know many people trying to plot their escape, though it's tough when its all you know...
Nothing like studying your ass off for 16+ years, only to work your ass off for another 40+ years, taking on debt that you wind up spending a large portion of your life repaying (while often paying more than double the original price just to service your debt), only to finally retire - old, broken and in poor health, and never enjoying much more of your life than 2-4 weeks every year...
That's REALLY well said!
Very true. The security but lack of independence that comes with being an employee, vs. the independence and risk of being an entrepreneur (plus the capital requirement).
And on the topic of weighing my options, it's not helped by the fact I'm 3 years into an economics degree, so my head is filled with cost-benefit analysis formulas and me applying it all to my own life (or maybe it's because finals are at hand).
> I wish you luck though and hope you can post some of your experiences here.
Thanks. I have been thinking of starting a blog, maybe it'll happen sometime soon. Just need something to write about (I may start a small-scale business this summer, could be fun).
Resonates with me. But I still don't know whether it is really the others or just oneself doing the driving.
When I refer to our 'struggle', it's not so much financial (we live within our means - modest vehicles and a small-ish apartment in the suburbs), but rather the mental and physical toll of working a full week, plus school and studying, cooking, cleaning, etc...
We're actually better off financially than a lot of people, for instance we could start a modest small business, however to ensure a 'stable' future (ie. buy a house, raise a family, etc...) in the city were we currently live we'd need either more capital or more skills/education.
My experience was that my wife and I both worked just out of school (she at Xerox and me at Intel) where we both saved a bit and got equity sharing in our companies. After a few years (about 3 to be exact) we had enough money to squeak out a down payment on a house. (at 11% interest!) Lived in that while she went to Tandem and I went to Sun, and continued to save our pennies (our goal was to move out of the bay area, sell our house, and use the equity to make a bigger downpayment (smaller mortgage) on a house in a place where the cost of living was lower so one of us could stay home and raise the kids full time). As it turned out her Tandem stock and my Sun stock, combined with the equity in our first house allowed us to buy a larger house (with room for kids) and keep the same "size" mortgage.
It took about 10 years from the time we left school until we felt we had breathing room.
(said without a hint of derision, genuinely curious!)
What did you expect? (Genuine question.)
What has life ever offered but hard work with little chance of reward? Unless you're an oligarch you will probably have a shit life.
There is no way this will ever change. Maturity is the process of getting used to this fact, moving on with your life, settling down, buying a house, having some kids (that better get into a top school or you'll die penniless), and repeat the process.
If you think you will, or should, be "happy" while doing this, you're a product of a self-indulgent culture that flared up in one country for half a century, and you'll quickly learn otherwise.
Why not kill yourself instead (or do something comparable, shut off yourself from society)? Why bear children into world like this?
It is true that people have always had to work, but work isn't necessarily debilitating or unsatisfactory, even if it's manual labor. Consider that a family that owns a farm does have to get up early and does have to work hard to keep their farm operating, but they're not stuck in a cubicle sitting in the same spot under artificial light for 8 hours a day, they can usually take a break as they desire within reasonable parameters, and their work is objective and task-based, not arbitrarily defined by a PHB slaving half of the company under his ego. Farm work connects the worker with the land, with the animals, and produces a tangible, necessary product, that each person needs. If you own a farm, you don't need anyone's permission to live; you have the land, you have the food sources, you have the structures, and you don't need to get continued dispersion from an employer to not lose all of it. Such persons are truly independent. While some may not want to work on a farm, industrial work is not objectively superior by any stretch.
It is also true that maturity involves accepting the realities such as they are and doing what you can to improve the situation instead of belly-aching about it.
Propagandists in the West have done a good job of making everyone feel that anyone who lives less-industrialized lifestyle is an unfortunate, backwards idiot, but I don't think that's accurate. Consider that humans have defaulted to a basic set of biologically-linked behaviors throughout their history: people didn't used to "go out on their own" and delete their parents' progress for the family, people lived in tribes and clans (which, generally speaking, were small groups of families that reached a size large enough to qualify for a larger designation) and shared the land and the fruits of labor among themselves. People didn't used to delay biological imperatives like child-bearing in order to collect certificates and approvals from governing bodies. Generations were bound together with a tangibility and mutual concern that we don't know here in the U.S. of A., where almost everyone is a stranger.
