Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 21, 2015 at 12:37 AM in reply to: The cost of an Ivy League undergrad degree next year…. #785036
CA renter
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]studies show happiness only rises with income to a certain point.
I wonder about a feeling of security though. I wonder if trust fund kids in general feel more secure of their place in the world, and if so, whether that generally turns out to be a good or bad thing, longterm..[/quote]
I had recently read about a study that looked at a happiness scale where people had to rate their happiness and satisfaction with life on a scale from 1 to 10 (tried to find the article/study, but am unable to right now). They looked at some of the wealthiest people in developed countries and compared them to people in underdeveloped countries. Guess what they found? The wealthiest people had the exact same level of happiness as financially poorer people from underdeveloped countries. They found that money only mattered to an extent, as you’ve pointed out. It’s important to feel safe and secure as that definitely affects one’s happiness and satisfaction with life. After that, money had very little effect.
My husband has had to work with families in life and death situations from all walks of life. He’s said that people in the poor, overcrowded immigrant neighborhoods often seem happier than the people who live (often very isolated lives) in those big mansions with a hired staff.
IMHO, security can either mean having the money to hire people to take care of you, OR it can mean having people who love and cherish you enough to want to take care of you during times of need. Which one probably makes us feel better and more secure?
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]Flyer, it doesn’t seem like you’re taking into account defined benefit pensions paid monthly to boomer-and-beyond households. The vast majority of the over-55 cohort that I’m acquainted with have at least one DB pension coming into the household. And about 3/4 of those households ALSO paid into Social Security (whether or not they are currently collecting any). With one or more DB pensions combined with SS paid to one or more persons of a household, certainly this is enough money for a 1-2 person household to live relatively comfortably and indefinitely …. especially if their primary residence is paid off.
I realize that most boomers came from families with 3-6 kids and that any inheritance from the last parent who died would likely be split up among the heirs which would account for smaller inheritances in a large portion of families (don’t know the percentage). This is assuming the last remaining parent didn’t use a lot of long term care or avail themselves of LT care on Medi-Cal in their final years (which would cause a MC lien to be placed on any real property they owned).
[/quote]
Perfect example of why anecdotes are not the same as data. For the last 35 years, fewer than 30% of workers were covered by DB plans. Even among those with some kind of plan, fewer than half had DB plans, and those numbers are much lower today than they were 35 years ago. Today, that number is less than 10%.
There is no period of time over the last 60 years when average families had 3-6 kids. And we have to go back 100 years since more families had more than 2 or more children than fewer than 2.
The people that surround you are not representative of the rest of the population.[/quote]
Bingo.
Not only that, but retiree healthcare was available to a number of workers (still the minority) in both private and public sectors just a few decades ago. Today, that benefit is almost unheard of in the private sector, and the public sector began phasing it out decades ago, too. This is going to be one of the biggest issues going forward, IMHO, as most people might be able to scrape together some sort of retirement funds, but will not be able to pay for healthcare and long-term care in old age.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]a million cash probably wouldnt feel all that secure. one good nursing home bill will probably clean you out. i guess you can get long term care insurance.
real financial security requires ability to put a bullet in ones head at the appropriate time on the downhill slide, assuming networth less than say 3 million or with adequate insurance.
Im pretty sure I could feel inssecurewith just 1 or 2 million in the bank. I think id probably worry a little less about money over 3.5 million. but then again, given my worrying tendencies that number would probably seem small once i got there. there is no number at which i can rest.
incidentally did you see this research asking the question, do smart people worry more?
That article makes sense to me.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]It’s all a question of incentives.
Cops will lie and the department will back up the cops because the incentives are to sustain a corrupt system, usually from the top on down. The incentives are self-preservation. It’s up to the leadership to not tolerate lies.
Defense attorney don’t have incentives other than winning a case, which in itself is powerful. But there is no personal investment on the part of the attorney.
