Why private school?

>> he played the smart game, got out of the industry before 35, and is angel investing / entrepreneuring

Why/how is that the smart game?

I guess Cardozo isn't so bad at 217 then.

@nada - If someone is passionate about distressed credit trading or whatever PMC job they end up in, then they should go ahead and do that the rest of their life..

Personally, I can see the allure of cashing out & working on passion projects the rest of my life.

I don't need more house / car / travel than I have, so why trade up and then be locked into maintaining that income and lifestyle for another decade or three. The treadmill doesn't stop itself.

Dinner earlier this week with DC couple who are both leaders in the non-profit world. He is Dalton/Harvard/Harvard; she is Riverdale/Harvard/Stanford. He was a Columbia University fac brat; she is first gen (Korean parents). Their kids are both at Harvard now after having attended Sidwell, but they said that if one's goal was to game college admissions, they believe kids with involved parents might be better served at one of the amazing public schools in the area (e.g., Walt Whitman or BCC) because they saw some extraordinary kids from Sidwell get boxed out of Ivies because Harvard can et al can only take so many from one school. As I alluded to above, the legacies I personally know who are getting in are amazing in their own right, which is not surprising given how amazing the parents are, but these are all people I know by virtue of being Mr. MCR's plus one. Not the same with my historic crew, which is more akin to the population of my building.

With my historic crew, I still see some legacies trying to buy their kids' admission; on the positive side, it is not always working; I did raise my eyebrows at a recent "Let's all congratulate X for getting into Y!" announcement that went around less than a year after University Y sent around a notice of a sizeable contribution from X's family. Needless to say, I did not jump on the bandwagon sending congratulations to X (who is innocent in the whole thing).

@MCR - and the incentives to play the game continue, given that the great "Varsity Blues" college admissions scandal convictions are starting to get overturned on appeal..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/10/varsity-blues-scandal-convictions-overturned/

"Many of the parents pleaded guilty, but Abdelaziz and Wilson chose to fight the fraud, bribery and conspiracy charges against them."

"Both men agreed with Singer to make payments purportedly to university accounts to secure their children’s admission as athletic recruits. Their defense at trial and on appeal, the judge wrote, is that they believed Singer’s services and those payments were legitimate."

"Abdelaziz was accused of paying $300,000 to the University of Southern California to secure his daughter’s admission as a recruited basketball player, although she was not an athlete of that caliber."

So the lesson of course is if you got the cash and the lawyers, just keep bluffing your way forward and never admit fault, ever.

One last comment on "the treadmill doesn't stop itself:" I think this is such an important point and one that ties into Nada's theme of "don't get on the treadmill to begin with." I have an odd sympathy for the guy at the helm of my building right now because I believe his background did not prepare him for the possibility that he might not be able to afford or have access to the things he had no idea were not available to everyone. He has four kids and a very expensive lifestyle such that getting off the treadmill at this point is not as easy as it might have been had he faced headwinds earlier in his life. It is heartbreaking because ten years ago, this guy was a sheer delight; always a smile on his face, funny and laid back. His whole demeanor changed about 7 years ago, and the timing coincides with what appears to have been a career setback. I actually like the guy, his wife and especially the kids, who never gave even a hint of being spoiled, so he and his wife were definitely doing something good there.

>they saw some extraordinary kids from Sidwell get boxed out of Ivies because Harvard can et al can only take so many from one school.

This is more of an argument in favor of a smaller and less competitive school.
Stuyvesant and Bronx Science are much bigger than any private school and at least equally competitive on academics, so it is probably much harder (for any individual kid) to get into an Ivy from one of those (even though the kids in those schools are amazing).

>@krolik - exactly, being born in NYC to rich parents...

I think just middle class is okay! We are better off than anyone else in either his or my family, but we are not rich, not in NYC.

People don't realize how many kids don't have bare necessities, forget schooling, and have to work to eat. There is no minimal age requirement to work on a small farm in the US!
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/31/us-congress-should-protect-child-farmworkers

>> but they said that if one's goal was to game college admissions, they believe kids with involved parents might be better served at one of the amazing public schools in the area

Based on my experience, I doubt it. The amazing public schools are a magnet for overachiever parents looking for quality education for what they believe will be their overachiever children. And unlike the amazing private schools, the price of admission is much cheaper than $70K/yr per child. Even though the cost of housing is higher than elsewhere, the cost of entry is nowhere near $1M/yr in income. Many such locales offer modest apartments in the less fancy part of town. The overachiever parents will live 13 years in lesser abodes simply to send their kids to the best school. Watch out for that level of motivation / conviction! I’m doubtful the “extraordinary” private school kids would stack up. They’d probably be deprogrammed about how “extraordinary” they’re told they are at a sooner age, which would be good I suppose. And they’d probably receive a better education overall.

FWIW, I always suspected the best way to “game” the system would be to send your overachiever kid to a mediocre school. “If this kid could do that well in those circumstances, think what they could achieve with the resources of our fine institution!” I would not endorse such behavior, neither ethically nor for the good of the child. Gaming the system is all good & fun, but you you cannot game life. In the end, substance tends to win.

MCR, what you describe is one of the reasons I would avoid private school personally. It’s an environment that tends to foster motivation on the basis of money, which I just don’t think is a formula for a good life. There are enough triggers in the world for doing that, and I’d rather foster motivation on the basis of achievement.

The arc you describe for your board prez is a common one. Finance is a magnet for those motivated by money. But when the wind behind his back stopped blowing, he couldn’t perform. That disconnect between thinking you are “extraordinary” and reality is tough to swallow at a certain age.

Steve, here’s another common arc I’ve seen by those motivated by “making enough and then getting out”. They underestimate their number. The main basis of their motivation is money, but they fail to take that into account. Sure, they spent their entire teenage and college years lusting for $x. Once they get a small multiple of $x, they think they are done. “What more would I care for — time to exit from this work life I hate!” But in due time, the lust sets back in. “I thought $x was the right number, but now I understand that you *really* need $y to be set!” Unfortunately, by that point it’s too late to get back on the treadmill. Gotta start back up on the hamster wheel, regaling stories of your glory days to anyone who’ll listen…

@inonada - I would not put the blame on private schools for fostering money as the ultimate goal. I think this country's greatest attribute is social mobility, and I wholly respect parents who will do whatever they can to give their kids a leg up. Those who were engineers in their country and work as janitors in the US to give their kids a better life and push their kids to be PMC strivers make sense to me.

If I had children, I would do everything in my power to enable them to be PMC strivers without any pressure to become one. They could make a different choice when they came of age, but I would want to maximize their opportunities. I think expectations and pressures are more a function of parents than they are of the schools themselves.