The industrial oligarchs have set up a system that centers on debt. That's why the propaganda puts down inheritance and other arrangements that mitigate the need of anyone to pay interest. Industrialization has turned every American into its indentured servant, as it's very difficult to maintain a good standard of living without relying on high-interest loans for most of life's substantial necessities: it's presumed that you'll be taking out big loans to provide for shelter, transportation, and education and training, and then it's highly encouraged to do the same for anything and everything else. And that's just the private sector; the government taxes away a large amount of the personal wealth generated every year. Personally, I hope I can claw my way out of this pit and give lands and monies to my posterity such that they don't have to live their lives based on someone else's ability to collect interest. I want them to be truly independent and my goal is provide that to them, and raise them to be competent to manage it. I hope it stays in the family for many generations and saves large numbers of my posterity from indentured servitude.
There is absolutely much that has been lost in modern society. I don't want to paint a rosy picture and pretend there was never revolt, discontent, or war before industrialization, because there certainly was, but most people then, as most people now, simply wanted to live their own lives in a reasonable degree of personal comfort and satisfaction (which includes providing useful labor to the community), and one could argue that their systems were more supportive of that than ours.
What do you mean? What are my expectations of life?
I grew up in North American culture, so I'm perfectly used to this culture of working all the time. I've also travelled a fair amount (to other 'developed' countries and some 'developing' countries), and spent all my summers on a farm, so I've also seen a 'slower' pace of life. I've seen societies where not everything is bought on debt, where a 6-hour workday, and 2 days off every week is the norm - where there are holidays at every time of year, and a month of strait vacation time a year is standard.
Anyhow, it's not so much a question of expectations, but of possibilities. Everyone in society should question why things are the way they are, and how we can make things better - not just from a perspective of economic growth, but quality of life.
With all due respect, and I can tell from your other posts you are grateful for what you have, but this needs to be put in perspective. That 16+ years of studying your ass off is an investment someone else made in you, hoping you become a productive member of society that makes life a little bit better for someone else while earning a living for yourself along the way. There are roughly 3 billion people on this planet who are desperate to get any sort of education, let alone the education you were given, for free (before college). I get your complaints, but a 9-5 gig (or even an 8-7 one) would be considered a life of leisure and luxury for most of the world for pretty much all of history. In fact, the only time a life you are wishing you had has been common has been in the last 50 years or so in the developed world. I'd say we're pretty damn lucky. If you want to get ahead, instead of thinking you need to out-compete your rivals, I would instead focus on ways to make someone's life significantly better, then figure out how to do it for 10 people, then 1000....see where I'm going with this?
This is a profound failure of imagination. The problem the GP is decrying is the late capitalist devaluation of humanity, and your solution is to suck it up and find a business model.
Figuring out how to make someone else's life better and make a living off of it isn't a roll of the dice. It's a process of observing and learning about the world around you, coming up with ideas of how to improve something (using what you learned in your education), and offering to take action on those ideas in exchange for money. This doesn't have to be done at scale or by starting your own business. It can easily be done anywhere, but instead of scaling (starting your own business), just continuing to come up with new ways to make your boss's life easier. This doesn't have to be super innovative or use technology either. Sometimes just simple words of encouragement are all a stressed out boss may need.
Higher education is an investment and comes with risk, it's not a promise to a better life. And on the other side of that coin, accumulation of debt is a promise that you are going to earn more money in the future to pay the money you borrowed back. You don't need to make more money, and you don't need to pay back your debt, just your standard of living will go down because you can't buy nice things, but you can live the life of leisure you so desire then.
edit: I should have clarified, you don't need to pay back your debt by going through the process of filing bankruptcy. Yes, this affects your ability to secure further debt and buy stuff, but if you want a life of leisure earning a low income and having lots of time off, then theoretically bankruptcy is a path to your land of milk and honey.
What you have said here is not an inevitable truth of the universe. It is a component of the way your society has chosen to write its current social contract. If people do not like the social contract, it will be renegotiated: either with words or with blows.
Figuring out how to make someone else's life better and make a living off of it isn't a roll of the dice. It's a process of observing and learning about the world around you, coming up with ideas... etc.
It is all the things you list and a roll of the dice. It is working very very hard and also getting lucky.
just continuing to come up with new ways to make your boss's life easier.
This is getting back to my original point: you are thinking incredibly small. We are talking about a societal problem. The GP wrote:
your two options are to be perpetually poor (basically limiting you to a life of indentured servitude), or to out-compete your rivals and achieve an upper-middle class to upper class income
You do realize that what you're describing falls on the "out-compete your rivals" side of that scale, right? It isn't a rebuttal to what GP was saying, because it's just an example of it.
