Here's an interesting article detailing the vast amounts of valuable raw minerals that North Korea is sitting on although I disagree with the term stockpile. A stockpile is usually used in the sense that they've mined the minerals and is holding them somewhere ready to offload.
North Korea isn't holding them anywhere, they just can't (or maybe isn't willing) afford the infrastructure needed to mine the various minerals.
Even if they could, they'd have trouble selling the minerals on the open market at their true value.
The biggest thing I take away from the article is not what the author is trying to relay, rather it's the arrogance that minerals in the ground somehow 'belong' on the open market and North Korea is somehow depriving the world of a valuable minerals.
Like it or not, North Korea (or at least it's leader) are choosing what to do with the country and are choosing not to pursue mining. Perhaps if the country were desperate enough, they'd come to the world table and broker a deal, but right now it is their RIGHT to choose not to tap into those resources.
Let me put this another way. Uluru (Ayers Rock) is predominately made up of iron ore. As it currently stands, it brings in more money as a tourist destination than it would being mined for it's contents. You can only mine it once for what would be a pretty small payday, but tourists could probably come for another 100 years just to see it. More important than the tourist element, Uluru has a cultural significance to the Indigenous population of the country, so any business case to mine it would be very quickly shut down for both Cultural and Tourism reasons.
Let's imagine, for a minute, that those mountains in North Korea aren't just a resource parking lot, that they have been part of the country as long as time and there's possibly even ancient stories about them passed on from generation to generation. We don't really know because we're only being told one angle.
The current leader may be thinking that in 50 years time his country will be the only untouched region of the world with such untouched beauty, which would make a much better tourist attraction than lining the vaults of the country with money for a finite time. Maybe North Korea's Great Leader has a longer-term vision than most Westerners, who only think as far as next year (some only as far as next weekend).
The leaders of North Korea might really want to tap into them, but feel that they'd compromise on their personal beliefs, either culturally or simply because they don't trust big world governments not to take advantage of them. In this regard, can we blame them after all the accusations against the Clinton Foundation for helping to set up the fleecing of Haiti's gold (and possible child trafficking) whilst on a supposed mercy mission after a major earthquake.
I'm not a Greenie, but if a mining site on a potentially culturally significant site were being pushed on a region for profit anywhere else in the world, there'd be outrage, but since it's from a country people deem as despotic, it's apparently ok?
I say if the leaders of North Korea choose not to tap into those minerals FOR ANY REASON, then that's their decision and it should be respected.
Showing posts with label The Future. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Future. Show all posts
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Media claims we should be grateful for foreign buyers
So here we have the media actually acknowledging the existence of wealthy foreign buyers in the Australian Real Estate market, however one author writes that we should be grateful for them.
Now, the author might be correct, had the glut of apartments not been built specifically to cater to the demand of foreign buyers and only if foreign buyers were ONLY buying apartments.
In any economy there are multiple cycles going up and down at any given time. In engineering, the perfect storm with salaries occurred just before the GFC when many industries were all peaking at the same time, putting a premium on engineers which, when the various industry cycles bottomed out at about the same time, ended with heaps of engineers all looking for work at the same time.
The same is true of property. Of residential property, there are many sectors and sub-sectors. Just because you've got a great 1-bedroom apartment in Newport isn't going to mean a thing if what's booming are 3-bedroom houses.
So the housing prices are in a completely different cycle to apartments, which are usually home to singles or couples without children. Apartments don't come with a lot of land, making them less attractive to speculators due to the need for high returns and the risk that another 300 apartment block opening up next door that will compete for the relatively few tenants.
Claims that we should be grateful that foreign buyers are keeping the prices of apartments from collapsing (something that only the developers would really worry about and would normally stop creating more supply if they're unable to unload the last lot of apartments they built) are pretty stupid when it's the price of housing the average Australia cares about, NOT the price and vacancy rates of apartments.
The people already living in houses want them to only go up, the people trying to buy them would like to see them come down (at least long enough to get into the market).
Ultimately I think what the Media and the Politicians all ignore or avoid is that young people don't want any sort of unfair advantage, they simply want a level playing field, but the media is so bent on trying to remain positive about immigration that it's ignoring the fact that it's selling out locals for the security that higher house prices brings people who own their own home.