@Steve123 - Re "So the lesson of course is if you got the cash and the lawyers, just keep bluffing your way forward and never admit fault, ever," yes, that is clearly the culture of the day. I don't know what I'd tell my fictitious children if I had them.

@nada - I think people underestimate their number when they are unable to adjust their lifestyle. In fact, after a career of being too-busy, they suddenly have time on their hands to spend more money.

One doesn't need to live walking distance to the office you no longer work in some of the most expensive real estate in the world if you're no longer working.. unless that's what you desire. In which case, better make sure your number is inclusive of this lifestyle. There are many wonderful places in the US you can live in a $1M-ish home instead of a $4M apartment.

I'm not a FIRE guy, but I do hope to pivot into some slightly different areas / form of employment in the coming decades.

I'd rather be the guy who has to step back into the grind after a few years, than be a billionaire living alone with my money in a 6bed penthouse & being the subject of Page Six stories.. or loving my money so much I move states just for taxes, despite having more money than God. Or planning out which home to sleep in nightly & re-arranging social schedule to avoid being in NYC 183 nights/year and paying the ~3.5% tax.

Money for me is a means to and end - living my life, something I put in the meter to continue enjoying life. It seems odd to me to have more than I could possibly need, but forego enjoyment to keep a few more unneeded tokens in my pocket.

>> I would not put the blame on private schools for fostering money as the ultimate goal.

I don’t put ‘blame’ on private schools per se, or the parents, but rather the cohort that gathers there by virtue of the $70K/yr tuition. Kids learn a lot about life from their peers, and I’d much rather have that learning come from a diverse set of peers.

You'd be surprised at how much thought these schools put into diversity even at the high school level. My school had a program called Horizons Upward Bound that brought kids from the inner city of Detroit into the dorms. The interaction was eye-opening and educational for all parties. An interesting epilogue was my reconnecting with one of my high school friends almost 10 years after graduation. She had been a HUB participant who went onto UCLA undergrad and law (after taking a few years between undergrad and lawschool to work). She saw my name on the roster of associates and asked to speak with me specifically. She came into my office and asked me where all the black associates represented on the NALP form were. I was not aware of the firm's having any black associates and told her so. She said that while my being there gave her some comfort, she really did not want to go to a firm that had no other black associates. I was sad she did not choose my firm, but I understood. She went to a competing firm that had a better record on diversity, and I viewed it as our loss. The firm she went to is alive and well (and is actually Mr. MCR's firm); my firm, one of the oldest white shoe firms in SF (Brobeck) imploded due to its own greed and short-sightedness.

Also diversity on the international front. We had kids from China, Saudi Arabia, England, Argentina and Korea in my graduating high school class. Those connections are still strong. When I was posted to Taipei, one of my high school friends put me in touch with his relatives there and it vastly improved my experience. I could go on. There were all types at my school and people grouped according to interests, personalities and wealth in the same manner I suspect they do at all schools. You could make of it what you wanted, and again, I think the parents have a greater influence at the end of the day than the peers do, but I don't discount the huge influence of the peers.

MCR, I meant financial diversity of a more organic form. The HUB program sounds great, but bringing in inner city kids to the dorms (as you put it) kinda seems to put a big spotlight on money. “Hi kids! Here are the haves, here are the have-nots. Now mingle!” Don’t get me wrong: that seems like a fine thing for a private school to be doing. But it’s not quite the same thing as having no clue how wealthy your friends’ parents may or may not be.

International students whose parents were wealthy enough to ship them abroad to private school? Better than the alternative of not doing it, but not really the model of diversity I had in mind.

>> I think the parents have a greater influence at the end of the day than the peers do

How did that work out for your parents? ;). More seriously, parents’ circles tend to get narrower with time, especially those who are able to send their kids to private school. Talking about your glory days as a “normal person” just doesn’t make the same impression as being a normal person.

I was having dinner with a colleague a bit back, and he was telling me about how he has a Porsche he bought ~10 years ago but only has 1000 miles on it. Why? Because he once dropped off his kid at school, and the other kids at the school started going ooohhh & aaahhh. For a friggin’ Porsche, for fuck’s sake, not even a Ferrari or some other respectable rich-car. But the experience made him just stop driving it. Like many boys, he had probably lusted after a Porsche all his teenage years. But when he finally bought it, he couldn’t actually use it. He just didn’t want his kid to be “that kid”.

I asked him about flying, and he said they had always flown economy. He just wanted his kids to have a “normal” experience growing up. When you are sitting in economy on an overnight international flight back to the homeland, when you can more than easily afford a lie-flat, simply to shield your kid from your wealth — that’s sacrifice.

This all might sound weird to you, but it made 100% sense to me. I expressed my kudos on his discipline. I asked how old the kids were (late teens), and whether they are still clueless about his wealth. He said the ruse ended during the pandemic. One of the kids got cancer, and sitting at the hospital with your kid undergoing treatment days on end, it all comes out. No more hiding of anything. After treatment and some recovery, he wanted to take the family to a favorite vacation spot. With cancer, life may be even shorter than it already is. But with cancer, they weren’t going to risk flying commercial, so they booked a private plane. So the family went straight from flying economy to private ;).

The kid remains in remission, thankfully.

Steve, I see where you are coming from. I guess I’m just one of those true believers whose passion is some nonsense such as distressed credit trading. The notion of the “smart game” being “Grind it out doing something you don’t like, just so you can get out to pursue passion projects” is foreign. In the head of a true believer, if your passion is smoking brisket — go smoke brisket! Don’t waste the first 35 years of your life, the most exciting parts, grinding it out on some factory floor. 35’s too late to get into the brisket smoking game. And the notion that one would dabble in brisket smoking, then dabble in something else, is foreign too. Go big, or go home.

That’s why Ken Griffin still works, not because he doesn’t understand the ridiculousness of him earning more money. I am also reminded of a conversation with a relatively unmotivated family member about Tom Brady not retiring for so long, “for the money” in his analysis. It’s not that I expect the entire world to be passionate about something, but I found the complete lack of imagination from said family member particularly bewildering. The purpose of work is to line your pocket with enough ducats so you can putz around the rest of your life.

Like I said, if that is the purpose of life, it might be more financially worthwhile to take the $70K/yr private school costs for close to 20 years and invest it. Then on the 35th birthday, drop the load and say “Congrats, you can now stop grinding it out down at the factory!”

MCR, I think it’s fair to characterize Mr. MCR as a true believer, right? Looking back, how does he see his career a dozen years in. Is it “Yeah, I should’ve gotten out.” Or “Gotten out?!?!? What are you talking about — it had just started to get really interesting….”

"The purpose of work is to line your pocket with enough ducats so you can putz around the rest of your life."

No - the purpose of work is to support yourself and your family in basic needs and do whatever else you enjoy, some of which might be work that is not valued by society in monetary remuneration sufficient to support whomever one needs to support.