Higher education is an investment and comes with risk
And who is making that investment? In most developed countries, the state has determined it has an interest in an educated populace, and pays for people to go to college. Young people graduate debt-free, and are able to do all this innovating you're talking about. For some reason in the United States, we look to private institutions to fund education.
you don't need to pay back your debt by going through the process of filing bankruptcy
You realize that student loan debt is incredibly hard to discharge through bankruptcy? And Congress has made it even more difficult in the last decade.
So, to clarify, in most developed countries, the state takes on the risk from education (just like health care!). In the US, who takes on the risk? Not the bank that does the lending - the government guarantees the debt! But not the government, either, because they've made it nearly impossible to discharge the debt. No, the risk falls almost entirely on the borrower, the individual in that trio that is least able to absorb the risk.
but you can live the life of leisure you so desire then.
This is not about leisure, it's about having the freedom to have a role as a human being separate from your role in the capitalist system. It's about not having to live your life in fear of losing what little you have, and being able to make choices that maximize factors that have nothing to do with capital.
Both of you complain about a lack of imagination and then fail to offer any sort of alternative, just further complaining.
This is the same argument I heard from people who supported the Iraq war during the worst of its quagmire phase. My response was that there were no good options (other than not having gone there in the first place), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the problem.
In this case, there isn't much an individual can do to change a society that has been withered and corrupted by corporate control. We have to live in it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also point out that there are better ways to live.
>>In this case, there isn't much an individual can do to change a society that has been withered and corrupted by corporate control. We have to live in it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also point out that there are better ways to live.
Huh? Comparing a capitalist system that has raised the standard of living to every individual who participates in it to the Iraq War makes no sense at all. Also, you haven't pointed out any better ways to live, you've just complained about the status quo. Again, you've offered no alternatives, just complaining.
Again, you've offered no alternatives, just complaining.
Yeah, that argument. This isn't kindergarten, every criticism does not have to come with some uplifting solution. I'm pointing out the system is broken. That's a necessary prerequisite to making something better.
Also:
a capitalist system that has raised the standard of living to every individual who participates in it
Come now, capitalism destroys plenty of lives. It may well be the "least worst system," but claiming it doesn't have casualties is either propaganda or survivorship bias. Still, the complaint, as you put it, is not about capitalism itself, but that in its current form it reduces our lives to a monetary "standard of living." I am not necessarily advocating the end of capitalism, just the end of its deification.
I should have been more specific. Yes, the arguments made by those who supported the war. What are those arguments? Are you saying that there were no better solutions to the Iraq War? Really? Not invading, withdrawing troops sooner, there were plenty of other options. I don't see how this is analagous to an argument about capitalism.
You said:
>>But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also point out that there are better ways to live.
My point is, what are your better ways to live that you are supposedly pointing out?
The one I keep pointing out you're using over and over. The one where you say "You're just complaining, not offering a better solution, therefore your criticism should be ignored." People said this over and over again when the war was in full throttle. It was too late to not do it in the first place. You'll notice I mentioned that option before:
"My response was that there were no good options (other than not having gone there in the first place)"
Withdrawing was not a good option, look how we just had to go back there again a year later! We were between a rock and a hard place, and there was no good solution. But that does not mean that criticizing the war was an invalid endeavor.
My point is, it doesn't matter that I'm not giving you an example of better ways to live. The issue at hand is that the system as it stands is broken. Whether or not there are better options (I contend that there are, but that's not the conversation we're having right now), that does not make my criticism invalid.
Feel free to respond, but at this point this conversation is going in circles.
Nonsense. Doesn't happen.
So? People were investing those 16+ years of education to young people in the 50's and 60's too, and upon graduation they were able to make a much more comfortable living with less debt that present day degree holders do.
>In fact, the only time a life you are wishing you had has been common has been in the last 50 years or so in the developed world.
That's not totally accurate. There's this conception that the mass population lived as some kind of slaves, constantly working to the bone etc.
Now, they might not have had washing machines and trucks and running water, but tons of traditional societies had much better standards of living than people give them credit for work-wise.
In some of medieval Europe's agrarian communities, for example, there were over 100 days of what we'd call "bank holidays" per year. In other societies, in Africa, in Polynesia etc, the whole community more or less lazily went about their business, more like a '60s hippie commune than 19th century factory workers.
>>So? People were investing those 16+ years of education to young people in the 50's and 60's too, and upon graduation they were able to make a much more comfortable living with less debt that present day degree holders do.
Education in the 50s and 60s cost a fraction of what it does today, even adjusted for inflation. In addition, that education gave European and American workers a unique skill set that the rest of the world didn't acquire until later on, giving those workers a competitive advantage that lasted a generation or more.
