# What are YOU/I working for?



## Grundlestein (Jun 25, 2011)

Hi fellow forum peoples,

I often ask myself what the payoff from working a full-time job is worth, as compared to enjoying life experiences, such as travelling or working part-time/ personally satisfying jobs. I wonder if any of you ever ask yourself the same questions?

As I approach the ripe age of 25 (ughh, quarter decade) within a month, I have a combination of savings/equity in property somewhere between 55-60k. Although I don't make a ton of money, I am not currently strapped for cash, since I have been saving since I was 20.

So I ask you: do you ever consider just taking a break from the norm, and taking some extended time in life to enjoy yourself, and reward what you have accomplished? I have a job that is about as flexible and fun as a job can get. But I get bored of the norm quite easily, sitting at the same location for 8 hours everyday is quite uninspiring, compared to being outside and exploring your own city, or anywhere around the world.

I'm wondering if anyone has similar thoughts? I don't take my job for granted, which is the main reason I continue to keep working, it's a lot of fun for the most part. I just wonder how long before I need to get outside and explore what the rest of the world has to offer.

Thanks


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

yes, I have taken a long break called retirement. Having a great time. Keep saving.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

The problem is that with the power of compound interest you can either have 1 year off now or 10 years off at age 55. Both cost the same. Your choice really. 1 year will blow by pretty quick and you will find yourself right back at the same job in the same place, but now you will not have any money. Your experiences will be nice but they will be over. Again your choice.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Put simply: The payoff from working a full-time job is a pay-cheque. If you have kids, a mortgage etc, then options are limited, While it's normal, IMO, to have reflections, like yours, and break "away from the norm", What exactly would you do when you take time away to enjoy yourself? If your job is as flexible as it sounds, then it just a matter of planning and organizing your time (while keeping your job) to find the opportunities to go an enjoy life. I think it's good to explore opportunites -especially when you're young - but avoid impulsive decisions. That job that you walked way from (and all of the flexibility it offered), may not be easy to get back if you simply walk away - and the employer may have a more baised view on your attachment to the job! Plan your time and expenses - it's one of those "life lessons" mum and dad's talk about


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Eagle/Mac good posts, I agree.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Yes I did ask myself the same question many times when I was young.
I watched many friends do just that while I stayed with my job.
My view was always long term but those same feelings were there, harder when seeing others seemingly doing what they wanted.
I don't know how things turned out for them as I have not seen them in 30 years but today I am retired and did so just past 55 years of age.

The world today is much different and people don't spend whole careers working for one company. I can say my wife took many breaks in her work life and today I'm retired she still works and wishes she had done things different. My long goal was to retire and do what I wanted her goal was to work till she was 65 today she is not that happy to still be working.


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

Hi. Early in our marriage my husband and I decided that work was important but raising our two young sons with our family values was just as important. We were lucky that our parents lived near by and helped with child care. I worked part time as a substitute teacher and my husband worked as an electrician. We have never been on a cruise, Hawaii, Disneyland but had wonderful camping holidays. I bought a timeshare (second hand) close to home a few years ago and we go there for our holidays (it's in Banff so a wonderful place) and get other timeshares to holiday in when we go somewhere else. My husband had to retire at 50 because there was no work. By the time the economy improved enough 6 years later he felt he was too old to do the heavy work the trade needed. I was lucky to get a part time teaching job, turn it into full time and get a master's degree. I am now 61 and working part time. I grew to love my job, it did not come naturally. There is a lot of stress in teaching and it almost got the better of me twice. I do not say this lightly by the way. However, I persevered, got through the bad times, and now am at a place that suits the both of us. Our two boys are grown, have great values and are making it in the world. My husband went through a tough time a few years ago. Retiring at 50 sounds like a dream but he was very lonely with the boys grown and me getting more and more involved with my career. He battled depression and alcoholism. I believe that work gives us a sense of purpose and when that purpose it gone we need to find something else. Seeing what my husband went through I would not fully recommend retirement at a young age for myself and that is the reason I work part time. I believe young retirement is a marketing ploy used by the financial industry that we bought into somehow. If you can make it work for you then good. My husband had a hard time and I went part time to rebuild a life with him. We each have our own road to do down and have to do what we think is right. I guess my husband and I decided early on what our values were and mostly were able to live by them. We did not get everything we wanted but now our lives are peaceful and satisfying. That is my wish for all of us on this forum


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Wonderful post Spirit. I don't agree that early retirement is just a marketing ploy made up by the financial industry. I believe it comes from the fact that full time work, for most of us, takes up way too much of our time. 40 hours a week, plus overtime, plus more worry time on evenings and weekends, leaves very little left over for what we really want to do. 

I do agree that the best alternative is part time work, however, part time work for most people is illusive. The problem with part time work is that for most of the part time jobs out there, they don't pay as well as the full time jobs (there are many exceptions, but the vast majority of part time jobs are close to minimum wage). So for a person to live on part time work, not only do they suffer from working less payable hours, but those hours in themselves, pay less. So if you work 1/2 the time for 1/2 the wage, you need to be able to live on about 25% of your current wage. Most can't do this.

I believe the best alternative is early retirement. Once one is financially independant, one can then work if they want, at whatever they want, or not work at all.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Let's spin this around. If you were extremely wealthy and didn't have to work another day in your life, what would you do with your time?


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Thanks for your post spirit!

I see nothing wrong with wanting early retirement/reduced working hours and 'enjoying life', however, I'm very surprised at the desire of so many iGeneration folks, that are sometimes fresh out of school/college/university, yet think of early retirement even before they have been in the workforce [full-time] for more than a few years. Strange also that many such people are not big savers.

Where is the enthusiasm, energy & motivation from the iGeneration? Imagine if doctors [and other essential professional & non-professionals] wanted to retire shortly after graduating? Lately, many 20 something have been talking about retirement before the age of 30. :confused2:

Look around, life is hard, whoever said it was, or that it was supposed to be a 'bowl of cherries'?


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Some good posts. Tend to agree with TG. Nothing wrong with early retirement if you have planned for it both financially and mentally. I too can't identify with people who start thinking about early retirement as soon as they get their first job. Working can be very fulfilling and satisfying. Many people, myself included, may get a little tired and bored with it after 25 or 30 years but right off the bat? Anyway, taking time out of the workforce early in your career may have a pretty high cost given how difficult it is for young people to establish themselves in the workforce.


----------



## loggedout (Dec 30, 2009)

I HATE my job and every job I've ever had, but I have to make money to survive and have a reasonable chance at being FI one day, so I grin and bear it. That's a part of my personality though, I'm a brooding pessimist. I've never had much "enthusiasm" for anything, outside of sports. Although, that's never stopped me from achieving I set out to because I have motivations, just not positive ones, lol. My motivations are always negative motivations, like if you don't do this and that, you're going to starve - that's what pushed me to get a degree, get a career, etc.

Of course, I'm always dreaming of the day when I don't have to work anymore, and I can just do whatever I want, but a lot of whatever I want has a monetary cost to it. I had some "forced" time off this summer due to a strike, and the feeling of waking up whenever I liked and doing whatever I liked was amazing, but alas it was short lived and so I'm back to the grind. It's just reality and reality can be crushingly miserable.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Interesting posts. I've recently landed a Federal government job after being off work for almost 2 years. Being in my 50s, and getting almost zero response from job inquiries, I was wondering whether early retirement was the way to go. 

Like the OP, early retirement had been a dream and a goal in my earlier years. However, being an introvert, I think that I discounted the value of social interactions that a work environment provides. One important aspect of working relations is they expose you to social groups that you would usually not hang out with: younger people, older people, people with different hobbies, activities or viewpoints. Then the financial, money-grubbing side of me kept saying, "You could be earning an income instead of sitting on your butt foruming for half the day". We could get by with just my wife's salary and our investments, but an extra paycheque always ads a nice bump in income and the occasional extra pleasure. And even though I'm frugal, there's something psychological that makes being frugal sort of enjoyable when it is a choice and sort of an annoyance when it is a necessity. And lastly, sometimes having too much time to dwell on life's issues can lead to depression. 

I think a sabbatical may be a better goal for many people (not all, I know) than early retirement.


----------



## jcgd (Oct 30, 2011)

ddkay said:


> Let's spin this around. If you were extremely wealthy and didn't have to work another day in your life, what would you do with your time?


I'd probably find some work to do.


----------



## GeniusBoy27 (Jun 11, 2010)

I do what I love for work, and get paid really well to do it. Couldn't think of doing anything else. Win the $40 million tonight, I'd still be back at work. Maybe I wouldn't work as often or as hard. Maybe I'd spend some more of the time working with the unfortunate. But I have the coolest job in the world, and wouldn't change it for a second (unless I could become a PGA tour pro ... that seems like a cool fun job.)


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I find my work enjoyable/demanding/challenging and right now coul'nt think of anything i would rather do-It's a small business i started in 05,by myself(construction co,3 man firm basically)Each yr it is growing(except one yr)It feels like my ''child"-i dream of building it into a million dollar firm(half-way there,i ''only'' do 500k a yr-thats what drives me-it hard.)Plus i can control my time(i only operate for 9 mths,3 mths off,dec,jan,feb-recharges the batteries perfectly)I love coming home '''spent" and felling productive-work(if you enjoy it)can be like a drug.....I want wealth,but not early retirement-work is the anchor of life and you have to build around it to fill in the other area''s.imo


----------



## davext (Apr 11, 2010)

You know $60K in savings is great but with the crazy housing market over the past years, people have been making money like that in a matter of days. The saddest part of saving in my opinion is when you lose money from the market or your returns are stagnant, or someone who doesn't save is able to make more money than you by spending money while being able to spend almost every cent towards enjoying life.