When a young couple from China in the 20's is able to buy a house in the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne for over $1 million IN CASH, when they haven't got the sort of income needed to service a loan of that size, then we're not playing on a level playing field. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying to themselves or just to you.
Now, the author might be correct, had the glut of apartments not been built specifically to cater to the demand of foreign buyers and only if foreign buyers were ONLY buying apartments.
In any economy there are multiple cycles going up and down at any given time. In engineering, the perfect storm with salaries occurred just before the GFC when many industries were all peaking at the same time, putting a premium on engineers which, when the various industry cycles bottomed out at about the same time, ended with heaps of engineers all looking for work at the same time.
The same is true of property. Of residential property, there are many sectors and sub-sectors. Just because you've got a great 1-bedroom apartment in Newport isn't going to mean a thing if what's booming are 3-bedroom houses.
So the housing prices are in a completely different cycle to apartments, which are usually home to singles or couples without children. Apartments don't come with a lot of land, making them less attractive to speculators due to the need for high returns and the risk that another 300 apartment block opening up next door that will compete for the relatively few tenants.
Claims that we should be grateful that foreign buyers are keeping the prices of apartments from collapsing (something that only the developers would really worry about and would normally stop creating more supply if they're unable to unload the last lot of apartments they built) are pretty stupid when it's the price of housing the average Australia cares about, NOT the price and vacancy rates of apartments.
The people already living in houses want them to only go up, the people trying to buy them would like to see them come down (at least long enough to get into the market).
Ultimately I think what the Media and the Politicians all ignore or avoid is that young people don't want any sort of unfair advantage, they simply want a level playing field, but the media is so bent on trying to remain positive about immigration that it's ignoring the fact that it's selling out locals for the security that higher house prices brings people who own their own home.
When a young couple from China in the 20's is able to buy a house in the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne for over $1 million IN CASH, when they haven't got the sort of income needed to service a loan of that size, then we're not playing on a level playing field. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying to themselves or just to you.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Anti-vaccination people forced underground
One really does have to wonder why, if we actually have freedom of speech, that people who want to see a documentary on the 'dangers of vaccinations' have to do so in secret.
Now, I'm all for vaccinations (my daughter has had all of them, but I'm so sick of people trying to make out that people who CHOOSE not to vaccinate their children are evil.
Much like how Medical companies have big funds set aside for compensation claims for people whose children have negative effects (why would they do that if the vaccinations were 100% safe?), the people who don't vaccinate are choosing to play the lottery the other way.
Are they putting other people's children at risk? Maybe. Are they putting their own children at risk? Maybe.
Does the medical industry pretend like there's no risk? Surprisingly, especially given how parents are expected to sign a waiver prior to being given the vaccination for every set of them.
I guess that's where the compensation fund comes in. You're only signing away for mild side-effects like fever and illness. If side-effects like death, disability or Autism were on the list, then you can bet your bottom dollar that:
Remember, you can only sign away your right to compensation for side effects they tell you about. Anything else is fair game. The difficulty is proving that your otherwise healthy and active child changed after the vaccination.
I was particularly annoyed when medical staff tried to claim my daughter's reaction "must have been something she ate", even though the rota-virus vaccine was THE ONLY common factor in her short term (as far as we know) symptoms.
Now, I'm all for vaccinations (my daughter has had all of them, but I'm so sick of people trying to make out that people who CHOOSE not to vaccinate their children are evil.
Much like how Medical companies have big funds set aside for compensation claims for people whose children have negative effects (why would they do that if the vaccinations were 100% safe?), the people who don't vaccinate are choosing to play the lottery the other way.
Are they putting other people's children at risk? Maybe. Are they putting their own children at risk? Maybe.
Does the medical industry pretend like there's no risk? Surprisingly, especially given how parents are expected to sign a waiver prior to being given the vaccination for every set of them.
I guess that's where the compensation fund comes in. You're only signing away for mild side-effects like fever and illness. If side-effects like death, disability or Autism were on the list, then you can bet your bottom dollar that:
- People wouldn't choose to vaccinate
- People who did vaccinate wouldn't have a right to compensation ("you signed it!")
Remember, you can only sign away your right to compensation for side effects they tell you about. Anything else is fair game. The difficulty is proving that your otherwise healthy and active child changed after the vaccination.