That's not how it works. Due to the way humans are psycologically, the relative level of those arounds us changes our conception of what's acceptable standard of living very fast.
(Works in inverse too: for those living in 14th century Spain etc. it wasn't felt as poverty that they didn't have running water or washing machines).
>Education in the 50s and 60s cost a fraction of what it does today, even adjusted for inflation. In addition, that education gave European and American workers a unique skill set that the rest of the world didn't acquire until later on, giving those workers a competitive advantage that lasted a generation or more.
That was my point too.
40h+ work weeks and small amounts of vacation per year actually are an aberration in history. They only appeared during the industrial revolution.
Prior to that, life was rather slow-paced and leisurely compared to how people live nowadays.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/why-a-medie...
I make a comment on the sad state of the system of institutions and expectations that railroads people into a constant cycle of work and debt, and your best response is that "it's better than certain points in history so be thankful"?
See, the point isn't that the 'system' we're a part of is unchangeable and eternal (although American politicians may argue otherwise, that it was delivered strait from the heavens along with a KJV Bible and the US Constitution), but that it's something that can be changed, and made better. And that a better pace of life does exist, today, it's real, some people do live it.
> That 16+ years of studying your ass off is an investment someone else made in you
It's paid forward, but if you pay taxes, raise children, etc..., it's not free; it's not 'given' to you, any more than unemployment benefits are 'given' to someone who pays into the system, or health care is 'given' to someone who pays taxes (or their health care premiums).
> If you want to get ahead, instead of thinking you need to out-compete your rivals, I would instead focus on ways to make someone's life significantly better, then figure out how to do it for 10 people, then 1000....see where I'm going with this?
You may not see it, but this 'scaling' of your business is an attempt to 'out-compete' your rivals.
Anyhow, I'm not complaining about my lot in life, you're right, it's not bad at all (no debt to speak of, good wife, we eat well and have leisure time, school was my choice and I pay for it personally), but merely questioning the direction society is going, and whether or not there's a better alternative.
You see, I'm studying economics, and a recurring theme is that consumers make personally rational decisions. In my case, it's a decision to stay here and figure out a way to pay the high cost of living, or figure out a way to pay for a lower cost of living with more leisure time. And along the way, I like to philosophise about the meaning of life, the purpose of economic systems, the financial/banking system, etc...
(This does not change that you can live like a king for $2k / month in some countries, but if you're making $2k+ / month, you're already doing above average for the USA.)
Wikipedia says median household income is 3.3-5K/month (45-60K/year).
Average household is 2.5 people, so you're right if you're including children.
I also said 'average' instead of 'median', but "you're doing better than median" sounds weird.
That's what they call US emigration today? How is that any different from an Asian/Indian/African wanting to emigrate to US? The other guys are just like us.
"Valid U.S. Passports in 2012 is 113,431,943 (36%). In 2002 it was 55,169,571 (19%). In 1992 it was 17,950,578 (7%). " (http://andrewhy.de/percent-of-americans-with-passports/)
Businesses in the US have cheap access to capital, and the diplomatic might - not to mention "bankruptcy protection" - of the USG behind them, while the common folk not. I wonder if there is a postive feedback here; unless the US invests great deal outside the state, it'd never enjoy the power it does in the world, which it seems very desperate to hang on to.
I wouldn't know being french, but even here the same salary in Paris or anywhere else is the country is not even close to be the same thing.
My dad is an successful electrical engineer who people look up-to. I on the other hand hated physics and was never good enough for it. I took an alternate path to do Computer Science which I feel terrible about since I am not sure if I love it because I hated Physics or I choose it because I found it easier.
The cost of failure is really high, not because I will end up in the streets which I personally do not have a problem with but I would have to live with the fact that I would have let down what is expected of me. I would have no excuse since biologically I should be able to do it. There are no disadvantages or excuses I can point out to.
I have noticed this among many of my white male friends. They seem to have a higher burden when it comes to proving themselves in society. White male problems do not compare to everyone else's problem but its still something that needs to be addressed since mental stress is no joke.
That being said, I think even the wealthiest most privileged people are often under a great deal of stress. They may have more pressure to marry someone from another wealthy family, there's the stress of expectations you mention...
I'm a hispanic male and often it can be easy to look at people from more economically privileged backgrounds and think to myself "they have it so easy!", but it's not really true. Maybe they have some things easier but they almost certainly have others harder.