Typical example, I want to buy a house in 2005, I don't have that much money but I want my own house. 2010, my house is too small, I rather have a bigger house.. The house I bought in 2005, is probably about 40 to 60% more than it was worth when I bought it. 2012 comes around, the house I bought in 2010 is worth about 20% more than it was worth when I bought it. Sweet. Some how I'm up maybe about $400,000 without having to worry too much about savings ever. 

This didn't happen to me but I could have had similar opportunities if I wasn't so risk adverse. I bought a condo in 2005, and sold it in 2010. I made money on it. However, my big regret was not buying more properties and not buying more expensive luxury properties that I could have lived in and re-sold. The reason I didn't buy more is because in 2005, the condo I bought was so cheap and people still asked me if it was too expensive. I couldn't force myself to buy anymore because prices had gone up so much and then looked too expensive to me at the time.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

After a couple of years being retired its everything I want, time to play with hobbies never bored, travel, wake up when I feel like it.

For someone young not sure of the point to holding a job wondering what else might be waiting wanting to take life easy it might be better to talk to a career counselor.


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

Thanks for the kind words. I am lucky that I am able to work part time at my profession. At 61 most teachers have left the classroom but since I did not work full time all those years I have a little more gas in the tank. (; I work part time because I love my job but I love my family also. If I lost my husband, work would be an empty way to fill the hours. I guess what I am trying to say is that I am trying to keep balance in my life. Perhaps it looks pretty nice from this end. Home paid for, money in the bank, a professional job on my terms. But did anyone see me drive away at 6 am to drive an hour each way on winter roads for a 1/2 day at substitute wages? Did anyone see me work 80 hour weeks to prep for a long term subbing assignment? Did anyone see my husband work 90 hour weeks at -40 below, climb 100 foot towers with the windchill below freezing in the dead of winter? Drive on highways in the blinding fog or almost hit a deer/moose which might have been death. Or drive from Alberta to Ontario for a maybe job, have it shut down after a few days and drive back....at their own cost. Or sleep in a camp in Fort MacMurray 600 miles from home. Get up in the dark, go to sleep in the dark and have 1/2 your paycheck go to pay taxes ( a priviledge in our country, I may add) We have paid our dues and if someone is looking, we have the scars to show for it.
I also work with the entitled generation. They do not know better, they have entered into a world prepared for them without any sweat equity of their own in it. Yet. But no one gets through life without picking up some scars. My parents went through a terrible depression and survived a world war. They would not wish hardship on their children and I do not wish hardship for the youngsters. My wish is to be there to help them when they go through their own tough times by just letting them know they can find their own solutions to their problems. My youngest son is going through a very tough time at work right now. I know I would have been horrified if my parents pried into my grown up affairs. They let me work through my problems and I came through ok. I know the younger ones will find the solutions to the problems they face. Each generation goes through it and so will they. I just want to be there on the sidelines cheering them on.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I worked for 40 years............retired at 55.

Retirement is life without the interference of work.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

sags said:


> I worked for 40 years............retired at 55.
> 
> Retirement is life without the interference of work.


Yes but for some people(not you or I) work is not an interference but rather enjoyable. I agree that after 40 years (my case about 35) it does get a little tedious.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

hey spirit & donald, i hope neither of U will mind if i come with some compliments & a request.

(request to spirit) your messages are always so enlightening & so uplifting. We need to hear more from people like yourself. Teachers who are well-grounded & wise but who have never lost faith in the young people who are, in fact, the future.

my request is won't you please break up your paragraph blocks. To make them easier to read, because your messages are so valuable.

classic journalism even teaches that every sentence should be a new paragraph. 

like so.

see, this is so much easier for poor pies to follow.

(aside to donald) some time ago you posted that you didn't believe you could write well. You said it was sometimes daunting even to publish messages here in this forum.

but imho you write exceptionally well. You write in a colourful patois of your own. Like all patois - often these are based on a spoken language only, not a written language - yours has a perfect linguistic & grammatical structure at a deep level. This makes it easy to read. It makes the meaning of each post crystal clear. The raw sparkling vocabulary, including baroque punctuation marks tossed in here & there, is an add-on.

your "hommage" in praise of work is a handsome piece. Gangsta poetry. Street music.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

@humble-thanks.I don't mind getting/gathering info(written form,from others)But for me personally i don't really like to ''convey'' myself through written form(ya know,what i mean-I'm more street,lol)

Id rather talk-live and in ''person" with people or even in a group-you get a clearer picture of everything,i hang-out here for the knowledge.

It's hard to read ''people" through this form-your judge strictly(bais perceptions).....put everyone from cmf in a group around a round table and it would be very different-certian things can be greatly masked via the net,if that makes sense!that is what i mean by not likeing it-it is what it is.


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

humble_pie
Thanks.
I was writing late at night.
I forget what it is like to read because I do it all day. It feels like my lessons to students(;
When did I become wise....and grounded....?I still think I am only 28.
I am forever grateful for the collective wisdom found here


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

ddkay said:


> Let's spin this around. If you were extremely wealthy and didn't have to work another day in your life, what would you do with your time?



Well today I attended the Bluenose 2 relaunch. Tomorrow we hike and explore the "Ovens" near Lunenburg. Monday we take the motorhome to Yarmouth and start looking for a nice ocean front acreage that will be suitable for our immediate family to build their cabins and have a family retreat hopefully for generations. That will take till the end of October when we are booked in Marathon Key Florida for fishing, snorkeling and lots of boat drinks. December we have booked a series of off shore sailing lessons but need to get to Vegas to spend Christmas with friends....(I can keep going...you asked lol)


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Eder said:


> (I can keep going...you asked lol)


1 year down... 84 to go...


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

I am working so that I can stop working (preferably before 45).


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Jon_Snow said:


> I am working so that I can stop working (preferably before 45).


Hold on there......that's _my_ line......for years I said that the only reason, (apart from eating and sleeping indoors), I ever worked was so I could quit......which I did at 46, (and I just turned 70). :encouragement:


----------



## thebomb (Feb 3, 2012)

I am working so that I have choices... though it goes hand in hand with saving. I work to save money to have choices. I am healthy and in my early 30's. I make good money and live a modest life. I can think of working as a means to aquire material things, but instead I think of working and making money as a means to have choices. Family is my #1 priority (though I still struggle personally with one day potentially having kinds and actually taking a maternity leave...-should probably see a counsellor for that..lol) I want to be able to one day spend time with my parents should they fall ill. Take care of them with the same care and attention they paid to us growing up. I want to retire while healthy to enjoy time with my husband in our older years. Recently I was chatting with a girlfriend of mine, she is a nurse and when I said 'lucky you- you have a DB pension' she looked at me and said I have no idea what you are talking about, we talked a little further about money and she has never envisioned paying off her mortgage....though she was quick to say she was looking forward to getting pregnant so that she can go from full time to part time. Those are all her choices. They just about gave me a heart attack. So I know at this point I am babbling,but really what I am saying is that I work so that I can make money to have choices.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

thebomb said:


> Family is my #1 priority (*though I still struggle personally with one day potentially having kinds and actually taking a maternity leave*...-should probably see a counsellor for that..lol)


Just FYI, you are under no obligation to take any kind of maternity leave. I was self-employed when I had both my kids and wasn't paying into EI (I don't know whether I would have chosen to pay into EI as a self-employed person or not), so I had one extremely short mat leave and one much longer, but they weren't "mat leaves" as envisioned by the 50 weeks of paid EI leave (or whatever the maximum number of weeks is). Even if you are eligible for EI maternity leave, there's no requirement that you take it.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

Great post thebomb... I really like the idea of working to allow us more "choices" and "possibilities". Literally speaking, I could quit work tomorrow at 40 because we could easily live on my wife's income alone - but in doing so, we would have to a bit more careful about our spending. But each additional year I work from here on out adds substantially (100k annually?) to our portfolio which will eventually produce dividends enough to replace my salary. 

My wife loves her job, so she is in no hurry to bail - mine however is a meat-grinder which is slowly breaking me down physically - hazardous and noxious materials abound and leave me with constant headaches and dizziness etc. I have had enough.

So yeah, once our portfolio is reaches a certain level, I will have the ultimate FREEDOM to stop working at my current job. Whether I find another job or not will be MY CHOICE. I find the idea quite exhilarating. Even without my employment income, we will still be saving a lot of money every month (between wife's income and dividends) - enough that my wife should be able to join me in retirement at an earlier age than most are able to... But she truly loves her job it seems and may well want to work to 60 - a concept that baffles me.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I am working to pay off my mortgage. After the mortgage is paid off, if I have enough investment income to live from, I will definitely do something else with my time. My goal is to exit the workforce no later than 55.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

For me, working is not necessarily the issue.

Not having enough money is the issue.

If I had all my bases covered, I wouldn't mind working at all. The stressful part is the fact that I work 40 hours a week and still can't afford to do anything because the cost of living is ridiculous and my wage is too low.

Working - in and of itself - is not stressful or tedious.
Not having money is stressful and tedious.


----------



## thebomb (Feb 3, 2012)

Hey MoneyGal, I hear ya on the maternity leave. Its more an internal struggle re:taking time off....I could probably reach an agreement to still work part time while off but so many implications if I do that I need to sort out whether its worth it on many different levels...


----------



## cjk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> I see nothing wrong with wanting early retirement/reduced working hours and 'enjoying life', however, I'm very surprised at the desire of so many iGeneration folks, that are sometimes fresh out of school/college/university, yet think of early retirement even before they have been in the workforce [full-time] for more than a few years. Strange also that many such people are not big savers.
> 
> Where is the enthusiasm, energy & motivation from the iGeneration? Imagine if doctors [and other essential professional & non-professionals] wanted to retire shortly after graduating? Lately, many 20 something have been talking about retirement before the age of 30. :confused2:
> 
> Look around, life is hard, whoever said it was, or that it was supposed to be a 'bowl of cherries'?


