I landed my first job out of business school with the Big-4 through a fraternity brother from my fancy private college (which I would not be able to afford on my own).
One of the first clients I worked on was a well-known multi-billion dollar company that coincidently had the same name as the last name of one of the members of my new hire class. He is now the COO of that company.
A few years later I took a job that propelled me into six figures and management partially because I knew a bunch of people from that earlier Big-4 job, as well from as my fancy private college.
One of the interns at that job happened to be dating a Senior Managing Director’s daughter at their Ivy League school (which I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own). She also happened to be an intern. I believe he broke up with her a short time after accepting a full-time offer.
Don’t get me wrong. All these people have the education and credentials to be in these jobs. But so do a lot of people.
There are other, more common advantages. Besides networking with your former classmates, there is a definite halo effect from going to a top school. Better off families have more time for a kid to be in more activities in high school which colleges like. Richer kids take college test prep classes, which help. Odds are you get more cultural experiences - trips to Europe, trips to museums, more books.
And there is advice from parents who’ve been there. I went to grad school blind - my parents knew nothing of such things. When my daughter went I was able to give her advice and she had an easier time of it.
Hey! I represent that remark! (Including the aged Toyota…)
For some of us, that actually sounds pretty good. YMMV. Frankly, I wouldn’t know what to do with a lavish mansion. My income may not be as high but neither are my bills.
I guess what peeves me are people who think the 80-100 job + keeping up with the Jones is the ONLY way to live. It’s not.
I quite agree it’s not. I have the job I do because I’m lazy, not because it pays well. That it finally did start paying well very late in the game has been welcome. But was nice-to-have, not need-to-have.
What confuses me is the folks who claim they can’t imagine somebody else wanting to climb to the top, wanting to become a fatcat, or at least a high earning whatever. Those folks confuse me more than do driven types, or just-coast-along types.
Depends on the area. I’m in a $300k Silicon Valley software job, and there must be tens of thousands of people making what I make locally in the industry. I don’t have a mansion, just a modest home and I drive a used car. I used to work crazy hours because I liked it, now not so much but I still will work weekends if I’m enjoying the project and there’s not much to do (especially in the covid era). If I hadn’t gotten divorced I’d maybe be retired early, now I’ll retire at 65 with a good, not spectacular lifestyle. Live modestly but travel overseas, staying at AirBnB level pricing, several weeks a year.
Yeah, that’s the thing that confuses me as well. Why is it so hard to imagine people aspiring to something beyond a life of mediocrity? Some people want to do thinks like run companies, work on highly complex technical problems, or just make a shit-ton of money. It’s not some sort of character flaw to actually be competitive, want nice things, or to have a high standard of living.
Some of us who have NOT adopted the 80-100 work week don’t view it as “mediocrity.” The value judgements that pop up unintentionally in these discussions are interesting.
I view it as a matter of priorities. You can probably guess, since I went to art school, then married a musician (and not even a rock’n’roll type that might, just might, replace Mick in the Rolling Stones when he finally retires but a guy who played tuba and bagpipes for a living) making a shit-ton of money was never my number one priority. Even so, I managed to hit every item on my first bucket list by 45 (I’m working on the Bucket List, the Sequel), I’m not in debt, I live quite comfortably if modestly, and I’m setting up for a modest retirement. I think I’ve had a pretty successful and rich life, even if not a wealthy one.
On the other hand, if someone’s top number one priority IS making a shit-ton of money so they can retire by 35 and never need to work another day in their life - that’s fine with me.
And other people are fortunate to find a passion that pays well and may thrive on 80 hour weeks because they’re doing what they love, whether it makes them a shit-ton of money or not.
The above goals require certain choices in order to achieve them, and work, and all can be counted successful. Yay diversity, right?
Some people do get into trouble when they don’t realize that there will be trade-offs. Some people start down one path and stubbornly keep at it even when they start to realize that maybe what they thought they want isn’t what they really want deep down, or what they thought would make them happy doesn’t. That’s an issue, too.
I guess my checklist is:
Can this person pay their bills?
Is this person happy?
Is anyone else harmed by how they are managing their life?
I think my reaction to this is its inherent frame.
It implies purity, nobility, and superiority are accorded to the higher earners and sloth, misery, and disgrace are the providence of the middle- and lower-class … even if that wasn’t at all your intention.
I posted something elsewhere on SD this morning that may be relevant:
As a former VP of a couple different publicly-traded corporations, I’m here to tell ya’: it’s very hard to be ethical and move upward in many/most of these jobs and organizations.