I've worked myself up a few rungs on the socioeconomic ladder and each time I go up, I feel as if I gain some things and lose others. I never felt more free than when I was a poor person, but I would never go back :)
[0] http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Stanford-student-com...
The pressure kids feel is largely fictional, in the sense that the world ISN'T going to end if they 'only go to college'. For example when I graduated highschool and went straight to college and some of the folks I knew stayed behind for an extra year to get their grades up - my parents in unison with me, thought they were failures.
Looking back - it was smart. I am not working in the field that I studied, so the joke is on me :)
Another thing to realize is that there are a number of jobs that are not intellectual that can be quite fulfilling, honestly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRVdiHu1VCc
This guy is a big proponent of more down to earth careers and I agree with everything he says, even though I'm a programmer.
In short - the pressures are due to having a narrow view of the world and what success means. If you widen it to include working construction or going to college to become an ultrasound technician - it's not so bad all of a sudden.
Parents just have to stop pushing their lack of achievements and phobias on to their kids - easier said than done of course. Solution? Incentivize intelligent people to breed more and try-hards and ignoramuses to breed less and the problem will be solved, in some number of decades :)
But won't the non-intellectual jobs continue to be automated away?
I initially read 'won't the intellectual jobs continue to be automated away?' and thought to myself, yeah, probably :) haha.
Which boils down to no matter what line of work - my hunch is that a lot of it is frivolous.
I heard somewhere that scientists came up with a solution to diabetes but since maintaining it is such a huge industry - they're going to keep things as is.
Of course that's likely a fictional story but I think the basic gist of it applies - we can absoluuutely optimize the current workforce to reduce oh I don't know, at least 10-20% of it just by giving some smart folks that goal right?
How many folks past 50 who don't like what they do are just sitting there collecting maximum salary while contributing less than a 30 year old if not STIFLING potential progress? I bet the answer is A LOT.
What if we gave them the option to earn 1/2 what they make right now, asked them to only come in to work 15-20 hours/week?
What is a 55 year old dude spending maximum salary on, honestly? Golf?
Thinking about it a little bit more - shortening the life-cycle for positions like teaching or managing in fields that move fast given the above proposition would not only be smart, but likely the move of the future.
By the time you're in your 50s, you're tired and likely out of touch. Give that space up for somebody young and curious while maintaining a decent standard of living. I bet my dad would take that deal in a heartbeat.
Your 'earn 1/2 of what they make right now' option would be nice, if it were actually feasible. It doesn't take into account the rising base cost of living everywhere. Forget giving up a 'luxurious lifestyle' -- I'm talking about the base cost of living for living in a modest apartment, that's close enough for you to be able to visit your family and friends.
So no, I think many 'old dudes' (oh and newsflash - 55 isn't exactly old these days) are spending their money not on 'golf' but on their own mortgage, possibly helping their kids with their mortgages', their medical expenses, their food, etc.
1. 50+ year olds are just as good as 30 year olds aka 'ageism'
2. Making 1/2 pay would not be enough to live comfortably
I don't know if I even need to argue the first one. If you take sports, it's a no brainer.
If you look at the physical shape programmers are in at 55, that alone hinders their productivity somewhat. Sure, there's outliers here and there, I am talking most people. If you honestly think an average 55 year old programmer is not significantly less valuable than an average 30 year old programmer TODAY, I don't know. I'd need to know why.
What other areas of life are 55 year olds more valuable than 30 year olds? I'd say they're more likely to be a bit more level headed and having had more experience, can avoid some common pitfalls a 30 year old might fall into.
That's exactly why they should be occasionally mentoring 30 year olds, not competing with them. I just don't think 55 year olds have the stamina/energy to keep up, it's as simple as that. I'd need proof of them having equal stamina and not significantly worse health and I just don't see how that can be possible. Experience can't offset 25 years of stress, you are likely beat up!
Now on to the second point - if you make 100k/year and you live in Toronto (where I live), you can live on 50k. That's if you're the sole provider you can live on 50k. If your wife worked and you were making let's say 200k combined or 175k whatever - and you don't have stacks of money saved up - I don't know what the hell you've been doing!
I was suggesting half-pay half-hours to people who are around 100k salary - which's what teachers, programmers, nurses, on and on make in Toronto, Canada. I know for a fact you can live on 50k, I am living on less than that and I have a mortgage, so...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/krisztinaholly/2014/01/15/why-gr...
In my particular case, every workplace I've worked in over the years has had a huge range of ages for software engineers. Without asking people you'd be hard pressed to know how old they were. The performance of the older engineers seemed about the same on average as their younger ones. There were some stellar and curious engineers, just as there were the disinterested ones. The same applied to both groups.