I was particularly annoyed when medical staff tried to claim my daughter's reaction "must have been something she ate", even though the rota-virus vaccine was THE ONLY common factor in her short term (as far as we know) symptoms.
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Famous person pays through the nose to see his children, media doesn't care
So Karl Stefanovic is no saint and I'm certainly not a fan, but when he walks away from his marriage with less than 10% of the assets, on the condition that he can see his children whenever he wants, you know the Family Courts system isn't fair.
But notice how the media chooses to focus on how Karl liked getting drunk, rather than asking WHY he liked getting drunk.
That being said, the man makes $3 million a year, so it'll only take him a few years to recover from the hit (assuming his career doesn't drop off), but he'd never get that time back with his kids if his ex-wife had chosen to withhold access.
I'm hoping that someone in the media talks a bit about this, but I seriously doubt it.
But notice how the media chooses to focus on how Karl liked getting drunk, rather than asking WHY he liked getting drunk.
That being said, the man makes $3 million a year, so it'll only take him a few years to recover from the hit (assuming his career doesn't drop off), but he'd never get that time back with his kids if his ex-wife had chosen to withhold access.
I'm hoping that someone in the media talks a bit about this, but I seriously doubt it.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Group of Australian Muslims call for death, the Left silent
So an angry group of Muslims in Australia has been found to be agreeing that people who leave Islam should be killed.
I wonder where all those Lefties who defend Islam are when things like this come out.
Don't tell me:
They don't even need to respond, we already know the stupid things they're going to say.
And the more cases like this come out, the more these stupid defenses of a violent belief will fall on deaf ears.
I wonder where all those Lefties who defend Islam are when things like this come out.
Don't tell me:
- Religion of peace
- These are just radicals
- Not indicative of the whole religion
They don't even need to respond, we already know the stupid things they're going to say.
And the more cases like this come out, the more these stupid defenses of a violent belief will fall on deaf ears.
Monday, March 20, 2017
Media asks if being anti-vaccinations should be illegal
So the media is asking if being an 'anti-vaxxer' should be illegal.
I think the bigger question is why are we supposed to listen to an organisation (the Media) that is owned by 'big pharma'?
Notice that the Media (big pharma) isn't directly calling for being anti-vaxxers to be declared criminals, they simply ask the question and lay out some fairly basic information (not all of it, mind you) and hopes that people jump to attention.
I mean, it's not like vaccinations have ever been withdrawn from use due to bad side effects like it was in Japan in 1989-91 or Britain in 2009.
I mean, it's not like the manufacturers of these vaccinations and the doctors who administer them are completely immune from Civil lawsuits if the vaccinations kill or permanently disable someone. Oh wait, thay are.
For the record, I am pro-vaccination, but I very much like the media programming whereby they attempt to label people who may have legitimate concerns over the industry as kooks. We should all have a right to be able to question something without being labeled undesirable.
It would be a different story if, like most other professions, the company that provides the vaccination were legally liable for the outcome. Perhaps then they'd have a bit better incentive to have a zero harm vaccine. Either that, or they'd just jack up the prices of their already expensive vaccines (which the government is happily making mandatory for all children) to cover the cost.
Do vaccinations have a place? Yes. Should it be that a child by the age of 18 has 69 does of 16 different vaccinations? Sounds like a lot when I put it that way, doesn't it.
I think the bigger question is why are we supposed to listen to an organisation (the Media) that is owned by 'big pharma'?
Notice that the Media (big pharma) isn't directly calling for being anti-vaxxers to be declared criminals, they simply ask the question and lay out some fairly basic information (not all of it, mind you) and hopes that people jump to attention.
I mean, it's not like vaccinations have ever been withdrawn from use due to bad side effects like it was in Japan in 1989-91 or Britain in 2009.
I mean, it's not like the manufacturers of these vaccinations and the doctors who administer them are completely immune from Civil lawsuits if the vaccinations kill or permanently disable someone. Oh wait, thay are.
For the record, I am pro-vaccination, but I very much like the media programming whereby they attempt to label people who may have legitimate concerns over the industry as kooks. We should all have a right to be able to question something without being labeled undesirable.
