Was it a matter of cost or something else that you went to a Protestant school and not a Catholic? You were raised Mormon? No Mormon schools?
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3930
catholic schools are sort of second-tier here, as you'd probably expect from an anglican/church of england nation. there are a few, maybe 2-3, really good catholic boarding schools in the top-tier. but it's generally a sort of 'ex-grammar' education for solidly middle-class types. it goes without saying that the actual religious instruction and faith-based aspects of these schools is pretty secular-lite, especially in very secular britain.
a good one. a few more than 100 years old, that.
a good one. a few more than 100 years old, that.
Last edited by uziq (2022-01-18 14:50:49)
Wasn't going to church then. As usual when this comes up, "raised Mormon" is generous. Nobody was a stickler. It was more social than religious, and we left when things got toxic. On the other hand, one of my other relatives went to the JWs. I feel fortunate that I was not one of those cousins.
I don't think the cost was very different between the two schools. I had my choice of staying or returning to public school after my first year of private, but at the time I felt done with the church school life. I did enjoy a lot of public high school anyway. Still, it would've been nice to have well-equipped AP sciences. Although of them all, geology felt rather homey in a portable building. I would have been fine in a tent halfway up Mt. Rainier studying rocks and trying not to freeze to death.
Parents shouldn't have to pay 5 figures a year in tuition, per kid, just for them to have decent learning opportunities.
I don't think the cost was very different between the two schools. I had my choice of staying or returning to public school after my first year of private, but at the time I felt done with the church school life. I did enjoy a lot of public high school anyway. Still, it would've been nice to have well-equipped AP sciences. Although of them all, geology felt rather homey in a portable building. I would have been fine in a tent halfway up Mt. Rainier studying rocks and trying not to freeze to death.
Parents shouldn't have to pay 5 figures a year in tuition, per kid, just for them to have decent learning opportunities.
*drops into watch later*
very long but surprisingly quite brisk. well put together. well narrated. well pitched: not too simplified but not too recondite.
surprisingly engaging. obviously he glosses a helluva lot in the beginning by intro'ing it with a reading of the 2008 economic crisis, but it's interesting and thought-provoking background, nonetheless.
surprisingly engaging. obviously he glosses a helluva lot in the beginning by intro'ing it with a reading of the 2008 economic crisis, but it's interesting and thought-provoking background, nonetheless.
Will watch later
You've got to be a fucking idiot to buy an NFT, equally I feel sorry for all the Japanese banks thinking they're investing in 'artworks'.
I don't really see the average millennial giving a shit about a painting by some old dead guy and the bottom is going to fall out of that market.
You've got to be a fucking idiot to buy an NFT, equally I feel sorry for all the Japanese banks thinking they're investing in 'artworks'.
I don't really see the average millennial giving a shit about a painting by some old dead guy and the bottom is going to fall out of that market.
Fuck Israel
erm wow you don’t understand the art market.
why does your average millennial have to care about buying classic works of art? the buyer’s market has never consisted of ‘average’ people from any era or generation, dumkopf.
works of art at that level become as much about elite provenance as the work itself. it has always been thus; or, at least, since the bankers and bigtime speculators moved into the art market.
what makes a painting worth $30,000,000? a buyer’s market of people who consent to those prices. it’s as simple as that. many forms of ‘value’ and pricing mechanism are just as chimerical when you think about it. even housing at a certain point just becomes made up numbers floated by speculation. with far more disastrous results considering ‘average’ people are supposed to service all those bad mortgage loans …
investing in a work of art is probably a good idea if you’re part of the mega-rich. doubly so if it’s ‘an old dead person’. i don’t think leonardo da vinci or picasso are going to be reappraised and declared as worthless hipsters any time soon. the rare few private individuals who can access the auctions, plus all the institutions, nation states, grandees, etc, who have owned it in the past all create a ‘blockchain’ ledger of provenance which ensures its future value. i think even your ‘average millennial’ will know that a painting formerly owned by a medici, the vatican, a ruler of the holy roman empire, etc, is probably a good investment.
