|added Tue June 15 2004 at 10:09 AM
|What started out as a comment on Erik's blog turned into a full entry. So I decided to post it on my site. And I'll TrackBack to him.
My family *never* earned enough money to say they had $25,000/year/kid. I'm the youngest of four (not an extreme number), and I think the most my dad *ever* made was $50k, and that was only for a short time.
For about 6 years, my dad was a teacher, so we were probably living on $30k (I don't know exactly how much, dads don't always like to tell sons such things). I knew that we were lower income, but since that was the norm in the area I lived, I was fine with it.
I think a lot of the reason why people think they have to be "financially secure" is because they look at the way their parents lived during their teenage years. There's no doubt in my mind that the child who was born while a father was attending medical school is going to remember a nice, cushy life, even though the first 3 years they weren't wearing the name-brand diapers.
On the other hand, I personally don't want to have kids while in school, mostly for financial and time reasons. Reality is, though, that if I can support myself on $4,000 a year, then I could possibly suport two people on $8,000 a year. I know that babies require more stuff than I do, but just for the heck of it, lets double what I require. $16,000 a year for me, my lovely wife (who I've yet to meet), and a tiny "bundle of joy." I'm not really too worried about the financial aspect of having kids when I graduate. I know I probably undercalculate, but the bottom line is that when push comes to shove, I know that I'll be able to handle it. My dad did, his dad did.
|added Tue June 15 2004 at 11:45 PM
|This started as a reply to Jamie's post about the evils of pirating software and music. Over the course of the next hour or two (I was also having heated debates with Erin over trivial stuff that I think we may have been personalizing too much), a comment turned into a full-sized entry:
One thing I don't like about most people's absolute stance on this subject is that any time economics is thrown around, they assume that a pirated copy is the same as a lost copy.
Economics states that as the cost goes down, the number of consumers goes up. Normally, stealing has a *very* high cost (high risk of getting caught). With software and music, there is a very small cost, simply a moral cost. At least a lot of people think it's a small cost.
The point I'm making is that if I downloaded 10,000 songs, there's *no* way that I'd have spent $10,000 to buy all those. A good 95% of those songs simply aren't worth 99 cents to me. I download a lot of software to try out, sometimes with cracked keys. It is not uncommon for me to sort through things and find an unused photo program that would normally cost $500+. There is *no* way I'd ever pay that much money for my uses of the program, so trying to say that the company lost $500 is absolute bologna.
About a year ago, I stopped downloadig music except through iTunes. I'll admit that I still rip cds including my brother's, but that's not a digital piracy, that's the same as making a copy of a casette tape. I know that this, too, is against copyright law, but note how many stereo players have *two* tape decks and tell me that it's not universally accepted. For that matter, I could point at record buttons in general and the use thereof and make the same point. Despite my complete abstenance from downloading music, I have not bought *any* cds in that same time. In fact, I think I bought more before I stopped. I occasionally would find out about cool new artists like John Mayer months before their cds were available so when they were available, I ran and bought the whole cd.
There's more to read. Read the extended entry.