Attorney may win cases on technicalities. But that’s due to inept prosecutors and cops who failed to follow the law.[/quote]
Cops back each other up because they are the only ones who truly understand what they are dealing with, day in and day out. They often have to make life-or-death decisions in split seconds. Decisions that will have lasting impacts on many people.
Sometimes, mistakes are made. But cops are judged by people who have absolutely no concept, whatsoever, of what they have to deal with every day. Cops have seen the ugliest underbelly of human society, and they have their hands in it every single day. They see dead husbands, wives, babies, unidentified girls or boys who look like their own kids, etc. They see torture, the extremes of mental insanity, and they see pure evil. They know, on a very personal level, how evil people can be…how people can have a total disregard for human lives. They deal with psychopaths and sociopaths on a regular basis. Sometimes, it’s not easy to tell the difference between an evil psychopath and a violent (but innocent, for the moment) punk when that decision has to be made in less than a second or two.
Cops back each other up because they know that their coworkers might be the only thing that keeps them from losing everything they’ve worked for in their lives — their families, homes, jobs, and freedom — if they make a single mistake during the course of their job. Just one single mistake is all it takes for them to lose everything, and they are all keenly aware of it.
I agree that some cops deserve to be fired, even jailed, and I agree that we need to do everything possible to keep innocent people out of jail; but most cops are just trying to do their job…an insanely difficult, stressful job.[/quote]
and therefore…
(a) we should believe them?
(b) we should not be surprised when they become as ugly as what they fight?
(c) we should not think that police officers routinely lie?
(d) other…[/quote]
(d) other
We should listen to what they have to say, look at the evidence, and try to make a determination while also acknowledging that they are human and will probably make some mistakes along the way. We should also know that if we punish them too harshly for making a genuine mistake, then they will sometimes lie and back each other up when these mistakes are made. The problem, IMHO, is trying to distinguish a genuine mistake from a malicious act.
If we act like we want to burn them at the stake every time they slip up, then you can bet all your money that they will lie on a rather consistent basis.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Have you guys seen the video of the 10 San Bernardino cops beating the guy who fled on a horse.
Sure doesn’t look like split second decisionmaking.
Looks like a standard street beatdown.
Question is, is that standard street procedure.[/quote]
No, I hadn’t seen that one. Here it is, for those who’ve also not seen it:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/10/us/california-san-bernardino-police-beating/
From what I can see, it certainly looks like the cops went overboard on that one. But I also don’t know what took place before that — did he lie down like that before, and then jump up and assault a cop or two before running off again? Maybe he did something like that multiple times. And this was supposedly a three-hour chase (according to the news clip), so lots of stuff happened before this. All of that will play a role in how the officers respond once they reach the suspect.
But just based on that particular clip, yes, the cops were wrong, IMO.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]It’s all a question of incentives.
Cops will lie and the department will back up the cops because the incentives are to sustain a corrupt system, usually from the top on down. The incentives are self-preservation. It’s up to the leadership to not tolerate lies.
Defense attorney don’t have incentives other than winning a case, which in itself is powerful. But there is no personal investment on the part of the attorney.
Attorney may win cases on technicalities. But that’s due to inept prosecutors and cops who failed to follow the law.[/quote]
Cops back each other up because they are the only ones who truly understand what they are dealing with, day in and day out. They often have to make life-or-death decisions in split seconds. Decisions that will have lasting impacts on many people.
Sometimes, mistakes are made. But cops are judged by people who have absolutely no concept, whatsoever, of what they have to deal with every day. Cops have seen the ugliest underbelly of human society, and they have their hands in it every single day. They see dead husbands, wives, babies, unidentified girls or boys who look like their own kids, etc. They see torture, the extremes of mental insanity, and they see pure evil. They know, on a very personal level, how evil people can be…how people can have a total disregard for human lives. They deal with psychopaths and sociopaths on a regular basis. Sometimes, it’s not easy to tell the difference between an evil psychopath and a violent (but innocent, for the moment) punk when that decision has to be made in less than a second or two.
