Nothing is certain but Death and Taxes

[anonshadow]

See, I'm a big advocate of high taxes in return for good services, but I don't think that we get half-enough for what we pay. I'm not saying taxes should be cut, but I do think they need to be poured into things that are more important.

Education in New York is absolute s***. Are we lucky to have free education, period? Of course. I don't think I'm out of line, however, in expecting "education" to include buildings that are not lined with lead and full of safety hazards. It isn't asking too much if I expect all schools to have decent textbooks and enough teachers, and many schools don't have that--and it isn't just a problem in NYC, either.

Health insurance isn't anywhere near what it could be. If it was, mental health would be covered, and in most places, it isn't. It isn't that I don't appreciate what I do have--it's that I think more is absolutely needed, and I do what I can to advocate it. But while I try to change it, I'm also going to complain where it's applicable.

Seiryu, of course there's reason to exempt the poor from taxes. They're poor. $1,000 to a family that earns $20,000 is a lot more than $100,000 to a family that earns $2,000,000. Nor is that $100,000--or even double or triple that amount--going to put anyone making that much money into the poor house. When you're living in a s***** that's infested with rats and you can't afford your medication, why should you pay taxes?

[hive_king]

Now here is another question to consider: should tax dollars be distributed by who pays them? For every dollar we pay in california, we get about 80 cents back from the federal government. If we were to fix this, California could totally eliminate our budget problems. What do you think?

[Seiryu]

See, I'm a big advocate of high taxes in return for good services, but I don't think that we get half-enough for what we pay. I'm not saying taxes should be cut, but I do think they need to be poured into things that are more important.

Education in New York is absolute s***. Are we lucky to have free education, period? Of course. I don't think I'm out of line, however, in expecting "education" to include buildings that are not lined with lead and full of safety hazards. It isn't asking too much if I expect all schools to have decent textbooks and enough teachers, and many schools don't have that--and it isn't just a problem in NYC, either.

Health insurance isn't anywhere near what it could be. If it was, mental health would be covered, and in most places, it isn't. It isn't that I don't appreciate what I do have--it's that I think more is absolutely needed, and I do what I can to advocate it. But while I try to change it, I'm also going to complain where it's applicable.

Seiryu, of course there's reason to exempt the poor from taxes. They're poor. $1,000 to a family that earns $20,000 is a lot more than $100,000 to a family that earns $2,000,000. Nor is that $100,000--or even double or triple that amount--going to put anyone making that much money into the poor house. When you're living in a s***** that's infested with rats and you can't afford your medication, why should you pay taxes?

Well, I didn't mean that you should charge them the same amount as the rich people, it should be proportionate. I mean, no...you don't tax the really poor people, but after a certain amount, then yeah. I mean, there should be a cut somewhere or else a really low amount. I really didn't mean all of what I said. No reason to exempt the moderately poor, but the desperate poor should get an exemption.

[Epi]

Now here is another question to consider: should tax dollars be distributed by who pays them? For every dollar we pay in california, we get about 80 cents back from the federal government. If we were to fix this, California could totally eliminate our budget problems. What do you think?

It's interesting that is not a bigger issue in America. Canadian politics are absolutely dominated by what we call the 'fiscal imbalance'. Of course we do have a program called the National Equalization Program which actively gives poor provinces more money in order for all provinces to meet the same 'standard'. I am not sure what to make of it all. In one hand, subsidizing poorer places is not different from giving welfare to poor people and at least in limited amounts I am for that. I don't mind helping those less fortunately.

Then again, on the other hand, the fact that government gives away our tax dollars to another part of the country so they can have better services, frequently means we have crappier services where we are. This also helps subsidizes poorer areas which may have naturally had a net loss of people, if government were not subsidizing them. Or perhaps they might have found other ways to make money and have a more productive economy if they knew that the federal government wouldn't bail them out forever.

It's a tough issue and no one has any answers to this in Canada. I'm just surprised that it's not an issue at all in America.

[jotabe]

Epi, don't mix regions with individuals.
Regions, countries, states... they don't have individual initiative. You can't say that a region would try to be more productive if they were not subsidized... this works for people, because it's individual people who can have ideas.

If poor regions don't get an equalized share of the investments the government makes in the whole country, then, they won't get infrastructures on par with rich regions. This means companies and industry will leave the poor regions because of their poor infrastructures, to go to the rich regions, hence making the poor regions poorer, and the rich, richer.

[anonshadow]

Well, I didn't mean that you should charge them the same amount as the rich people, it should be proportionate. I mean, no...you don't tax the really poor people, but after a certain amount, then yeah. I mean, there should be a cut somewhere or else a really low amount. I really didn't mean all of what I said. No reason to exempt the moderately poor, but the desperate poor should get an exemption.

