3 ms·

I agree with you. I didn't go to those schools. That doesn't mean the environments the original comment that started this chain mentioned don't exist. That was

I agree with you. I didn't go to those schools. That doesn't mean the environments the original comment that started this chain mentioned don't exist. That was my only point. Whether they are desirable or not is another question. But I don't think we should pretend it's one with an obvious answer for parents. Yes, you don't want to stress out your kids. But I'm not sure it's so easy to blame parents from those hypercompetitive neighborhoods. We are living in a world of self interest were increasingly everyone has a college degree, thereby devaluing the credential at a basic supply/demand level. The very best schools are in a class all their own, and (rightly or wrongly) have been largely immune to this downward pressure. Talk about bubbles is also not really useful. Wealth is a bubble. Software engineering is a bubble. A neighborhood where everyone goes to a state school is a bubble. Poverty is a bubble. But at the macro level if people don't think the world is getting more cooperative and is just getting more competitive, doing whatever they can to keep or send their kids to the best bubble possible is at the very least defensible. I think there are also a lot of parents who don't seem to have a robust concept of the future. I assume anyone being born today is entering a far more competitive and frankly, brutal world by the time they are college age. The world is getting smaller. And not enough people seem willing to do the work required to make sure all kids do well. In such a world, pushing your kids in high school so they can get the best shot makes sense. This can be true even if it doesn't make other people morally wrong. In the same way wealth doesn't make you a better person. But let's not pretend that in a world where (in the United States at least) many people among us if they lose their job won't be able to afford healthcare, that wealth is entirely without virtue. Suggesting that is indicative of the same sort of "they'll be fine" thinking that frankly, strikes me as the most "bubble" idea possible. From where I sit, it's simply the case that the world is not getting easier.

ndriscoll 2mo ago
Surely these hyper competitive neighborhoods are full of already wealthy people? I hear about people "needing" to spend a ton of money on kids as part of this competitive scene and I just don't get it. If you're that worried about them, why not invest that money into a house (which costs the same as e.g. 4 years at Yale, but you could potentially rent it out until they're old enough, and finance it) for them so that they basically start life on barista-FIRE mode?
- godwinson__4-8 2mo ago
  It's a good question I would just suggest to you a lot of the behavior around wealth doesn't really make sense if you are just doing that kind of back of the napkin math. Like all the wealthy workaholics who just don't stop. They've so clearly made it and don't have to work anymore, but they can't even take it easy on themselves never mind their kids. I suspect there is a lot in the psychology of an overachiever that isn't simply turned off when one hits a financial benchmark or has a child. In the latter case, this often seems to make things worse. A parents duty is to care for their child. Having your kid end up being the wealthiest barista sounds about as good a strategy as thinking someone will have good financial sense after winning the lottery. A fool and his money are easily parted. If you worry about what will happen to your kids after you die, as many parents do, simply passing down a bag of money often doesn't feel like enough, even if to others lacking such a luxury this appears indulgent. But I agree it's a good question and also perhaps has similar implications for broader questions of public policy, such as state driven income redistribution, etc. It's also good to remember that you never really know what is going on inside other people's homes. Wealthy neighborhoods have all sorts of wrinkles and disparities, even if on balance they are clearly privileged compared to whatever the national mean is. Perhaps the more opulent the neighborhood the more the scenario you lay out is prevalent. There are plenty of neighborhoods with overachievers who have done well that don't yet represent the sort of people you might say posess "generational wealth", where this sort of thing is basically the whole idea. But then again, it's a matter of perspective. I mean you could also probably live in a cheaper neighborhood and spend less money. Questions of work and wealth have always been tied to questions of morals and power. Top schools aren't just about earning potential. They are about access and prestige. They simply don't attract people who just want to get by.
  - ndriscoll 2mo ago
    I mean I've done very well in my life; my wife and I both moved up several classes, but I take ownership of educating my kids. My oldest started kindergarten today, but she's already a couple years ahead, and she's only really in school for social reasons. I don't think school is going to help you to avoid being duped. In fact, if these "elite" educations cost as much as a house, that is the first scam to avoid. Poor first lesson to fall for the upper middle class version of a gucci bag! Similarly, I plan for my kids to go to university, but for social reasons (it's the best place to find a spouse IMO), and that's exactly because I can see that the rational economic choice in the face of uncertainty is not to buy (or finance!) an expensive credential, but to buy a house and not fall for materialism. Books are free if your goal is to learn. An "elite" university is therefore less important than one with strong social pressures against things like casual relationships.

ndriscoll 2mo ago

Surely these hyper competitive neighborhoods are full of already wealthy people? I hear about people "needing" to spend a ton of money on kids as part of this competitive scene and I just don't get it. If you're that worried about them, why not invest that money into a house (which costs the same as e.g. 4 years at Yale, but you could potentially rent it out until they're old enough, and finance it) for them so that they basically start life on barista-FIRE mode?

godwinson__4-8 2mo ago
It's a good question I would just suggest to you a lot of the behavior around wealth doesn't really make sense if you are just doing that kind of back of the napkin math. Like all the wealthy workaholics who just don't stop. They've so clearly made it and don't have to work anymore, but they can't even take it easy on themselves never mind their kids. I suspect there is a lot in the psychology of an overachiever that isn't simply turned off when one hits a financial benchmark or has a child. In the latter case, this often seems to make things worse. A parents duty is to care for their child. Having your kid end up being the wealthiest barista sounds about as good a strategy as thinking someone will have good financial sense after winning the lottery. A fool and his money are easily parted. If you worry about what will happen to your kids after you die, as many parents do, simply passing down a bag of money often doesn't feel like enough, even if to others lacking such a luxury this appears indulgent. But I agree it's a good question and also perhaps has similar implications for broader questions of public policy, such as state driven income redistribution, etc. It's also good to remember that you never really know what is going on inside other people's homes. Wealthy neighborhoods have all sorts of wrinkles and disparities, even if on balance they are clearly privileged compared to whatever the national mean is. Perhaps the more opulent the neighborhood the more the scenario you lay out is prevalent. There are plenty of neighborhoods with overachievers who have done well that don't yet represent the sort of people you might say posess "generational wealth", where this sort of thing is basically the whole idea. But then again, it's a matter of perspective. I mean you could also probably live in a cheaper neighborhood and spend less money. Questions of work and wealth have always been tied to questions of morals and power. Top schools aren't just about earning potential. They are about access and prestige. They simply don't attract people who just want to get by.
- ndriscoll 2mo ago
  I mean I've done very well in my life; my wife and I both moved up several classes, but I take ownership of educating my kids. My oldest started kindergarten today, but she's already a couple years ahead, and she's only really in school for social reasons. I don't think school is going to help you to avoid being duped. In fact, if these "elite" educations cost as much as a house, that is the first scam to avoid. Poor first lesson to fall for the upper middle class version of a gucci bag! Similarly, I plan for my kids to go to university, but for social reasons (it's the best place to find a spouse IMO), and that's exactly because I can see that the rational economic choice in the face of uncertainty is not to buy (or finance!) an expensive credential, but to buy a house and not fall for materialism. Books are free if your goal is to learn. An "elite" university is therefore less important than one with strong social pressures against things like casual relationships.