So I think saying something like "The average X year old engineer is worse than the average Y engineer" isn't useful. What's your sample size for that average?
Agree with you on the half-pay/half-hours thing. I actually would love to see less traditional reliance on 'seat time' and more flexible working conditions all around.
Manufacturing (by humans) is definitely on its way out though.
Kind of like how mass produced products have structural/design compromises to allow for easier manufacturing. We'll then reminisce about the olden days when you didn't need amazon prime to replace the waste decomposition module every few weeks.
Well if you don't have either, then you base your success on what your child/ren has accomplished. It's a competition within the community to see who has the more accomplished offspring - I see it every time my parents gather with friends or family - it's sad but it's all they know to do.
Anecdotal perspectives: So I grew up poor, but I would say I am quite successful now by most standards - yet I still feel the pressure to achieve much more than I currently have (just from wanting to be the best I can be, but also I feel indebted to my parents and want to give them the world). They never pressured me to be a $high_status_title, but I felt to pressure to be someone that could support them into their old age since I saw how hard they worked to provide for me. In a sense, I understood the world of my parents and because of that, I created pressure for myself to achieve greater success (by their standards).
I had a friend in HS, who was extremely smart, and both his parents were doctors, living in a wealthy neighborhood, etc. I constantly saw how much pressure his parents were creating for him, PSAT prep and SAT prep and all that, which I felt he didn't need. Whenever we weren't playing CS, he would be studying to make sure he got into the right colleges, then the right medical schools, though I never really asked him if that's what he wanted out of life. I felt bad for him because I did fine in HS and felt fine just coasting (I didn't begin trying as hard as I should have till junior year of college, but in the end I think I did okay with much luck involved, of course). Well he is now finishing up his medical residency (looks like his studies paid off) and I really hope he feels fulfilled in his career path.
Just wanted show that pressure to succeed can come from external factors or pressures we create for ourselves, but I feel things are only getting worse as now we have parents competing to get their kids into particular preschools and all the extracurricular activities that just consume what little childhoods we have to begin with.
You can be aware of the circumstances, and do your best to "opt out" of the race, but others will just see that as an opportunity to move ahead, continually fueling these unnecessary pressures.
Except success isn't merely a subjective idea. Even if you could somehow avoid internalizing other people's perception of you, you could not avoid how they treat you.
If you don't want to be in a hypercompetitive environment, Palo Alto is probably not the place to be. Unfortunately those kids didn't have a choice.
After being here for more than a decade, my experience is that the Bay Area is kind of a mixed bag.
There is certainly the harsh truth that you need a certain amount of economic output to survive here. Lots of artists have been pushed out of SF over last decade or two, despite producing a lot of value for society.
So this minimum requirement means is a lot of rat-race-ness, long commutes, and boring jobs. But there are also a lot of curious and interesting people who aren't necessarily motivated by money. And they are doing very interesting things.
Some of them thrive on learning. They show up back at the barn, years later, after graduating from a big-name college. It's tough on the ones who aren't quite bright enough for the selective colleges but have parents who expect that level of achievement. I've seen the pain in some who know they're just not bright enough.
It's getting worse. Suicides for Paly and Gunn students (those two high schools are the closest to Stanford) have been climbing since about 2009. I knew about the five suicides from Paly, but didn't realize it had reached the point that there are now guards watching the railroad tracks behind the school.
There are two main issues I have with the idea. The first is that it presupposes a system in which some people are poor, and as long as it's possible for some of those poor people to climb out, we're doibg okay. I don't think that the issues surrounding that are worthy of further comment.
The other problem is that under capitalism it's fundamentally impossible outside of limited cases of entrepreneurism.
In order for a working class person to have the same lifestyle as a higher status person, they must not only match, but exceed the expectation placed upon an otherwise equal higher status person, because they have a head start.
Take homeownership in the UK. A 20something that has had a leg up into the housing market via parental donation or loan has an entrenched advantage forever. I could earn 60K GBP whilst my middle class (via birth) friends earn 40K and forever be 'behind' them in wealth terms.
I don't really have much more to say on the topic because I'm not sure how it could be fixed or what that even means, but it's been a central theme in my life since attending University.
I guess you just need to work with what you've got!
The idea seems to be that poor kids go off to University, get well paid jobs, and that's the end of the story.
Except it's not, because my 'well paid' is far higher that of someone who isn't paying rent.
Income inequality is a non issue to me. Wealth inequality is the problem.