I am not surprised. It's a bit disheartening to see some of the attitudes of the kids today. Honestly I think we had it too easy, growing up in the 90s. Our parents were raking in tons of money, benefiting from the economic boom, buying houses and spending money on us (their kids). We thought life was going to be a piece of cake and the money would be easy. It probably didn't help that many parents had the same high expectations for their kids--after all, they did way better than _their_ parents, so their kids should do much better than them! After all, society keeps advancing, economy keeps growing right??

What many kids probably failed to realize was that our parents started off modestly, working very hard when they were young, before getting the opportunities, raises, etc. when they were older. They think their parents just always waltzed through life.

Example: I remember someone in high school declaring, "My dad earns over $100k per year _easy_. Why wouldn't I be able to get the same kind of job when I graduate??" Someone else's dad got rich and retired in their 30s so basically, their goal in life was to do the same. In turn that kid's friends also saw the great life the Dad was living and wanted to emulate it as well. So you have all these kids who basically have the attitude of, "I want to grow up to retire early!" Not the traditional, "I want to grow up to be a _____ (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc)." Instead it's: "I want to grow up to become a (doctor/lawyer/engineer) so I can get a high-paying job and retire when I'm 30!"

Not to say everyone is like that, but I bet it is a pretty significant percentage. Meanwhile when my parents were in high school, I doubt there were many (if any) kids with that mindset. They saw their parents (aka my grandparents) work hard and strived to emulate that. (I include myself in the former category, by the way. While I hope I have more realistic expectations than some, and I do enjoy working--not the work itself, but the feeling of accomplishment that contributing to society brings--I still want an early retirement. Not super-early, but definitely earlier than the traditional 65 or even 55. And yes, this is likely due to seeing my own parents retire in their 40's.)

I'd add that the wide prevalence of students doing lots of traveling during school or going on exchange programs these days affects attitudes as well. As a result of this they have an expectation (maybe even subconsciously) that "traveling around the world" is an expected part of life. Maybe a good thing in some ways, but when it gets out of hand they then do not want to "settle down" in a boring, typical, 40-hour work week rooted in one city. (Have to say I suffer from this too--I've been working at my job for about a year and a half, and already I want to change jobs, maybe move to a different city...)


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Throw in:hollywood/tv/reality shows ect,ect........everything in the media revolves around wealth and everybody seems to be obssessed with the rich and famous lifestyles(even though these stars are bashed)-the masses eat-up all the rich house wives shows/the rich real estate agent shows,ect ect-the masses want to emulate that stuff and think that is normal(and they strive for that).Im pretty sure my dad and grandfather were not exposed to this crap-my dad grew up with 4 channels-news/hockey night in canada and maybe leave it to bev.......some vancouver house wife buys the latest coach bag or whatever and half a million middle class women follow suit lol--example,and its true.Consumer driven now,way more than every before.Iphones/lulu....i see a ton of teenager's that look rich,because they watch that crap.Young people don't emulate there parents anymore,they emulate tv characters m.o-i sound like a old guy.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Our generation's problem is that the taxes are insane which means that average salary can only barely cover the cost of living. Which leads to the i generation either hiding their head in the sand or stare blankly at the headlight. We don't think about what to do when we eventually retire, we think about how we can ever survive the grim reality that we will have to work till we die with nothing to show for it. 

Retirement in a few more decade will just be a pipe dream. Look at Spain. 50% youth unemployment since 2008. That's 2.5 years of work life wasted for every iGeneration.

And this is just the western world. Retirement is not even a possibility for 99% of earth's inhabitants.

Disclaimer: Slight exaggeration


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Income taxes were higher 30 years ago than they are now. Not that they aren't high enough now. Interesting some of the attitudes young people have. Some good posts about this. My daughter is always surprised when I tell her how little I had when I was younger. I think she thinks I was always as well off as I am now. When I explain how we sacrificed to send her to private school, etc, she is shocked. Anyway I think it is more difficult to get established as a young person now than it was 30-40 years ago. On the other hand parents today have helped their kids a lot more financially than my parents, and those of my friends did. Kind of evens out over time a bit.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Square Root said:


> Income taxes were higher 30 years ago than they are now. Not that they aren't high enough now.


At all levels of govt., income taxes are being replaced by consumption taxes.
GST, HST, gas tax, road tolls, hydro taxes, higher property taxes, so on and so forth.


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

cjk2 said:


> What many kids probably failed to realize was that our parents started off modestly, working very hard when they were young, before getting the opportunities, raises, etc. when they were older. They think their parents just always waltzed through life.


The funny thing is, while I don't know of anyone who thinks that (or has admitted to thinking that), but I do observe first hand how few of people my age (23) are motivated, saving, planning etc. They never talk about retirement. 

And I thought "real income" is less now than it was in the 80's no? Cost of living is higher? So many statistics to keep track of *sigh*

Ps. I like the Real Housewives series! (well most, not all). And I do not feel the least inclined to emulate their lives, except for the "I can do whatever I want when I want" bit. Which is why I work and go to school, so I can have money so I can have options. Similar to what Thebomb said.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Young&a-You got to admit(i watch millionaire real estate shows)and these shows are extreamly popular-one can feel like sh%t when these guys are making 75k a week(and live,like kings)and there 23(the 1 % i know,they never seem that special either,to me).....for a middle class guy or even a upper middle class guy.....thou to quickly feel better i just throw on debt(gail ox show)and then i don't feel so bad lol.

Its the ''quick riches" and big incomes that are showcased........but i guess that is like anything....the ''do whatever you want,when you want" is like the 0.5% of the population.esp under 40/45 yrs of age.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

My patents were downright poor when I was born... Now they are safely established in the top 1% - probably the top .5%. Work ethic was off the charts for my old man, and he bears the scars of this today. But real-estate appreciation was the BIG factor in their success. This isn't in the cards for young ones today.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Those millionaire and real estate shows change my mood instantly.

I can go from being extremely happy to depressed in about 1 minute. Same with that "entourage" show. I hate all of that garbage.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> At all levels of govt., income taxes are being replaced by consumption taxes.
> GST, HST, gas tax, road tolls, hydro taxes, higher property taxes, so on and so forth.


True to an extent. I wonder if the total tax burden is higher or lower now vs 40 years ago. Probably less progressive. When I started working as a professional in 1975, I recall that the max marg income tax rate in Ontario was 63% Real income is certainly higher now than in the 80's.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> Those millionaire and real estate shows change my mood instantly.
> 
> I can go from being extremely happy to depressed in about 1 minute. Same with that "entourage" show. I hate all of that garbage.


Yes. the way the AAmerican media sometimes showcases wealth is quite disgusting especially when their society is less egalitarian than ever. Couple this with access to firearms and racial problems-big surprise lots of crime.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Inflation through various forms of taxes and fees, along with excessive RE pumping govt policies the past 10 years are devastating the pocketbook of the middle class. Some people have more money today but most do not. And yes I know there will always be the zealots who disagree and ignore these things. These are usually those trying to access this added revenue via various lobby efforts and such. Taxes are way too high, regardless of what they're called. Govt needs to say 'no' to various lobby groups rather than using them as easy vote banks to hold onto power. We can't afford it.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Square Root said:


> I recall that the max marg income tax rate in Ontario was 63%


It is probably around the same now as well, once you account for the increase in consumption taxes.
Our MTRs are highly punitive, esp. full-time work income (i.e. T4 income).
We have essentially only one true tax shelter left - the RRSP.
Ontario and Quebec are the worst (the Spain and France of Canada, respectively).
For full-time T4 workers, there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

Business and/or dividend income earners are better off, though.



> Real income is certainly higher now than in the 80's.


I recall seeing data that our real incomes are at 1990 levels, give or take.
I believe currently we have an _illusion_ of real income being higher because of debt-induced consumer spending.
Once you discount the deficit financing (at household and govt. levels), real incomes have been stagnant since the early 1990s.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Harold. I accept that real incomes haven't progressed much in 20 years but they have increased slightly and are certainly above the levels in the 1980's. I invite someone to check this. As a resident of Alberta, I am a little less sensitive to consumption taxes. The GST came in around the mid 80's as I recall and we did have PST in Ont before that. I wonder if the total tax burden is more or less than say 25 years ago? Anyway, I certainly agree it's tougher for young people- at least those without assistance from their parents. I really feel for grads who have tens of housands of student debt on graduation. I was able to put myself through undergrad, and MBA without any student debt or help from my parents. I doubt this is very easy today.

Edit. Actually I did some checking and Canadian real personal disposable income has increased quite steadily over the last 20 years except for dips during the financial crises.


----------



## cjk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

Young&Ambitious said:


> The funny thing is, while I don't know of anyone who thinks that (or has admitted to thinking that), but I do observe first hand how few of people my age (23) are motivated, saving, planning etc. They never talk about retirement.


I should add that these attitudes were only blatantly expressed in high school. (Although, my experience may be biased...I didn't attend a private school but I did grow up in a relatively affluent suburban neighbourhood where most of the kids' parents were quite well off.)

In university and beyond, these attitudes became more subtle--in that people may not outright say it, but you can see it in the way they behave. You still see people mention their well-off parents or relatives, and it's clear that most of them do not put much thought into how much hard work it took to achieve that wealth. It's also clear that they expect to land a nice cushy job themselves upon graduation--most people have a sweet high-paying job in mind, not a low-paying job with opportunities for advancement. They want to jump straight into the higher ranks, and complain that "earlier generations had it better" when things don't pan out. (I'm guilty of this myself, then I have to give myself a reality check.)

