My daughter's home is worth half a million...

[August1991]

For example, my daughter attended day care from the time she was 3. She got her first job when she was 14 and has worked ever since, all through school to graduation, and college, and is now a business owner. Her partner and her, they are in their later 20's, own their own home worth about a half million now.....

People take pride in their accomplishments. But they also take pride in accomplishing more than others and they are ashamed to admit failure.

We live in a rich country where everyone - without exception - lives well if they choose to. Yet, there are still winners and losers, relatively speaking.

On this forum, I sense that many posters want to make it plain that they are doing well - better than others.

Born and raised in Canada, I lived and worked abroad for many years before moving to Montreal a few years ago. IMV, Canada is a rich country and yet many Canadians feel poor since they compare themselves constantly to others. In this, Canada is like a small village where everyone is looking at what others have.

I'll go further. It seems to me that English Canadian Leftists are Left because they have a chip on their shoulder. They feel hard done by. They're the kid in the family that Mom didn't like.

In downtown Montreal recently, I had a chat with a Tunisian friend. Her husband died a few months ago of cancer. She said to me, "If someone asked me to dance naked in the street over there, it would make no difference whether I did or I didn't."

How important is one's absolute position in life compared to one's relative position?

[gc1765]

I'll go further. It seems to me that English Canadian Leftists are Left because they have a chip on their shoulder. They feel hard done by. They're the kid in the family that Mom didn't like.

Where did you get that idea??? Care to elaborate?

I do agree with the overall theme of your post though. People don't care how "rich" they are, they only care how rich they are compared to others. I guess humans are competitive by nature.

[jbg]

Beautiful post, and it shows a true love of country.

[Canuck E Stan]

The perception is that because of the way this parent brought up this child, the child has become successful.

So to this proud parent this is what is important in the measure of success.

Having a half a million dollar home.

More important, here we have a parent who talks about environmental issues,social issues and issues of poverty like it's relevant to what people in this country should strive for, for our children, but prefers to measure the success of their own children based on real estate prices.

Lump this Leftie in with the others like Gore,Suzuki, and all the movie stars who want the world to change for the good of mankind, but in reality it's just an illusion to try to fool others and to make themselves feel better about issues.

Success in life based on real estate value......sorry...as a parent I think not.

[Catchme]

The perception is that because of the way this parent brought up this child, the child has become successful.

So to this proud parent this is what is important in the measure of success.

Having a half a million dollar home.

More important, here we have a parent who talks about environmental issues,social issues and issues of poverty like it's relevant to what people in this country should strive for, for our children, but prefers to measure the success of their own children based on real estate prices.

Lump this Leftie in with the others like Gore,Suzuki, and all the movie stars who want the world to change for the good of mankind, but in reality it's just an illusion to try to fool others and to make themselves feel better about issues.

Success in life based on real estate value......sorry...as a parent I think not.

Canuck E Stan, August took my comment completely out of contextual value, and now you are using it to trash talk me.

blueblood and I, were discussing what he meant by children being raised proprerly, as he inferred they were not being raised properly if they went to a day care.

I asked him what did raised properly mean, and he responded to ME, that it was a hard working member of society that worked and carried their own weight.

So, I responded back with the example, that my daughter had gone to day care from the time she was 3, and and thereby gave him an example that showed day care had little to do with children not being properly raised by his standards. Moreover, had you read the thread that august pulled from, for some weird reason of his own, instead of deciding to attack me, you would've have read they rennovated their home they purchased to make it worth that much. Plus holding down full times jobs and part time jobs.

Nor did I ever infer they better than, nor was I even measuring their success as a person on real estate prices.

It sure takes some kinda people to take things out of contextual value just to try and trash talk someone else. Hope you feel better as a person for it!

[ft.niagara]

To have a half a million dollar home, depending on property taxes, would be roughly three times income. 500/3=167 167/2=83.5 each. For an early twenty something, that is pretty good. Of course, there is how much was it bought for, not how much is it worth. Also, on sale, you never get 100%, etc, etc. Also, how much equity exists, morgage length and type.

[Charles Anthony]

I would like to spell out what I believe is a basic message from this thread: people insist on judging themselves by comparison with other people and their accomplishments.

