Reply to Making SAHM get job to pay for private school

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Making SAHM get job to pay for private school"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I do think it is a little ridiculous to both not work and insist on private school.[/quote]

Agree. I’m a SAHM and private school would be a non-starter with my husband. He doesn’t quite make $500/k but it wouldn’t matter to him if he did. He is focused on college and retirement savings and generational wealth building. Private secondary school is just a badge like a luxury car or country club (we don’t those either.)[/quote]

This kind of thinking is why you will never generate true generational wealth.[/quote]

This isn’t true as well.

A lot of people don’t know or understand what generational wealth is. [/quote]

A lot of people also don’t understand the difference between generational wealth and generational assets.  Sure, buy a few rental properties and pass them down to your kids.  But that’s not real generational wealth.[/quote]

This!!! Thank you!!![/quote]

OK. So enlighten us what "real generational wealth" is. I'm guessing it somehow involves sending your kids to a tony private school. [/quote]

Isn't it about being able to live off the interest of investments? [/quote]

NP. Why would anyone want their kids to loaf around living off of interest? How is that doing them any kind of service?

I am working on leaving my kids a great inheritance, but my main priority is teaching a kid to fish. My children are preschool age, but whether or not they go to private school will be completely based on to what extent the education and culture of the school contributes to self-reliance, curiosity, a bit of competition, and hard work. In my area, the public school's math team sends 10+ kids to HYPSM every year.  The fancy private sends kids to rando liberal arts colleges no one has ever heard of. I really do not care that the parents of these kids are high profile and my kids to get access to that "network" because it turns out it is a network to spoiled nowheresville. [/quote]

My guess is that you don't know people with that kind of wealth if that is your idea of how it works. You can give your kids both a work ethic and drive to succeed and a steady stream of income that gives them so many more options in life. [/quote]

My guess is that your reading comprehension was not fully developed at your private school. I clearly wrote that I value leaving my children money but that ensuring work ethic was simply a higher priority; without it, wealthy heirs and heiresses do loaf around and quite unhappily. This is well documented, and while most of the people I know are working slobs like me, I do know a handful of high net work families with extremely unhealthy family dynamics where siblings in the families have vastly different levels of competence and mental health. If you have to choose between a high quality education as well as giving your children time and attention and leaving your children money, you should pick the former. [/quote]

I'm sorry, but you still don't get it. Notwithstanding the "handful of high net work" families you've been observing with your nose pressed against the glass, people who have truly generational wealth are not choosing between that wealth and having successful, motivated children. Maybe you tell yourself that to feel better about your life choices, but that's not how it works in real life. It's ok though; I'm sure you are doing the best you can with the mental and material resources at your disposal.[/quote]

Despite your best efforts to shame me over "having my nose pressed against the glass" between me and rich people, it's not working because I don't think a person's value comes from the class they are born into.

If you were half as intelligent as you think you are you'd realize that I didn't claim that extremely wealthy people have to choose between wealth and having successful, motivated children (although I do believe they might have to work harder at it because it is a truth of human nature that motivation is often born from lack - this is why most family businesses fail by the 3rd generation).

What I did claim is that IF someone has to make the choice, they should choose prioritizing the development over their child over accumulating wealth to pass on later. Why did I make that point? Because that is what is being debated in this thread; the trade-off between paying for very expensive school and building generational wealth. OP is wondering if the cost is worth it because he has limited resources, unlike these irrelevant rich people you keep mentioning whose butts you live inside.

OP needs to do his own analysis together with his wife about which environment is going to help his kids become functional adults and go from there. 
[/quote]

I'm not saying you are envious. You certainly seem defensive. [b]I'm just saying you don't get what real generational wealth means for a family.[/b] And so your advice on how to make that choice is completely baseless. Your own views on how you want to raise your kids is irrelevant, too. No one cares, and you don't have the choice anyway.

OP is operating from a fundamentally narrow scarcity mindset focusing on the ROI of public schools. That's fine for him, but there is no evidence he is motivated by "which environment is going to help his kids become functional adults." He is focused on retirement age and ROI.

You started your whole rant because you wanted to grandstand about you've figured it all out based on having preschoolers.[/quote]

Neither you or anyone else on this thread who has chimed in has been able to break this down whatsoever beyond saying “oh you wouldn’t know, you’re obviously not part of this group so you couldn’t possibly.”

There is a reason that the only notable remaining Vanderbilt is Cooper whatever his name is. There is a reason that the families who were wealthy 100+ years ago are not still wealthy today by today’s standards. It’s because any individual’s life outcomes have much more to do with that individual’s character (and yes opportunities) than it does with being born with a complete security net, which is known to produce week and ineffectual children.

It sounds like you have a fantasy about some magical place where a bunch of rich people live in a magical land of perfection and superiority, but data about wealth across generations in low or moderate corruption societies just doesn’t bare this out, sorry.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics