Kids, cars, school & money (long)- your opinions! - The Unofficial BMW M5 Messageboard (m5board.com)

Fang · 12th May 2002, 22:46

Gaspasser (inadvertently) started an interesting topic and several members chimed in re: attitudes towards paying for kid's colleges, cars, etc. My queries:

1) Would you pay for your children's college educations in their entirety if it meant a significant impact on your own lifestyle and spending abilities? Would paying for their educations depend on how well they did or on their displaying a significant effort to do well? Would you continue to pay if they were jerking around in their 5th year majoring in physical education?

2) Would you pay 2-3x as much money for your child to go to a mediocre private school vs an equally good in-state public school (eg. USC vs UCLA/Berkeley; Grambling/Loyola vs Univ of Illinois) if there wasn't a compelling, objective reason? (ie. special programs or a particular major)

3) Would you pay for post-grad education? (med school, law school, etc)?

4) Would you buy your kid a new BMW 330i vs a used Honda Civic/Accord or Ford Taurus in high school if the cost was of no consequence to you?

I only ask because my wife and I went to go watch Spiderman at the local movie theater last night in Naperville, IL (relatively affluent suburb outside of Chicago). I have never seen so many high school kids in one place. Movie tickets are $8.50 apiece, and most of them bought popcorn, pop, etc, and all were dressed in the latest fashions (designer jeans, expensive Nikes, leather jackets, etc). As far as I know, most high schooler's jobs (if they work) pay maybe $7 an hour, which after taxes, doesn't get you too far. To buy a movie ticket, popcorn and a pop = $15- about three hours worth of work. Consequently, I suspect they most of them are heavily subsidized by their parents. A lot of really nice cars too in the parking lot (Acuras, 3-series BMW's, SUV's, etc). I don't know, but IMHO, I don't think anything really good can come out of this- I really doubt any of these kids have any idea how much work, and how hard it is to make enough money to buy $50 jeans or a $30,000 car. Sure you may want your kid to have everything you didn't have, but I think you run the risk of raising a fairly shiftless child who has a strong sense of self-entitlement.

I think there are few things in life more satisfying than being able to by a car like the M5 with money you made with your own sweat and blood!

bobafett · 12th May 2002, 23:20

I'm talking from the other side (recipient), but I know that my parents made some huge sacrifices to make sure I went to the best private schools, didn't have to worry about money (mother's idea to shelter. my father's a believer in learnign through adversity / challenges), got my first car from them (I'm 20 now, and the m5 was mine, but I got my mom's Jag in HS), etc. And while they don't pay for my college education, it's only because I can. Otherwise they would be very willing and I know they will for my sister (who wants to be a dancer or some crap

).

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I represent a very small percentage of kids, and that I definetly feel some sense of entitlement. I mean, it comes with the package, but I know a lot of people in my shoes (our HS had some wildly affluent families - more 3 series cars than anythign else in the parking lot), and I know others with similar backgrounds - and for almost 95% of the kids they turned out to be good people who have some odd quirks but respect hard word, life, family, have a good set of moral values, etc.

As a result of that (and many people will argue), I dont think that spending well on your children will be a direct cause of "raising a fairly shiftles child who has a strong sense of self-entitlement." I'd say it has to do FAR more with HOW you raise that child, especially with some regard to money.

Besides, they've got to do something with themselves later on. I think that most of us (people from my HS, age group, similar experiences) have a pretty good feel for money (there's also a kid who got a 355 spider the night of graduation and used to call me from his dad's plane complaining about how lonely it is ont he way to hawaii), what it takes to make it, the value of it, and respect for it.

Example: my ex's dad had three ferraris while we were in HS, but she had more work-ethic than anyone I've ever known. A good humanitarian (spent a summer in peru working with people), good moral judgement, etc.

So that said, I don't think money corrupts. It's the parents and their approach that makes or breaks the kid.

--Dan

petesamprs · 12th May 2002, 23:39

Bob,

point well taken. It must be great to have an M5 at 20, and that's cool that you have that opportunity. For me, though, not being able to afford what I want right now gives me that "hunger" to succeed. I feel that some of that is lost when you're given everything to early.

That leads to the ultimate catch-22, which Dinesh D'souza's book "The Virtue of Prosperity" points out: You work hard your whole life to lead a life of prosperity for yourself, but in doing so you end up taking away from your kids the drive that got you there. Can you really live in a mansion with servants, drive a ferrari, and get your kids a new BMW at 16, and still give your kids the same drive as if they didn't have it all? I'm tempted to answer no.

bobafett · 13th May 2002, 00:35

Well, I got mine through my own work, not the parents.