Again, I don't think parents really helped much in this respect. I remember once in the mid-90s, my Dad had really started to accumulate a lot of wealth. I think I had made a comment about the rising costs of tuition I'd heard about (I was still a few years away from university though). He would then tell me things like, "Don't worry, I have enough money to send you to any university you want to go to!" Thankfully (in retrospect) I had my mom, who kept telling me how hard life was for them--how my dad came to Canada with only a few bucks in his pocket, washed dishes throughout school at minimum wage to earn money, bought a beat-up old car, started working at a tiny company that paid little and overworked their employees, before finally getting his break at a larger, successful company.


----------



## cjk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

Square Root said:


> Anyway, I certainly agree it's tougher for young people- at least those without assistance from their parents. I really feel for grads who have tens of housands of student debt on graduation. I was able to put myself through undergrad, and MBA without any student debt or help from my parents. I doubt this is very easy today.


I'd say it's downright impossible to get any degree today without debt or parental help--unless you are one of the few who get a full scholarship, or you delayed school by a few years to work and save up money. (Although honestly, the insane rising costs of tuition would probably mean those extra years were wasted anyways. I didn't graduate that long ago, but recently I checked the tuition fees for my program and was shocked to find that in such a short timeframe, the already-high cost had gone up another almost 70%! Pure insanity. I don't know how kids are going to do it in the future...I barely scraped by myself.)

But the way I see it, some student debt is not a bad thing. In fact, it's quite a useful life lesson. My Dad offered to pay for my schooling, but I wanted to try my best to do it myself. (However I _did_ accept the RESP grants/gains my parents had generously invested for me, which came to about 12% of my overall costs and definitely helped a lot.) Being in deep debt throughout school helps you learn to live frugally, budget money wisely, spend below your means, appreciate your education more, etc. You don't blow it all on vacations and fancy new gadgets. And when you graduate, it helps you learn to put aside a large portion of your paycheque in order to pay down your loans. Once that's done, you can then put that money towards saving instead of spending (hopefully). And you feel proud to have accomplished it!

Tens of thousands of debt sounds like a lot (and it certainly feels like a lot!) but it's not that hard to pay off if you're committed to it and have a decent-paying job. You just need a plan--not decide to put it off because it's such a huge amount. I don't think debt is the problem necessarily, it's the fact that some people don't manage their money well. Or, they are great with money but due to the economic downturn can't find a job, or only a low-paying one. I don't feel sorry for the former category, I do for the latter one...I hope youth unemployment in Canada never gets as bad as it is in some countries, because _that_ is a MAJOR problem.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

CJK2: I agree with most of what you said except for tuition fees being too high. I think students should pay a fair share ( ie most) of the cost of their education. They benefit personally much more than society as a whole and thus I think it is fair for them to pay more. Tuition fees are rising rapidly because they have been held artificially low for so long. I have little simpathy for the Quebec "students" who demonstate again any tuition increases and try to coerce their fellow students into boycotting classes.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

cjk2 said:


> Tens of thousands of debt sounds like a lot (and it certainly feels like a lot!) but it's not that hard to pay off if you're committed to it and have a decent-paying job.


Past performance is not indicative of future returns. 

I think that a big "mistake" of this generation' students is drinking the kool-aid that was being served at the time. "Yes, yes, pay whatever it takes to get a good education, it will pay off!"

Problem is, those "unique" students with "unique" skills are being manufactured by the thousand and are as disposable as they are dupe.

You no longer get ahead by completing a mere B.Sc, now you need a M.Sc. or even a Ph.D to be somewhat competitive (even a Ph.D is becoming very commong in certain fields).

"Break the cycle" I say," go to professional school, learn a profession, graduate debt free, start working at 18!"


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

I've said it before but it is by no means impossible but it doesn't happen instantly to graduate debt free! I started working in high school, saved like crazy and worked like crazy. Went to school part time while living at home. The important thing is I attended summer session classes so I didn't fall behind despite being part-time. Plus, I gained part-time experience in my industry. I am still in school part time but now working full time and I have a great balance of education and experience and I never went into debt for it.


----------



## 1.5M (Apr 21, 2012)

The problem is that most work is not worth it. The salaries are very low and other people get rich (shareholders) instead of the workers. By saving and investing someone could at some point move from being a stupid worker to a smart shareholder. Again, because the salaries are so low, this unfortunately takes a very long time, probably at least 10 to 20 years for someone who does not spend (spending money on useless products is just another way to make some shareholders rich). 
Another thing, the taxes are not too high, they are too low for the rich (people who live off dividends and capital gains). That's another reason why only stupid people are happy working.

To OP: you need to stop spending at 25, you need at least $1M to be able to stop working. Otherwise, you'll have to work at 50 or even 60 when it feels ten times worst than at 25.


----------



## 1.5M (Apr 21, 2012)

Unfortunately higher education is another way to transfer money from the poor workers to the rich shareholders. The future workers have to pay for their education (sometimes they are forced to take loans for that) while the shareholders of their future workplace get most benefits of that education. A fair change to that would be to increase the taxes on the rich and have all education covered by the government, but that won't happen as the rich control the government.
What the young needs to do is to evaluate the cost/benefit of each education option (including the no education option) and minimize the duration of education plus work necessary to achieve freedom.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

1.5M Have any recommendations or just complaints? OK We crossed posts. Seems that you do have some. Suspect if you ever get to $1.5M you might change your idea of increasing taxes on the rich.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I think 1.5M brings up some very good points.

That's exactly the way it works.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> I think 1.5M brings up some very good points.
> 
> That's exactly the way it works.


Really? Education only benefits shareholders? Boy I really beat the odds I guess?


----------



## cjk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

Guigz said:


> Past performance is not indicative of future returns.
> 
> I think that a big "mistake" of this generation' students is drinking the kool-aid that was being served at the time. "Yes, yes, pay whatever it takes to get a good education, it will pay off!"
> 
> ...


I agree--except with your last sentence, as I still think "graduating debt free" is virtually impossible these days. (Y&A, it's definitely commendable that you worked so hard to graduate debt free! But as you pointed out, it meant you had to attend school only part-time, and live at home. That's not always feasible--I had no choice but to move to another city, as the program I attended was not offered by a local university, so the costs were much higher. And even if I had wanted to, I don't think part-time was even an option because my program was quite rigidly structured. I did what I could do minimize my debt--lived frugally, worked hard through the summers--but even then I ended up tens of thousands in debt.) 

But yes, I don't think parents, teachers, guidance counsellors etc. in high school do a good job of preparing kids for the real world, unfortunately. If you're going to get in loads of debt for university, pick a professional degree that will get you a decent job. Or, if you truly love school and learning go for that PhD, but you've got to be really dedicated and committed. Otherwise, it is probably far better to go to trades school or a practical college course as opposed to getting a BA or BSc. Only go into a lot of debt if you are fairly sure of a good return on investment (i.e. like you mentioned, professional degrees).



Square Root said:


> CJK2: I agree with most of what you said except for tuition fees being too high. I think students should pay a fair share ( ie most) of the cost of their education. They benefit personally much more than society as a whole and thus I think it is fair for them to pay more. Tuition fees are rising rapidly because they have been held artificially low for so long. I have little simpathy for the Quebec "students" who demonstate again any tuition increases and try to coerce their fellow students into boycotting classes.


Don't we already pay a fair share of our education? (Guess our definition of "fair share" is different! ) Students basically don't have much income so I think it's a bit unfair for them to shell out so much money. A lot of students do work hard to make money to support their schooling and are still racking up the debt, it doesn't seem fair to ask them to do more. Though I admit, I myself was a bit baffled by the Quebec students because they pay WAY less than anyone else in Canada! If anyone should be complaining it's the rest of us!  But at the same time, I've felt the same sort of anger and disbelief at how high tuition is rising, so I understand how they feel. I just don't think boycotting classes is the way to do it, but I do feel like _something_ should be done, otherwise only the rich kids will be able to afford to attend university.

That's why I still think the government should help out with education costs. Otherwise, the poor-vs-rich gap will get larger. Kids from lower-income families, or whose parents refuse to support them, won't be able to attend. That's just not fair to me. Sure you can offer more in scholarships and financial aid but will that keep up with tuition costs? And anyways I would rather have my tax money go towards supporting students attending university than supporting tons of lazy people on welfare who don't even bother to try to better themselves or get a job.


----------



## 1.5M (Apr 21, 2012)

SR, I am on my way to 1.5M. However, I don't like the fact that my capital gains (for which I "work" about 1 hour a week) are taxed at half the rate of my working income (almost 40 hours a week). That is what makes work worthless from a financial point of view. However, I don't expect that to change anytime soon. That's why my advice to young people is to save, don't spend and plan for exiting the workforce as soon as possible.


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

1.5M said:


> Unfortunately higher education is another way to transfer money from the poor workers to the rich shareholders. The future workers have to pay for their education (sometimes they are forced to take loans for that) while the shareholders of their future workplace get most benefits of that education. A fair change to that would be to increase the taxes on the rich and have all education covered by the government, but that won't happen as the rich control the government.
> What the young needs to do is to evaluate the cost/benefit of each education option (including the no education option) and minimize the duration of education plus work necessary to achieve freedom.


Ummm no. Generally speaking, universities and other education institutions are not for profit and in part funded by the public through government dollars. The majority of those government dollars come from all walks of like, but it could be argued that higher income earners pay more than their fair share of taxes if you compare taxes per person versus taxes _contributed _on average per person or tax bracket.

Student debt is often held by pension funds and retirees and other investors. Does having a pension make someone rich? They would need to work to get that pension. And same for many of the other people holding so said student debt and even other forms of income. Most people aren't born into money, most people work for a living.

And as for the big mean corporations spiel, give me a break and go take an economics class. It's run by everyday people. 

I hold shares in companies. Therefore I am rich? We live in a country where we have an opportunity to make something of ourselves, more so than can be said for many others in this world. Stop whining.


----------



## 1.5M (Apr 21, 2012)

Young&Ambitious said:


> I hold shares in companies. Therefore I am rich? We live in a country where we have an opportunity to make something of ourselves, more so than can be said for many others in this world. Stop whining.