you say some dumb things. an NFT is nothing like a work of art for about half a dozen reasons, despite the fact ‘virtual artists’ are trying to package them and present a ‘marketplace’ as such. an NFT is like buying the receipt for something. and, unlike the art market, it’s not established who will actually give a shit about that ‘provenance’ or art-historical aspect. people have been admiring and coveting works of art for millennia. safe to say it’s here to stay. 250x250 px cartoons of monkeys? erm. you can’t just wish that sort of market into existence. nobody will be declaring a twitter avatar a ‘priceless’ work of art in 2300, notably owned by a python developer from des moines … and let’s not even get onto the fact that 99.9% of the NFT ‘art’ is just horrible, clearly meretricious crap, aesthetically worthless, expressive of nothing … a bunch of people with photoshop are on the bandwagon trying to get their ETH before the whole hype dies off.
just lmao at the idea that millennials don’t care about ‘art by old dead people’. i think you may be projecting your highly idiosyncratic total culture vacuum there. people from my generation and younger visit art galleries, dilbert.
why does your average millennial have to care about buying classic works of art? the buyer’s market has never consisted of ‘average’ people from any era or generation, dumkopf.
works of art at that level become as much about elite provenance as the work itself. it has always been thus; or, at least, since the bankers and bigtime speculators moved into the art market.
what makes a painting worth $30,000,000? a buyer’s market of people who consent to those prices. it’s as simple as that. many forms of ‘value’ and pricing mechanism are just as chimerical when you think about it. even housing at a certain point just becomes made up numbers floated by speculation. with far more disastrous results considering ‘average’ people are supposed to service all those bad mortgage loans …
investing in a work of art is probably a good idea if you’re part of the mega-rich. doubly so if it’s ‘an old dead person’. i don’t think leonardo da vinci or picasso are going to be reappraised and declared as worthless hipsters any time soon. the rare few private individuals who can access the auctions, plus all the institutions, nation states, grandees, etc, who have owned it in the past all create a ‘blockchain’ ledger of provenance which ensures its future value. i think even your ‘average millennial’ will know that a painting formerly owned by a medici, the vatican, a ruler of the holy roman empire, etc, is probably a good investment.
you say some dumb things. an NFT is nothing like a work of art for about half a dozen reasons, despite the fact ‘virtual artists’ are trying to package them and present a ‘marketplace’ as such. an NFT is like buying the receipt for something. and, unlike the art market, it’s not established who will actually give a shit about that ‘provenance’ or art-historical aspect. people have been admiring and coveting works of art for millennia. safe to say it’s here to stay. 250x250 px cartoons of monkeys? erm. you can’t just wish that sort of market into existence. nobody will be declaring a twitter avatar a ‘priceless’ work of art in 2300, notably owned by a python developer from des moines … and let’s not even get onto the fact that 99.9% of the NFT ‘art’ is just horrible, clearly meretricious crap, aesthetically worthless, expressive of nothing … a bunch of people with photoshop are on the bandwagon trying to get their ETH before the whole hype dies off.
just lmao at the idea that millennials don’t care about ‘art by old dead people’. i think you may be projecting your highly idiosyncratic total culture vacuum there. people from my generation and younger visit art galleries, dilbert.
Last edited by uziq (2022-01-22 22:59:39)
In 30 years, when a 20 something of today is 50 something and making investment decisions are they going to think:
"Ow wow, this painting from 250 years ago, which I can print a copy of in about two minutes, is definitely going to be worth $100m in 20 years so paying $70m for it today is a terrific investment, better than gold, land or clean water"
The NFT market is stupid, but it does highlight that the art market is stupid, as are others.
I'm just hoping the opera glasses that Betty Grable once held are worth the $20k I paid for them when I need the money back.