It would be a different story if, like most other professions, the company that provides the vaccination were legally liable for the outcome. Perhaps then they'd have a bit better incentive to have a zero harm vaccine. Either that, or they'd just jack up the prices of their already expensive vaccines (which the government is happily making mandatory for all children) to cover the cost.
Do vaccinations have a place? Yes. Should it be that a child by the age of 18 has 69 does of 16 different vaccinations? Sounds like a lot when I put it that way, doesn't it.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Gay marriage - forcing companies to back it
So business leaders back gay marriage, despite the gay mafia threatening private companies who don't publicly share their view.
So it turns out the politicians were right, allowing both sides to put forward their arguments did result in attacks and hatred... only from the side that is supposedly all about love and equality.
Anyone who is not familiar with history knows that the Left has a very dark history of forcing people to do things they don't want to do, to ruin people who don't agree with them and to even kill people who aren't 'with' them.
Fortunately we're not at the third stage yet, but remember it's a slippery slop. One minute you're being calmly told that marriage is all about equality, nothing else. The next minute you're being accused of homophobia, yelled at and threatened. Finally, you're being tracked down to your place of work and being outed as being racist, homophobic and misogynist for not saying what they want you to say.
It's funny because the people who have always lived in Australia just assume the best of people, whereas people who grew up in the former Soviet Union see the tactics for what they are: fascism.
It doesn't help that children today think that Hitler was Right-Wing, that Communists haven't been behind the overwhelming majority of state-sponsored murder in the history of the world and that the death toll of native populations of countries colonised by colonial British is upwards of 25 million.
As with anything, the numbers of deaths under communism gets rounded down every couple of years and the number of deaths due to white colonialism gets rounded up. Before you know it, Stalin will only have been responsible for less than 1 million deaths, but most of those will be declared to have been criminals anyway, and the total number of Native Americans who died because of British settlements will be over 100 million.
Another aspect to all this that everyone is missing is that the slippery slope only gets worse. First it's gay marriage, then it's polygamy and finally it's child marriages.
The arguments for all three will play out like this:
Gay marriage - why isn't it ok for two loving adults to get married, regardless of their gender since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for heterosexual people to get married and divorced?
Polygamy - why isn't it ok for three loving adults to get married, since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for gays and heterosexuals to get married?
Child marriages - why isn't it ok for a 30 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl, since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for a homosexuals to get married and for people to have more than one husband/wife?
Before you know it, you'll have a 60 year old man with three wives who are all under 18 years of age or a 60 year old man with three husbands who are all under 18 years of age.
That's not to say there aren't some gay people who aren't going to be together forever, but the statistics show that gay men have a much higher partner count than heterosexual men, polygamy results in a gross gender imbalance whereby women are 'collected' by wealthy men, leaving more single men unable to find a wife and child marriages are often the result of arranged marriages, why can be abusive.
Of course everyone can point to instances where that's "not true", but not allowing children to marry until they reach a certain age is a general rule put in place to protect children and vulnerable people.
The strongest argument one can make against child marriage is this: if the love is so strong and marriage is meant to be forever (60 year marriage), then what does it matter if the loving couple get married when the younger person is 15 years old or waiting 3 years? If a relationship is so sensitive that waiting a few years to be formally recognized, then it's probably not that strong to begin with.
Personally speaking, I don't care either way what individuals do. Hell, when I was young and single I loved the idea of gay men in as much as the gay men were usually well dressed, well spoken and would otherwise have outclassed me (I'm generalizing here) in the pursuit of the women I pursued.
What I most strongly disagree with is this strong-arm tactic where you threaten the livelihoods of people who don't openly share your point of view and the politicians arguing that the laws of the land should just be changed since no one is game to openly come out against it. If the plebiscite is held, I think you'll find far more people against the idea than the numbers the polls claim. A bit like the polls that predicted that Trump didn't have chance in hell of winning.
As a great man once said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
So it turns out the politicians were right, allowing both sides to put forward their arguments did result in attacks and hatred... only from the side that is supposedly all about love and equality.
Anyone who is not familiar with history knows that the Left has a very dark history of forcing people to do things they don't want to do, to ruin people who don't agree with them and to even kill people who aren't 'with' them.
Fortunately we're not at the third stage yet, but remember it's a slippery slop. One minute you're being calmly told that marriage is all about equality, nothing else. The next minute you're being accused of homophobia, yelled at and threatened. Finally, you're being tracked down to your place of work and being outed as being racist, homophobic and misogynist for not saying what they want you to say.
