TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Well said
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]


Posted by Zild on May-30-2008 14:25:

Most people I know almost live paycheck to paycheck and have a bit of debt just to make ends meet. I think you forget that most people don't have college educations nor do they have the luxury of being able to sit around on a computer debating economics with other privileged members of society.


Posted by jerZ07002 on May-30-2008 17:23:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
Most people I know almost live paycheck to paycheck and have a bit of debt just to make ends meet. I think you forget that most people don't have college educations nor do they have the luxury of being able to sit around on a computer debating economics with other privileged members of society.


very true....think about it, everyone is worried about an total increase in gas costs of 5 dollars every fill up. If you are worried about 20 bucks a month, you aren't saving shit.


Posted by Shakka on May-30-2008 20:31:

quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
very true....think about it, everyone is worried about an total increase in gas costs of 5 dollars every fill up. If you are worried about 20 bucks a month, you aren't saving shit.


Sure, or you could also be living beyond your current means.

Funny, I remember this from Psychology class. I think the lesson is applicable here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshmallow_Test

quote:
Deferred gratification or delayed gratification is the ability to wait in order to obtain something that one wants. This ability is usually considered to be a personality trait which is important for life success. Daniel Goleman has suggested that it is an important component of emotional intelligence. People who lack this trait are said to need instant gratification and may suffer from poor impulse control.

Psychoanalysts have argued that people with poor impulse control suffer from "weak ego boundaries". The term comes from Sigmund Freud's theory of personality where the id is the pleasure principle, the superego is the morality principle, and the ego is the reality principle. The ego's job is to satisfy the needs of the id while respecting other people's needs. According to this theory, a person who is unable to delay gratification may possess an unbalanced id that the ego and superego are unable to control.

Poor impulse control may be related to biological factors in the brain. Researchers have found that children with fetal alcohol syndrome are less able to delay gratification.[1]

The marshmallow experiment is a famous test of this concept conducted by Walter Mischel at Stanford University and discussed by Daniel Goleman in his popular work. In the 1960s a group of four-year olds were tested by being given a marshmallow and promised another, only if they could wait 20 minutes before eating the first one. Some children could wait and others could not. The researchers then followed the progress of each child into adolescence, and demonstrated that those with the ability to wait were better adjusted and more dependable (determined via surveys of their parents and teachers), and scored an average of 210 points higher on the Scholastic Aptitude Test.[2]

Another famous impulse control test is the "gift delay," in which children were shown a nicely wrapped gift but told they must complete a puzzle before opening it. Researchers then calculated a "delay score" based on how long the kids hold out. When independent examiners interviewed the test subject years later, they found that boys who had not delayed were "irritable" and that the girls were "sulky." In contrast, the patient boys were "attentive" and the girls "competent." [3]

Currently, a free self-report Delaying Gratification Inventory[4] is available online as a part of a research project conducted by Central Michigan University. The survey describes trait differences in the tendency to delay gratification along six categories as well as a global domain. The survey provides custom personality feedback on this trait.


Obviously not everyone will land the cushy job and have a salary that lets them run wild and binge on so much nonsense, and certainly not everyone is going to get to financial independence, it's silly to think every single person can do it. However, with some foresight and some good planning, everyone can make their futures a lot brighter than they otherwise would've been if they continue their spendthrift ways. I gots to have my cell phone and my cable TVs yo!


Posted by jerZ07002 on May-30-2008 20:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Sure, or you could also be living beyond your current means.


while that's true, 20 buck a month (or so) shouldn't take you to the point where you finally realize you are living past your means.


no kidding about cable and cell phones. what did people do before that? without a cellphone or cable a person could save about 100-150 a month. drop the internet and that's another 40. Those savings should be no less than 150 a month. At a 6.5% annual return over 40 years that comes to 340K. Not bad for a mcdonalds' employee.


Posted by Shakka on May-30-2008 20:53:

No, but $20/month saved for 40 years at 8% gets you $70K! Sorry for the sarcasm.

Bottom Line, there is obviously a gray area where a lack of prudence plays a role, but a lack of disposable income is clearly a limiting factor. However my position is simply that there are a lot more people with the means to save and invest in their future than currently choose to because most people want instant gratification. It's simply their nature. And I still don't think money is everything. People who are so hung up on money soon find out that money can't fill the void that they expect it will.


Posted by jerZ07002 on May-30-2008 20:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Sorry for the sarcasm.

it's all good - see edited post above.


Posted by DJ Shibby on May-31-2008 08:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
Amen.

In fact, it is nearly impossible to make money in a free economy WITHOUT helping others in some way. That is the nature of capitalism. You can't build wealth for yourself without satisfying the needs and desires of others. In a free market, helping your fellow man is the key to your own success. Those who make others HAPPY (whether intentional or not) tend to acquire the most wealth. Very few politicians understand this simple truth. They tend to criticize and punish the successful, which ultimately hurts all of us.


Unless you're a failed oil entrepeneur turned president


Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.