Being forced to perform meaningless tasks (because that's high school), having absolutely no power and control over your own life, and probably vitamin D deficient too from being cooped up inside all the time studying.
You could say many teenagers are already predispose to depression during these turbulent years. Their mind isn't completely prepared quite yet and having tyrants run your life doesn't help.
This trend of overemphasis on STEM education and grueling test prep in an effort to game the system started with Asian societies and it's slowly spreading to upper-middle class in western society.
I don't think the true upper class ever cared much for STEM education (legacy admission, "donation", MBA, ...).
This is not really a good path to go down. Not all of us were meant to be engineers and doctors.
Just look East and you will catch a glimpse of the future. Massive youth unemployment, many of them overeducated. Japan is dominated with contract workers. Korea has their "880000 Won generation".
Yea, their suicide rate is high. The problem is, everyone wants a piece of the dream and we can't all have it (or maybe we can?). They import manual labor from SE Asia just like we do with illegal immigrants here in the States.
With no hope of moving out on such meager wages, you'll have resentment and withdrawal from society. Is it any wonder that their birthrate is going down?
I feel like any technological advancement we come up with would still not be enough to overcome this problem. Mainly because the people with the power to make the change have every incentive not to do so.
Humans are imperfect. Human society will always be imperfect. The rift is a part of our genetic and the majority of humans will always be chained to indenture servitude. In a way, all this madness will always be a part of us.
Maybe we just have a population bubble that bust? We complain about low birth rates but don't really have use for even that dwindled number of young people.
I think this is an inherent problem with the American university system, where the top tier is so small and so universally desired. I think Canada does it very well. Expectations to get into top Canadian schools are grade-based and their undergraduate enrolment is much larger. If you can pull a 90%+ average,you can be sure that you can go wherever you want in Canada for university. Certainly an undergraduate education at University of Toronto might be not quite as good as Harvard's, but it seems to do wonders for the mental health of Canadian children; none of my friends in Canada have even really stressed about university admissions.
For me personally, the Canadian `safety net' also helped a lot: although I am going to Harvard next year, I knew from day one that if anything didn't work out I had myriad wonderful options in Canada.
It's hard for me to believe they've since added a hard cutoff of 95+. It's next to impossible to get grades like that unless your highschool is handing them out like hotcakes at the eventual expense of their own reputation.
That said, the university application process is by no means a stress-free experience for students up here. Getting rejected from Waterloo would have been a huge blow to me at the time because I really wanted to experience their mandatory co-op program and understood the value it would bring to my professional career over the lackluster alternatives at other universities.
Here's a chart of the number of students rejected from Waterloo Engineering with averages 90+: https://profbillanderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/unadmit...
UofT has very strong research programs but that's about everything. they don't give a shit about their undergrads, instructors, TAs or anyone who isn't in grad school or tenured.
I was complaining that some of my CS courses atP Waterloo were over crowded (+60 people) but it was before I learned about Toronto's +1,500 people lectures. I don't know a single person at UofT who is happy or having a blast.
So no, I don't think so.
Beyond that we get to study on a beautiful campus in the middle of a very fun and interesting city, whereas you are stuck on an uninspiring concrete-and-goose-dropping wasteland in a small "city".
I bought the propaganda that Waterloo is #1 when I was in high school. A one-day visit to each campus quickly changed my mind and I am very happy I made the decision to go to the better school.
I don't know why you are trying to make it about Waterloo. You are totally missing the point of the discussion which is about UofT v. Harvard (as silly as it sounds).
It is not very productive to start a dick measuring contest on "which school is the best". Especially when the answer is obvious \joke.
More seriously, I know a pretty large sample of people going to UofT. Sorry if you felt like I was denigrating your school. I am sure that there is a lot of very bright student going to UofT.
I was talking about how the administration treat its students and the general atmosphere and malaise on-campus. Does that "TA strike" ring a bell? Everyone I know going to UofT is complaining about the heavy workload, poor school spirit and over-competitiveness of their peers (refusing to share course notes, spreading out fake informations on a test and other horror stories).
Also 50/60 per class for CS electives is definitely a lot of people. Most CS upper year courses at Harvard and Waterloo are ~10.
To compare the cities of Waterloo and Toronto is almost as silly as comparing Harvard and UofT. Obviously Toronto is better although being in a smaller, very connected community like Waterloo obviously has its perks. Let's just agree to disagree.