"Ow wow, this painting from 250 years ago, which I can print a copy of in about two minutes, is definitely going to be worth $100m in 20 years so paying $70m for it today is a terrific investment, better than gold, land or clean water"
The NFT market is stupid, but it does highlight that the art market is stupid, as are others.
I'm just hoping the opera glasses that Betty Grable once held are worth the $20k I paid for them when I need the money back.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-01-23 00:38:26)
Fuck Israel
no average person with an average investment portfolio has EVER invested in art.
what the fuck are you talking about?
art collectors, curators, archivists; critics, specialists, aficionados; other artists, etc, make up the main market for art in its sub-famous, sub-investment world. it’s insular, as i’m sure you know. perhaps some famous people sit for portraits or some monied business types commission work for themselves or their office spaces. but it’s very much a professional cadre.
by the time you get to art-objects-as-investments, we’re talking multimillion dollar minimum. what relevance does it have for ‘average millennials considering their stock portfolio’? when has it EVER been relevant to any generation? they’re ways for the mega rich to launder their money or manage their assets, to get tax deductions, to set up charitable and philanthropic organisations, etc.
and, erm, at that level works of art are precisely much better investments than gold or stocks. lmao. the value of a classic work of art doesn't suffer crashes in value or poor annual performance. most art collectors are doubling, tripling, or 100x'ing their investments. auction houses with all of their pomp and splendour tend to hype these things to high heaven whenever they come up for sale.
lmao at suggesting the art of ‘old dead people’ is an irrelevance to millennials because none of them are busy setting up their private collections ready for donation to the Tate when they die and bequeath their estate. damn! old art is really irrelevant to young people!
the art market in its headline-grabbing guise is a ridiculous show for the ultra-wealthy and financial speculators, of course. it has little to do with 'the appreciation of art', which is what you seem to be implicitly dragging into the discussion when you talk about 'the works of old dead people', as if no millennial can possibly be interested in or appreciate anything made before 1985. that is a whole lot of fucking nonsenes.
but yes, in the sense that the NFT market is apeing (lol) the very worst parts of the international art market, that is, as an insider-dealing show dominated by the already mega-rich with their vested interests, then yes, you are right. it's why the entire crypto/bitcoin/NFT utopian rhetoric rings hollow. it's 'system change' but heralded by a new tech-bro libertarian elite who already control all the spice.
what the fuck are you talking about?
art collectors, curators, archivists; critics, specialists, aficionados; other artists, etc, make up the main market for art in its sub-famous, sub-investment world. it’s insular, as i’m sure you know. perhaps some famous people sit for portraits or some monied business types commission work for themselves or their office spaces. but it’s very much a professional cadre.
by the time you get to art-objects-as-investments, we’re talking multimillion dollar minimum. what relevance does it have for ‘average millennials considering their stock portfolio’? when has it EVER been relevant to any generation? they’re ways for the mega rich to launder their money or manage their assets, to get tax deductions, to set up charitable and philanthropic organisations, etc.
and, erm, at that level works of art are precisely much better investments than gold or stocks. lmao. the value of a classic work of art doesn't suffer crashes in value or poor annual performance. most art collectors are doubling, tripling, or 100x'ing their investments. auction houses with all of their pomp and splendour tend to hype these things to high heaven whenever they come up for sale.
lmao at suggesting the art of ‘old dead people’ is an irrelevance to millennials because none of them are busy setting up their private collections ready for donation to the Tate when they die and bequeath their estate. damn! old art is really irrelevant to young people!
the art market in its headline-grabbing guise is a ridiculous show for the ultra-wealthy and financial speculators, of course. it has little to do with 'the appreciation of art', which is what you seem to be implicitly dragging into the discussion when you talk about 'the works of old dead people', as if no millennial can possibly be interested in or appreciate anything made before 1985. that is a whole lot of fucking nonsenes.
but yes, in the sense that the NFT market is apeing (lol) the very worst parts of the international art market, that is, as an insider-dealing show dominated by the already mega-rich with their vested interests, then yes, you are right. it's why the entire crypto/bitcoin/NFT utopian rhetoric rings hollow. it's 'system change' but heralded by a new tech-bro libertarian elite who already control all the spice.