Those who were always valedictorian no matter what school they were in and/or those who happen to be passionate about and skilled in a profession that is highly paid might come across as a bit tone deaf when telling others to just be themselves and follow their dreams. (Kind of like Arnold Schwarzenegger dancing around the mere mortals who were his competitors on the beach in "Pumping Iron.")

Public school, private school, whatever - I believe all parents do what they believe is best for their particular children given the totality of their individual circumstances, and I support whatever choice any parent makes for their child. This was a fact-finding thread for @krolik, and I think it provided her some information that she will factor into whatever choice she makes for her child.

The only thing I will say in closing is that I personally have never met anyone who regrets having been sent to private school (because children are "sent" - they do not have agency). However, I have met quite a few who think it might have been nice to have been sent to private school after choosing a PMC striver job. Consistent with that, I found it much easier to opt out of the PMC striver track that I was programmed for (more by parents than by schools, and I fully participated in it until age 32, when I had achieved my "quitting number," which was a real number for me that I stuck to - enabled me to work in areas that don't pay well), than I suspect it is for people to opt in without the advantages that private school might convey.

@nada - Happy to hear your friends kid is in remission, and I think they played the smart game there - raise your kids like normies, but when the chips are down and the money can make a difference - use it.

But.
For me, theres a wide gap between "go smoke brisket if you don't want to work in your high paying job forever" and "work until you die because work is life".

If you are smart-lazy and come out of college with six figure debt, things like "go smoke brisket" are not an option. That's not to say I hate my job. I find it intellectually stimulating and engaging. I also can't believe they pay me so much to do it.

There's reasons you see very few 50s+ on trading desks or grinding out the next great startup right? I also find gardening, birding, walking on the beach, volunteering, talking to weirdos on Internet forums to be pretty engaging too. If my choice was to have a nicer city place, or to retire 5 years earlier - that's a really easy choice.

My wife & I had friends who went through the same degree program who continually optimized for "work life balance". Our paths diverged pretty sharply from them by 25, let alone 30 or 35. WLB strikes me as an extravagance in your 20s. It's the time to build the skills, experience, connections that are the foundation for your career.

The idea that 35/40/50 is "too late" to get into a new line of work is silly. Look at the stats of number of jobs people have in their life now. Where do you think all the guys that age out of trading desks go?
When you exit the Manhattan 0.1% bubble, you find a lot of small business owners that did the other thing, made their mark, and are now a restauranteur, angel investor, etc.

There's a retired guy near me in nowhere that makes focaccia on weekends for the local market. Given the cost of housing, he didn't spend 50 years making focaccia.. but he found an outlet he enjoys now that he's in his second (or third?) act.

Not everyone in their 40s/50s+, with spouse (and maybe kids), house(s), car(s), ability to take nice vacations.. may feel compelled to grind for more income doublings after they've acquired multiples of their basic needs and more wealth than their parents did in a lifetime.

Doubt I'll go from 100% to 0%, but theres things in between 60-80 hours weeks & being retired. Six month contracts, advisory, trading my PA, training, run a consultancy with a few juniors, etc. Why not go teach a course at a community college, or mentor some underprivileged kids?

Tom Brady is an interesting example - do you think blowing up his family, and marriage to a supermodel to play some more football was a great trade? I.. don't. Did he need his 6th & 7th superbowl that bad?

Griffin so far stands out as one of the very, very few HF billionaires who doesn't have "extremely divorced dad" energy (yet?). Some of them have the $ & PR staff to keep it out of the press. Sometimes it's too juicy and ends up on Page Six anyway. I'm not a dad, but I don't think being separated from wife & (often young) children for the sake of more money is something inspirational.

Reading this thread I'm struck by how utterly different my life has been than most of the other posters.

MCR>> No - the purpose of work is to support yourself and your family in basic needs and do whatever else you enjoy, some of which might be work that is not valued by society in monetary remuneration sufficient to support whomever one needs to support.

I understand that is the purpose for you, and for many people. But for some people, meeting just “basic needs” is insufficient monetarily. For others, “putz around” is the end goal. For others still, there is some larger purpose to work. My comment was about said relatives’ inability to fathom that. There is no one-size-fits-all purpose for everyone.

FWIW, I don’t think the “larger purpose” crowd is restricted to those who are the best and/or highly remunerated. My primary doctor, who I’ve been going to for 20 years, is 85. One of the reasons I love him is that he still runs his practice like it’s 1964: he schedules one patient per hour for annuals and spends at least 45 minutes questioning & prodding you. Very thorough, very knowledgeable. One of the people I’ve met in life whom I respect most, because he’s committed his life to improving the health of patients like me. So when he tells me to do X, I just do it. Not because doing X is easy, enjoyable, or fun. But because of the gravitas of his commitment. It’s the least I could do.

I know what insurance pays him, and between the office rent & staff, I can assure you he’s not highly paid. Does he enjoy it? More than putzing around, I guess. But more than anything, I think the work gives him purpose.

Then there’s this barber working until (at least) age 98-99 as a barber:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/nyregion/16barber.html

“I still feel like I’m in beautiful shape, so I’m not even considering retirement because coming to work is what keeps me going.”

Not a valedictorian, not highly paid. Passionate about becoming a barber? Nah: “My father was only making $25 a week working in a felt mill and he had seven kids to feed, so we really needed the extra money.”

My doctor’s kid, BTW, decided to become a plumber. His message: if that’s what you want to do with your life, I’m all for it. The doctor went to Harvard medical school, FTR.

Steve, thanks for your perspective. I understand where you are coming from.

Personally, I was never in the “grind it out 60-80 hours a week” thing. Life’s too short for that, IMO. I recall asking about hours at interviews at a couple of places. One place’s interviewer said: “Yes, I’m working 80 hours a week, and I barely see my newborn, but that’s OK because the work is so engaging!” The other: “Nah, we don’t work long hours. People range 40-60 hours, and if you’re pushing 60, we’ll proactively tell you to back off. People just burn out after a while, which defeats the purpose long-term.” For me, the former sounded just weird and the latter made sense, so that’s where I ended up. Plenty of people around well into their 40’s and 50’s, to the company’s benefit IMO. But if we were doing 60-80 hour weeks, I’m sure people would have bailed. Understanding your hours, I totally understand your perspective.

On Tom & Giselle, I just found the whole thing sad. They genuinely loved being with each other, the kids, etc. The 12-hour days at Gillette, every day during the season, are brutal on family life. So I understand the “What do you left to prove?” perspective. OTOH, it’s such a clearly limited-duration issue compared to a lifetime. The man set a goal for himself to play until he’s 45, as long as he’s at the top of his game. Even though there is no logic to it, just let it be — it’ll be over soon enough. I secretly hope they get back together: they were so perfect for each other.