We have silly conflicting goals; the Government wants to encourage pension saving, so private pensions are now opt out. But for most, homeownership is a higher priority (because renting would eat away at that pension anyway). Yet we seem to be still pumping the housing bubble by focusing on nonsense like 'access to mortgages' rather than decreasing/stabilising the cost of housing.
An interesting statistic I like to use is the proportion of properties that are owned and owned outright. Very roughly, ~30% are owned outright, another 30% owner occupied, and the rest are rental properties.
You could then say that going forward it would be reasonable to expect that 60% or more of young people will eventually be homeowners. But that does not match up at all with the income scales myself and most of my friends seem to be facing (and we are in the higher tiers comparatively).
The whole thing began to unravel in High School, really... got a "No Credit" for an extra-curricular college course, had to retake a year of Geometry, barely made it through High School Trig. But, I went to college to study Computer Science. And failed out. Failed the same Intro to Pre-Calculus class seven fucking times in three semesters. (Half-semester course.)
I took a semester off, and enrolled in a local community college. Changed my major to English. Graduated with a BA in 2008, in the middle of the economic crisis. I didn't have any Internships... couldn't afford to take one as I was working to pay my way through college part-time in the evenings. Got a shitty telemarketing job for the benefits, got fired, spent a year out of work, worked for the Philadelphia welfare office for a year and a half, and quit.
I lucked into a startup job as a Community Manager, but the environment was borderline abusive, and beyond the border unethical (buying lists of email addresses for their target market to add to their mailing list and calling them active users in fundraising presentations). After getting fired/quitting, I found a decent job doing Web Production for a speciality publishing company.
I'm 31, in debt up to my eyeballs with student loans, barely making ends meet, and working a job that offers no challenge and little opportunity for advancement. I have personal projects where I can get some joy, but it's hard to find the time to do those when you're working forty hours a week, with an hour commute each way, and seeing a huge chunk of your cash go towards paying off the creditors for your borderline useless degree. If I didn't have my self-taught HTML and CSS skills, I'd never be where I am, so that's something.
I still feel like I should be further along because of all the pushing I was given as a kid. They told me I'd change the world. Instead, I'm just some underemployed schlub. I'm not about to jump in front of a train, but for those kids with more pressure, I can't blame 'em.
Wow, that got long.
(I kept the names of the companies I worked for silent, because I try to keep this account semi-anonymous. The startup I worked for loves to threaten lawsuits against former---and current---employees who piss off the founder.)
If you leave the US, you can bail on your student loans, and you can start a new life with a similar/better standard of living.
I moved to New York City to be with the person I love. I'm not going to uproot them and drag them to Europe. I also like living where I do (maybe not this neighborhood specifically, but I don't hate it), so there's that.
> Men from the lowest social class, living in the most deprived areas, are up to ten times more likely to end their lives by suicide than those in the highest social class from the most affluent areas. Men in mid-life are the age group most at risk.
I hope more can be done to reduce suicide and make life more cheerful in general - I'm a member of 'Action for Happiness' for what it's worth that campaigns for the latter. In the past suicide and the like has been a bit ignored partly because there were worse things to worry about - death from war, car crashes, disease and the like. Now it's starting to become the biggest cause of death in younger age groups as the other causes get fixed.
http://www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files...
From what we can tell of recorded history, our societies and influence has grown exponentially. Several thousand years ago it was likely uncommon to be exposed to anyone who wasn't within a few hundred miles of you - at the most. Today every person on earth has the potential (if not necessarily the means) to be seen by thousands or millions of people.
This shifts how we view ourselves. It makes you think that if you aren't personally impacting the lives of millions of people - in a profound and reasoned way - you are worthless. Where as in previous years having an impact in your small community was good enough, now you need to be globally recognized just to be anyone.
It's quite an interesting time for the ego.
We're moving rapidly towards extreme class polarization--in 20 years, you'll be either an Ivy League graduate or eating dog food to survive.
Whining excessively is a rich world problem.
" abject poverty is "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services"
The income level for abject poverty is defined by the World Bank as $1.25 at 2005 purchasing-power parity .
Are you really saying that 95% of the world is going to be earning less than $1.25 at 2005 purchasing-power parity
The US is going down a very dangerous route into a class-stratified winner take all society. The only solution is strengthening social security nets and redistributing wealth.
It sounds like you might find https://www.google.com/webhp?q=suicidal%20exhaustion#q=suici... interesting.
Good luck! There are plenty of people out there who feel like you do. Just survive a day at a time at first.
Surely, the there is enough diversity in humanity to disallow for so one-dimensional a topology.
(I say this after having been subject to years of down-nosery.)