- Jul 15, 2014
- 28,226
- 46,729
No argument from me.I wouldn’t say they necessarily “lack discipline and self-control”, they lack education, and those are symptoms
It’s just interesting that some will say these people lack self-discipline and self-control while simultaneously saying that those that achieve success are “lucky”. ;)No argument from me.
It’s just interesting that some will say these people lack self-discipline and self-control while simultaneously saying that those that achieve success are “lucky”. ;)
Why is it that so many that lack self-discipline and self-control are so "unlucky" while so many that have achieved success and possess self-discipline and self-control are "lucky?" Could it be that "luck", whether good or bad, is overrated as a factor? Could it be that throwing around the word "luck", whether attributed to good or bad is a convenient excuse for ones position relative to others?It is good being lucky!
You are right, much of it is education. But part of it is values and just the nature of the person. More than once I've been told by people who don't save money is "I don't want to be one of those millionaire next door types".
I suspect it will be challenging with my daughter. By her nature she is impulsive and pretty much runs through whatever money she gets. We will continue to harp on the need to save and avoid debt - hopefully that sticks.
Why is it that so many that lack self-discipline and self-control are so "unlucky" while so many that have achieved success and possess self-discipline and self-control are "lucky?" Could it be that "luck", whether good or bad, is overrated as a factor? Could it be that throwing around the word "luck", whether attributed to good or bad is a convenient excuse for ones position relative to others?
So, good or bad, what percent is attributable to "luck?"I really don't want to have this argument again. It doesn't have to be either / or. It can be both.
It is good being lucky!
You are right, much of it is education. But part of it is values and just the nature of the person. More than once I've been told by people who don't save money is "I don't want to be one of those millionaire next door types".
I suspect it will be challenging with my daughter. By her nature she is impulsive and pretty much runs through whatever money she gets. We will continue to harp on the need to save and avoid debt - hopefully that sticks.
So, good or bad, what percent is attributable to "luck?"
I really don't want to have this argument again. It doesn't have to be either / or. It can be both.
Just don't ever say again that you are open to honest debate, because you aren't.
We went over it about 3 years ago... when I told you the same thing then, that rules/paradigm were changing and that everyone our age was at risk. You dismissed it then too, you even assured us, repeatedly, that your job was very secure and you saw no risk of it going away. Was that 2 jobs and a year of unemployment ago, or 3 jobs and a year of unemployment ago? Was that due to "bad luck", or a failure on your part to see that NOTHING is secure when you are that dependent on others?It's just a pointless conversation and I'm sure why you want to keep having it. I can go find some Warren Buffet quotes talking about his luck aspect of his wealth but that is pointless. It is obvious you find it deeply and personally offensive the suggestion that luck plays a part in success, so there's no need to beat the dead horse. Coming up with hypothetical percentage allocations of luck vs skill vs hard work vs other is just that, hypothetical.
I'm more interested in why you think younger people saving in tax advantaged accounts is such a bad idea. You dropped that turd and just let it sit there.
We went over it about 3 years ago... when I told you the same thing then, that rules/paradigm were changing and that everyone our age was at risk. You dismissed it then too, you even assured us, repeatedly, that your job was very secure and you saw no risk of it going away. Was that 2 jobs and a year of unemployment ago, or 3 jobs and a year of unemployment ago? Was that due to "bad luck", or a failure on your part to see that NOTHING is secure when you are that dependent on others?
Now, you'll take that as a personal attack, but it is not. You only like to discuss things at the 30,000 foot/300 million people level because that keeps it safe and vague. You don't like it when we discuss real life, individual, examples... you call them anecdotal.
We went over it about 3 years ago... when I told you the same thing then, that rules/paradigm were changing and that everyone our age was at risk. You dismissed it then too, you even assured us, repeatedly, that your job was very secure and you saw no risk of it going away. Was that 2 jobs and a year of unemployment ago, or 3 jobs and a year of unemployment ago? Was that due to "bad luck", or a failure on your part to see that NOTHING is secure when you are that dependent on others?
Now, you'll take that as a personal attack, but it is not. You only like to discuss things at the 30,000 foot/300 million people level because that keeps it safe and vague. You don't like it when we discuss real life, individual, examples... you call them anecdotal.
You keep fixating on the root word "save" when I said that was the wrong word/question to start. We both agree that "invest" is the better word, we just differ on the route and it's here that I think people are doing a disservice to their kids.I'll try to extrapolate the relevance of this post and my situation to the topic, because this thread is not about my career. I was laid off 5 years ago after 10 years as an employee. It was a surprise but not a shock. I had been laid off before. After that I worked several contract jobs, some 1099 some W2. That was partially by choice. My wife also has a good paying job. We can easily survive just on her income.
Recently I just went permanent w2!for the first time since 2014. I actually gave a great deal of thought as to whether I even wanted to do that.
To make this relevant to this thread, when I was laid off 5 years ago, after about 2 minutes of surprise, it wasn't a big deal. I didn't care that much. I was strangely relieved in a way We are a two income family, and we have saved all of our lives, and the world doesn't end if one of us, or even two of us, lose our jobs. That is because we have saved continuously, mostly in retirement accounts. We could both retire now if we had to, although it wouldn't be optimal.
Thus my puzzlement at your suggestion that my personal experiences somehow negates the need to save, especially in tax advantaged accounts. Now more than ever based upon the way work is transactional and contractual means you should save even more.
You keep fixating on the root word "save" when I said that was the wrong word/question to start. We both agree that "invest" is the better word, we just differ on the route and it's here that I think people are doing a disservice to their kids.
When I say save, I assume that includes investing.
I'm guessing you think everybody should own hard assets and real estate. That's fine for those who wish to do that but not everybody can be landlords.
From Star Trek episode 35 ("The Doomsday Machine.")It is pretty simple if a liberal is a success it is "luck", if someone else is successful it is skill. I really don't like the term "luck", more like some natural variation that works out in some people's favor and not in others.
So let's say a female gets pregnant by several different males and they don't support anybody. is that "luck" that they got pregnant, or something else.
Is it "luck" that we were born in the USA instead of say Guatemala? Or good decisions by our relatives?
Luck is way over rated.