It's funny because the people who have always lived in Australia just assume the best of people, whereas people who grew up in the former Soviet Union see the tactics for what they are: fascism.
It doesn't help that children today think that Hitler was Right-Wing, that Communists haven't been behind the overwhelming majority of state-sponsored murder in the history of the world and that the death toll of native populations of countries colonised by colonial British is upwards of 25 million.
As with anything, the numbers of deaths under communism gets rounded down every couple of years and the number of deaths due to white colonialism gets rounded up. Before you know it, Stalin will only have been responsible for less than 1 million deaths, but most of those will be declared to have been criminals anyway, and the total number of Native Americans who died because of British settlements will be over 100 million.
Another aspect to all this that everyone is missing is that the slippery slope only gets worse. First it's gay marriage, then it's polygamy and finally it's child marriages.
The arguments for all three will play out like this:
Gay marriage - why isn't it ok for two loving adults to get married, regardless of their gender since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for heterosexual people to get married and divorced?
Polygamy - why isn't it ok for three loving adults to get married, since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for gays and heterosexuals to get married?
Child marriages - why isn't it ok for a 30 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl, since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for a homosexuals to get married and for people to have more than one husband/wife?
Before you know it, you'll have a 60 year old man with three wives who are all under 18 years of age or a 60 year old man with three husbands who are all under 18 years of age.
That's not to say there aren't some gay people who aren't going to be together forever, but the statistics show that gay men have a much higher partner count than heterosexual men, polygamy results in a gross gender imbalance whereby women are 'collected' by wealthy men, leaving more single men unable to find a wife and child marriages are often the result of arranged marriages, why can be abusive.
Of course everyone can point to instances where that's "not true", but not allowing children to marry until they reach a certain age is a general rule put in place to protect children and vulnerable people.
The strongest argument one can make against child marriage is this: if the love is so strong and marriage is meant to be forever (60 year marriage), then what does it matter if the loving couple get married when the younger person is 15 years old or waiting 3 years? If a relationship is so sensitive that waiting a few years to be formally recognized, then it's probably not that strong to begin with.
Personally speaking, I don't care either way what individuals do. Hell, when I was young and single I loved the idea of gay men in as much as the gay men were usually well dressed, well spoken and would otherwise have outclassed me (I'm generalizing here) in the pursuit of the women I pursued.
What I most strongly disagree with is this strong-arm tactic where you threaten the livelihoods of people who don't openly share your point of view and the politicians arguing that the laws of the land should just be changed since no one is game to openly come out against it. If the plebiscite is held, I think you'll find far more people against the idea than the numbers the polls claim. A bit like the polls that predicted that Trump didn't have chance in hell of winning.
As a great man once said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Musings on the public vs private school debate
This is a copy and paste of a comment I left on an article about public vs private schools at the Monthly:
Living in a large country town that is crowded out by private (mostly Catholic) schools that apparently poach top performing students from public schools, leaving the public schools with 'the leftovers', I'm caught between a rock and a hard place.
I myself went to what was (and still is) a very good public school (I think we got lucky with where we were living at the right time) whereas both of my parents went to private schools and opted for a lifestyle decision not to send me to a private school, mostly based on the good reputation of the local public school.
I'm in the opposite situation as where I'm living with my family is in an area that has pretty terrible public schools (primary and secondary) for the simple reason that the private schools poach the good students and then parents (like me) decide not to send our beloved children to what is a 'failing school', statistically speaking, in favour of one of the more expensive private schools, which in my area consist of moderately priced Catholic schools (a bit hard to get in if your children aren't baptised) or the exorbitantly over-priced non-Catholic schools.
It almost becomes a self fulfilling prophecy because nothing succeeds like success, so parents climb over and sometimes go into debt to send their children to one of the nearby private schools instead of risking their children's education.
My brother and his family are living in the catchment area of a much better performing public school, but oddly enough, should they decide to send their children to the nearby private school, the fees are very reasonable at about $2k per student per year, as opposed to the 'moderately' priced $5k per student per year I'm looking at.