FTR, if/when I call it quits, it won’t be to take up a second act consulting, staring a business, baking focaccia, or any such thing. I’ll be firmly putzing around with gusto. One act is enough for me, and I’d want to experience the whole putzing around thing in its full glory.

@inonada - ask your doctor whether he sent his kid to private school! :)

LOL, I might. But I better wait until after the prostate exam.

I can see it already, Krolik eating ramen in her retirement 25 years from now , cursing “60-80 hour workweeks and $1.5M between private school and college, not to mention another $1M in forgone ROI, for ‘I wanna be a plumber…?!?!??’”

This thread has not convinced me that private schools make sense for upper middle class parent like myself, so public school (or a free private like Regis high school) is plan A, unless I find myself dissatisfied with academic progress at some point, or receive new information on the topic. And the kid can take loans in college up to the federal borrowing limit.
My hope is the kid will be passionate and good enough in some creative field, like music, and we will definitely provide support for any aspirations in those areas, where early training is a must have and can be very expensive. Science/engineering is plan B, and banker/consultant/doctor is plan C. That the order of priority for relevant development areas.
No name yet, but we got a schooling plan. Immigrant tiger parents are the worst. :-)

>I guess I’m just one of those true believers whose passion is some nonsense such as distressed credit trading.

That is likely not the only passion you could have. Had you stumbled upon something different upon graduation, you could end up passionate about that other thing, potentially with a very different financial outcome.

I have never had a job I was not into, but my past jobs paid vastly different amounts. The one I was most passionate about was the sports thing I wrote about above. It did not pay six figures, and there was only a very narrow, insecure, time-limited path to making significantly more, if I made it to the very top of the field (national/world champion).

I pivoted my career in my 30s towards a new engaging thing that pays an order of magnitude more. I am not too bothered yet by the 60 hours thing. But when I am, I can see myself pivoting again.

>Reading this thread I'm struck by how utterly different my life has been than most of the other posters.

Tell us more. How so?

>> That is likely not the only passion you could have. Had you stumbled upon something different upon graduation, you could end up passionate about that other thing, potentially with a very different financial outcome.

The problem with us true believers is that it starts much earlier. My college roommate knew he wanted to be a doctor from when he was a kid. His dad was a doctor and was his role model. In my roommate’s telling, his dad (a Mexican who ended up in Texas) ran crap business — because he’d spend all his time at his clinic where he’d tell the poor immigrant patients to pay what they can. The man was larger than life, big ass mustache with a penchant for spinning tall tales out of ordinary life, another trait acquired by the son. The son would ward off any would-be doctors with dollar-signs in their eyes, explaining that the money is not that great, and your personal life will suffer under the strain of the hours, always being on-call, etc. A good career if you’re looking for an expensive divorce, so only do it if you absolutely love it.

As for me, I recently reconnected with a friend from junior high / high school who asked me what I do for a living. When I explained, it made perfect sense to her. I’m pretty sure if I told my kindergarten classmates, they’d have the same reaction. There is no stumbling onto something different upon graduation. You develop other interests — I could smoke a mean brisket once upon, learned to play a musical instrument decently — but nothing comes close to the main one.

Now you might ask, who the hell could develop a passion for distressed credit from a young age? I’d be equally skeptical were it not for this story I’m about to tell. About 20 years ago, I went to my aunt’s house, and they had some family friends over. I go into the living room, and the friends’ kid — I swear, 10 years old or so — watching CNBC. This kid’s wearing a button-down Oxford shirt, watching Jim Cramer, talking back to Cramer animatedly as if Cramer could hear, rattling of ticker names. I look to my cousin and ask. “What the shit is this?!?!??” He says, I dunno — the kid’s always been into markets.

Now maybe it was a phase or something (?!?!?!), and maybe he’s no good at it. But my message to his cohort — those who stumbled into distressed credit or whatever upon graduation, to pay off a six-figure debt — is watch out!

FWIW, I personally think it’s good for a kid to get deeply motivated / passionate about anything, even if it doesn’t appear financially lucrative. I cannot tell you how many wise adults tried to ward me off my track, for financial reasons. More importantly, I think it’s very difficult for many people to get deeply motivated by *anything* in life. That capacity should be nurtured, whatever it is, because IMO it transfers to good effect across a lifetime. Krolik, I imagine that part of the reason you are unfazed by 60 hour weeks is because of your past life in your sport.

"Tell us more. How so?"
https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/slinky-bender-former-drug-dealer-stars-back-ny-groove-nodx

> Krolik, I imagine that part of the reason you are unfazed by 60 hour weeks is because of your past life in your sport.

More likely the other way around... sport success was a byproduct of personality. I always approached life with incredible intensity, work, another line of work, third line of work (I made more than one pivot!), sport, researching a place to live :-) or researching where to send my child to school :-) before the s/he is born :-). I am glad I found a well-paid industry where my intensity is an asset and not a liability.

With the sport, I actually got into it quite late (most coaches and other competitors don't know this
as by skill, they cannot tell me apart from those who started in early childhood). It actually was not something that my parents exposed me to, so I doubt this was the formative thing in my life. In fact, when I got into it, they were discouraging me from pursuing it and did not spend a penny on my training (they did not have much at the time, and also thought it was a dumb pursuit). I covered all expenses myself by working side jobs initially (vs. others that had their parents pay for training and travel expenses or even for a place on a team).

In childhood, parents did push me in other directions that ended up being lesser passions (mainly I just wasn't as talented in those areas to pursue them more seriously) - for example I play a couple of musical instruments, etc. Most importantly, I was probably just blessed by genetics, home environment (I descended from some very intense and smart people, including three generations of university professors in another country), and developed independence early due to my parents' free range parenting style, riding subways/buses alone in a multi-million metro when I was 12, and within my suburb since I was about 10.

@Krolik - dying to know sport. Soccer? jai lai? :)

@30yrs - MIND.BLOWN.

@MCR More glamorous than soccer but also so niche that I won't share on a public board...

> I personally think it’s good for a kid to get deeply motivated / passionate about anything, even if it doesn’t appear financially lucrative.

I agree, plus moneyless passions can be super fun. But most people still needs to figure out how to make a living... so have to continue searching for potentially better remunerated but lesser passions.

If you find something that
1) You are passionate about
2) You have a talent for
3) Good paying
4) And you can find a way to get into (as there are some lucrative "club" industries, including niche sports, where admission requirements are similar to those at MCR's coop)
Then you hit jackpot! I hope my baby will find this! I will do all I can to help.

Now I'm thinking equestrian, but I'll stop guessing/pushing. I would love an expose on The Wellington set.

What’s The Wellington set? You have to translate for us plebs.

