The Art of Gen X/Y

[wylie]

An article from this week's papers suggest that many parents in our population are very concerned as to where their children go to school and hence, whom they mix with.

This article talks about:

1. parents registering their children's name with the elite school on the day of birth (in utero reigstrations not allowed)

2. trying to make extra donations to the school to secure entry for the child

3. paying about 35k a year for fees alone

Those are the sort of parents and families we wanted to avoid. I did acknowledge there are plenty of those "types", but we don't want to associate with them.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...an-girls-experts/story-fnet085v-1226682195444

Whilst I agree with you that many parents say they do not care where their kids go or whom they mix with, there are clearly many that do. I would suggest that there is a socio/economic barrier here. In a school wherein the fees alone cost 35k a year and we have not factored in extra-cirrucular activities - trumpet playing in orchestra, overseas school excursions, uniforms - read an additional 30k per year - you are unlikely to find kids of parents on centrelink or living in housing commission.

You would be wrong. Certainly parents on Centrelink probably cannot afford the fees (but many grandparents are paying fees), but plenty of families scrimp and save to put their kids through these elite schools. Not all the families at these schools are high income, though most would be.

Unfortunately, many of the kids from these families have grown up with the entitlement mentality. I know two types of families at these elite schools. One sort is the families where the father went there and thinks it is a fantastic school. One child we know hates the school and the heavy workload, but loves the sport and the friendships. He is only there because his father went there and nobody will stand up to the father.

Another type is the father (or mother) who went there and want their kids to socialise with rich types. I know some of these too, looking for a rich husband in the partner school.

Most people we know have kids in private schools, and most of them are pretty normal, some wealthy, some not. The ones that are sending their kids to these schools to form school tie bonds and grease they way into the world are not the ones I want to have anything to do with.

 

[china]

You would be wrong. Certainly parents on Centrelink probably cannot afford the fees (but many grandparents are paying fees), but plenty of families scrimp and save to put their kids through these elite schools. Not all the families at these schools are high income, though most would be.

Unfortunately, many of the kids from these families have grown up with the entitlement mentality. I know two types of families at these elite schools. One sort is the families where the father went there and thinks it is a fantastic school. One child we know hates the school and the heavy workload, but loves the sport and the friendships. He is only there because his father went there and nobody will stand up to the father.

Another type is the father (or mother) who went there and want their kids to socialise with rich types. I know some of these too, looking for a rich husband in the partner school.

Most people we know have kids in private schools, and most of them are pretty normal, some wealthy, some not. The ones that are sending their kids to these schools to form school tie bonds and grease they way into the world are not the ones I want to have anything to do with.

There will always be certain groups of humans that other humans do not wish to have associations. The barriers that separate us can be due to financial background, color of skin, religion, etc.

The attendees of the top/elite private schools (meaning about 30-35k in fees alone) are overwhelmingly from wealthy backgrounds. A minority are on scholarship or are supported by extended families but generally, to support 60-70k per year after tax expense (fees + sundries), you need to be generating about 100k pre-tax per year per child. What happens if you had two or three children? Hence, attendance at a top private school rules out the majority of families, even if they refinance the PPOR mortgage.

I appreciate your points about people wishing their children to go to a top school for a variety of reasons but my point as it relates to this thread is that generally, birds of a similar socio-economic feather live together and school together. This allows cohesiveness in the flock. Sure, there are always exceptions to the rule but overall, general principles of elite institutions catering for elite backgrounds apply.

 

[Angel]

An article from this week's papers suggest that many parents in our population are very concerned as to where their children go to school and hence, whom they mix with.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...an-girls-experts/story-fnet085v-1226682195444

Whilst I agree with you that many parents say they do not care where their kids go or whom they mix with, there are clearly many that do. I would suggest that there is a socio/economic barrier here.

No China. Some parents care about these things. Most parents don't care. Many parents are perfectly content to send their kids to the nearest school to where they already live. In fact, I see a rising number of families who don't value education at all and don't care whether their kids even go to school. All this in a nice leafy family-friendly middle class suburb in the middle ring of a capital city. And no, China, those parents who don't care are not commission-dwellers and druggies. They are high-income earning, hard working people who live in some very nice homes.

 

[BayView]

I'm a bit of an in-between camps on this one. I sorta agree with Wylie and China.

My upbringing was from relatively poor parents and always lived in the typical lower-middle class neighbourhoods.

Over the generations I've been able to move into the more middle class parts of anywhere I've lived.

Almost every choice of residence for me has been based on affordability and proximity to work at that time. The choice of standard of humans around me has never been a factor.

My chosen career of golf thrust me into every level of society, so you have to be able to interact with the bogan right through the to plum-in-the mouth aristocratic type with the hyphenated surname.

Eventually, you boil it down to a choice. My choice is to hang it with the better educated, ambitious and successful people, whom seem to make better decisions and can prioritise their lives a bit better, but I can still socialise with the footy hoon when required.

So, in this regard I am a lot like China.

Now, as a parent, I am like Wylie in that I don't really care about the social standing of my children's friends that much - just that they are decent humans.