My brother and his family are living in the catchment area of a much better performing public school, but oddly enough, should they decide to send their children to the nearby private school, the fees are very reasonable at about $2k per student per year, as opposed to the 'moderately' priced $5k per student per year I'm looking at.
So, I've got the choices of:
1. Move into the catchment area of a good school - $$$
2. Get my children Baptized so they can attend - deceptive, but I have seen MANY couples do this
3. Put them into the public system and hope they get poached - not helping the public school
4. Put them into the public system and put full support behind it, even going so far as to resist any possible effort for my children to be poached.
1. Move into the catchment area of a good school - $$$
2. Get my children Baptized so they can attend - deceptive, but I have seen MANY couples do this
3. Put them into the public system and hope they get poached - not helping the public school
4. Put them into the public system and put full support behind it, even going so far as to resist any possible effort for my children to be poached.
It's a hard decision to make and I'll never really know if I've done the right thing (unless all of my children become CEO's or Prime Minister) as I'll always wonder if whatever decision I made could have held them back.
Sorry for the long post, but I'll finish with this one piece of information that the original poster may not have been aware: one of the reasons behind my parents, who were both privately schooled, not sending me to private school was that a study had been completed by Melbourne University on the outcomes of students who went public vs private. The outcome was that if a family could easily afford the money, then the slightly improved outcomes were worth the money. If, however, the parents had to scrimp, work two jobs or struggle to put them through, then it wasn't.
Whether this was because of any pressure or resentment from the parents (ie "I'm paying a fortune for you to attend that school, you should be top of the class") or whether it is because the children from wealthy families bully the 'poorer' students (apparently the children work out very quickly whose family isn't wealthy), the conclusion from the study was that the overall outcomes of children has more to do with the home life of the children than what school they went to.
If parents are always out working (to pay for school fees) then of course the children are at a greater risk of falling into bad crowds.
As a guy once pointed out to me when talking about discussing sending his two girls to private school: "for the amount of money my ex-wife is asking me to pay for our daughters' education, I'd rather buy each of them a rental property that I have to put the same amount towards every year and be able to give them each a rental property when they graduate".
I'm not sure which way that guy went, but often times we like to console ourselves that we 'did our best' when raising our children, and all too often the yard stick we measure how much we put into raising our children is measured by how much we spent on their education instead of by how much time we spent with them.
I know many doctors and lawyers who went to public schools and I know quite a few people who went to private schools only to drop out of university or who never went to university.
Whether this was because of any pressure or resentment from the parents (ie "I'm paying a fortune for you to attend that school, you should be top of the class") or whether it is because the children from wealthy families bully the 'poorer' students (apparently the children work out very quickly whose family isn't wealthy), the conclusion from the study was that the overall outcomes of children has more to do with the home life of the children than what school they went to.
If parents are always out working (to pay for school fees) then of course the children are at a greater risk of falling into bad crowds.
As a guy once pointed out to me when talking about discussing sending his two girls to private school: "for the amount of money my ex-wife is asking me to pay for our daughters' education, I'd rather buy each of them a rental property that I have to put the same amount towards every year and be able to give them each a rental property when they graduate".
I'm not sure which way that guy went, but often times we like to console ourselves that we 'did our best' when raising our children, and all too often the yard stick we measure how much we put into raising our children is measured by how much we spent on their education instead of by how much time we spent with them.
I know many doctors and lawyers who went to public schools and I know quite a few people who went to private schools only to drop out of university or who never went to university.
END OF COMMENT:
Further to the above comment, when I look across the people my age who I know went to private schools, not that many of them completed university (some had trouble going from a system that held their hand right through to a self-driven model), so I imagine a few people would be a little annoyed if you'd spent $50k on your child's education for them to end up as a waiter/waitress.
Conversely, I know quite a few people who went public school, who work as real estate agents, supermarkets and as mechanics and who are very happy with their lives, not that the private school people aren't happy, and perhaps they could have done more, but their parents are at least not disappointed in the lost opportunity cost.
I think giving any children I have a (partially paid off) house each in a market that will arguably be very much harder to buy into in 20 years time will provide a much bigger advantage than a $50k education that they may choose to take or leave. The house will probably be worth more than the education would have cost and it would be theirs to do as they wish, removing the need for them to spend the first 5 to 10 years of their working lives scraping together a deposit on a small starter home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)