A half-million dollar home varies in real value everywhere in Canada, let alone everywhere within a province or a city. I will assume the "owners" of this "home" live in Canada.

The title of the Opening Post says "home is worth" but it is possible to borrow money to make a purchase. Most people in the neighborhood have no idea whether a "home" is mortgaged or owned. The Opening Quote says "own their own home worth" whatever. I must assume that it is NOT mortgaged nor are there any liens etc.

Every time I hear the term "home" I am reminded of a high school English teacher who attempted to explain the subtleties of language. He said the term "home" sounds comforting and the term "house" sounds cold. I could not resist putting up my hand to let him know that myself and my siblings were raised in a rental apartment. The term "house" can sound warm and the term "home" can sound like a cold euphemism.

In downtown Montreal recently, I had a chat with a Tunisian friend. Her husband died a few months ago of cancer. She said to me, "If someone asked me to dance naked in the street over there, it would make no difference whether I did or I didn't."

This reminds me of a story my mother loved to recount about a similar observation in Paris when she first visited in the 1960's. An immigrant (not Tunisian but from Eastern Europe) told her that she loved living in Paris because of the freedom: she could walk down the street wearing a flower-pot for a hat and nobody would stop her.

I'll go further. It seems to me that English Canadian Leftists are Left because they have a chip on their shoulder. They feel hard done by. They're the kid in the family that Mom didn't like.

I think your characterization is too kind. I would say they are neurotically jealous. They are the kid in the family who never learns to put themselves in other people's shoes. They think Mom did not like them and they never grow up to respect nor to appreciate the sacrifice made by their Mom (or by other people, for that matter) on their behalf.

It is normal for children to be entirely self-centered but only up until the age of about two years. Beyond that, it is normal for children to begin to share.

Quote of the week:

We live in a rich country where everyone - without exception - lives well if they choose to.

That same high school English teacher said that sometimes when he is up all night marking papers, he envies the hoboes living on the street who have less responsibility.

August my example was only to show how way off base some are if they feel day care does not allow for children to be properly raised.

Your example seems to define "properly raised" by what was accomplished materially by your daughter. You referred to the concept of "love" once with reference to your daughter's daughter but not with reference to your daughter per se.

You also referred to the concept of "well adjusted" with respect to your daughter's daughter. What does that mean??

I asked him what did raised properly mean, and he responded to ME, that it was a hard working member of society that worked and carried their own weight.

Nobody carries their own weight.

I will conclude this post with a comparison.

Let us compare two situations: a child being raised by his parents and the same child being raised by somebody else. Which situation would lend itself to the elderly parents being thrown in a nursing home once that child becomes an adult???

[Leafless]

More important, here we have a parent who talks about environmental issues,social issues and issues of poverty like it's relevant to what people in this country should strive for, for our children, but prefers to measure the success of their own children based on real estate prices.

Lump this Leftie in with the others like Gore,Suzuki, and all the movie stars who want the world to change for the good of mankind, but in reality it's just an illusion to try to fool others and to make themselves feel better about issues.

Success in life based on real estate value......sorry...as a parent I think not.

Good one! Ha-ha-ha-ha.

[Catchme]

Charles Anthony said:I would like to spell out what I believe is a basic message from this thread: people insist on judging themselves by comparison with other people and their accomplishments.

The home was not even the point of the original thread context that august took this from. And it is NOT about, for me, people insisting on judging themselves in comparison with others people and their accomplishments. Though apparently some have tried to make it appear so. It WAS about BLUEBLOOD's definition of children being properly raised and how they were not if they were raised in a day care and my taking exception to HIS premise.

Your example seems to define "properly raised" by what was accomplished materially by your daughter. You referred to the concept of "love" once with reference to your daughter's daughter but not with reference to your daughter per se.

You also referred to the concept of "well adjusted" with respect to your daughter's daughter. What does that mean??

Again, this is all taken out of context, I was merely exampling for blueblood, because that is his concept of productive being based on the material NOT mine. It was HIS definition of what properly raised meant, NOT MINE.

And this response was framed, only in regards to having a child attending day care, and his belief that those children who were attending day care did not know how to work and be productive members of society. My response was showing him that it was spurious and inaccurate to hold a position such as that.