LOL, you argument is that somewhere else it's worse. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with me describing how working is not worth it and how people having to pay for education is not fair.

If you still have to work a regular job, you are not rich. 
If you live only off capital gains and dividends, you are rich (and are paying a lower tax rate than the unfortunate who still have to work). My main objective is to get to that point as well, as soon as possible, because in our society working is not worth it. This is not whining, is just pointing out how things are.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

It's a poorly known fact, but most estimates suggest student education is subsidized in the 80%+ range, so yes, tuition at most institutes is rising, but the system is already tilted such that the 'rich taxpayer' is already funding higher education.

One only has to look South where public education institutes receive much less money to see what tuition fees 'should' look like.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Besides the obvious reasons I work (money to pay for food, shelter, fun etc.), I also enjoy the challenge and love researching investment ideas and seeing them unfold. Some aspects of my work I would likely do on my own time, if money was no object, while other aspects I definitely would not. 

I'd also be lying if I said I didn't love the feeling of success I get based on my career progression vs. many of my peers, and the fact that I managed to crack the ranks of an industry that employs some of the best and brightest out there (as well as some idiots who just happen to have the right last name). 

While the hours are nuts and the pay doesn't quite make up for it, part of what keeps me going is wanting to see just how far I can make it. A lot of the higher-ups at my work have absolutely no need to work from a financial point of view, but they are all driven to continue to work, and try and rise further and further within the ranks.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

There are those that very much want to be professional students one degree is not enough at the expense of taxpayers, many find it easier to continue attending university.
Once in they do have the privilege of staying and making changes for as long as they wish.
I know of five university students right now that don't have a clue what they want to do so attend, and have been doing this for three years now.
The resources are not cheap.


----------



## 1.5M (Apr 21, 2012)

Sampson said:


> It's a poorly known fact, but most estimates suggest student education is subsidized in the 80%+ range, so yes, tuition at most institutes is rising, but the system is already tilted such that the 'rich taxpayer' is already funding higher education.


Student education should be free. Currently most taxes are paid by the working middle class not by the rich taxpayers. We should move the tax burden towards the people who benefit most from government spending (including for education), the non-working rich.The tax system should be really progressive, not progressive just for the middle class income levels then flat for the rich with lots of loopholes for the kind of income the rich has (capital gains and dividends). 



Sampson said:


> One only has to look South where public education institutes receive much less money to see what tuition fees 'should' look like.


When I look South I see a backward country which we should move as far from as we can.


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

People need incentives to invest in risky companies which are just starting up. Otherwise, everyone would invest in "safe" companies and it would be impossible for start ups to get investment capital (see here, this is good for the "little guy" or entrepreneur etc etc) or else it would be all big corporations. By giving smaller companies a chance to get larger and grow, there is competition and drive and other market efficiencies that result. There is added risk to invest in such a company, hence the government provides an incentive to do so.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

And to weigh in on the current direction this thread is headed in:

I think education should be completely free... but only to the best and brightest. The fact is that it already is free for the smartest out there.
For the rest, it is much too cheap. 

About half of my university class dropped out. If they had to pay the full cost (not the government subsidized $6-7K that they actually paid) I guarantee that they would either have stayed in the program, or never have registered in the first place. These were the people that coasted through high school and made scraped into university with a 65% average.

If I graduate high school with a 95%+ average, I can receive up to $4,000/year automatically off my tuition (unlimited entrance scholarships granted at most universities). In addition there are numerous in-course scholarships and bursuries, and countless more that can be applied for separately. Even though it is already significant, I think scholarship money should be increased for the top performers.

These are the people who should not have any challenges put in front of them when it comes to education. These are the people who are going to go on to exceptional careers, will pay a ton of taxes and will likely benefit society at large. 

My view is along the lines of why should basket weaving be subsidized? In particular, why should those who receive a C- in basket weaving be subsidized?


----------



## 1.5M (Apr 21, 2012)

Young&Ambitious said:


> People need incentives to invest in risky companies which are just starting up. Otherwise, everyone would invest in "safe" companies and it would be impossible for start ups to get investment capital (see here, this is good for the "little guy" or entrepreneur etc etc) or else it would be all big corporations. By giving smaller companies a chance to get larger and grow, there is competition and drive and other market efficiencies that result. There is added risk to invest in such a company, hence the government provides an incentive to do so.


I am all for competition and small businesses, however I don't see what incentives are there for investing in small companies compared to large companies (even evil ones, like MO or BP), or indexes or pure speculation (which in my experience is most profitable). 
If I see something in our economy is how new small businesses have close to zero chances to succeed against big corporations.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

1.5M said:


> Currently most taxes are paid by the working middle class not by the rich taxpayers. We should move the tax burden towards the people who benefit most from government spending (including for education), the non-working rich.The tax system should be really progressive, not progressive just for the middle class income levels then flat for the rich with lots of loopholes for the kind of income the rich has (capital gains and dividends).


Time and time again, the facts show that the rich pay most taxes. While the rich pay a lesser % of their income in tax (ie Mitt Romney pays only 14% on $13 million income vs 35%+ for the wage slave) they pay a significantly greater % of overall tax than the middle class or poor.

This was the first result on google, shows just how much the top 1%/5%/10% etc. pay in the States. Little bit dated, and not Canadian figures, but the results are pretty clear. The rich pay significantly more taxes than the poor... Just as it was designed to be.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
(I didn't really look into this website, so it could be partisan and exaggerating, but I'm not writing an essay, so it'll have to do)

Not saying it's right that Romney pays 14%, not saying it's wrong, but at least make sure to get facts straight.

Also, dividends/capital gains have, in theory already been taxed at the corporate level. While I would support ensuring that the corporation has paid taxes on the income distributed as dividends, and taxing the recipient if not, there is no justification for taxing the recipient *and* the corporation punitively. Just make sure the corp pays its taxes (unlike GE) in full, and then the personal tax rate on divs makes sense.


----------



## 1.5M (Apr 21, 2012)

Dmoney said:


> Time and time again, the facts show that the rich pay most taxes. While the rich pay a lesser % of their income in tax (ie Mitt Romney pays only 14% on $13 million income vs 35%+ for the wage slave) they pay a significantly greater % of overall tax than the middle class or poor.


Not true. The middle class paid most taxes even in US (people making less than $340k paid 64% of the taxes). 
However, what these tables do show is the fact that work definitely does not produce enough income. On top of that, is just mind boggling that some people are ok with the rich paying half the tax rate as the working middle class. 
The solution to the problem of work producing very low incomes (through ridiculously low wages) would be to have a real progressive tax system. In that system someone making 100k would probably have to pay 10%, someone making 1M 50%, someone making 10M 90%. Of any kind of income. If that would be applied, in a few years, the income tax table would be much more balanced, because the income inequality would not be so obscene as it is today.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Square Root said:


> Harold. I accept that real incomes haven't progressed much in 20 years but they have increased slightly and are certainly above the levels in the 1980's. I invite someone to check this.
> Edit. Actually I did some checking and Canadian real personal disposable income has increased quite steadily over the last 20 years except for dips during the financial crises.


I have seen several data sets, from various sources, that show disposable incomes in real terms have been stagnant in Canada for the last 20+ years.
This has led to increased inequality.

Here, this article from Canadian Business from a few months ago:
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/39123--inequality-is-bad-for-business

The article is about the growing inequality, but 1/3rd of the way down, it says:

_while incomes have grown rapidly for the most affluent, those for the middle have barely budged. Median earnings of full-time full-year workers only grew from $44,100 to $45,600 between 1976 and 2009, taking inflation into account. That’s $1,500. Over 33 years_.

Connecting the dots with taxes, while income taxes affect the top line, across the board retail taxes - esp. for essential goods and services - affect the bottom line.
And there is no where to hide.

Specific, targeted taxes - such as gasoline taxes - have ended up disappearing down the bottomless pit of govt. spending and have not been used for the purpose they were intended for.
General retail taxes, such as the GST, haven't fared better either.
It was imposed by Mulroney to help pay off the deficit.
Since then, we paid it all off, and re-acquired it i.e. we have come a full circle, and the tax burden has only increased.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

1.5M said:


> Student education should be free.


Not that these types of opinions can be changed easily... but I don't agree with this.

There is a high level of students studying topics that add little value to society. Why should any tax payer (yourself included) be responsible for subsidizing underwater basket weaving?


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

$1M? Well if you put your money in risky high yield investments you can do it with less! Buy $500,000 of AGNC and chances are it pays more than your day job. Not really as secure though.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

1.5M said:


> Not true. The middle class paid most taxes even in US (people making less than $340k paid 64% of the taxes).


Middle class does not consist of everyone making less than $340K.
The bottom 95% pay about 40% of income taxes (still according the chart dug up by my very poor research, for that I apologize).
The cutoff for the bottom 95% is just under $155K in annual gross earnings. This I would say is quite upper middle class. 
For argument's sake, let's say everyone making less than $155K is middle class, they still don't pay the majority of taxes, at slightly more than 41%.

Is this morally right? I won't wade into this discussion.

Is it right that 1% of people pay 40% of taxes?
Is it right that 1% of people earn 40% (no clue of the amount but it's huge) of income?
Is it right that 50% of people pay no taxes?
Is it right that 50% of people have nothing left at the end of the month?

People have valid arguments on both sides, but you'll never convince someone who is set in their opinion.


----------



## cjk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

Sampson said:


> It's a poorly known fact, but most estimates suggest student education is subsidized in the 80%+ range, so yes, tuition at most institutes is rising, but the system is already tilted such that the 'rich taxpayer' is already funding higher education.
> 
> One only has to look South where public education institutes receive much less money to see what tuition fees 'should' look like.