Krolik, so what were you actually into (for yourself) as a kid?

Wellington, Florida is home to the Palm Beach Polo and Country Club. Quite the scene.

Thanks, MCR. You know how when some of us start talking finance/investment here, and you say you have no clue what’s being said but are fascinated nevertheless, that’s how I feel when you & George talk.

>What’s The Wellington set? You have to translate for us plebs.

I had the same question but was afraid to ask in a thread about private schools...

>Krolik, so what were you actually into (for yourself) as a kid?

Science (which I pursued vigorously in HS and in undergrad) and social sciences like economics/politics (but little formal training until I got a related graduate degree).

I was really into music as well (even pursued it in college at a good level as a second area of specialization), but ruled out as a career early on because I have no absolute pitch, no big lungs, small hands, and not as obsessed with it like others are in this very competitive field.

I also tried myself in visual art when I was in middle school, with training in painting/sculpture/art history, but did not think I was as talented as some others in my classes. I was not very athletic growing up, more of a book worm. Too many interests has always been my main problem. :-)

How about you?

"that’s how I feel when you & George talk."

Ha! Yes, George and I speak the same language, right down to how coops used to be wired to a single club. The Piping Rock member in our building came from 800 Park and laments how the old days are gone. Back in the day, my entire building belonged to The River Club in addition to whatever other clubs they belonged to. I am not aware of any coop where that uniformity is still alive. I do believe all the women of a certain generation in my coop all still belong to The Colony Club, but come the weekend, summer and holidays, they scatter to different clubs outside the city.

>> How about you?

Nerdy/geeky stuff. But in a more dated sense, before those words got reclaimed by every Tom, Dick, and Harriet looking to latch their own quirks onto our bandwagon. Band geek? Book nerd? Screw off! If you gotta qualify it, it doesn’t count. Like computer/political/social science.

>At the end of the day, these “brand” employers cannot be that selective despite the aura — collectively, their entry-level hiring demand probably equals the entire output of the top-50 colleges combined. There was a time Google was looking to hire 10, 100, or even 1000 new grads per year. That’s probably gotten to the range of 10K nowadays. So the haphazard “Lets make a guess and see what sticks” approach might be the best option.

By the way, I was meaning to respond to this.
1) Brand employers have many departments and job functions. Some departments hire relatively few people and are extremely selective, other departments (like customer support at Google, or back office functions at banks) are much easier to get into and will recruit at state schools. In contrast, my department is so "selective", our offer rate might be lower than that at Harvard. In reality, we always have too many that we think are extremely smart and qualified, interested in the job, well-prepared for technicals, etc, and there is no way to tell which these very accomplished Ivy candidates will perform better, so the offers go to those that were lucky, or connected.

2) The approach of hiring a few more than you need and then weeding out is not that dumb, given interviews and resumes are not such a great way to evaluate a person's fit with a job, especially if it is an entry level person with no prior full time work experience to speak to.

>Like computer/political/social science.
Lol, they should call them "studies".
I might be willing to let Computer Science stand, since much of it is just a sub-division of math.

"2) The approach of hiring a few more than you need and then weeding out is not that dumb, given interviews and resumes are not such a great way to evaluate a person's fit with a job, especially if it is an entry level person with no prior full time work experience to speak to."

Haven't big accounting/consulting (like when I was at Arthur Andersen), Big Law, etc been doing this forever?

@30: Yes, and they continue to do so, although over the last year or so, at least in the audit/accounting area, there has been such a shortage of candidates that they're not doing the weeding perhaps as thoughtfully as they should. The general process is easier if your workforce is monolithic in terms of job type ("programmers", "accountants", "tellers"), as the staff are generally fungible within those types. Where it starts to break down is in the specialities ("MBS trader", "equities compliance officer") -- but these are generally not entry level jobs.

And as long as you're looking for advantages for the kid(s), you can start setting aside the funds for this:

"...colleges are grappling with the latest pay-to-play maneuver that gives the rich an edge: published research papers. A new industry is extracting fees from well-heeled families to enable their teenage children to conduct and publish research that colleges may regard as a credential."

https://www.propublica.org/article/college-high-school-research-peer-review-publications

Thanks for the added context, Krolik.

>> In reality, we always have too many that we think are extremely smart and qualified, interested in the job, well-prepared for technicals, etc, and there is no way to tell which these very accomplished Ivy candidates will perform better, so the offers go to those that were lucky, or connected.

It sounds like there is too much supply for the demand. Why not reduce compensation, on the margins, to match supply with demand? Is it because you’d then have trouble attracting the ones who will end up performing better rather than getting weeded out, even though you lack the capacity to make this determination beforehand?

@Aaron2 Nice! Similar to all those resumes that I see with non-profits and businesses started in high school. Will be on a lookout for those published research papers too.

@inonada there is no balance of supply and demand here, these are golden tickets. I have asked the rhetorical question to others regarding reducing compensation for a job with too much demand, but have not gotten any responses.
If I did, it would probably be 1) similar to what you hypothesized, 2) other employers in this industry pay the same and we don't want to pay less and lose best talent to them and 3) we need to retain talent once they arrive at the desk. Once kids have one of our jobs, they become very marketable and are a flight risk. They complain a lot about 60-80 hours and don't seem to want to work that much, even though they are earning multiples of an average college grad salary. They don't realize they won a lottery, but think they got there fair and square simply because they are amazing, and recruiters seem to think the same a lot of the time when they poach the talent. These fresh grads think our industry is harsh, and other industries would be much better (unlike me, they have not had other jobs and are unable to compare, if they did, they would know how amazing this job is). The comp was increased considerably during COVID to prevent talent from leaving for numerous other opportunities. I think we really overdid it on the comp, because now we have too low of an attrition rate. But I don't run HR.

You make it sound like a culling of the herd is acomin’…

On the recruiting side, both point #1 and #2 make it sound like others are able to identify those who become better performers. In the case of #1, it’s the candidates themselves. Better would-be performers are unwilling to take the job for less, but lesser ones would still take it. In the case of #2, it’s your competitors. If everyone were running similar lotteries, then better would-be performers would be equally likely to get their golden ticket at a higher- vs lower-paying place. I.e., in order to lose only the “best talent” to competitors, rather than simply a typical cross-section with a mix of best/better/lesser, the competitors must be identifying “the best” somehow.

I’m also curious about what characteristics establish who becomes the better performer. And for lesser performers, do they end up costing the company more than they contribute? Or are they net-positive, still contributing more than they cost the company, just less than the better performers?

>point #1 and #2 make it sound like others are able to identify those who become better performers... If everyone were running similar lotteries, then better would-be performers would be equally likely to get their golden ticket at a higher- vs lower-paying place.

