Conversation with a colleague....
- Thread starter monalisa
- Start date
I agree education has value that cannot be quantified financially, I wasn't saying going to uni for me was BAD per se, just that it had as a biproduct some negative influences to my FINANCIAL intelligence.
I know what you were getting at knightm. My point was directed at the idea of "history/literature touchyfeelyLiberalArts degree . . . Do you want fries with that? . . not good".
Those types of degrees wont teach one anything about FQ, they wont necessarily have any positive impact on FQ or turn one into an investing guru but that does not mean they are intrinsically "not good".
Those types of degrees wont teach one anything about FQ, they wont necessarily have any positive impact on FQ or turn one into an investing guru but that does not mean they are intrinsically "not good".
there appear to be a lot of people to whom "pimply surly useless 20something, with no prospects, no chance of getting my order right, a waste of oxygen", strikes a personal note
I did not suggest those persons who replied were included in the group 'history/literature touchyfeelyLiberalArts degree . . . Do you want fries with that? . . not good' but I must accept their self inclusion
I did not suggest all touchy feely degrees were not good, just those that end up in the fast food industry, for whom the rest of us pay the cost of the over-utilised education
I am sure an creative arts qualified, actor, fireman makes a better fireman,
than a material sciences, with a focus on flame effects, qualified fireman
an appropriate use of public education
my dreams, should not be paid for by you
I did not suggest those persons who replied were included in the group 'history/literature touchyfeelyLiberalArts degree . . . Do you want fries with that? . . not good' but I must accept their self inclusion
I did not suggest all touchy feely degrees were not good, just those that end up in the fast food industry, for whom the rest of us pay the cost of the over-utilised education
I am sure an creative arts qualified, actor, fireman makes a better fireman,
than a material sciences, with a focus on flame effects, qualified fireman
an appropriate use of public education
my dreams, should not be paid for by you
Last edited:
Well then why should anyone's degree be paid for by the taxpayer? What if they don't end up working in the area they studied? What if they don't cut the grade and flunk out after 2 or 3 years?
Maybe there are better ways to spend money than on educating people in areas that are artsy and touchy feely but I'd rather live in a world where those things are appreciated and people do have the opportunity to study them without having to be rich enough to foot the university bill themselves, even if they don't end up utilising that learning to make money.
As for which makes a better fire fighter, I'm good enough to be a Station Officer now and I know quite a few firies educated in the sciences who have not made the grade in that respect. As I'm sure it is with property investing, so it is with fire fighting..........the real world is a whole lot different to the classroom.
Well as to which courses are navel gazing and a waste of publicly subsidised money I will leave up to debate.
What I was trying to say is I did a social work degree - I work in that field. I valued the training I got and it is directly applicable and useful in what I do. I like what I do and believe it has worth up to and beyond my paycheck. (Eg run the numbers on 1 family off drugs and raising their own kids well vs stuffing it up, going to jail themselves and kiddies in long term foster care - the costs are astounding.)
My point for me was that even though I did a degree that was good for my day job it was actually de skilling for my FQ. It focusses on the welfare side of economics, the spending side, with no credence given to the supply side(business or capitalism or tax generation) my lecturers were generally anti capitalist in stance but only a few had ideas on alternatives. One was living a good attempt at a far left, green, minimalist non material existence which I respected but that was it the rest threw their stones from a middle class academic pov.
I have had to spend years reading, thinking and adjusting my economic worldview in a way that fits with my personal, theological, theoretical, practical experiences and that includes real estate investing. As time goes by I find myself leaning more towards the personal wealth generation option as providing the most chance to give more back to humanity as I see just how broken the systems set up for redistribution are (from the inside)
What I was trying to say is I did a social work degree - I work in that field. I valued the training I got and it is directly applicable and useful in what I do. I like what I do and believe it has worth up to and beyond my paycheck. (Eg run the numbers on 1 family off drugs and raising their own kids well vs stuffing it up, going to jail themselves and kiddies in long term foster care - the costs are astounding.)
My point for me was that even though I did a degree that was good for my day job it was actually de skilling for my FQ. It focusses on the welfare side of economics, the spending side, with no credence given to the supply side(business or capitalism or tax generation) my lecturers were generally anti capitalist in stance but only a few had ideas on alternatives. One was living a good attempt at a far left, green, minimalist non material existence which I respected but that was it the rest threw their stones from a middle class academic pov.
I have had to spend years reading, thinking and adjusting my economic worldview in a way that fits with my personal, theological, theoretical, practical experiences and that includes real estate investing. As time goes by I find myself leaning more towards the personal wealth generation option as providing the most chance to give more back to humanity as I see just how broken the systems set up for redistribution are (from the inside)
Good post.
This is a common thing I hear from folk who are poorer (not you); their mindset towards rich folk is often very damaging to themselves and everyone else; they resent folk who have got loads, yet have none themselves.