I'm aware you don't mean the same amount. You're saying the same ratio, correct?

How do you define "moderately poor" as opposed to "desperately poor"? What do the "moderately poor" have that could possibly make a huge different in what the government rakes in?

[Seiryu]

Yeah, ratio. There you go.

As far as how poor is poor goes, I think if they're getting welfare checks, food stamps, and so forth, than that's the line you draw. If you're not getting those things, you have enough to pay even just a little bit of tax.

[anonshadow]

I thought that's what you meant--that's why I said,

"Seiryu, of course there's reason to exempt the poor from taxes. They're poor. $1,000 to a family that earns $20,000 is a lot more than $100,000 to a family that earns $2,000,000. Nor is that $100,000--or even double or triple that amount--going to put anyone making that much money into the poor house."

$1,000 of $20,000 is 5%. $100,000 of $2,000,000 is also 5%. My point was that $1,000 is something that the family making $20,000 really needs, while the people making $2,000,000 could easily afford to pay 15%. The more you have, the more you should give, because the more you have, the more you can give up without being affected. By the same logic, the less you have, the less you can give up without being affected.

A family making $50,000 a year would be affected by the loss of $2,500. (To stay with the 5% example.) Moreso or less so, depending on where they live. A person making $500,000 a year could give much more than $25,000, but the family making $50,000 cannot give much more up at all. Everyone benefits from a society in which the citizens are taken care of, so why does it make sense to tax the hungry in the poorhouse so you can get something from the rich?

[Hawkblaze]

This whole thread is really indicative of how Western civilization has gone in the wrong direction since the 1930s.

It has become the reigning paradigm that government should provide the citizen with things. You don't just expect the basics, like order, stability, and security, you want stuff like money for college and unemployment compensation. Fortunately for America, this trend is much less pronounced than in places like Canada and Europe, whose statist policies dwarf anything in the States.

It is truly sad that people here believe government should pay for education beyond the primary and secondary levels. What happened to individual initiative and ambition?

Taxes are absolutely necessary--for the basics of public order and defense. However, Ollie, the amount of waste at the federal level absolutely boggles the mind. We waste an obscene amount of money on narrow minded pork barrel spending that helps otherwise worthless congresspeople get reelected. Sorry, but given how tax money is spent, I'm not really enthusiastic about giving the government more money.

[Dr. Mobius]

Unless you know of a bank where I can cash in my initiative and ambition, I don't think they're going pay my way through college.

[Seiryu]

Nah, man, you have to give it to the University directly.

Hawkblaze...do you know WHY the government helps us poor kids out? There's already a low rate of college graduates, can you imagine how much lower it would be without financial aid? I, for one, would never go to college without financial aid. I can't afford it. I can't afford the amount I have to pay after financial aid, but I have to pay it off somehow or this entire semester is wasted time.

[anonshadow]

To add onto what Seiryu said, it is becoming increasingly necessary to have a college diploma to get anywhere in life.

But that aside--what is wrong about anything else that got listed, like health care, or education K-12?

[Oliver Dale]

Taxes are absolutely necessary--for the basics of public order and defense. However, Ollie, the amount of waste at the federal level absolutely boggles the mind. We waste an obscene amount of money on narrow minded pork barrel spending that helps otherwise worthless congresspeople get reelected. Sorry, but given how tax money is spent, I'm not really enthusiastic about giving the government more money.

I can't say I disagree. Fortunately, none of what I said above does. Federal spending and tax increases are two totally different topics I didn't, nor care to, address here.

[daPyr0x]

To add onto what Seiryu said, it is becoming increasingly necessary to have a college diploma to get anywhere in life.

Bullshit. I don't care what field you're in, unless it's a legal requirement you can go as far as you wish without that college diploma. All you gotta do is put in the hours, put in the labour.

I am currently the youngest employee of a small-medium sized company. I have the least amount of experience, the least education, and as a whole, am (on paper) the least qualified for the position. I am also a regional supervisor. I got that position by pushing myself to be the hardest worker, the best leader, and the most reliable employee the company could have. I am 21. The youngest group leader that I supervise is...26...with a college diploma.

[Eaquae Legit]

I dunno... I get paid more than someone without a degree to do the exact same work. Even though my degree has nothing to do with my job.

It depends what field you're in.

[anonshadow]

Cameron, look up the stats before talking out of your ass and saying that I'm spewing bullshit, please.

I cannot recall whether you live in the US or in Canada, but I have some stats on hand in terms of the US:

Level of education matters in this society.