Certainly a large portion of education is subsidized but the 80%+ range is a bit of an exaggeration--or perhaps it's true in certain provinces? It _definitely_ isn't true for many professional degrees though. I've always thought a good benchmark of the true cost of tuition is if you look at what international students pay. These students are not subsidized so in theory their tuition fee should represent 100% of the true cost. I compared the annual cost of tuition for domestic vs. international students this year (2012-2013) for the program I was in. The domestic cost was 54% of the international cost. So students are actually paying for more than half of their degree themselves. (I count myself lucky that I've already graduated, because a few years ago I'm pretty sure a bigger percentage was subsidized.)

Now if you look at the BA/BSc degrees, they are indeed subsidized more (by my calculation about 76%, closer to your 80%+ figure). Wouldn't be surprised if Quebec BA/BSc students, for example, are subsidized 90%, but this definitely isn't the case for all students across the country. I share the annoyance at paying for "worthless" degrees like "basket-weaving" (referred to by Dmoney), but come on, that's only a small percentage of students! Most students still aim for a degree at least somewhat useful. And the way it's going now, it seems like the most "useful" degrees (i.e. professional ones) are the least-subsidized. Not sure if that makes sense (guess you can argue they also are expected to make more upon graduation....?).

Anyways, my point is just that there are LOTS of students paying a significant amount for their degree, so the "80%+" generalization just doesn't hold true.

Off-topic, I just still find it hard to believe it takes around $30k a year (more depending on the program) to educate a university student!!


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Professional degree? Everyone needs a $70,000 MBA or $150,000 for law school now? You know what happens when everyone gets on the same side of the boat? There are less jobs and less money available for jobs. For years Bill Gates has been harping about an engineer shortage in the US. It's not true, there just aren't enough willing to work for the minimum wage they can give somebody in China or India.


----------



## cjk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

Just to clarify--I think the tuition I paid was quite fair. I did receive some scholarships, some bursaries, some grants. I still benefit a lot from tuition and education tax credits now. Once all of this is factored in, I probably won't actually have paid that much out of pocket for tuition. My debt was quite high but certainly manageable and I was able to pay it all off fairly quickly. I view my education as a completely worthwhile investment. I'm not complaining about previous years (in fact, tuition back in the 80s/early 90s was probably indeed way too low and the later increase somewhat justified).

But I feel really bad for the students of the future. I find it just unbelievable the rate at which tuition still continues to rise...soon it's going to be completely out of reach for some kids. Somehow I doubt the scholarships/bursaries/grants have kept pace--I think there needs to be a tuition freeze introduced at some point before it gets out of hand.



Dmoney said:


> And to weigh in on the current direction this thread is headed in:
> 
> I think education should be completely free... but only to the best and brightest. The fact is that it already is free for the smartest out there.
> For the rest, it is much too cheap.
> ...


Ok, I agree with your general idea that the "most-likely-to-succeed-and-benefit-society" students should be rewarded and their tuition paid for. Just seems like a vague definition that will be difficult to implement---what's the criteria for this? An arbitrary grade cutoff? Grades don't reflect everything. You get rewarded later in life for doing productive work--subsidizing tuition gives students a chance to get there, but you have to make the most of it. The dropouts in your class already suffered from wasting 6-7k for nothing. A large number of them probably did well in high school--I know plenty of people who dropped out of rigorous university programs where the average entering grade was over 80%, or even 90%, and entered university with high hopes--but they just were not prepared for the higher standards of university. No one plans to drop out. Should professional degrees be subsidized more? (This is opposite of the current situation, which I pointed out above.) After all, these are the degrees most likely to actually "benefit" society. But if that happens, lots of people will be arguing how unfair it is that you're giving another huge advantage to people already at an advantage (aka more likely to get a better job on graduation). And how do you define "useful" degrees anyways? Sure we can say "basket-weaving" is useless and should not be subsidized. But where do you draw the line...is art history useless? Political science? Language studies? All BA and BSc degrees? You run into a messy area where lots of people will cry that it's unfair to pick-and-choose which programs are covered.

Also, scholarships are not that easy to get if you want to go to a top university. And especially not in professional programs, where the scholarships are few, the values are low (compared to the cost of education), and you're already competing against other smart, high-qualified students.


----------



## cjk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

ddkay said:


> Professional degree? Everyone needs a $70,000 MBA or $150,000 for law school now? You know what happens when everyone gets on the same side of the boat? There are less jobs and less money available for jobs. For years Bill Gates has been harping about an engineer shortage in the US. It's not true, there just aren't enough willing to work for the minimum wage they can give somebody in China or India.


Um, I'm not sure what you are proposing here--make education more expensive and restrictive so less people "get on the boat", aka earn these degrees, and there is less "wage dilution" due to too many qualified people for the same jobs? Or make education cheaper so people are willing to work "minimum wage" once they graduate because they're not in so much debt?


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

The latter. Most of the world isn't trying to make education more expensive, why are we? It needs to become cheaper in order for us to stay competitive. Online courses are a start. US/CA universities are like holiday resorts compared to other places. What % of tuition money goes towards resources you never use? Like the many millions paid to college football coaches. Why is an engineering student "subsidising" football?


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

cjk2 said:


> Off-topic, I just still find it hard to believe it takes around $30k a year (more depending on the program) to educate a university student!!


The sad truth is that Universities are plagued by serious inefficiencies.

Maybe this point has been beaten to death, but are new graduates really that much worse off than previous generations? Give me some numbers on casual/semi-superfluous spending then and now.

I also think the emphasis on making more or having more money is simply wrong. Why do so many of us feel it is our right to become wealthy? I think as long as people are clothed, fed, have shelter, and have loved ones around them, then we should view our situation as fortunate. It's this desire to have more, want more that really is the basis of the issue.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

ddkay said:


> What % of tuition money goes towards resources you never use? Like the many millions paid to college football coaches. Why is an engineering student "subsidising" football?


But the football is what pays for the school. It's a much bigger business than tuition fees.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

This is what I meant about everyone getting on one side of the boat. In South Korea there is cultural pressure that nobody is successful unless they are working for one of the "chaebols". Now there aren't enough of those jobs being created to meet the ballooning numbers of graduates. Funny how that happens.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Sampson said:


> But the football is what pays for the school. It's a much bigger business than tuition fees.


Their business model is broken


----------



## cjk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

ddkay said:


> This is what I meant about everyone getting on one side of the boat. In South Korea there is cultural pressure that nobody is successful unless they are working for one of the "chaebols". Now there aren't enough of those jobs being created to meet the ballooning numbers of graduates. Funny how that happens.


Well yes, a phenomenon that probably exists in most developed countries today (even in some developing countries). A university degree just isn't what it once was. Asian countries probably have it extra bad due to overpopulation and extreme focus on academics though. I don't know of a good solution, sadly. In your previous post you mentioned we should make education cheaper...but this will only serve to get MORE people to attend university and make the problem worse. Just because tuition gets cheaper doesn't mean people will decide a lower wage is ok--the expectation has already been set, it's hard to get people to lower their standards, especially when it comes to their income.



Sampson said:


> Maybe this point has been beaten to death, but are new graduates really that much worse off than previous generations? Give me some numbers on casual/semi-superfluous spending then and now.


Debt-wise, yes they are--lots worse off. How many people in my parents' generation graduated with debt? I think back in the days as long as you worked minimum wage jobs in the summers your education could be covered. Not the case today.

In other aspects, highly debatable. e.g. I definitely count myself luckier than my parents when they graduated (better job than their first one). Although due to my lazier nature vs. my parents' much better work ethics, I'll probably never reach my Dad's eventual success in his career (my mom ended up staying home for large periods of time to take care of kids so can't make a comparison there). But there are also lots of students who are underpaid or can't get a job.

Overall I'd say maybe it's about the same. Some aspects of life are worse (much higher tuition and debt) but some are better (i.e. my parents didn't have all these gadgets and didn't travel the world while in school, which has become the norm for today's students). Overall quality of life is significantly better, but so is the competition.

But I feel that if tuition costs continue down the path it's going down now, the burden of debt will weigh down students significantly enough that it will overtake the increased quality of life. It's hard to really start a life when debt overwhelms you.



> I also think the emphasis on making more or having more money is simply wrong. Why do so many of us feel it is our right to become wealthy? I think as long as people are clothed, fed, have shelter, and have loved ones around them, then we should view our situation as fortunate. It's this desire to have more, want more that really is the basis of the issue.


I agree, but now it's basically become built into our culture and mindset. It's hard to escape it. I've fallen prey to this concept myself and even being somewhat disgusted by the whole thing, I can't change it. I want more pay raises, I want to buy the stuff I like, I want to retire early. I have a goal for myself (in terms of earnings, assets, etc) but I just know that once I reach it, it's not going to be enough. And I consider myself to be one of the less-materialistic people today (e.g. I own a very cheap phone instead of an iPhone or smartphone, I don't have a TV, I don't constantly buy the newest gadget that just came out on the market, I don't go on huge shopping sprees, etc).

My mom always says that times were simpler when she was a kid. Way less focus on money and materialism, more focus on family and friends. Her family was happy on far less than what we have today.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

I think of university as a place to learn, and not a stepping stone for a career. Others, including those in specialized fields may think on it differently. For young men, we're fortunate enough to live in a time where a hard day's work with your hands will make you a lot more money than the average post-grad job (or lack thereof). That's a good thing; perhaps we can rock the boat a bit more to that side, so that we can get the economic engine running again.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Back to the topic,

I am working to gather enough money and power so that when I do something, it affects where we are headed as a species. Until I get to that point, all debate is moot and I am just some white noise in the otherwise epic journey of mankind.