For eg: I had a heated discussion with a nurse I once worked with; she was very intelligent, University trained and a senior managerial role academic as well as "on the floor" ICU nurse...
She was bleating about the tax % Bill Gates (didn't) pay....disgraceful, unfair etc.
I reminded her that he still paid an enormous volume of tax dollars, which goes towards the greater good of the economy - far more than she could ever contribute, and he also gave a shizen-load of money away every year to Charity - more in one year than she would ever earn from nursing in her whole life most likely.
Eg no.2; The welfare skank who resents rich people, and who calls an upper middle-class (say; a doctor) person a "rich count" (I've heard and seen this for real - often the ICU nurse's drug overdose patients
).Who is doing more for their planet; welfare witch, or Doc, or ICU nurse or BG?
But it's a common attitude.
RK never says that folk shouldn't have jobs.
What he does say is that you should not rely only on a job to make you rich, or on super for your retirement, or the pension etc; because it won't unless you can become the CEO of some big Corp and leave with a golden handshake.
He says you need to become financially educated, and look at strategies which will free you (financially) from your job.
You can still do the job; but have the choices to not to.
You can apply this to everything that the 95% who haven't reached the great heights in anything that the 5% have.
I can sight loads of scenarios in life where this applies, but I'll give you golf (my previous profession).
To become a "single-figure" handicap golfer requires an enormous amount of time spent practicing and playing, maybe lessons etc.
To become a golf pro is more again. To be on the TV winning millions is more again (most times; but some work this hard and simply never get there, which is unfair - but life is unfair).
So, the Club Member walks into my ProShop the day after Greg Norman/Tiger Woods/Whoever, wins another tournament and a lazy $800k for first prize, and quips; "Geez; not a bad pay check for 4 days work!".
And they mean it; you can hear the resentment and jealousy in their voices. Not all; but most.
Yep; he was lucky/has a charmed life - "It's alright for some" and so on.
These 95% of folk who do the bare minimum don't see what the 5% successful people do behind the scenes; the years of hard work and sacrifice - you can put top level surgeons and doctors etc into this picture.
Good post.
This is a common thing I hear from folk who are poorer (not you); their mindset towards rich folk is often very damaging to themselves and everyone else; they resent folk who have got loads, yet have none themselves.
For eg: I had a heated discussion with a nurse I once worked with; she was very intelligent, University trained and a senior managerial role academic as well as "on the floor" ICU nurse...
She was bleating about the tax % Bill Gates (didn't) pay....disgraceful, unfair etc.
I reminded her that he still paid an enormous volume of tax dollars, which goes towards the greater good of the economy - far more than she could ever contribute, and he also gave a shizen-load of money away every year to Charity - more in one year than she would ever earn from nursing in her whole life most likely.
Eg no.2; The welfare skank who resents rich people, and who calls an upper middle-class (say; a doctor) person a "rich count" (I've heard and seen this for real - often the ICU nurse's drug overdose patients
Who is doing more for their planet; welfare witch, or Doc, or ICU nurse or BG?
But it's a common attitude.
I agree that attitude is very common. I recognise it well because it used to be mine.
I was very lucky to be employed for a time by a private philanthropist in Sydneys Eastern Suburbs. I did the community development in Redfern as her and her friends set up a charitable organisation to give some of their millions back in skilling up the local Indigenous community. She was worth something in the 6-12 mill range I would guesstimate and the wealthiest person I have known well to date.
Her heart for people, her willingness to get down and dirty and maintain business acumen cured me of that toxic attitude that I had towards "those selfish rich people". She was one of the most generous people I have ever met.
Now I want to be like that.
If you read whole books he is very balanced. If you read individual statements he is controversial. He does this to shock someone like me out of my very well indoctrinated position that a paye and ppor is all I need and I will be fine with my super in the sharemarket.
He was successful in my case - I no longer believe those things are adequate. If I ever leave the rat race I will owe him a part of the credit.
Unfortunately the rest of the country will continue with the "those selfish rich people" attitude and "why am I only getting free education and not free cars and free houses?" attitude.
Yes; poor people can sneer at the rich folk and resent them.
But; from my experience through life; the richer folk are the ones who give the most...they have the money to do so, and in most cases are happy to.
The poor folk can give their time, and that is noble, but why would you want to only be like that when you can be rich, and give both your time and your financial support?
Yup. That is one reason why we want to be well off.
Guy I play hockey with is going on a fund raising (for Cancer research) ride to Mandurah and sent an email to all his friends asking for donations.
Wife and I decided to pay his ultimate target goal because his cause ticked all our boxes and he is a fine young man from a great family with his head screwed on the right way.
Made us feel good personally and he is jumping out of his skin having reached his goal and then some. No one else knows. We don't want people to know, that's not want we want out of it. We want to give back because we have been fortunate.