It is certainly is not my definition. Again, it was an example only, of how erroneous his assumption that children who go to day care cannot be raised properly according to his, blueblood's, material definition, as opposed to being raised at home. But go ahead, jump on the bandwagon too, and overlook my saying it is blueblood's definition of properly raised being, what is accomplished materially, x3, not mine.

And regarding my granddaughter being well adjusted it was also in regards to her attending day care and also being well adjusted. You see this is the problem with august's taking this snip out of the original thread context, just so people such as yourself could trash me, and no one knowing what the contextual value of the words actually were.

It seems, there are always those, such as yourself, who want to hop on the band wagon, no matter how wrong they are in their premise and assumptions. And it is interesting to see, how they like to judge other people according to what they personally believe to be correct.

BTW, not that it is any of your business, but my daughter and I, are extremely close, unlike some families I know, where the mother stayed at home full time. In my opinion, her material success is because she is; deeply spiritual, honest, loving and warm hearted, and giving to her country and community, plus being a hard worker. And in my original post, I noted that, I felt it was the nature of the person, that was the foundation of who they were, and what they would do, as opposed to day care versus mom at home scenario dictating what they do. Parental input, can be a factor, but not always the major one.

Nobody carries their own weight.

I disagree, if they are working beyond the individual hours needed, as dictated by the carrying capacity of the society, they most certainly are carrying their own weight, plus more than.

Let us compare two situations: a child being raised by his parents and the same child being raised by somebody else. Which situation would lend itself to the elderly parents being thrown in a nursing home once that child becomes an adult???

Neither, it is the relationship between the parent and child, the situation at hand, plus many more factors, it is no matter if they were raised by mom at home or attended day care.

If you think because a mom stays at home with the child/children that would mean ergo the child will look after the aging parent, instead of putting them in a home, you had better think again.

[White Doors]

It seems there are always those who want to hop on the band wagon no matter how wrong they are in their premise and assumptions.

Ironic statement of the day!!!

[sideshow]

I would think that economic prosperity would be a part of a persons "success".

I measure my success in life in several ways. In order of importance:

Family. I am happily married, have healthy, intelligent, beautiful children. I am close to my parents, my siblings, my inlaws, and my wifes siblings.

Health. My family (for the most part) has their health. Being physically and mentally able to do things we love is important. (this is not a success, but rather a part of what makes me happy and fullfilled in life)

Career. I have a job that is the most satisfying career (to me) that I can imagine. I wouldn't change careers for twice the money as I love going to work, feel completely satisfied in every aspect, and have a sense of duty and accomplishment.

Economics. I have a nice home, a few "toys" and nice vehicles. I have better than some, worse than others, but I don't really care what they have. My home meets MY needs. I will comfortably be able to put my kids through college, and help them out as they grow and mature. And I am fortunate enough to have been able to put some funds away for retirement, and I have a comfortable retirement plan in effect. Will I be jetsetting the world in retirement? No. But I will be able to do modest travelling, and basically enjoy doing the things that make me happy.

Education. I am proud of my educational accomplishments. Learning is a growing experience, and I think life long learning is important for mental health.

So I understand why Catchme used the illustration of his child to show her "success." Because economics are an important part of ones life.

[Figleaf]

We live in a rich country where everyone - without exception - lives well if they choose to.

Crrrrrrap!

I'll go further. It seems to me that English Canadian Leftists are Left because they have a chip on their shoulder. They feel hard done by. They're the kid in the family that Mom didn't like.

Well, I can't speak for leftists, but I sure know a specious generalization when I hear one. And I just heard a big one.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony and August1991,

I think your characterization is too kind. I would say they are neurotically jealous. They are the kid in the family who never learns to put themselves in other people's shoes. They think Mom did not like them and they never grow up to respect nor to appreciate the sacrifice made by their Mom (or by other people, for that matter) on their behalf.

What an utter load of crap. Not to mention a lowbrow generalization akin to racial slurs or epithets (eg; all [insert derogatory race name here] are a bunch of thieving, filthy @^@#$$#s), which I had previously thought as being beneath you two. Perhaps I will (jokingly, of course) add a generalization of my own...

It is normal for children to be entirely self-centered but only up until the age of about two years. Beyond that, it is normal for children to begin to share

So, when do right-wingers revert back to those days of self-centred infantile behaviour and become capitalists? Well educated and shrewd 2 year olds?