Cops back each other up because they know that their coworkers might be the only thing that keeps them from losing everything they’ve worked for in their lives — their families, homes, jobs, and freedom — if they make a single mistake during the course of their job. Just one single mistake is all it takes for them to lose everything, and they are all keenly aware of it.
I agree that some cops deserve to be fired, even jailed, and I agree that we need to do everything possible to keep innocent people out of jail; but most cops are just trying to do their job…an insanely difficult, stressful job.
ParticipantI’m very sorry to hear about the passing of your mother, TexasLine.
As for the other questions, there are a lot of variables. Again, I would suggest that you talk to an estate attorney or a financial adviser/accountant who specializes in estate planning.
That being said, everything depends on who the trustee is (not sure that you can transfer rights/responsibilities away from current trustee if that’s not already written into the trust documents) and the beneficiaries of the estate.
Are the houses held in the trust already? If so, you just sell the homes and open bank accounts for the trust (bring trust documents to bank to do this), and deposit the funds into the account as you would a personal account. Banks do this all the time, so if you just bring the documents in, they will be able to set it all up.
If there are other beneficiaries, I would personally advise you to make sure their interests are taken care of, based on the directions in the trust, before buying your own house. Be careful about conflicts of interest, trustee responsibilities, etc. Make sure that the trustee, whether you or someone else, abides 100% by the directions laid out in the trust documents. If you’re not sure about some of the details in the trust, be sure to get legal advice. The trust might be able to pay for this advice, depending on the circumstances.
Participant[quote=spdrun]The same level of paranoia doesn’t exist in other Western societies, which often have lower fertility rates than the US.[/quote]
IMO, Americans are also more controlled by the media/powers-that-be. We’re not trained to think for ourselves and analyze things objectively. To the contrary, we’re taught that people who think for themselves are probably crazy or have something wrong with them.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=zk]We had “UC Verde buffalo grass” for a while. It wasn’t bad, but it didn’t work for us. The water savings was less than I expected. It spread by runners, and if the runner hit established grass, it just died. So you’ve got hundreds of dead runners blowing all over, making a bit of a mess. Plus it’s brown in the winter. Just a couple things to keep in mind.[/quote]
I totally agree. It’s not for everyone. It does go brown/dormant in the depth of winter. Mine went brown for about a month. The solution for that is to spray paint it during its dormant time, which for me, is mid December to Mid January. It does send out runner and runner will die if it doesn’t hit dirt to create new roots. It doesn’t really both me much. But then again, I also love the natural prairie look, so I only mow about once a month. Mowing will get rid of the dead runners too.[/quote]Thanks for sharing your information and perspectives on UC Verde buffalo grass. We are going to do something with our grass, but are really at a loss for what do to. We absolutely HATE the rock/desert look, and have kids and a dog that regularly use the lawn, but acknowledge that cyclical droughts will always be a part of California living.
As I was researching the UC Verde, I saw some people talking about Eco-Lawn. It looks as though this type of grass uses about the same amount of water as the UC Verde, but does not get brown in the winter.
Did you do any research on Eco-Lawn? Any reasons for choosing UC Verde, instead?
If anyone has any experience or knowledge about this type of grass, please share. Thank you! 🙂
http://eartheasy.com/wildflower-farms-eco-lawn-low-maintenance-grass-seed
http://ucverdeblog.com/2011/07/08/uc-verde-vs-eco-lawn-seed/
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]
I’ve had this discussion with my wife. The fact is although the world overall is safer, thanks to mass media and the internet, we hear about every horrible crime that occurs much faster.
Also, people are having fewer children. When you sink more time, energy and resources into one or two children, you’re more likely to fret for their safety. I’m not saying parents with four or five wouldn’t freak out to lose a child. But it’s much easier to make a rational decision to take on a very small risk that your 9 year old will get abducted walking to school alone when yo uhave three other kids to worry about vs. when that’s your only child.[/quote]
This is absolutely true. Many of our ancestors had 5+ kids (not including the ones who died in infancy or at very young ages). Many of my ancestors had 10+ kids, most of whom were born as additional labor for the family farms. There is a huge difference between that and having one or two kids around whom your life revolves.
