6 ms·

>Trades are overwhelmingly what people do when they don't go for a BA, and often have houses and children far before college graduates. Having a house and chil

by pb7 5y ago

>Trades are overwhelmingly what people do when they don't go for a BA, and often have houses and children far before college graduates. Having a house and children as soon as possible isn't a win. It's what happens when you lack imagination. There's so much more to life than pumping out kids at 21 in your 3/2 in fly over country.

nfw2 5y ago
Having children as soon as possible may not be a win, but having a house surely is. How could owning a valuable and necessary asset not be considered a win?
- pb7 5y ago
  Because owning a house makes you reluctant to move to pursue great life opportunities, some of which are career based that would earn you more money over your lifetime. Of course that has changed with the adoption of remote work but let's be honest, no one saw that coming.
  - nfw2 5y ago
    Owning a house doesn't necessarily make you reluctant to move to pursue other opportunities somewhere else. Renting or just re-selling the house is always an option. Also, anything good in your life would make you reluctant to move somewhere else. But you wouldn't say, for example, that having a significant other is bad because it makes you reluctant to move.
    - babypuncher 5y ago
      Both renting and re-selling are major sources of friction. I'm a first-time homeowner and I find the prospect of moving today far more daunting than when I was still renting, because of these factors. The risk feels much higher, so I need a much greater promise of reward before I'm willing to take it.
      - nfw2 5y ago
        Sure, but would you prefer to have your house or to not have your house? Selling your house for free (or more realistically, way under market value) would not have as much friction.
betwixthewires 5y ago
Not for most people there isn't, degree or no degree. Most people lack imagination, live boring lives, and want financial stability and a rewarding family life. Your last statement is very condescending. If your goal is generational wealth, leaving your kids better off than you, return on capital investment and things like that, owning property as early as possible that you can afford to own puts you miles ahead of people that don't do it, again degree or no degree.
- pb7 5y ago
  I don’t think it’s condescending at all. It’s a tough pill to swallow at best. I’m not saying those things are wrong to want or that they have no value, only that doing it as soon as possible will have you miss out on a lot of experiences and opportunities that may not be present after you settle down. Therefore, doing it earlier is not a win, as implied in the original comment. Edit: This is an example of the classic marshmallow test.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    "Flyover country" is very condescending, belittling and arrogant. What exactly are they missing out on? Perhaps you're missing out on what they have as well? Telling people what their priorities in life ought to be is absolutely condescending. It's not a marshmallow test. It's a question of personal priorities and values. Looking down on people because they have different priorities and made different choices than you, telling yourself they missed out in doing it, it's really just a way to convince yourself you're happy with your choices and nothing more.
  - quantumwannabe 5y ago
    Yes it is an example of the marshmallow test, but not in the way you think. You failed the test, and the people you mock passed it. They are willing to make sacrifices in the present in order to create a better future, while you chase instant gratification.
    - pb7 5y ago
dan-0 5y ago
> There's so much more to life than pumping out kids I think it's pretty hard to argue this is true while literally making "life." Yeah you don't usually get a shiny new car and an unnecessarily large house having kids at 21, but the life you're talking about is a negative for humanity. What does it matter when you're happy and have everything you need to survive and provide anyways? That's what a "win" is.
- pb7 5y ago
  >Yeah you don't usually get a shiny new car and an unnecessarily large house having kids at 21, but the life you're talking about is a negative for humanity. This is so far from what I’m talking about that it’s closer to what I’m arguing against than for it. I am not talking about materialistic things. I am talking about experiences, relationships, and outlook-defining memories. > What does it matter when you're happy and have everything you need to survive and provide anyways? That's what a "win" is. Eating buttered potatoes for the rest of my life isn’t a win to me even if it will technically sustain me. You can do more. You can be more. You can experience more. And most people don’t even try. Sad.
  - dan-0 5y ago
    > I am talking about experiences, relationships, and outlook-defining memories. And "pumping out kids" as you put it does this for many people. Sorry it doesn't for you, but saying that it isn't a "win" for some people is short sighted. > You can do more. You can be more. You can experience more. Many would say the same of those in their 30s and 40s with kids. > Sad. Again, many would say the same about your aspirations. Insulting, isn't it? My point being, what makes you happy, doesn't make others, so don't cast someone who has kids at 21 with a home and ability to provide for them into a bucket of not "winning" at life.
    - pb7 5y ago
      >And "pumping out kids" as you put it does this for many people. Sorry it doesn't for you, but saying that it isn't a "win" for some people is short sighted. Who says it doesn’t for me? I’m not against kids. I want kids, I’m going to have kids. But I’m going to finish getting some bucket list items out of the way first, when they’re possible and practical to do. >Many would say the same of those in their 30s and 40s with kids. Some things are either not possible or not responsible to do once you have kids. And once they’re adults, you’re too old. >Again, many would say the same about your aspirations. Insulting, isn't it? Not at all! I’m okay with that. Everyone’s living their own life and others can have an opinion on it if they want to. >My point being, what makes you happy, doesn't make others, so don't cast someone who has kids at 21 with a home and ability to provide for them into a bucket of not "winning" at life. Again, I started a more involved discussion, but the original comment strongly implied that earlier is better and I disagree. Sorry you’re taking it so personally.
quantified 5y ago
Having a house and children only happens when you have the resources. People burdened by college debt can’t do these, or at least not usually in the fashion they want. For those people who even want houses and children, the sentence was directed at trades being a quicker route. Perfectly possible to live alone and waste income on rent with trades, and if you’re not heterosexual you’re not usually “pumping” out kids regardless. Digital nomad and similar lifestyles, not so much, but I’d argue that’s preference as much as imagination. Some people like family and community. “Flyover country” is readily considered condescending. Might be an accurate description, but accuracy is not what makes it condescending.
mellavora 5y ago
>Having a house and children as soon as possible isn't a win. It's what happens when you lack imagination. There's so much more to life than pumping out kids at 21 in your 3/2 in fly over country. Really?? Just as a counter-example, if you have your kids in your young 20s, then they are out of your house when you hit your mid 40s. In your mid-40s, you tend to have much more money and a much better sense of what you want out of life. So assuming you have children at some point, when is the best time to be child-free, in your 20s or in your 40s? And what about the joy of grandchildren? When society tells you to wait until you are 35 to have kids, how is having kids at 21 "lacking imagination"? Going against the crowd requires imagination.