According to this line of thought, people like Siddharta Guatama and Jesus were foolish (and poor) misguided fops.

[August1991]

It was not positively so stated, but the consensus seemed to be that Bertha Shanklin had shown poor taste in dying so soon and thus embarrassing the local Nimrod. 'There, but for the grace of God, go I,' said several citizens; like most people who quote this ambiguous saying, they had never given a moment's thought to its implications. As for Mary Dempster, I never heard her name mentioned. Thus I learned two lessons: that popularity and good character are not related, and that compassion dulls the mind faster than brandy.

[geoffrey]

We live in a rich country where everyone - without exception - lives well if they choose to.

Crrrrrrap!

August is right here, your attitude is what is the problem in Canada. People are told they can't, and because the average Joe ain't that bright, he believes them. One of the most proven programs to get 'First Nations' people out of poverty is having them start their own businesses, people take pride in their accomplishments and expand on them. They become role models to others.

Anything you want in Canada can be yours if you want it, without exception. Material or otherwise.

[Figleaf]

We live in a rich country where everyone - without exception - lives well if they choose to.

Crrrrrrap!

August is right here, your attitude is what is the problem in Canada. People are told they can't, and because the average Joe ain't that bright, he believes them. One of the most proven programs to get 'First Nations' people out of poverty is having them start their own businesses, people take pride in their accomplishments and expand on them. They become role models to others.

Anything you want in Canada can be yours if you want it, without exception. Material or otherwise.

Crrrrrrrrrraaaaaaap!

[Charles Anthony]

Crrrrrrrrrraaaaaaap!

Now I am finally convinced!

It WAS about BLUEBLOOD's definition of children being properly raised and how they were not if they were raised in a day care and my taking exception to HIS premise.

Understood -- now. However, your reply did NOT take exception to his premise and you never offered a definition of your own. Your reply presented material accomplishments as a representation of success.

And this response was framed, only in regards to having a child attending day care, and his belief that those children who were attending day care did not know how to work and be productive members of society. My response was showing him that it was spurious and inaccurate to hold a position such as that.

Correct. However, you could have also said that your daughter

- loves you

- sells girl-guide cookies

- plays the organ in church

- reduces, reuses and recycles

- volunteers at the local soup kitchen

- teaches yoga at the community center

- is a member of the parent-teacher-student council

- rattles a Salvation Army kettle every Christmas time

- sponsors Fool Trade coffee production in third world countries

- spends a day at the local cooperative nursery school once a month

All of the above (may certainly have questionable results but) conceivably can be done with the intent of being "productive members of society" but you distinctly described a narrow set of accomplishments.

And regarding my granddaughter being well adjusted it was also in regards to her attending day care and also being well adjusted. You see this is the problem with august's taking this snip out of the original thread context, just so people such as yourself could trash me, and no one knowing what the contextual value of the words actually were.

I am not trashing you but you are still not explaining what you mean by "well adjusted" for a child. Saying "well adjusted" sounds like a compromise. Is something being compromised? I think so: attention.

I will say this (and I am sure you can figure my opinion out by now) to be clear of my stand: unless the parents are bad, day-care is trash compared to a child being raised at home.

It seems, there are always those, such as yourself, who want to hop on the band wagon, no matter how wrong they are in their premise and assumptions. And it is interesting to see, how they like to judge other people according to what they personally believe to be correct.

I personally believe that day-care is wrong compared to a child being raised at home. I believe it is wrong because a child needs unconditional love -- none of that can be provided from day care.

BTW, not that it is any of your business, but my daughter and I, are extremely close, unlike some families I know, where the mother stayed at home full time. In my opinion, her material success is because she is; deeply spiritual, honest, loving and warm hearted, and giving to her country and community, plus being a hard worker.

You made it the business of this thread and you have finally expressed characteristics of your daughter which are more profound than material success.

as opposed to day care versus mom at home scenario dictating what they do. Parental input, can be a factor, but not always the major one.

I believe parental input (even in the vast "mom dictating what they do" generalization) is a major factor.

I disagree, if they are working beyond the individual hours needed, as dictated by the carrying capacity of the society, they most certainly are carrying their own weight, plus more than.