In the US:
For someone with less than a high school diploma, the average earnings per year are about $18,435.
For someone with a HS Diploma or a GED, the average earnings per year are about $25,829.
For someone with an Associate's degree or some college without a degree, the average earnings per year are about $31,566.
For someone with a Bachelor's degree, the average earnings per year are about $43,954.
For someone with a Graduate's or some other kind of degree, the average earnings per year are about $57,585.

This goes down if you are female, or up if you are male (yes, the average), but that is the average overall.


In terms of poverty:
The national poverty rate for the United States in 10.1%.
The national poverty rate in the US for those without a HS diploma is 23.6%.
The national poverty rate in the US for those with only a HS diploma is 11.2%.
The national poverty rate in the US for those with an Associate's or some college without a degree is 7.7%.
The national poverty rate in the US for those with a Bachelor's or higher is 3.5%.



In Canada, the average income for a person with less than a HS diploma is $21,230.
For a person with a high school diplomas or some university work, the average income is $25,477.
For a person with a trade school diploma, the average earnings are $32,743.
For a person with a college diploma (note in general: college in the US = uni in Canada), the average income is $32,736.
For a person with a university diploma, the average income is $48,648.



Yes, it is possible to do okay without a uni/college diploma, or even without a HS diploma. These numbers tend to suggest, however, that it is not simply a matter of good work ethics to advance.

[Oliver Dale]

While those stats may be true, that isn't really what daPyr0x is saying. You see, you can't decouple from those numbers all the physicians, lawyers, engineers, and teachers who are, by law, required to be educated to a certain level in order to draw a paycheck.

He's saying, okay, you can't get away from that, but there are plenty of fields in which you can work hard and achieve, regardless of education.

If you're going to attack his idea, the best way wouldn't be to post those number, but to say something along the lines of:

Ok, Cam. You're right. You can work really hard and gain the respect of your employer and maybe, just maybe, after years of servitude, you might find yourself making more than or the same as a fellow, college-trained employee.

But it certainly would be the exception rather than the norm, and you're stacking the deck in your favor by getting the degree. There are always outliers in any statistic. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. But for every success story, there is an array of less successful stories.

So there's some truth and wisdom to stating that a college degree is becoming more and more necessary. True, a degree's not strictly required, but it's a hell of a lot easier, and becoming more so every day.

[Guest]

I'd bet your weekly allowance

as the person on this board who probably pays the most taxes

There's a difference between political activism and plain teen angst

The phrase "spoiled brats" comes to mind

You've always been and always will be the biggest condescending piece of s*** I've ever had the displeasure of conversing with in any medium sans Leto. In terms of consistancy, you've never failed to come off as a complete jerkoff to me. It may be just me, and trust me - the last thing I want is to get into further dialogue with you - but I've always wondered if you really lived up to what other people thought about you (and what you seem to think of yourself, vis-a-vis myself), and if so, what the f*** is wrong with you to be here. But at any rate, please don't waste any of your precious time with a response; I wouldn't want to keep you from more pressing matters, and more importantly - I don't want to waste any more of my time either.

Regardless; as for the thread, after the nice circle jerk immediately after I left, things have become decidedly uninteresting.

[daPyr0x]

Yes, it is possible to do okay without a uni/college diploma, or even without a HS diploma. These numbers tend to suggest, however, that it is not simply a matter of good work ethics to advance.

Just because A correlates with B does not mean that A causes B; merely that A and B are correlated. I would argue that there is a much stronger correlation between one's work ethic and ability to work and their amount of education than there is between education and income.

I don't need f****** statistics to describe what I'm saying. It isn't neccesary to have a college diploma to "get anywhere in life" as you so put it. Unless "getting somewhere in life" means "becoming a pompous prick." Though, it's just as possible to do that without a college diploma too.

I understand that I may well be a special case; but I refuse to accept that I am inheirantly better than my peers, merely that I put in more of myself to my work. Every full time job that I've had I've been the youngest there, and - with the exception of one rather specialized job, where I was on my way to this - I've been respected as one of, if not the, most knowledgable.

Maybe the proper correlation for your statistics is to your level of education vs. the amount of work required to make a certain amount of money. As you get more educatoin (which, from my experience with college students, doesn't take near as much work as you all complain about it taking) the amount of hard labour you have to put in to make the money you want to make decreases as somehow the societal mindset is that "someone this educated MUST be a good worker".

For what it's worth, too, the definition of "get anywhere in life" is rather ambiguous. To a lot of people, getting anywhere in life just means achieving a certain set of goals; whether it's having a family, becoming a firefighter, or making millions of dollars being a savvy investor. It's rather easy, if you're willing to put in the work and focus yourself purely on your goal, to make a family and support them without going anywhere past high school.

I'm not talking out of my ass, anon. I'm talking the reality of us 'lower class citizens' people like you s*** on because you spent a bunch of money and years of your life in college.