Sure, i think giving your kids a ferrari is a bit screwy, if for no other reason than he'll never have anything faster to aspire to

.

Regarding hunger, hey, I totally hear you about not having it driving you get it. It makes sense, but I'm not a believer (at least completely), that money is the hunger-killer.

Point in case: my partner in business is here at Stanford for college. He grew up in London, went to Eton, his father is the Chairman of Morgan Stanley International, etc. So needless to say, having been given $25k fly fishing rods and $50k shotguns for shoots, he's had it well. And he doesn't work for his cash, he has an allowance. But, he is one of the most cash-conscious people I've ever met. I think his position has only led to his credit, as he's worldly about things mere mortals only dream of, has had experiences I only wish I could have, and yet maintains a practicality about it.

For example, he's now making money on his own (or we have been together,f or a while), but refuses to buy a porsche before 25 at the earliest, because he doesn't feel it's age appropriate. He has an S4 and considers that a bit too much. Drove a Golf in high school. And the drive? The guy earned top-notch intern positions at top companies through his own hard work and skill (he has a 3.9 @ Stanford, not an easy feat), and when it comes to business drive, he is crazy.

Hundreds of millions of dollars around him, and he's more determined (and more cash-aware in the sense that he understands it better) than nearly every guy who hasn't had it but has the 'hunger.'

Sure, I won't buy my kids a ferrari. that's just silly. But to say a $500 tercel is good enough is stupid as well. Think of it this way (in the crudest of forms). You spend millions of dollars in food, money, clothes, opportunity costs, etc. raising your child. Then you're going to protect him with a $500 car? No thanks.

--Dan

Fang · 13th May 2002, 00:43

Dan, I'm not completely sure I'd agree that "95%" of kids in that situation end up with a good head on their shoulders, as humanitarians, hard working, and truly appreciate what they have (sorry, bad sentence structure). I think that a much smaller percentage of high school grads in any socio-economic level would fit into that category. Also, at 20, while the parental economic support is still intact (I'm not referring to you, but more as a general statement), it may be a bit premature to make a definite assessment regarding that person's character. I think that someone's behavior in more difficult times, economic or otherwise, may be a better reflection of their true nature... but you are also right- money in itself probably does not corrupt but there are some attitudes and behavior patterns that often accompany "money" that do corrupt. The problem is dissociating the two- and that is very difficult to do as a parent, I suspect.

That leads into petesampras's comment- being a "have not" is often a significant driving force to "succeed". My friends and I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood, where nobody had cars in high school, had limos for prom, shopped for designer clothes, or even thought about asking our parents for weekly "allowances"- because we knew they didn't have the money, and they were doing their best to make ends meet and help save as much as possible for our college educations. I didn't feel like I deserved x, y or z, and didn't spend much time thinking about these things either because of it. But I knew that I had to work hard to have the opportunity to have a more comfortable life, and this drove all of us to study hard, be good kids, appreciate what our parents were doing, and eventually all 15 or so of us went to top colleges and graduate schools. I'm not sure what would have happened if everything was handed to us back then, but I think the outcome would not have been as good...

Boston m57777 · 13th May 2002, 00:51

As a recipient also, my parents have sacrificed alot for me to go to private schools from first grade...and I appreciate everything because money and cars can be taken away but a good education cannot. I am in the process of going to law school and yes my parents will pay for it, I am thankful and happy that I can afford to go to the best schools. But when it comes to ones children I would most definatly send them to the best schools possible because its not only what they do in school but the connections that they make with powerful people that usualy are at top notch schools. Hey and if you want buy your kid a 330 because at expensive private schools most kids are sporting nice rides. haha... Anyway EDUCATION IS MORE VALUABLE THEN ANY MATERIAL OBJECT.

bobafett · 13th May 2002, 00:57

Fang: good point on two cases: 1) adversity as a true test. You're right, but I'm tryign to make an assessment based on what I've seen. I mean, those guys might be hit with bankruptcy tomorrow and never make it out, become drug addicts to not deal with it, etc. But I have a sneaking suspicion that while some will, a lot won't.