What does "dictated by the carrying capacity of the society" mean?

You consume things that you do not make. You trade your labor for money and you trade your money for consumption.

When you are very young and when you are very old, you depend on other people. Nobody carries their own weight.

If you think because a mom stays at home with the child/children that would mean ergo the child will look after the aging parent, instead of putting them in a home, you had better think again.

My mom will not have to think again.

My dear LoneBag,

So, when do right-wingers revert back to those days of self-centred infantile behaviour and become capitalists? Well educated and shrewd 2 year olds?

Are you a$$uming my age? How old do you think I am??

Your choice of "revert" is poor.

Some people continue in the same normal direction and realize that they must cooperate with other people. Part of that realization involves an appreciation for the fact that nobody carries their own weight.

Some people continue in a different direction. They go from self-centered infantile behavior to selfish adult behavior.

I suppose some people can remain in a state of confusion.

According to this line of thought, people like Siddharta Guatama and Jesus were foolish (and poor) misguided fops.

Right now, I do not give a damn to go do any research about Buddha but using Jesus as an example in your post is foolish -- at best. I am sure that Jesus can carry a lot more weight than either of us can imagine.

[Figleaf]

Crrrrrrrrrraaaaaaap!

Now I am finally convinced!

Surely the bald statement 'crap' is at least as convincing as the implausible and unsupported expatiations of naivety we've just heard from Geoffry and August about everyone's unlimited access to perfect happiness. Crap it is.

[Mad_Michael]

How important is one's absolute position in life compared to one's relative position?

Absolute position seems to be entirely irrelevant.

Almost every study upon the topic suggests that humans are overwhelming affected by relative positions.

Btw, given the value of your daughter's home, I suspect you don't live in Toronto or Vancouver.

[Catchme]

It WAS about BLUEBLOOD's definition of children being properly raised and how they were not if they were raised in a day care and my taking exception to HIS premise.

Understood -- now. However, your reply did NOT take exception to his premise and you never offered a definition of your own. Your reply presented material accomplishments as a representation of success.

Splitting hairs charles, I was, and did, take exception to premise of children cannot be raised properly if they attend day care. In order to do this I wanted to know what he meant by properly, as properly is subjective, eh? Anyway I do not want to go further with this the original topic is long gone, and yet somehow this one continues. Again apparently as a platform to trash me.

And this response was framed, only in regards to having a child attending day care, and his belief that those children who were attending day care did not know how to work and be productive members of society. My response was showing him that it was spurious and inaccurate to hold a position such as that.

Correct. However, you could have also said that your daughter...All of the above (may certainly have questionable results but) conceivably can be done with the intent of being "productive members of society" but you distinctly described a narrow set of accomplishments.

Why would I have said all of the above, we were discussing blueblood's perception of properly raised and his day care topic.

I am not trashing you but you are still not explaining what you mean by "well adjusted" for a child. Saying "well adjusted" sounds like a compromise. Is something being compromised? I think so: attention.

Yes, indeed you are, a bit of intellectual honesty would be in order, do you not think?!

Well adjusted, is again a subjective realization, the contextual value is only important based upon POV. Maybe well adjusted to you sounds like a compromise, however, such is not the case. I have come across a good amount of children who spent every moment and every day of their early childhood with their mother and they certainly were not well adjusted, and by all intense purposes their individuality and self-esteem, had suffered because of their mother's over attention.

I will say this (and I am sure you can figure my opinion out by now) to be clear of my stand: unless the parents are bad, day-care is trash compared to a child being raised at home.

That would be your subjective position, and bad parents is also your subjective opinion. Children are raised at home, a good day care is a suppliment to values, social skills and education. Are you then also opposed to private schools, the ultimate day care?

I personally believe that day-care is wrong compared to a child being raised at home. I believe it is wrong because a child needs unconditional love -- none of that can be provided from day care.

If you believe all parents give their children unconditional love, you would be in error, such is not always the case, and most often is not the case at all. Regard is most often conditional and that is what people get from those external to the family.