Last edited by uziq (2022-01-23 03:24:40)
So who at investment banks makes investment decisions? 50-60 year olds who were once 20.
Fuck Israel
literally not what an investment bank does lmao... you're thinking of hedge funds and asset managers buddy.Dilbert_X wrote:
So who at investment banks makes investment decisions? 50-60 year olds who were once 20.
hate to break it to you but zique is right... the art market is by far the most consistent and highest return in the world. also helps there's massive tax "avoidance" strategies and money laundering involved. and most art investments are never done by any institutional holders... its a primarily private wealth market.
again, another topic you have no clue what you're talking about.
Last edited by Cybargs (2022-01-23 05:14:27)
quelle surprise!
it’s also so funny that dilbert is projecting his ignorance, disinterest and contempt for art onto its speculative market. they aren’t even connected. the people with all the funds or leverage to buy art aren’t buying it because they’re passionately interested in the works of rembrandt or vermeer. lol.
just dumb on so many fucking levels.
it’s also so funny that dilbert is projecting his ignorance, disinterest and contempt for art onto its speculative market. they aren’t even connected. the people with all the funds or leverage to buy art aren’t buying it because they’re passionately interested in the works of rembrandt or vermeer. lol.
just dumb on so many fucking levels.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3930
"Going Back to Work in Person Is Good for Society: Physical workplaces are vital in the process of making friends."
Everyone needs to go back to work to make friends 😂 Making friends in hobby or interest groups? The internet and dating apps? No, you must become friends with your coworkers instead.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/ … erm=secondWhile the prospect of long-term remote work has sparked debate over everything from efficiency and corporate culture to the time saved and the environmental impact of less commuting, one thing is certain: Friendships will suffer when so many move out of more traditional office settings for the long haul. This change in daily routines and in-person points of contact will cause deep harm to the country as it exacerbates long-term trends involving declining friendships and social isolation.
With Americans trying to rebuild their lives and reconnect with others, recent survey data from the Survey Center on American Life reveal that friendships are most frequently formed not in one’s neighborhood or school, but rather at one’s workplace, and this critical social site is now under threat.
Everyone needs to go back to work to make friends 😂 Making friends in hobby or interest groups? The internet and dating apps? No, you must become friends with your coworkers instead.
the era of the workplace also being the main means of 'society' and sociality is so fucking 1950s. we do indeed have other forms of social organization now, facilitated by new technologies and different ways of organizing our social and identity groups.
that type of view belongs to the sort of era when worker housing was built around factories, when towns and cities often had single industries or single uses, and when the entire work:leisure balance was tipped firmly in favour of work, with the notional 'leisure' part still being organized by the employers or owning classes.
workers do not need an office to have a social life or organize their leisure time. so fucking gross.
that type of view belongs to the sort of era when worker housing was built around factories, when towns and cities often had single industries or single uses, and when the entire work:leisure balance was tipped firmly in favour of work, with the notional 'leisure' part still being organized by the employers or owning classes.
workers do not need an office to have a social life or organize their leisure time. so fucking gross.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3930
The writer is a professor. His workplace is full of educated people from his social class. The above article isn't really applicable to the person feeding burger patties into the machine at Burger King or the college student picking up scrap metal at his girlfriend's father's construction site skim.