Everyone is doing it the same way, more or less (I worked at 3 different firms) and everyone is effectively handing out lottery tickets to lucky or connected candidates. If I compare the level of entry-level talent across the firms where I worked, I think it is similar. Some young employees are extremely impressive, others are ordinary smart kids.

That does not mean that all 5000 very impressive candidates that apply are equally qualified for this particular job, but after we narrow down to just few hundred finalists (that aced the technical interview and demonstrated sufficient interest and polish in their behavioral interviews), the selection from that point is somewhat random, and I do think it is hard to improve precision... especially considering we are interviewing sophomores... for a job that starts more than 2 years later. These candidates will learn and change a lot in the next few years, so trying to be overly precise right now is... pointless.

Kids are applying to 7-10 firms on average. Many candidates that we select also get offers from competitors (and we don't want to miss out on those candidates because we pay less than other firms, we care about yield for various reasons). Many candidates we pass on get offers from other great firms. Great many candidates we give offers to have competing offers from other firms. Many candidates we give offers to do not have any other offers. This is partially based on connections and luck, so not necessarily an indication that we selected right or wrong.

Once kids are in the seat, it is easier to determine best performers, and at that point we don't want our best workers to get poached. Therefore, all the firms in the industry end up paying exactly the same (at the entry level), and when one firm raises pay, they all match shortly after. We also do not want other industries to poach workers.

>I’m also curious about what characteristics establish who becomes the better performer. And for lesser performers, do they end up costing the company more than they contribute?

There is more than one way to be great at the job. Most of those that are great have amazing attitude, reading comprehension, quantitative skills, creativity, social skills, attention to detail, subject matter knowledge etc. The role is not revenue producing and is team-based, so I am not sure we could calculate the exact contribution per entry-level person.

>Or are they net-positive, still contributing more than they cost the company, just less than the better performers?

It is a small number, but there are some that clearly don't pull their weight and could be costing us more than they contribute. They recruited as sophomores, but shortly after they starting, they realized they hate the job. After a while, we look for ways to manage them out of the firm or the role.

>You make it sound like a culling of the herd is acomin’…

Where is it not? Except restructuring and cost cutting consulting jobs maybe.

Thanks, Krolik.

On culling, I don’t think it’s coming everywhere. I don’t see it coming in the restaurant, hospitality, etc. industry anytime immediately. I don’t see it coming at my office. In my simplistic view, industries whose growth / basis was low rates are the ones most exposed.

test

The primary draw for private schools is to avoid the lottery aspect of the public schools.

I got 3 of my kids into the same 'citywide' G&T program. The application process was highly stressful and my family was never assured that all three kids would go to the same school. They scored in the 99th percentile on a standardized test, and then they 'won' the lottery.

Even if they hadn't been admitted to the Gifted and Talented program, there was no assurance that my kids would be admitted to our local zoned public school, which is highly regarded. There are simply too many kids and the school operates its admissions via a lottery.

If they didn't get into G&T, AND if they were also rejected from our zoned public school, they would have been sent to a horrible public school that gets terrible reviews for safety and education. Many families simply do not want to incur this risk.

By going private, I could have simply found a great school and placed all three kids into the same school, where they can continue from K to 12, with the same friend group.

By opting to send my kids to public school, they will occasionally have to reapply to new schools, facing new risk & upheaval each time they change schools.

For what it's worth the citywide G&T program is simply amazing.

Deblasio changed the admissions criteria, eliminating the test, so it's unclear how the program will fare going forward.

Tom, You nailed it. For parents who have to stretch a little bit to afford private school, this is a big reason.

Thanks so much for chiming in @Tomnevers

How does it work timing wise, can one find out G&T and public placement lottery results before having to commit to a private school?

It’s too late for you, Krolik: you need to have done it before conception.

Private school committement is a month before G&T and public placement unless you go to a non top 10-15 private school which may have some flexibility.

>Private school commitment is a month before G&T and public placement unless you go to a non top 10-15 private school which may have some flexibility.

Makes sense, I would have done the same in their shoes. :-(

>It’s too late for you, Krolik: you need to have done it before conception.

I know, LOL

Fun article calculating cost of being future selves for nine people 30 and under. I haven’t read all of them, but the first one (Aliya) seems to resonate with some of the themes here:

https://www.curbed.com/article/cost-of-living-nyc-calculator.html

It’s interesting, because at that age I wasn’t even remotely thinking about life in these terms. Nor now, for that matter, I suppose.

That was great porn, and I'm pleasantly surprised that two out of the nine people actually thought about charity in their spending plans, but LOLOL that only one person thought, "oh, I'll need childcare during the summer, so I'll need day camp." (I mean, none of these people are paying taxes, saving for retirement, or saving for college either, but I guess it IS porn.)

Well, the focus is on what they’d spend, not how they’d pay for it. They did mention this in their disclaimers:

>> Nor did we consider past costs or future savings. (And it should be said that these numbers don’t represent what a person needs to make in pretax income.)

I also found the differences in the profiles along gender lines interesting. Only 2 of the 9 profiles were men, which perhaps reflects the willingness of participants with interesting future aspirations? Every single woman had children in their futures, but neither of the men. And every single woman would be spending more than either of the men.

Malcolm Gladwell writes compellingly about the 'U' curve where college admissions and money are concerned. He isn't saying that vying to get into the 'best' schools or that the desire to amass more than middle class wealth are wrong, they're just beside the point when it comes to happiness and most of the time they boomerang. Some degree of ambition is normal. He suggests it's smart for ones self and for one's children's sake to keep ambition in check or let it out in random ways - games, etc.

There's also been a lot of ink spilled on the whole notion of meritocracy. It's rational. Whether it leads to happier outcomes for all but the most skilled and competent among us is another matter. 'You didn't excel at school? You deserve the job you have at the checkout counter, serving me'. Or 'I deserve the job I have working at the checkout counter' (where working at a checkout counter is deemed less dignified than working in a board room). To the extent social outcomes do not conform to taught meritocratic ideals - they're ideals, after all - promoting them ('our society is a meritocracy' or 'meritocracy is the fairest system') breeds cynicism, depression, self-recrimination and anger. There aren't many alternatives - monarchy, anyone? - or ways to mitigate its pressure cooker effects on most people.

@MTH - I largely degree.
Unfortunately in the context of an NYC (Manhattan-below-95th-st centric) real estate forum, most of the commentators project lifestyle requirements onto their children which imply either a 0.1% education/income, large inheritance, or both.

Or more to the point - while its normal to want your offspring to excel further than you, when you've already had a top 0.1% outcome, there are limits to the number of seats at that level, let along on to the next rung up the ladder. People need to have reasonable expectations.