by pb7 5y ago

nfw2 5y ago

Having children as soon as possible may not be a win, but having a house surely is. How could owning a valuable and necessary asset not be considered a win?

pb7 5y ago
Because owning a house makes you reluctant to move to pursue great life opportunities, some of which are career based that would earn you more money over your lifetime. Of course that has changed with the adoption of remote work but let's be honest, no one saw that coming.
- nfw2 5y ago
  Owning a house doesn't necessarily make you reluctant to move to pursue other opportunities somewhere else. Renting or just re-selling the house is always an option. Also, anything good in your life would make you reluctant to move somewhere else. But you wouldn't say, for example, that having a significant other is bad because it makes you reluctant to move.
  - babypuncher 5y ago
    Both renting and re-selling are major sources of friction. I'm a first-time homeowner and I find the prospect of moving today far more daunting than when I was still renting, because of these factors. The risk feels much higher, so I need a much greater promise of reward before I'm willing to take it.
    - nfw2 5y ago
      Sure, but would you prefer to have your house or to not have your house? Selling your house for free (or more realistically, way under market value) would not have as much friction.

betwixthewires 5y ago

Not for most people there isn't, degree or no degree. Most people lack imagination, live boring lives, and want financial stability and a rewarding family life. Your last statement is very condescending. If your goal is generational wealth, leaving your kids better off than you, return on capital investment and things like that, owning property as early as possible that you can afford to own puts you miles ahead of people that don't do it, again degree or no degree.

