It's all such an interesting conundrum. Everybody tries to plan for a future that probably won't unfold as expected... the future is obnoxious that way.
I have a buddy who did precisely what Sliver is suggesting, decided he wanted to be a paramedic, found the most logical (and simplest) path, and crushed it. Was making $100,000 within a decade, and will retire at 50 with a full pension. He's also 100% traumatized and spends most of his time imagining a life where he did literally anything else.
Important to note: I am not saying Sliver's suggestion is at all wrong, just that we can only plan to a certain degree before life steps in and plays its role.
Another vote for Sliver's method, another guy I know did weak math through high school, realized at 24 what he wanted to do and had to upgrade everything. His experience was that difficult math at 24 is very different from difficult math at 17. The brain (well, his at least) is a much different computer at 24 and he found it almost simple. My wife is a teacher and one of her biggest struggles is convincing parents and students that high school grades aren't the end of the road.
Taking things back to financial chatter, the teacher example is interesting. I partially blame social media, but a lot of the new teachers coming up don't see it as the gift Sliver does. The idea of going from $65,000 --> $100,000 in a decade is seen by many as not good enough. I've spoken to a lot of managers hiring for junior roles across various industries that report many young people arrive in the workforce looking for $100,000 off the hop (I fully admit this is anecdotal).
To give an example, at my wife's school they just hired a new teacher. The reason she got the job? Of the 8 candidates, she's the only one that showed up to the interview. Not one of the 7 sent an email or made a phone call to cancel. They just didn't show up.
Not trying to turn this into a "kids these days" post... perhaps things have gotten to the point where $65,000 entry jobs aren't enough for many people.
|