Re: "social outcomes do not conform to taught meritocratic ideals", this part of course I think is the dichotomy of the lefty social message private schools the 0.1% send their kids to Manhattan now of course. The same parents that make sure the K-6 schools are zoned "just so" in the UWS such that public housing is kept segregated, push their kids into magnet schools, and failing that pay for private.. then have very strong opinions about how morally stained the country is :-) .

Joshua Harman's play "Admissions" nails the "dichotomy of the lefty social message."
I highly recommend. It centers around a progressive head of admissions at an elite board school who freaks out when her own son does not get into Yale and suddenly resents everything she has been preaching and practicing with respect to other people's children.

@steve123 Yes, they used to call them limousine liberals but it's more widespread than that. Coastal elites aren't necessarily members of the .01% - cultural capital is also a factor. You have to play along, have all the right opinions, get all the latest cultural references, know a few people in common and avoid little conversational and taste-based landmines for inclusion.

@multicityresident - thanks, sounds like a good play.

Seconding MCR's recommendation on "Admissions". I saw it in 2018 and wonder how it has aged.

This thread has so many provocative themes. Inonada's comment about gender lines is one that I noticed as well - "I also found the differences in the profiles along gender lines interesting. Only 2 of the 9 profiles were men, which perhaps reflects the willingness of participants with interesting future aspirations? Every single woman had children in their futures, but neither of the men. And every single woman would be spending more than either of the men."

I wonder how many of these womens' plans include them as the primary bread winner and how they see this playing out once kids enter the picture. I refrained from commenting on krolik's "mommy track" thoughts earlier, but I now feel compelled to throw out there that the dirty secret of my generation is that the majority (but not all) of families I know ended up dividing labor in the age-old manner with the man continuing on the PMC striver track and the woman dropping off to focus on the family. I love those families where the woman is the primary bread winner (I can think of two in my immediate circle) because I feel my choice to be in the support role will never be "okay" until men are afforded the same choice. I saw too many women in my generation opting out yet demanding the classic 6 in prime locations, even after working and knowing how hard it is for the average human to make that kind of money.

>Every single woman had children in their futures, but neither of the men. And every single woman would be spending more than either of the men.

Cause and effect. Kids are expensive in the city!

>I saw too many women in my generation opting out yet demanding the classic 6 in prime locations, even after working and knowing how hard it is for the average human to make that kind of money.

Classic 6 is much easier to afford with two incomes.

> I refrained from commenting on krolik's "mommy track" thoughts earlier, but I now feel compelled to throw out there that the dirty secret of my generation is that the majority (but not all) of families I know ended up dividing labor in the age-old manner with the man continuing on the PMC striver track and the woman dropping off to focus on the family.

The dirty secret is that while life was affordable on one income back then, it no longer is. House was only 2-3x household income, but it is 9-10x HH income in NYC today. Boomers are selling us houses at bubble prices so they can comfortably retire, while younger people are wondering whether we will get to retire at all after social security runs out.

Besides, I don't want to choose, I enjoy work.

>> I saw too many women in my generation opting out yet demanding the classic 6 in prime locations, even after working and knowing how hard it is for the average human to make that kind of money.

MCR, I think it depends on your circle within the generation. At the core, it comes down to what you wrote here:

>> No - the purpose of work is to support yourself and your family in basic needs and do whatever else you enjoy, some of which might be work that is not valued by society in monetary remuneration sufficient to support whomever one needs to support.

Define “basic needs” and “sufficient to support”. To different people, this means different things. Most of the people in my circle are not spenders; they (men & women) derive purpose from their work. So I see plenty of non-traditional setups. E.g., the finely- but not crazily-paid banker who stopped working at a transition point, raising the very young kids for a few years, while the wife continued teaching middle school. So she was the breadwinner, but he’s the one who could have been winning more bread. Some border on comical, such as a crazy-rich startup friend who retired some years ago, now pursuing passion projects, but is tethered down and kept from living & traveling wherever/whenever because his partner started doing her thing with a startup she joined. There is pretty much zero chance that the company / her position could ever have the financial impact his did. This is not a knock on her or the company, I could make that statement about pretty much anyone. But there she is, winning the bread, even though he’s got more bread than a Wonder factory, itching to enjoy it with her.

I can also quote situations when either husband or wife stayed in steady job while spouse started something of their own. In at least two cases that come immediately to mind, husbands ended up quitting their jobs to work for wife as startup grew. In one case, there were three young children and in the other two older children. These were not super-high-income workers — a classic six would have been impossible in one case and a stretch in the other. And the startups are not high-flying, just nice business that have been growing slowly.

In all cases, these people were not “spenders” in the sense that life was defined by a desire for stuff. I think “spenders” tend to pair, and they tend to skew more toward anachronistic roles, though not always.

The logical next step:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/helicopter-parents-workplace-children-jobs-9e0d31af

Ha. They saved the best till the end.
"Too much interference can backfire in other ways, too. In Seattle, Wash., Houston Wade, 42, recalls working at a restaurant where a co-worker’s parent called the manager, asking to reschedule her son’s shifts so he could watch Sunday football games. Word got around, and the employee became a laughingstock. His schedule stayed the same."

I was 14 when I started filling in for my dad in his small business a few days at a time so that he could go on vacation. No cell phones those days. The kids beyond a certain age need empowerment and guidance not hand-holding. I guess a bigger percentage of parents are control freaks these days.

@300 - yes
I think its control freaks & even more so - resume building
Look at the stats for teens with summer jobs from 80s->today
the drop-off is staggering. Everyone of even median level means is sending their kids to some sort of resume padding summer program / camp / school, plus after schools activities/clubs for more of the same.

I worked some under the table jobs at 14-15.
I had first W2 job from the summer I turned 16, summer & after school. Even did my own Turbotax haha. Haven't stopped working since.

It's astonishing how many interns we get who their first job is the internship at the age of 21 and .. just really don't know how to work.

It's beneficial to learn some things in lower stakes environments like minimum wage summer retail job than when your are auditioning for your career in a 10 week internship.

Here is what some rich parents do for resume padding.

Go set up some program funded by money from parents helping the poor in Africa (more impressive in resume that working in poor areas of nyc) but stay in a decent accomodation with luxury vaca with parents tagged on at the back-end. The cost of accomodation probably would have paid for feeding many people. All that the kid is learning is how to game the system and starting to think that other people with real such charity work without parental help have equally padded their resume.

The wife of my doctor college roommate, who is also a doctor, was visiting NYC earlier this week. Their son finishes high school soon, and she was saying how they were bad parents because they were too busy to spend any time guiding him. “You’re on your own, kid…”

The kid’s alright, computer geek with a 4.0. Earlier this year, he said he had placed highly in some econ competition, was invited for some summer week thing related to that, and asked if he could go. Pops says “Really, an econ thing? How do you even know about that, have you been taking econ classes?” Kid says “Nope, I guess I just picked it up.” Pops says, “But how, you can’t just pick it up from nowhere.” Kid says, “I guess I started listening to an NPR series about 10 years ago after I heard you listening to it once. I just started on the first episode and have been listening to the whole thing.” Pops says, “Really? I thought you were listening to rap or something all these mornings with your headphones on.” Kid says, “Nope, NPR.”