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=flu]So what do you guys think about the latest thing that happened in Arizona with the cop running over an armed gunman? Justified?[/quote]
I haven’t watched the video, but if a guy is walking around with the rifle about to shoot someone, I think it is within the rights of the police to take the dude down. Even if that means with a cruiser.
Again, if I don’t want any trouble, I shouldn’t be doing anything illegal.[/quote]
Exactly right.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]In 4th grade (I was only 8 at the start of that year) I was walking me and my 2nd grade brother to school about 1/2 to 3/4 mile (PB to Birdrock).
Can you imagine nowadays? It never would be considered. My mom, who showed me the walking route all that time ago, never considered such a thing for her grandson even as a 14 year old entering high school.
So strange. I wonder is the danger really higher or just the perception of the danger? If the former then that is a huge societal failure – for things to be much worse 30 years later…[/quote]
Statistics show that the crime rate is down by quite a bit since we were young. Whether this is because the world is a safer place, or if it’s because more parents are helicopter parents, is up for debate.
April 16, 2015 at 3:47 AM in reply to: The cost of an Ivy League undergrad degree next year…. #784810Participant[quote=AN]To an extent. It all depends on their capability and the profession they want to go in. Majority of them, I would suggest to go to a states school undergrad and apply to private for grad school. If they insist, i won’t stop them, but they would have to pay difference by themselves.[/quote]
Totally agree with this, AN. I like your priorities regarding family and outlook on life, too.
April 16, 2015 at 3:42 AM in reply to: The cost of an Ivy League undergrad degree next year…. #784809Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=deadzone]Well my brother had to move away from San Diego to get that position, and in any case I have no interest in finance or in being a work-aholic so I wouldn’t trade my life for his.
All I know is I get to go surfing every morning then drive to work in a very fast car and unlike many of you guys, I’m not stressed out about saving money to send my kid to Ivy league because I recognize that my kid will have plenty of opportunity for success if he attends a lower cost school which won’t break the bank such as SDSU.[/quote]
Deadzone, I don’t know how old your kid is but he would do well to apply to 6-8 CSUs at one time using the CSU Mentor. SDSU isn’t as easy as it once was to get into and it received over 80K freshman apps for fall 2014. Even local HS students are held to high standards for admission. In Fall 2014, the students in my kid’s senior class of 2014 who DID get accepted into SDSU had a avg 3.9 GPA and most had a handful of advanced-placement classes on their HS transcripts as well.
There are several CSU campuses located in areas where housing costs are a little (or a lot) lower than SD housing costs so all is not lost if your kid doesn’t make it into SDSU as a freshman.
One of my SDSU-student neighbors told me that a community college transfer applicant to SDSU now needs at least a 2.8 GPA and either an AA-T (Assoc Art) or AA-S (Assoc Science) degree from a community college to be accepted as a junior (a 3.0 GPA from CC is better).
If your kid begins college at a community college, they need to finish their AA-T or AS-T degree at community college before attempting to transfer to the CSU. ONLY THOSE TWO (above) degrees are now accepted for transfer into a CSU Bachelor degree program (NOT a “general studies” associate degree or occupational associate degree, as in the past). Completion of the AA-T/AS-T degree at a CC shows the applicant has taken all the correct GE’s for CSU admission and so the CSU will no longer accept a CC student for transfer with less than the necessary 60 units completed at CC for the AA-T or AS-T degree. This means the college student BEGINNING at CC MUST COMPLETE their AA-T/AS-T degree at CC before attempting to apply to the CSU. In other words, a new CC freshman is essentially locked into remaining at CC for at least two years if their eventual goal is CSU admission.
see: http://www.adegreewithaguarantee.com/%5B/quote%5D
It’s been a long time but, IIRC, we had similar requirements when I transferred from a CC to a CSU back in the day. I’ve reviewed the new requirements for the transfer students, and they don’t seem that arduous. Students just need to stay on top of things, and everything should turn out okay.
-
AuthorPosts