If I can't reach the place above, I'll settle with having enough money to live somewhere and resume chasing my passion without my savings decrease in value.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

1.5M said:


> I am all for competition and small businesses, however I don't see what incentives are there for investing in small companies compared to large companies (even evil ones, like MO or BP), or indexes or pure speculation (which in my experience is most profitable).
> If I see something in our economy is how new small businesses have close to zero chances to succeed against big corporations.


This is plain silly. Small business has every advantage against large corporations, I'm sure other small business owners will confirm this. I dont believe you know what you are talking about.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Sampson said:


> Not that these types of opinions can be changed easily... but I don't agree with this.
> 
> There is a high level of students studying topics that add little value to society. Why should any tax payer (yourself included) be responsible for subsidizing underwater basket weaving?


My son in law got some credits at Dalhousie for playing the bongo's. All future lawyers should have those bongo playing skills I think.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Well, we certainly have some strongly held slightly unusual opinions on this one. Speaking from personal experience, my education(paid solely by me and the gov't) was instrumental in allowing me to realize my ambitions for a very interesting and lucrative career. i could not have done this wihout education but that education was worth a lot to me regardless of the effect it had on my career. i love learning and learned a lot getting my degrees and designations.
I think things are working pretty well in this country but many of you would say "you would think that given your wealth,etc" My advice to young people today would be stop complaining and put that energy to better use. There are still huge opportunities out there for hard working, intelligent, creative young people. Education has continually been shown to be a very good investment. Obviously, this is not true for everyone, but certainly for most.

The idea that higher education should be free for all, or that education only benefits corporations, or that everyone should quit school at 18, or that there is no opportunity for young people today, are in my opinion absurd.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

@Square Root.

+1


----------



## loggedout (Dec 30, 2009)

on the sub-topic of higher education, a relevant article:

Is Higher Education a scam?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbar...m_b_47287.html

some great excerpts that I, as a corporate university educated peon, completely agree with:

_"My theory is that employers prefer college grads because they see a college degree chiefly as mark of one's ability to obey and conform. Whatever else you learn in college, you learn to sit still for long periods while appearing to be awake. And whatever else you do in a white-collar job, most of the time you'll be sitting and feigning attention. Sitting still for hours on end--whether in library carrels or office cubicles--does not come naturally to humans. It must be learned--although no college has yet been honest enough to offer a degree in seat-warming. 

Or maybe what attracts employers to college grads is the scent of desperation. Unless your parents are rich and doting, you will walk away from commencement with a debt averaging $20,000 and no health insurance. Employers can safely bet that you will not be a trouble-maker, a whistle-blower or any other form of non-"team-player." You will do anything. You will grovel." _

My own thoughts are:

The scam of university is that its "sold" by many and seen by many as a vocational school that leads to a career or profession....but fails at being optimal, cost effective and efficient in that regard, and is basically its own self-serving industry.

The university system, as it is now, is not interested in educating students and producing the highest quality of graduates, it's mainly interested in taking their money. 

This is not to say that there aren't benefits to a university education, there can be, but how many of those are instrinsic to the traditional university setup and could not be delivered more efficiently and cost effectively by alternative means? In my view, the value of a university education is not in its education, but in the value society has given it owing to historic legacy as a "gatekeeper" (and this value keeps declining as it becomes more accessible --- the inaccessability is what made it so valuable in the first place as a social/class filter). It’s self-fulfilling but it doesn’t make a university education intrinsically better than alternatives. In my experience at university, I really only needed the university to administer the exams and to get my degree from. I'm serious when I could have got the same excellent academic results in university with a library card and an internet connection. I just needed their stamp of approval, that's it. If I can get the same results or better as someone who attends class does, why am I paying for class time and all of this superfluous crap that is of little value to me? Perhaps in other majors, the traditional university set up works, but I saw no added value as an engineering grad.

The scam of a university education is how much your tuition and public tax money goes to supporting an opulent structure while returns on your investment keep declining. A subsidized industry does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that those involved in that industry do not have any profit motivations. In Canada, yes all of the major Canadian universities are publicly-funded but they maintain their own autonomy. Their administrations do have a self-interest in maintaining administrative bloat and inefficiency which drives up costs, and keeps them employed.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

LoggedOut
You could argue against high school education for the same reasons. Any institution has some bloat. But hiring someone new is always a challenge. Many companies have made big money helping with that process. But statistics favour higher education. Is it self-fulfilling? I doubt it. There are exceptions to be sure. But isn't that what proves the rule.
Keith


----------



## getchanceandluck (Jul 5, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> The problem is that with the power of compound interest you can either have 1 year off now or 10 years off at age 55. Both cost the same. Your choice really. 1 year will blow by pretty quick and you will find yourself right back at the same job in the same place, but now you will not have any money. Your experiences will be nice but they will be over. Again your choice.


I think you hit the nail right on the head. I'm only 23 right now but my view is that working hard and saving (wisely) now will give me more freedom/happiness in the future. Of course there's a balance that only you can decide on, but while deciding you may as well give yourself some wiggle room.


----------



## twowheeled (Jan 15, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> The problem is that with the power of compound interest you can either have 1 year off now or 10 years off at age 55. Both cost the same. Your choice really. 1 year will blow by pretty quick and you will find yourself right back at the same job in the same place, but now you will not have any money. Your experiences will be nice but they will be over. Again your choice.


let me play devils advocate and ask this. What if you have health complications at 55? What if you have reduced mobility, or can't travel at all? What if you get cancer and given months to live age 40?

A lot of posts on here mean well, but there is something they don't address outside of dollars and cents. Is your quality of life at retirement going to be the same as in your 20's? Does it make sense to delay gratification for most of your life just to be able to retire "early"? What if you are bored to death with golf and re-runs of price is right, and decide you need to go back to work at 65? 

Does it make sense to invest the greater part of your life working and saving for something you will not experience for another 45 years down the road? Or should you take sabaticals every few years to sample what you're working for, to decide if it's what you want in the first place?

The problem with compound interest is that whoever saves the earliest wins. Why should you spend anything unnecessarily in the early years of your life? If you live like a pauper and start saving early enough, one day you will have more money than you know what to do with. Why bother getting your kids birthday/christmas presents, family vacations, and toys? Put it all in a trust fund and they can buy themselves a house when they retire.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

twowheeled said:


> let me play devils advocate and ask this. What if you have health complications at 55? What if you have reduced mobility, or can't travel at all? What if you get cancer and given months to live age 40?
> 
> ... Why bother getting your kids birthday/christmas presents, family vacations, and toys? Put it all in a trust fund and they can buy themselves a house when they retire.


It is an important thing to balance now versus the future.

However, there are situations where it's a "no-brainer" type decision. 

My niece for example. 

By the time I find out she wants a Barbie, her parents have bought it, her relatives have bought another one and her cousins have given her a bunch of their old, "hand me down" Barbies. Compared to what my siblings and I grew up with - the kid is buried in toys, stuffed animals etc. So it's pretty clear that 90% of what I give *should* be cash towards her future or gifts in her name to help people in third world countries.


Cheers


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

To answer the original post, working to pay off my house. After the house is paid off, + ~ 10 years of work to pad the investment account, I'm done working for good.


----------



## twowheeled (Jan 15, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> It is an important thing to balance now versus the future.
> 
> However, there are situations where it's a "no-brainer" type decision.
> 
> ...


I can see where you're coming from. I was raised quite the opposite, my parents made an average income but didn't see fit to buy toys, take vacations, allow me to play sports, etc. When I was 13, we flew to vancover for a funeral, the first and only time I had left the city with my parents. They didn't know how to invest their money and handed over this 'golden egg' they had been saving up for me when I turned 21. Savings stuck into mutual funds and GIC's for 2 decades ended up amounting to about $10,000. I said gee thanks mom and dad but you know I would have preferred the happy memories as a kid and the chance to enjoy stuff the other kids had. Nowadays $10,000 doesn't seem like much anymore, I spent that a couple months ago treating myself to a motorcycle. *But I would trade it in a heartbeat to have gone to disneyland or played hockey as a kid.* Life is what happens while you are busy making plans. I don't want to wake up one day at 55, with mortgage paid off and retirement fund topped up, realizing I was so busy working I did not have time to enjoy the best years of my life.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Ya but you also likely don't want to wake up one day at 55,with a large mortgage,no investments ectand realize its to late because your-to old now,not ambitious enough sect
I agree with you happiness,health sect are more important than money.that is the main problem with balance and what everyone struggles with but happy memories when your older and broke will not likely give you squat and it will be way to late by then.then what?that's the other side of the coin.what if you live till 100?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

twowheeled said:


> let me play devils advocate and ask this. What if you have health complications at 55? What if you have reduced mobility, or can't travel at all? What if you get cancer and given months to live age 40?
> 
> A lot of posts on here mean well, but there is something they don't address outside of dollars and cents. Is your quality of life at retirement going to be the same as in your 20's? Does it make sense to delay gratification for most of your life just to be able to retire "early"? What if you are bored to death with golf and re-runs of price is right, and decide you need to go back to work at 65?
> 
> ...


It really comes down to pay now, or pay later. Sure you can talk about all the what ifs of something happening that prevents you from enjoying your later years. Only you have to decide if it's worth living it up for a year to have 5/10/15 whatever years in the future worse off.

I know I used to think sort of similar. In my 20's we had large incomes for our age, actually for most ages. We felt that we should enjoy it because heck we earned it. We worked 80 hour weeks each, and made huge career sacrifices. Why shouldn't we live it up in the little spare time we had? We thought we were still being responsible, we maxed our RRSP (only a small percentage of our income), had a little more savings, I think our savings rate was only about 5%. We lived in NY, and other major cities, travelled, ate out all the time, great memories. Fast forward a decade later, we still paid off our mortgage early, and think that if only we would have saved more then. We live a great life now, but still aren't where we could have been. Plus, I did understand the value of time and compounding (business major). Looking back, would I have changed a thing? ABSOLUTELY, I would have lived a LITTLE less for the day. If I would have saved even half of our disposable spending, we would have had our house paid in cash, plus more. 