Society is not going to love the child who grows up into an adult unconditionally, and most children who are raised in an overly sheltered environment have quite a difficult time in dealing with this realization. A child who is secure with themselves, and their parents unconditional love, do not need it exhibited towards them 24 hrs a day 7 days a week in order to know their self worth. One gets their self worth based upon formulated childhood self-esteem, life experiences, both social and career wise, through contact with others not of their immediate family and learned abilities.

You made it the business of this thread and you have finally expressed characteristics of your daughter which are more profound than material success.

Granted perhaps I did by even dignifying this ridiculous thread with a response at all. Hindsight 20/20.

I believe parental input (even in the vast "mom dictating what they do" generalization) is a major factor.

Facts on the ground do not bear this out, which is why all children in families are not the same identically.

I disagree, if they are working beyond the individual hours needed, as dictated by the carrying capacity of the society, they most certainly are carrying their own weight, plus more than.

What does "dictated by the carrying capacity of the society" mean?

Reserach carrying capacity of a society and you will find out all you need to know about it.

If you think because a mom stays at home with the child/children that would mean ergo the child will look after the aging parent, instead of putting them in a home, you had better think again.

My mom will not have to think again.

Neither did my mom, but you must realize that such is not the case with the many, or our long term care facilities would be empty right now..

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Right now, I do not give a damn to go do any research about Buddha but using Jesus as an example in your post is foolish -- at best. I am sure that Jesus can carry a lot more weight than either of us can imagine.

Well, to make a couple of long stories short, they were both offered 'copious amounts of earthly riches', and both refused. They both believed that something other than personal wealth and power was important...

Hence, the Jesus reference. Silly bugger. He could have made a fortune turning water into wine. Instead, he got drunk and 'useless' on brandy-infused compassion for others...he must be the laughing-stock of the business world.

[Charles Anthony]

Why would I have said all of the above, we were discussing blueblood's perception of properly raised and his day care topic.

You were justifying YOUR daughter as being properly raised.

He did not define "properly raised" nor did he define "productive members of society" in terms of material accomplishments. You did.

Are you then also opposed to private schools, the ultimate day care?

Yes.

If you believe all parents give their children unconditional love,

I do not.

I said explicitly that when everything is equal and the only things that are different are stay-at-home or day-care, a parent must be bad if day-care is better.

Facts on the ground do not bear this out, which is why all children in families are not the same identically.

That is fine. Not all children are treated equally within families.

My grandfather was in his forties when my father was born and my grandfather died soon after in a war. Ergo, my father did not receive the same attention as did his siblings.

What does "dictated by the carrying capacity of the society" mean?

Reserach carrying capacity of a society and you will find out all you need to know about it.

Sounds like one of those "well adjusted" any-which-way-the-wind-blows concepts.

[Catchme]

Why would I have said all of the above, we were discussing blueblood's perception of properly raised and his day care topic.

You were justifying YOUR daughter as being properly raised.

He did not define "properly raised" nor did he define "productive members of society" in terms of material accomplishments. You did.

No, actually he did define properly raised. And no I wasn't, I was uttilizing an example that happened to be my daughter and granddaughter.

If you believe all parents give their children unconditional love,

I do not.

I said explicitly that when everything is equal and the only things that are different are stay-at-home or day-care, a parent must be bad if day-care is better.

This is not correct, ascribing bad and good, better than worse than, as quantifiers and qualifiers is incorrect analysis. People utilize day care for a variety of reasons. Sending one's child to day care is not abdicating parental responsibility by any means. How many children do you have charles?

Facts on the ground do not bear this out, which is why all children in families are not the same identically.

That is fine. Not all children are treated equally within families.

that kind of goes against your unconditional love theory eh?

What does "dictated by the carrying capacity of the society" mean?

Reserach carrying capacity of a society and you will find out all you need to know about it.

Sounds like one of those "well adjusted" any-which-way-the-wind-blows concepts.

Actually, it is a scientific, mathematical and economical methodology, that is used to figure out the required hours of work conducted, or needed to be conducted, by human capital in any given society, that is needed to sustain the greater society as a whole.

[Charles Anthony]

Does anybody know what "when everything is equal" means?

[Catchme]

Does anybody know what "when everything is equal" means?

Of course, homeostasis is the fundamental principal to all living things, however, it is seldom acheived, even within organisms themselves.

Saying "when everything is equal" is more than a bit ideologically blinded.