I think some of this is backwards. It seems to me that GG had better spending power, with enough left after housing and children, and other crucial expenses, to invest, buy toys, and go on vacation. Buy an RV to live in while building your new beach house? Why not! Friends frequently made outside of work, and sometimes out of social class. Blue and white collars drinking together, mass hysteria! Of course there was also the racism and the sexism and whatnot, and their own world-sundering events.uziq wrote:
the era of the workplace also being the main means of 'society' and sociality is so fucking 1950s. we do indeed have other forms of social organization now, facilitated by new technologies and different ways of organizing our social and identity groups.
that type of view belongs to the sort of era when worker housing was built around factories, when towns and cities often had single industries or single uses, and when the entire work:leisure balance was tipped firmly in favour of work, with the notional 'leisure' part still being organized by the employers or owning classes.
workers do not need an office to have a social life or organize their leisure time. so fucking gross.
I think my country at least has been trending towards a worse work:life balance. I think less of the chances for an aging boomer couple to be above water than previous GG couples where one partner spent most of their work life in department stores to cleanly support the other partner and their three kids. A lot of grumbling in the 80s from boomers about how gg got to live better.
Republicans will tell you that all this is because of work safety and environmental regulation.
e: nat'l review of course is nat'l review
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2022-02-01 11:08:38)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3930
I think you are on to something regarding work-life balance getting worse. Somewhere along the way people started to revel in punching down on service/blue collar workers. "Flip burgers lol".
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3930
This is why millennials will never own homes.
Misrepresent.
That is a securely "upper middle class family," whatever you want that to mean. Tons of parents in the 70s, 80s, 90s couldn't afford one place that looked like that, or any of those toys. Early 80s recession was rough and snowballed into long-term debt for people. Multi-mortgage, plus a hospitalization or two, RIP. Plenty of boomers and x-ers who can't afford food, shelter, medicine. Alarming homelessness.
These memes about the "rich old" people are toxic. Poor millennials/zoomers have more in common with poor boomers than any of them do with multimillionaires+.
That said, as much as some people struggled to afford $35k homes, imagine having to buy a $500k home not much better, but on pretty much the same income.
MilLeNnIaLs DoN'T wAnT tO bUy HoMeS!
That is a securely "upper middle class family," whatever you want that to mean. Tons of parents in the 70s, 80s, 90s couldn't afford one place that looked like that, or any of those toys. Early 80s recession was rough and snowballed into long-term debt for people. Multi-mortgage, plus a hospitalization or two, RIP. Plenty of boomers and x-ers who can't afford food, shelter, medicine. Alarming homelessness.
These memes about the "rich old" people are toxic. Poor millennials/zoomers have more in common with poor boomers than any of them do with multimillionaires+.
That said, as much as some people struggled to afford $35k homes, imagine having to buy a $500k home not much better, but on pretty much the same income.
MilLeNnIaLs DoN'T wAnT tO bUy HoMeS!
whilst it's true that people of all generations have faced economic ruin and struggles, and it was doubtful if there was ever a time when the majority could follow the yellow brick road to easy prosperity and financial security ... it's just a fact that house prices have absolutely sky-rocketed in the last 2 generations or so.
your average boomer did have to hold down a decent job and not get sick, true. but if they plugged away at a job, they could quite easily buy their first house for 3-5x their income. that doesn't exist anymore. banks, especially post-2008, are very conservative with their mortgage lending. in the UK they typically only lend at a multiplier of 3.5x/4x the people's proven income. well, average house prices in the UK are currently ~10x the average salary. go figure. hence the figure of the 35-year-old millenial who still lives at home, trying to scrape a 20-30% deposit towards that mortgage deal. hence the supposed 'wasting' of their money on 'needless' short-term consumption, to forestall the fucking depression and ennui of still being at home well into middle-age.
wages in real terms have totally stagnated where in previous generations, especially boomers, they were on the up. a hardworking family who avoided the usual calamities and vicissitudes in the Lottery of Life could be pretty sure they were bequeathing a better state-of-affairs to their children and grandchildren. that upwards trend is totally defunct now. house prices have become totally decoupled from wages, and said wages have flatlined for almost 2 decades.