Having said that, we are going to be sending our son to a decent private (but inexpensive) high school down our way. We want to give our son the best possible chance of education we can, that we never had, and hopefully keep him insulated from the less desirable element of the teenage world.

We both went to the local State high schools where we lived, and most of us kids turned out decent enough, so there's absolutely nothing wrongs with that.

From my experience kids can be good and bad at both ends of the social ladder...and so can their parents.

Generally speaking though; the likelihood of the parents being total dheads who are a waste of oxygen and a burden on society - and will therefore pass it onto their offspring - tend to be at the lower end. Their mindsets and life priorities don't match mine, so I won't choose to socialise with them by choice, and I will avoid it if possible.

On the flip side, even if I could afford it, I wouldn't live in Brighton, or one of those types of areas, because I like where I live and don't need to "postcode up" to feel good about myself. I might upgrade the PPoR a bit if I win tattslotto though - I really need a tennis court.

Sorry to be blunt.

 

[china]

Most parents don't care. In fact, I see a rising number of families who don't value education at all and don't care whether their kids even go to school. .

This is one of the greatest problems plaguing society today. That the basic family unit is not carrying out its responsibilities towards its younger members. Imagine the effects on crime rates and social misdemanours from juveniles if parents were held responsible for the sins of their young.

 

[china]

Having said that, we are going to be sending our son to a decent private (but inexpensive) high school down our way. We want to give our son the best possible chance of education we can, that we never had, and hopefully keep him insulated from the less desirable element of the teenage world.

We both went to the local State high schools where we lived, and most of us kids turned out decent enough, so there's absolutely nothing wrongs with that.

There are private schools and then there are private schools. Some are not much better than the local State. I think that if you are going to make this investment in your children, they should go to the best. Places like Scotch Melbourne and Geelong Grammar have longstanding pedigree and established reputations as centres of excellence.

 

[BayView]

There are private schools and then there are private schools. Some are not much better than the local State. I think that if you are going to make this investment in your children, they should go to the best. Places like Scotch Melbourne and Geelong Grammar have longstanding pedigree and established reputations as centres of excellence.

We can't afford a Scotch College, and we really can't afford the local Private School either - which IS better than the State versions - but we are gunna do our damnedest to get him through there.

 

[see_change]

One thing about the cheaper private schools is that you take out all of the kids of the parents who don't give a damn about what their kids do.

When I was working in 2770 , parents with minimal money but concerns about their kids future would send their kids to the local catholic schools.

Cliff

 

[plusnq]

I have four kids from 22 to 4 years of age. All still at home. The first three all started in State schools and then progressed to private schools. IMHO the difference in opportunity and education quality between the two systems is large and unlikely to be bridged. Like most parents I would like a better start for my children than I received.

My last child is starting at a private school and probably won't attend a State School at all. All of the older children required remedial work once they attended the private schools even though they were high achievers at the State school.

All of the schools both public and private had a wide socioeconomic demographic with the public school skewed to the lower end and the private schools skewed to the higher socioeconomic scale. Some private schools operate a selective system even if it is not publicly acknowledged. One top tier school here in Brisbane has been known to encourage students to find other schools better suited to their abilities. This selection process statistically skews the academic results and makes them appear higher achievers than would otherwise occur. It is something to be aware of when comparing academic results of differing schools.

Fundamentally the choice of which school you send your children to is personal and based on many factors. I feel threads like these show the innate biases of the posters (including myself) rather than any real insight into the benefits or otherwise of private schooling. However people do buy into areas where local State schools have a good reputation so on an investment level it may be a factor to consider.

 

[wylie]

All of the schools both public and private had a wide socioeconomic demographic with the public school skewed to the lower end and the private schools skewed to the higher socioeconomic scale. Some private schools operate a selective system even if it is not publicly acknowledged. One top tier school here in Brisbane has been known to encourage students to find other schools better suited to their abilities. This selection process statistically skews the academic results and makes them appear higher achievers than would otherwise occur. It is something to be aware of when comparing academic results of differing schools.

We know boys going to one of the local elite schools told us that some lower achievers were encouraged to stay home and not partake in the tests that are used by the schools to grade their results (sorry... just cannot think of what they are called as I type this).

Fundamentally the choice of which school you send your children to is personal and based on many factors. I feel threads like these show the innate biases of the posters (including myself) rather than any real insight into the benefits or otherwise of private schooling. However people do buy into areas where local State schools have a good reputation so on an investment level it may be a factor to consider.

That is right. The kids at private schools who get into bad trouble will often have parents with well connected friends (lawyers) to help them. I've also seen that "in the flesh" locally. There is a lot of stuff hidden from view at both public and private schools.

 

[MIW]

What I don't get is, what are these people thinking? West isn't as bad as they think. Where we are located we have a selective school in the area...
It almost made me feel like an odd one out. Because I am okay to live in the West and invest further out west.
But then I am looking at delayed gratification. While many people at work are only looking at the now. Sometimes it annoys me but at other times I just laugh and see that I have a different goal and I am constantly working on a plan to be financially free.....and only work on investing full time down the track.

