Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
I would peg wealthy as people who can afford to support or mostly support children through a bachelor's degree.
Funny. That's what my parents and many of their generation did. And they considered themselves poor. On some measures they were right.
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
Yeah, I have kind of strong feelings about how much John Key plays up his poverty-stricken childhood when by so many metrics he was very middle-class.
Similar to my millionaire ex-partner (who loves Key). He was also raised by a solo mum. He talks up the hardship of impoverished life on Great Barrier. But the odd thing is that I never saw him want for anything. Nothing that mattered, anyway. As a teenager, she gave him the toys that formed the basis of his current fortune, the computers he cut his teeth programming on as a kid. She sent him to the same school as me (that's where we met), in the wealthiest part of town (in those days). She allowed him every freedom, including having his girlfriend sleeping over when he was still a schoolboy. Every holiday they went and stayed on the Barrier which is a fucking beautiful getaway, I know because I went with him twice and we spent every day fishing, snorkeling, mountain climbing, camping, surfing, hunting, and cruising around on her boyfriend's launch. He went skiing every winter with school mates, saving up money from his night job (something we both did), but the really expensive parts were often gifts, like new ski boots and clothes.
Yes, I lived in a bigger house. That's quite literally where the difference ended, until it came time to study, which my parents assisted with. His mother offered to assist, hoping always that he would study. But he had turned his mind against it, being one of those rare people that knows what they want from a young age, and is blessed with the talent (and good luck) to pull it off.
I think "good on him", but I have no time for his right wing politics, which fails totally to acknowledge the many socialist sources of his fortune*.
*ETA Amongst other privileges. I've just remembered that he told me that he also had a millionaire grandfather, his father's mother. That's a totally different circumstance to the life of the child of a solo mum from a long line of working class people. Just even having the example of that in your family gives you tremendous confidence. It has for me.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to Rich Lock,
I accept that not being of an artistic bent, I'm never going to fully understand it from the heart. But I try to accept that it's something she just has to do, and we've worked out our own strategies for dealing with the comprehension gap.
You and I have a great deal in common. Gotta meet more. When's your usual slack-off-for-drinks time/place?
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
I don't think it becomes economically irrational for everyone except the wealthy (and I think that's basically our difference of opinion right there) but I certainly agree it increases the number of people for whom this is so.
We'd probably need to be specific about what is meant by wealthy for me to know if that is our disagreement. I think you've got it exactly backwards, that the greatest benefit in absolute terms from tertiary study always goes to the wealthiest people, they get both kinds of benefits - economic and .. everything else, and for the poor, it's a big risk, they must consider the payoff, compromising general education in the process. For those in the middle, it's in the middle. Economics is a factor, but they have some leisure to avail themselves of the broad experience that comes from general education.
I have a perception bias in that I know a number of people for whom this has been the case, but - and I think this is a big factor - all of them met, at uni, middle or upper-middle class partners or social groups who encouraged and/or expected them to continue with study.
I'll admit the same, in the opposite direction. I know a lot people who have done well for themselves without tertiary training, and would have to look very hard for the long term minimum wager. Like I said, those ones that I do know were that way because they actually couldn't do complex work. They went to pieces if conditions changed in the slightest, even in quite circumscribed roles, like checkout clerks, or washing cars.
The exception would seem to be people who have dependents. They can tolerate no loss of income, and can take no risks in the workplace (which often pay off - like speaking your mind about something, for instance), and have no spare time after hours. For them, without substantial benefits, tertiary training is impossible. I'm only partially in this situation, and it's impossible for me. I think this is a HUGE part of the reason my entire generation had kids much later than my parents. Getting married as a teenager and having 3 kids by the time you're 25, as my mother did, is an extremely hard road these days.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to DCBCauchi,
If your sister's experience is anything like mine, she'll have very firm ideas about what she wants to do. Family and friends don't want to see you in abject poverty, so suggest ways to alleviate it. But you have a burning obsession in your head that you have to get out somehow, and those suggestions tend not to address that need very satisfactorily. Better abject poverty than a comfortable life and compromised work.
You and she have much in common, at least in attitude. Despite the annoyance, I do still find it inspiring. I wish I had one quarter of the level of commitment to my own work, and there's no doubt she does good stuff, the reviews are consistently extremely positive from those people who are meant to know (and others too). I'm not against her doing what she does. The part that's embittering is that interactions with her are so unpleasant, so often, because we're practically the only shoulders left to cry on. It seems like all the listening is one way now, and I don't really know too many people who like doing that without getting paid for it.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to Steve Barnes,
I can't come tonight, said sister's birthday!
Thank you Ben, I thought you actually came up with some good points.