No all-or-nothing aspersions cast here, but some people utterly don’t want to be in that position. There’s simply nothing material that they want badly enough to screw people over day in and day out.
Just another perspective. YMMV. Trained professional. Closed course.
The latter (“mediocre”) strikes me as way too much of a value judgment.
It’s like saying that your friend’s wife is “okay. Maybe the best he could do,” where – in reality – she’s the love of his life.
It’s not a question of more vs. less (as we frame it in this country). It’s just different.
Some people love their families, their kids, their hobbies, and just having free time. They shouldn’t be vilified, just as workaholics who crave unimaginable riches shouldn’t be vilified for that.
Now how they go about getting those riches may be subject to some onlooker skepticism and criticism
They live a very modest lifestyle. But their goal is not money or “worldly success”, it’s conforming to a lifestyle they find emotionally and spiritually satisfying. A highly successful Amish family might successfully farm a holding, raise a dozen children, the husband might be a local minister, the mother a homemaker/farmwife who, after raising her own children helps raise her grandchildren, they engage in their religious practices in accordance with community standards, their peers hold them in high regard, and they go to bed at night content and happy. That’s actually not mediocre at all, it’s a lot of hard work and effort, for a lifestyle that can still be called “modest” and a family that might never have a lot of money or material wealth. Someone else might look at them and say "ew, who would want to live like that?" but if they’re happy and able to fulfill their responsibilities who cares?
Your success should be measure by your goals, not by someone else’s yardstick.
So your definition of modest is someone who owns 70 acres of farmland with a home large enough for 14+ people working at least two jobs. I can say I aspire to that level of modesty since the land alone would be worth over a million dollars.
My mother-in-law’s boss is a minister (why he’s her boss) and owns part of the family farm which he uses to support 10 kids and they own abrewery and malt house that uses some of the grain they farm. My brother-in-law’s parents owns 100 acres of lemon orchard and had 7 kids. In both cases replicating their modest life would take millions of dollars and both of those family’s have net worths of 3-5 million and are certainly some of the richest families I know.
I am basing the holding on this article That shows an average holding as 70-80 acres. If you’re talking about someone who is a tenant farmer and using foodstamps to support their family who will work until they die the I would agree/argue that is a mediocre life no matter how content they are.
And yet, because that family doesn’t own a flashy mansion, drive fancy cars, take foreign vacation, have advanced degrees, etc. there are other people who would regard them as foolish or crazy.
If that doesn’t work for you… How about someone who makes pottery for a living, owns or rents only a modest home, makes enough to pay the bills but not much more, but is happy making pottery every day?
I get it you keep trying to find edge cases that aren’t mediocre and modest at the same time. To do so you are looking at people who own their own businesses and/or have millions of dollars in equity.
I think the husband and wife who work as teachers with a household income of $94k/year with two kids and a 3 bed/2bath track home worth $600k that they owe $400k with both of them driving late model Subarus is the fat middle overlap of mediocre and modest.
So my household income is about $200K, I have about $400K in equity in my house. Said house is in NYC, so it’s not the mansion you might be imagining if you are from elsewhere - 3 small bedrooms, one full bathroom and it’s on a 20x100 lot, My husband drives a 2015 Honda and I have a 2020 Honda. Neither of us works more than 40 hours a week regularly ( we might have a busy week or two a year). We go on a couple of vacations and a few long weekends. Paid for college for two kids and grad school for one. I don’t know if my lifestyle is modest or not ( I didn’t think it was before reading this thread) but I don’t see any way it could be described as “mediocre” which , after all, implies a judgement that whatever is being called “mediocre” is not very good.
Ah. In other words, you regard such a person as myself, with less than $50,000 in assets, as a failure even if my bills are paid and I’m happy. Got it. OK, noted.
I have a friend who grew up in a tony east-coast suburb, and ended up as a professor at a modest midwestern university. He shops at Walmart, and sent his kids to public school. He says the greatest revelation he had as he adapted to that lifestyle is that mediocre is pretty darn good.
Money and “assets”. Have a family farm? You’re rich! (never mind any taxes or other problems attached). Have a house? You’re rich!. Rent? You’re a loser!
I think for @Oredigger77 it does - note that no matter how I try to give an example of a modest but successful lifestyle he has to claim that the successful person is also wealthy, has assets, etc.
Clearly, for that poster if you don’t have money or assets you’re a failure.