Keep at it Ms Ali. I know how you feel exactly as I was there, living south west for 20 years having multi million $ IP portfolio. Even the local people there would judge me there, some had bigger houses, others had mansions on large block of land, but ours was just a comfortable, average house.
I even had to explain to our kids growing up, when they started to compare, that we had a different goal, perhaps we were not thinking like the averages or like most of the people, and thinking about it now, that's what most people there have, the average life or the life most people have....
It takes different way of thinking, acting to produce different results so never feel bad and the time will do it's thing, it will not be immediate, as wealth building takes time....
As we grow older we realize sometimes how unimportant it is what others judge....
Just remember what Warren Buffett wisely said: “Wealth is the transfer of money from the impatient to the patient.” Successful investment is about patience and time so it shouldn't really matter where we live then, should it?

 

[Deltaberry]

It's probably smarter to buy good assets with good growth and reasonable yields, and then renting in mansions at 1% yield (eg $2000/week would get you a $10m house), rather than buying a $10m house with no investments and paying $300k interest on a $6m loan.

 

[china]

It's probably smarter to buy good assets with good growth and reasonable yields, and then renting in mansions at 1% yield (eg $2000/week would get you a $10m house), rather than buying a $10m house with no investments and paying $300k interest on a $6m loan.

I doubt anyone buying a 10m PPOR would need to out a 6m loan.

Mortgages with even higher LVR are usually taken by people buying sub 2m PPOR. Hence mortgages for PPOR are usually taken out by people who can least afford them, relatively speaking.

The owner of a 10m PPOR is by definition in terms of net worth in the top 1% and with most analyses of characteristics of this group (the one per centers) is unlikely to have just the PPOR and no other assets.

Often for the one percenters, their PPOR is only a small percentage e.g. 20% of their total net worth.

However, for the rest of the population, their PPOR may be 90% or more of their net worth.

 

[Deltaberry]

You sure make a lot of assumptions about people in other socio-economic classes.

It's less often than the masses, but it happens.

But rich people who rent mansions (ie A$10m+ properties) who use their money to generate yield from commercial and residential real estate around the world occurs more often. I probably know at least 10 people who do that.

For most 1-percenters, their unencumbered multi-million dollar PPOR is usually only 5% of their net worth. 20% is more like the top 5%.

 

[TMNT]

given the divorce laws, id certainly be putting more education/effort into educating my boys as opposed to girls,

the mans life can be ruined in a very short period of time, whereas a "I do" from the lady is almost a guaranteed paycheck........

im sure subconsciously society does take the above into consideration

 

[Deltaberry]

It's easy to avoid. You would know probably a year or two ahead if your relationship was about to irrevocably break down. You would've liquidated your assets by then and redomicled overnight in California or Shanghai.

If you couldn't get around to doing it it's because:
- You're not tough enough;
- You couldn't be bothered/were too lazy;
- You were thick as three planks of wood and couldn't see it coming;
- You couldn't liquidate because your stake in the assets are a minority and you have no right to sell without undergoing an onerous legal process with hostile shareholders/unitholders (eg family business);
- Your wife was a big-time schemer and played you up until the point she sought an injunction on you;
- Your business is too big and couldn't be sold (eg Lindsay Fox, Gina Rineheart);
- You're a (financial) masochist;

If you're anywhere in the sub $100m category and the vast of your wealth was in properties, it's easy to avoid. The flip side is, if you're worth $50m, you probably don't care. $25m is a big hit. But so what? Still have $25m.

Also there's many other ways to avoid it. You could've set up a discretionary trust to hold most assets on trust for your children. There is nothing to "split". There might be an order that the trust has to pay the wife part of the rent per week but that's about it or an order that she'd be allowed to live there. If your children turn on you when they're 18, well bad luck. But then you got to start worrying about their wives/husbands as well. Look at the Foxes (or was it Lews?).

But I guess the most important thing is. If you had the ability to make it a big, giving up half isn't going to kill you. You'll make it back. And that's why the courts split half, because the wife probably has no ability to make it back.

 

[wylie]

given the divorce laws, id certainly be putting more education/effort into educating my boys as opposed to girls,

the mans life can be ruined in a very short period of time, whereas a "I do" from the lady is almost a guaranteed paycheck........

im sure subconsciously society does take the above into consideration

Surely that is too big a generalisation .

 

[MsAli]

given the divorce laws, id certainly be putting more education/effort into educating my boys as opposed to girls,

Very chauvinistic. Me and my sis are far more successful than any of the boys in our extended family, even though apparently the boys were valued more by some.

 

[pinkboy]

given the divorce laws, id certainly be putting more education/effort into educating my boys as opposed to girls,

the mans life can be ruined in a very short period of time, whereas a "I do" from the lady is almost a guaranteed paycheck........

im sure subconsciously society does take the above into consideration

....that's what overseas accounts prior to marriage are for!

pinkboy

 

[luce.rocks]

....that's what overseas accounts prior to marriage are for!

pinkboy

and what prenups are for!

On the topic of schools, my baby is clearly a genius. We won't be putting her name down anywhere because she's bound to get into any selective school she wants, or get a scholarship somewhere. If she even goes to school and doesn't just go straight to university, that is.