Did I? Weird, no memory of anything more than desperate evasion of the discussion. I did very much enjoy conversation with the TVNZ archivist whose name eludes me. That's righteous work, looking after the taonga.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to DCBCauchi,
Yeah, I'd just like to apologise for getting all wound up and ranting last night. I'm not very well at the moment. I'm spending far too much time by myself. So, yeah, sorry.
LOL. I'm used to it, my sister is in the same situation as you. An undervalued performance artist, a modern dance choreographer. The pay is virtually non-existent, the audience almost entirely other dancers (who have no money). People don't get it. I don't get it, frankly. I went to her shows for years, but after a while, when you're told repeatedly that whatever you liked in the show was trivial, that really only people who've spent a lot of time devoted to the appreciation of modern dance can really comment intelligently, you lose motivation to continue with it. That's not engagement, it's elitism. I don't think she's ever followed a single suggestion from her family about what to do, despite having been bankrolled by them for many long years, and spending practically every occasion that we meet bitterly complaining about being under-appreciated. It gets really, really grating for people who have responsibilities that go further than looking after their own artistic growth for their whole lives.
I love her dearly, and will always continue to support her, but it is extremely frustrating when someone so talented, given every advantage in life by natural gifts of intelligence, beauty, and, ironically, trojanesque ability to work, drives relentlessly into abject poverty and countenances no advice whatsoever about it. Like I say, I don't get it, and what's happened is that I don't want to talk about it, because if I say what I really think, it will be an explosive confrontation every time.
Art, with a capital A, seems to be a concept that encourages the most bizarre discussions, seldom good ones, because they become wide-ranging personal criticisms of every aspect of people's lives and lifestyle choices. I really don't have any good experiences of those kind of discussions.
I give this post by way of explanation to Steve who I feel deserves an answer to why I didn't want to answer his question at the pub the other night, which is what prompted this whole digression into an Art discussion.
-
I agree about the minimum wage.
What I'm essentially trying to get to the bottom of here, is a What-If on the economics of a person faced with the choice between further study, or seeking work. It's a difficult question because comparing what does actually happen between people who do make these choices can't eliminate the bias that comes with the high probability that study is the option for the smartest and most motivated kids, coming from the wealthier families.
So we're talking about a what-if on kids with identical resources to each other taking alternative paths. This means your assumption that they must live away from home if they work is false. Indeed it is patently false in nearly every case I can think of, only people who are actually estranged from their parents are forced from home (and these are the kids who actually CAN get accommodation allowances if they want to study). Mostly, working kids are simply expected to pay some board, and do some of the household chores, which is a much, much better deal than renting, except in the escape from parental control.
Talk to someone who's been in a supermarket or a retail store,without rising to management, for the better part of their careers.
I've talked to several such someones, but can't say I've done an exhaustive study. The ones I did speak to were frank about being basically not very bright, and pretty stoked to have a job at all. I'm sure there are people who have stuck with secure low paying income for lengthy periods who were bright, but circumstances made it impossible for them to keep looking around for better options. This probably happens to people who are one pay check from destitution for years on end. They're in a perpetual state of fear.
I doubt these people have the resources at all to study. Hell, I don't have those resources right now. I couldn't conceive of starting a new career with a three year stint at university - how would I pay the mortgage and feed my family? It would have to have some seriously high chances of a massive payout starting bang on graduation to even consider it.
Part of what I'm driving at here is that I think tertiary study should be not only free, but should have generous allowances. Otherwise it doesn't stack up economically, and becomes an economically irrational choice for anyone except the already wealthy. I think this is exactly what happened right when I began studying and it was incredibly regressive for our society. But it's bloody hard work convincing people older than me of this, because they simply don't have the whole picture of the economics, and look only to the final incomes, and can't understand student debt and what impact it has had on this country. They actually think it's a really sweet deal to be given a big loan with no security so that you can study. I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether it's a sweet deal, or whether it is, in the economic balance, actually a big risk taken by people who have no real information to make such a huge decision with.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to DCBCauchi,
I get the impression that neither Rich nor Ben want to talk about anything to do with art in case someone says rude things about the kind of music that they like. And fair enough.
I don't enjoy that, certainly, but mostly the conversation bores me. It's like people talking about their dogs, when you're not a dog person.
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to NBH,
Final income, yes. But overall wealth? A degree is at least 3 years with no earnings, and probably some hefty unusual costs too. If you're comparing to a 15 year old leaving school, make that 5 years, at the very least, that the degree holder is catching up on. For a 882/651 - 100% = 35% better pay packet, that's some serious years taken to catch up, and I'm not even accounting for taxation, which is progressive on incomes, but zero on assets.
ETA: And of course it still doesn't really tackle the question of actual workload. Would be handy to know comparative hourly rates. That goes to quality of life too, not just income.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 487 488 489 490 491 … 1066 Older→ First