Two, I know you're not referring to me, but to lend myself a bit of credibility I've definetly seen the other side. I've got a pretty interesting family history and I can certainly tell you I've been in situations where selling a car to keep a house to pay the bills to eat some food has been the case also. My father's life has been a complete yo-yo, as was his fathers, so I've been in times where bankruptcy was almost certanily the only option, and other times when I had a hundred million to my name in a trust (don't ask me to tell you how you go from one extreme to the other).

Disassociating money from other factors is impossible in many regards. I mean, it's always there. You can't avoid the stuff. But I think it's a true test of a parent to see how they CAN do so, or how they can at least lend responsibility to the equation.

Ok, so maybe you bought your kid an SLK or a 330ci for high school, but what if that kid is going to Harvard next year because their GPA is through the roof, SATs are good and they are a national merit semifinalist. Or what if they are embarassed to drive the thing because they know it's what most people don't have. or they just don't care because they'd much rather be focused on why people even in the bay area are homeless and what they can do about it.

My point is, I've seen all of those and while a lot of times the parents have messed up, a lot of them get it right too. I don't think you have to have a lack of money in order to instill certain values. In fact, if that's the case, my thought is that there's something wrong with the parents.

Of course, being at my age, I could have no f'ing clue what I'm talking about also.

--Dan

NinaBoston · 13th May 2002, 00:59

Going to school in the Boston area, which has hundreds of schools, I see kids who are over-moneyed and under-educated all the time. But I also see a few people from families high up on the Forbes billionaire list who are grateful, work super-hard, are truly intelligent, are active and contributing students, and realize that money gives them the freedom and opportunity to do more in the world (beyond the noblesse oblige that comes from going to Harvard, haha). Interestingly, it's these nice kids who actually have 1000 times more money than the partiers, but it's the nice kids who display a relative 1/1000th of their wealth. Hunh.

Anyway, I know that whichever the type of rich kid, they will never have to work as hard as I and other normal kids do for each increment of success, and they will never force themselves to work as hard, simply because they don't have the pressure of "If I don't succeed, I will have to live in a cardboard box." My dad said something during lunch to the effect of "the best boxer is a hungry boxer." I dunno, it's kinda corny, my dad likes boxing, but you get the point.

The "problem" I see with some [note, SOME] trust fund kids is that they don't realize that there is nothing inherent in their character or in their worth as humans that gives them any right to the privileges they enjoy. If anything, they demonstrate a great disparity between class and wealth. They had the luck to be born to their parents, but what beyond that? It's not even as if they simply like being wealthy and showing off their money and that's that. They genuinely act as if they believe that their parents' money makes them better than anyone with (parents who have) less money.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but man... you should see some of these kids in Boston, and oh lordy how many of them there are. They're certainly not getting an education, but it's not like they need one b/c they're heading straight to daddy's company anyway after graduation (or flunking out, whichever). College is just a time to party and show off mommy and daddy's money until it's time for them to go home and "work."

Wow I sound really *****y. But I think I'm all the more *****y b/c I do see a lot of trust fund kids who do a lot in this world and are great people, so the contrast between the nice kids and the others make the latter that much more revolting. [ratio between nice kids and brats is, according to my observations, 1:30-50, and even that number is inflated b/c I all the nice kids go to my own school]. The distinguishing element, to me, does seem to be parenting and family closeness.

No, I'm against all rich kids, just the ones who falsely believe that they deserve the riches, and that those riches alone make them better than others. And who knows, maybe their behavior during college is just a phase and they'll turn out to be wonderful people I'd be glad to know. But for someone who enjoys college primarily through the generosity of financial aid, right now it's pretty damn annoying to be near them or even be aware of their existence.

So while I certainly will want my kids to be comfortable, I'm all for withholding my wealth (when I get it) from them until I think they've had a work ethic instilled in them through an understanding of where I started and how hard I had to work. I will spare no expense on education only, but if they complain that I gave them a 10-speed bike instead of a 3-series, they're getting a broad-handed smack in the head. Repeated, if needed. End rant.

bobafett · 13th May 2002, 00:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Boston m57777
EDUCATION IS MORE VALUABLE THEN ANY MATERIAL OBJECT.

The value of a good education simply can't be compared. Networking aside (and I'm a BIG beliiever in it, just look at HBS), people can take away your cars, your house, your money, everything. But they can't take away what you can do with your hands and your mind. (Now I *am* my father

), and with those tools, if you got it once, you can get it again.

--Dan

bobafett · 13th May 2002, 01:02

Nina: but don't you think the difference lies in parenting and values instilled? Noblesse oblige and the like? Not inherent in the dollar amounts.

--Dan