Good thing I learned a little since then. Just before we decided to have kids, we were going to go on the dream vacation of a lifetime. A really great opportunity came, so the $10K we budgeted for the trip, we used for an investment. That investment doubled. Which we then used to invest again, which we were about to double again. That amount gave us our breathing room, which we invested, and will most likely triple this time. We still haven't gone on the trip, and now that the kids are young, we won't until they are older. However, the return on that investment will allow us to take them on that trip in a few years, and then some. 

I would be looking at what is the opportunity cost of enjoying the situation now.

As for spending on the kids, we do spend alot on vacations, because we do see that as building memories, and we also bought our cabin for that reason. In terms of gifts, they actually don't get that much from us, and most of our family stick to giving the kids something rather modest, and the rest goes in cash. That money has been saved for their education. My 4 & 7 year olds have over $35K already for their education. Almost half was funded from their baby shower gifts, and birthday gifts. We are fortunate that we have very generous, yet practical family. We have said that they will most likely not remember all the toys they would get, and and would appreciate not having loans when they are older. It is also teaching my kids to appreciate more what they do have. This year for their birthday parties, we are asking for no gifts, but for those who insist, they have asked for a small $5 donation where half will go a a charity. They will still get a birthday party that is very memerable, but with all the gifts and stuff. 

As others have said it's really about balance. It doesn't mean that one should not spend on anything that they see unnecessary, but rather spend on the items that add the most value to their life. It also means taking a look at long terms gains vs short term gains.

In my case, I am working because I enjoy it, have self satisfaction, and for my kids. I do want to be able to afford the really special events, which means that I give up some of the day to day, by not staying home.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

What are all these "Happy Memories" people keep talking about?

They aren't worth anything. If anything - they are depressing. Just a reminder of when things were good.

Even now, I wish I was 14 years old again. Every time I think about the "good times", I wish I hadn't thought about them at all.

I rather pay now instead of paying later.

The brain doesn't care what you've done. The brain cares about the present and the future.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

And here I thought I was jaded.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Actually, I think that there is a pretty good chance that the brain IS what you've done!


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

^ This... I truly believe that your present and future are shaped by your past. Thought you can't change the past, you can change the present, and the future, which becomes your past. Isn't this part of what the thread is about, choices that you make today, shape your future. 

Chances are if you are unhappy today, and do nothing except have more money, you will be unhappy in the future.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Yet if you have a plan for your future and track your progress against it, you will be happier. Most likely you will also be more successful than if you did not create the plan.


----------



## twowheeled (Jan 15, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> What are all these "Happy Memories" people keep talking about?
> 
> They aren't worth anything. If anything - they are depressing. Just a reminder of when things were good.
> 
> ...


I think you have some deeper issues beyond what we're talking about in this thread. But to answer your question, these are not just memories. For example, I struggle with working in a team. I work best alone, and there have been many times in my career where I can clearly see my own weakness when I've had to work as part of a team. I have no doubt this was because of how I was raised. Because I wasn't allowed to play team sports, and really pushed by my parents to focus on academics rather than socializing or extra curricular activities, it has held me back in my career and in life. 

I'm not advocating quitting your job to sit in front of the TV for a year in your pajamas playing video games. Personally I am doing it because there are aspects of my life I've been completely ignoring for the last few years because I've been working too hard. Getting back into shape, developing relationships, and travelling to explore different cultures, these are things that I feel will enrichen my life as well as help me live to see 65 or 100.

I believe there is a balance and time certainly has more than a monetary value. Is a lobster dinner when you're an adult more valueable than an icecream sundae when you were a child? Which brought more happiness? Guess that is the question we all have to answer for ourselves.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

Found this interesting clip from years ago; when? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing the young guy is now in his sixties. We now see the results of millions of "kids" thinking as he did.

Milton Friedman - Redistribution of Wealth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4

I consider myself fortunate in that when I was in my early twenties, trying to decide if I was going to continue working 12 hours a day, more in the busy season, I had opportunity to rub shoulders with some very wealthy older individuals who had been exactly where I was. 

They taught me two valuable lessons: 1/ save your money; 2/ keep track of every penny until you have a good picture of where your money is going.

As an aside: I never expected them to help me out with green fees or refreshments at the 19th hole; and they didn't offer. :rolleyes2:


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

twowheeled said:


> For example, I struggle with working in a team. I work best alone, and there have been many times in my career where I can clearly see my own weakness when I've had to work as part of a team. I have no doubt this was because of how I was raised. Because I wasn't allowed to play team sports, and really pushed by my parents to focus on academics rather than socializing or extra curricular activities, it has held me back in my career and in life.


You are who you are. No amount of playing team sports as a child will transform an introvert into an extrovert.

If you truly believe that this can be changed and that it is holding you back, there is nothing stopping you from changing now. 

You can't ask a fish to breathe air...


----------



## twowheeled (Jan 15, 2011)

Guigz said:


> You are who you are. No amount of playing team sports as a child will transform an introvert into an extrovert.
> 
> If you truly believe that this can be changed and that it is holding you back, there is nothing stopping you from changing now.
> 
> You can't ask a fish to breathe air...


absolute bull. This isn't about being an extrovert or an introvert, which in fact my personality is extroverted. If what you're saying is true, why teach our children fiscal responsibility? Morals and ethics? "You are who you are", well maybe some people were just destined to be broke or criminals. Take a look at children raised in very traditional cultures such as asian/indian immigrants. You notice a disproportionate amount are introverted, shy, beta types. This is nurture not nature. They are taught from an early age strict obedience and academics. Conversely how many of these kids grow up to become captain of the football team or natural leaders of any sort? How many of them become computer programmers, accountants, etc?




donald said:


> Ya but you also likely don't want to wake up one day at 55,with a large mortgage,no investments ectand realize its to late because your-to old now,not ambitious enough sect
> I agree with you happiness,health sect are more important than money.that is the main problem with balance and what everyone struggles with but happy memories when your older and broke will not likely give you squat and it will be way to late by then.then what?that's the other side of the coin.what if you live till 100?


I agree there is a balance. Being a forum about finances I see most stances are on the very far end of the spectrum, where everyone is focused on how frugal they can be, what their net worth is, what their returns were. Sometimes you need to pat yourself on the back for being disciplined, but I also find it disturbing there are those who find so much assurance from their finances being in order. The idea that money is a solution to life's problems or happiness... not too sure I buy it. I consider myself well off, upper middle class, six figure salary. I am not happier than when I was making $20/hr. In fact I have considerably more stress, I work longer hours, and make more sacrifices. I am taking advice from my grandparents, who immigrated to Canada and started from nothing, washing dishes and saving money to send back home. In the final years of their life, they seemed to have a change in philosophy. They told me not to work so hard, to take my time and enjoy life. I don't know if I'm living my life right way, but maybe they figured it out after 90 years.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

I am not saying that everything is determined by nature. 

I stand by what I said. No amount of coaching will change an introvert into an extrovert.

Maybe you are a closet introvert? About 57% of the population has been found to be more introverted than extroverted.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Yeah,i wish i knew the answer(wish i could look in the future)I like building things(construction,my job,building a portflio*trying*,wealth,building a company ect)also like a challenge and i might suffer from-nothing is every good enough or i always want something i dont have ect.

It scares me abit because the more i focus on goals ect the more(the other areas)i start slipping in-realtionships,health(gaining weight)tending to become more introvert(im not either,leads to more independent ways)I dont have the balance thing going on very good right now(lack being more well rounded ect)

I sometimes dont know if it is worth it(i have seen wealth disappear in my family,failed business)----To bad life didnt come with a handbook.Think everybody knows on a certian level that $ isnt going to solve problems(you still have to stare at the same guy in the mirror,dont matter what your net-worth is ect)money def cant buy everything.(sometimes i actually think its abit pathetic,that i care so much about it.....chasing it)not 100% sure my priorities are 100% correct.But then there is that little thing in the back of the head that says----what if you lose what you built-up,what if life throws a big curve ball and you dont make(doesnt help reading the globe and mail telling ''us'' we ''need'' 5 million to be healthy/happy either,sometimes those finance mags remind me off tabliods ect,pumping illusions ect,making people feel like ****)


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

zylon said:


> Found this interesting clip from years ago; when? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing the young guy is now in his sixties. We now see the results of millions of "kids" thinking as he did.
> 
> Milton Friedman - Redistribution of Wealth
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4


There are always people trying to figure out how to better help those less fortunate. The young man is correct that a large part of our station in life is the result of the place and time of our birth. Milton Friedman's response to the suggestion of a 100% inheritance tax is exactly why I am still working - propagating my genes! I was going to state it less scientifically but this is really what it is distilled down to. Friedman talks about how family oriented we are and the great sacrifices that parents make for their offspring and ultimately for as yet unborn children who will carry the parents' genes into the future. Planning is much easier without children. Resources provide opportunities and many, if not most, of those of us with children will continue to work in an effort to offer our children opportunities even after other motivating factors to continue to work have disappeared.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

twowheeled said:


> In the final years of their life, they seemed to have a change in philosophy. They told me not to work so hard, to take my time and enjoy life. I don't know if I'm living my life right way, but maybe they figured it out after 90 years.


Spend your time with gusto. A half hour of quality time with a child is worth more than all evening with incidental interaction, for example. If everything you pursue is done with maximum intensity, you will have few regrets when facing the grim reaper.

Similarly, if you must spend time on pursuits you do not like, try to reframe them. Otherwise minimize them. We pay for housekeepers, for example, but not financial advisors. I do my own taxes because it helps me understand the tax regime once a year. When I must line up for government service, I talk to others to gain an appreciation for the system. I see others just reading a pocketbook to pass the time.


----------