the best thing is that your average millennial, even if they live at home and save prudently, probably won't even save enough per year to keep up with the continued inflation of house prices. the financial goalposts are forever redshifting out of reach in an expanding universe of speculation. so you skipped the avocados and starbucks for a whole year, denied yourself any pleasures, and managed to save $15k? good job, son. that new-build affordable unit you were looking at just appreciated by $26k last year.
which is, of course, to say: housing should be a public good and a right, not an asset in an investment portfolio for a rentier class, one which typically lives far elsewhere and files their (non)taxes in a different place altogether.
your average boomer did have to hold down a decent job and not get sick, true. but if they plugged away at a job, they could quite easily buy their first house for 3-5x their income. that doesn't exist anymore. banks, especially post-2008, are very conservative with their mortgage lending. in the UK they typically only lend at a multiplier of 3.5x/4x the people's proven income. well, average house prices in the UK are currently ~10x the average salary. go figure. hence the figure of the 35-year-old millenial who still lives at home, trying to scrape a 20-30% deposit towards that mortgage deal. hence the supposed 'wasting' of their money on 'needless' short-term consumption, to forestall the fucking depression and ennui of still being at home well into middle-age.
wages in real terms have totally stagnated where in previous generations, especially boomers, they were on the up. a hardworking family who avoided the usual calamities and vicissitudes in the Lottery of Life could be pretty sure they were bequeathing a better state-of-affairs to their children and grandchildren. that upwards trend is totally defunct now. house prices have become totally decoupled from wages, and said wages have flatlined for almost 2 decades.
the best thing is that your average millennial, even if they live at home and save prudently, probably won't even save enough per year to keep up with the continued inflation of house prices. the financial goalposts are forever redshifting out of reach in an expanding universe of speculation. so you skipped the avocados and starbucks for a whole year, denied yourself any pleasures, and managed to save $15k? good job, son. that new-build affordable unit you were looking at just appreciated by $26k last year.
which is, of course, to say: housing should be a public good and a right, not an asset in an investment portfolio for a rentier class, one which typically lives far elsewhere and files their (non)taxes in a different place altogether.
Last edited by uziq (2022-02-10 13:18:41)
an additional point, here, is that the boomers (or their children) are the ones responsible for this state-of-affairs. someone has to take the buck for the political and macroeconomic choices that were taken which led us to this juncture. the boomers totally benefitted from the massive (re-)financialization of the economy, the bail-outs, and the resulting surge in asset prices. that was the bargain they accepted in order so that their good times could keep on rollin'. they didn't want to face a harsh economic reckoning, so they're de facto passing that buck down onto the youth of today.
it's the generational equivalent of NIMBY'ism, really.
$0.02.
it's the generational equivalent of NIMBY'ism, really.
$0.02.
Last edited by uziq (2022-02-10 14:11:20)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3930
The U.S. is pretty empty in the middle. We could just build out more like the Chinese did with their new cities. It all might have lead to Evergrande and their crisis but the U.S. has banking crisis too and don't even have ghost cities to show for it. It would give a lot of obnoxious blue collar workers something to do with themselves. Of course it will also be the blue collar workers who would most flip out if the government spent a lot of money making homes for other people.
Even if that sounds like a bad idea, it would still have been money better spent than the Iraq War.
Even if that sounds like a bad idea, it would still have been money better spent than the Iraq War.
A lot of boomers in the 80s and 90s were saying they got screwed over by the greed of the greatest generation. It never ends. I didn't intend to strip them of any responsibility, just poke holes in an obnoxious meme.
I'm vaguely reminded of this story, A Tale of Two Letters:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ … fc6956766/
I'm vaguely reminded of this story, A Tale of Two Letters:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ … fc6956766/
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3930
New York Times posted an interesting article. Clear evidence IBM executives were conspiring to replace older workers with millennials. IBM saw the demographics of their company was way older than other big tech companies. Came up with ways to remove older workers. Age discrimination is illegal and they are getting sued for it.