All I could think was how screwed the resume-padders will be once they cross paths with this kid…

Nada, Great story. Resume padders can never compete with self-motivated and empowered smart kids.
My bigger issue with resume padders is developing moral values of Elizabeth Holmes in your kid. A part of me believes that she may think that she did nothing wrong.

Have you read about her parents? I am not sure they think she did anything wrong.

Would Joseph Bankman or Barbara Fried please pick up a white courtesy phone?

Problem is, top colleges and top entry-level jobs are filled with resume padders. Many independent kids that are genuinely more interesting/driven/impressive but with lesser resume game don't make it in.

>Everyone of even median level means is sending their kids to some sort of resume padding summer program / camp / school, plus after schools activities/clubs for more of the same.

Many kids I interviewed have had several relevant "jobs" in the industry by the time they are sophomores. Light googling reveals this was at mommy's or daddy's firm...

When I was 11 or 12, and I really liked painting for fun. By chance, in May of 7th grade I learned that a classmate of mine who also loved painting was attending a visual arts after-school program (4-year diploma program complete with weekly drawing, painting, sculpture and art history classes). Few days later, as I was walking home from a music lesson, and took a detour, stopping by the art school. I asked front desk if I could see the principal.
The principal asked me why I wanted to enroll and told me that they typically admitted kids 1-2 years younger, but exceptions could be made if I was already painting at home. I was back the next day with a portfolio of drawings and paintings which satisfied the principal and she allowed me to join the program skipping the first year (so I joined the same section as my friend and other kids the same age). Her only condition was, I had to start immediately and attend the school's June summer "practice camp" (which was optional for kids that started a year earlier).

My parents knew nothing about this until I told them I've already signed up :-) Luckily, the program was heavily gov't subsidized (this was not in the US) and out-of-pocket cost was only a nominal amount, so I did not put them into a difficult financial situation. They were supportive.
The music teacher was pissed when she found out, she realized I won't be a musician.

The summer camp was glorious. Every day for a few weeks a group of kids and a teacher went to different parks and spent a few hours drawing flowers, trees and landscapes.

My mom had me work in a factory one summer; she wanted me to appreciate that my parents had given me an avenue to professional work, and to be grateful for it, and also to understand what other people's work lives were like so I would stop grousing that I was working "so hard."

Damn, Krolik. You fancy. Two homes, looking for a third, summer camp as a kid…

But who am I to talk, I was a nepo-baby. One summer, my dad needed someone to pick up garbage at the construction site. He asked me if I was interested — I said “Sign me up!” Pay was a bit above minimum wage. On days the site was cleaned up, I got the plum job of screwing down floorboards. These were the days before the fancy power tools. I got to know some interesting characters I remember to this day.

Nada, Ha. At least you were getting paid. I was always unpaid for frequent use of my labor at my dad's business. And I was very happy to help. If I had asked, the view would have been - "don't we feed you or pay for everything?". He should have added that I am putting my trust in you, giving you responsibility and opportunity to learn in real life. What is that worth to you?

You got fed for free??? ;)

I also took a job slinging ice cream during one school year. My parents didn’t want me doing it, because they worried it’d affect my studies.

They were underestimating you!!

>Damn, Krolik. You fancy. Two homes, looking for a third, summer camp as a kid…

The other house is an investment property in a low cost of living, landlord-friendly red state and is a part of my retirement plan. Purchased based on a delusion that I could do better than S&P500 index fund (I probably cannot, but I bought a it with a cheap mortgage, with leverage being main part of the thesis). It has been an educational experience.

The camp was more of a free summer school for a few weeks to catch up to the other kids, I might have mistranslated. The main moral of that story was that I walked around town unsupervised at age 11 (and earlier), doing what I wanted, enrolling myself into random educational programs without telling my parents. None of which would be possible for a kid in present time in NYC.

Most of my childhood summers were spent in a house that my grandparents had in a farming village. The house had no running water, toilet outside, black and white TV with 3 channels, and lots of books. There was also a vegetable garden, and we mostly ate what we grew there (I had to work a lot for free in the garden, but it was presented to me as a chore, not a job) or caught in the river (fishing is still my favorite thing). Zero resume padding, summers were a carefree time.

I am looking for a third home, because I kind of want to recreate that experience for my kid with a summer house with a garden and a lake/river :-) (but with running water and color TV). But I am not finding what I want at a price I am willing to pay within a driving distance or near public transport to NYC. And my partner is very against it, he thinks we would never go there and are much better off just doing Airbnb one or two weekends a year when we might want to go. So I am mostly just window shopping. I also would love to buy a studio unit in my building as we might need more space with a baby, but I am not willing to pay that much.... so might need to manage in a small space, or rent.

https://www.economist.com/international/2023/06/08/should-you-send-your-children-to-private-school

>> At least you were getting paid.

I never had an allowance, so the most important part of having “my own money” was my dad taking me down to the local bank to open up a savings account. That’s when he explained to me the importance of saving and letting your money work for you. That’s also when I figured out the magic of compounding. Sadly, my dad never managed to put it into practice very well. But the lessons stuck with me, laying dormant until I could put it to use with real money.

I opened my first business when I was 8 years old.

Uh-oh, Krolik. Time to change the career matrix game plan for your kid:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-wall-street-lawyers-make-more-than-bankers-now-ae8070a7

I hear Willie is re-cutting the song into “Mammas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be… Bankers.”

Saw that! But I don't think so. The high comp does not come with no strings attached:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/stressed-lonely-overworked-what-new-study-tells-us-about-lawyer-suicide-risk-2023-02-15/

No clue about the veracity, but finance seems worse:

https://choicespsychotherapy.net/jobs-with-highest-suicide-rates/

A personally knew a colleague at prior employer who killed himself... the firm was in one of the industries on the above list.

Seems like being an overachiever is a general risk factor. For example, here is another story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeMcVo3WFOY

But then I wouldn't want my baby to be an underachiever. Also, tradespeople were not spared, with electricians making the top 10 list above.

Ooh, real estate agents at #6; that's low comp with strings attached.

more seriously, I wonder if control and sleep deprivation are factors; salespeople generally have less control than many other careers, and that's depressing, while finance, law, and medicine are jobs where the average practitioner puts in a tremendous number of hours -- so even above and beyond what's riding on job performance (which I guess we can lump into the category of "stress") there's less time to rebuild resilience.