pb7 5y ago
I don’t think it’s condescending at all. It’s a tough pill to swallow at best. I’m not saying those things are wrong to want or that they have no value, only that doing it as soon as possible will have you miss out on a lot of experiences and opportunities that may not be present after you settle down. Therefore, doing it earlier is not a win, as implied in the original comment. Edit: This is an example of the classic marshmallow test.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  "Flyover country" is very condescending, belittling and arrogant. What exactly are they missing out on? Perhaps you're missing out on what they have as well? Telling people what their priorities in life ought to be is absolutely condescending. It's not a marshmallow test. It's a question of personal priorities and values. Looking down on people because they have different priorities and made different choices than you, telling yourself they missed out in doing it, it's really just a way to convince yourself you're happy with your choices and nothing more.
- quantumwannabe 5y ago
  Yes it is an example of the marshmallow test, but not in the way you think. You failed the test, and the people you mock passed it. They are willing to make sacrifices in the present in order to create a better future, while you chase instant gratification.
  - pb7 5y ago

dan-0 5y ago

> There's so much more to life than pumping out kids I think it's pretty hard to argue this is true while literally making "life." Yeah you don't usually get a shiny new car and an unnecessarily large house having kids at 21, but the life you're talking about is a negative for humanity. What does it matter when you're happy and have everything you need to survive and provide anyways? That's what a "win" is.

pb7 5y ago
>Yeah you don't usually get a shiny new car and an unnecessarily large house having kids at 21, but the life you're talking about is a negative for humanity. This is so far from what I’m talking about that it’s closer to what I’m arguing against than for it. I am not talking about materialistic things. I am talking about experiences, relationships, and outlook-defining memories. > What does it matter when you're happy and have everything you need to survive and provide anyways? That's what a "win" is. Eating buttered potatoes for the rest of my life isn’t a win to me even if it will technically sustain me. You can do more. You can be more. You can experience more. And most people don’t even try. Sad.
- dan-0 5y ago
  > I am talking about experiences, relationships, and outlook-defining memories. And "pumping out kids" as you put it does this for many people. Sorry it doesn't for you, but saying that it isn't a "win" for some people is short sighted. > You can do more. You can be more. You can experience more. Many would say the same of those in their 30s and 40s with kids. > Sad. Again, many would say the same about your aspirations. Insulting, isn't it? My point being, what makes you happy, doesn't make others, so don't cast someone who has kids at 21 with a home and ability to provide for them into a bucket of not "winning" at life.
  - pb7 5y ago
    >And "pumping out kids" as you put it does this for many people. Sorry it doesn't for you, but saying that it isn't a "win" for some people is short sighted. Who says it doesn’t for me? I’m not against kids. I want kids, I’m going to have kids. But I’m going to finish getting some bucket list items out of the way first, when they’re possible and practical to do. >Many would say the same of those in their 30s and 40s with kids. Some things are either not possible or not responsible to do once you have kids. And once they’re adults, you’re too old. >Again, many would say the same about your aspirations. Insulting, isn't it? Not at all! I’m okay with that. Everyone’s living their own life and others can have an opinion on it if they want to. >My point being, what makes you happy, doesn't make others, so don't cast someone who has kids at 21 with a home and ability to provide for them into a bucket of not "winning" at life. Again, I started a more involved discussion, but the original comment strongly implied that earlier is better and I disagree. Sorry you’re taking it so personally.

quantified 5y ago

Having a house and children only happens when you have the resources. People burdened by college debt can’t do these, or at least not usually in the fashion they want. For those people who even want houses and children, the sentence was directed at trades being a quicker route. Perfectly possible to live alone and waste income on rent with trades, and if you’re not heterosexual you’re not usually “pumping” out kids regardless. Digital nomad and similar lifestyles, not so much, but I’d argue that’s preference as much as imagination. Some people like family and community. “Flyover country” is readily considered condescending. Might be an accurate description, but accuracy is not what makes it condescending.

mellavora 5y ago

>Having a house and children as soon as possible isn't a win. It's what happens when you lack imagination. There's so much more to life than pumping out kids at 21 in your 3/2 in fly over country. Really?? Just as a counter-example, if you have your kids in your young 20s, then they are out of your house when you hit your mid 40s. In your mid-40s, you tend to have much more money and a much better sense of what you want out of life. So assuming you have children at some point, when is the best time to be child-free, in your 20s or in your 40s? And what about the joy of grandchildren? When society tells you to wait until you are 35 to have kids, how is having kids at 21 "lacking imagination"? Going against the crowd requires imagination.