You've always been and always will be the biggest condescending piece of s*** I've ever had the displeasure of conversing with in any medium sans Leto. In terms of consistancy, you've never failed to come off as a complete jerkoff to me.

oh no he did-int *snaps his fingers*

You know he means business when you make the reverend curse...

[Oliver Dale]

I'd bet your weekly allowance

as the person on this board who probably pays the most taxes

There's a difference between political activism and plain teen angst

The phrase "spoiled brats" comes to mind

You've always been and always will be the biggest condescending piece of s*** I've ever had the displeasure of conversing with in any medium sans Leto. In terms of consistancy, you've never failed to come off as a complete jerkoff to me. It may be just me, and trust me - the last thing I want is to get into further dialogue with you - but I've always wondered if you really lived up to what other people thought about you (and what you seem to think of yourself, vis-a-vis myself), and if so, what the f*** is wrong with you to be here. But at any rate, please don't waste any of your precious time with a response; I wouldn't want to keep you from more pressing matters, and more importantly - I don't want to waste any more of my time either.

Regardless; as for the thread, after the nice circle jerk immediately after I left, things have become decidedly uninteresting.

Hugs and kisses.

[anonshadow]

Just because A correlates with B does not mean that A causes B; merely that A and B are correlated. I would argue that there is a much stronger correlation between one's work ethic and ability to work and their amount of education than there is between education and income.

Can you give me anything that supports that theory, or is it just your musings that I should accept on face value because you say so?

I don't need f****** statistics to describe what I'm saying. It isn't neccesary to have a college diploma to "get anywhere in life" as you so put it. Unless "getting somewhere in life" means "becoming a pompous prick." Though, it's just as possible to do that without a college diploma too.

Be that as it may, statistics tend to back one up when one starts to make assumptions and generalizations on this level.

No, not everyone who doesn't have a college diploma fails. It does, however, stack the cards against you. It does disqualify you from a ton of jobs, and makes you less likely to get hired for others. There are very, very few things in this world that apply to absolutely everyone, without exception, but the exception is not the rule.

I understand that I may well be a special case; but I refuse to accept that I am inheirantly better than my peers, merely that I put in more of myself to my work. Every full time job that I've had I've been the youngest there, and - with the exception of one rather specialized job, where I was on my way to this - I've been respected as one of, if not the, most knowledgable.

I didn't say that you were inherently better than most of your peers. Where did I say that? I am saying that you are luckier than your peers. Yes, you probably have some skills that helped you along. I don't know, since I don't know you and probably never will. But at the end of the day, a lot of it comes down to luck. Are all of the other people who have not gone to college somehow less motivated than you? They put less of themselves into their work, and that's why there's such a huge discrepency?

No. It is not simply a matter of caring and working hard enough to be able to support one's family. If it was, there are a whole lot of people who wouldn't be in poverty right now.

Which really address everything you said up until the last sentences.

I'm not talking out of my ass, anon. I'm talking the reality of us 'lower class citizens' people like you s*** on because you spent a bunch of money and years of your life in college.

Yeah? I'm talking about the reality facing people without college degrees, too. You don't know my family, so before you start accusing me of prejudice, please take into account that you know nothing about my particular situation or why I have come to the conclusions I have.

[Seiryu]

I guess it all depends on what you want to do in your life. I want to become a librarian because I like books. I could just go work in a library and not get a diploma, but I am not entirely sure that pays all that much, so I'm going to go and get a Masters in library sciences. Unfortunately, pre-profession, I cannot afford that. That's why I take out a loan. At least I'll (hopefully) be able to pay that off during the time I'm working.

[powerfulcheese04]

Nothing is certain about Texas, especially the weather.

Amen! Seriously, the weather is nuts. *goes to find the weather thread*

(I also saw "Texas" and not "Taxes" the first time I read the title of the thread.)

[daPyr0x]

Just because A correlates with B does not mean that A causes B; merely that A and B are correlated. I would argue that there is a much stronger correlation between one's work ethic and ability to work and their amount of education than there is between education and income.

Can you give me anything that supports that theory, or is it just your musings that I should accept on face value because you say so?

Go out and look. Go to the manufacturing plants - where you get ahead by working, not by having a degree behind your name. Go to the small businesses, where taking less pay in the beginning by not having a degree (and thus being affordable) means higher dividends when you progress and make the business successful. Is there a statistic? No. For there to be a statistic you need measurability. How do you measure work ethic?

I don't need f****** statistics to describe what I'm saying. It isn't neccesary to have a college diploma to "get anywhere in life" as you so put it. Unless "getting somewhere in life" means "becoming a pompous prick." Though, it's just as possible to do that without a college diploma too.

Be that as it may, statistics tend to back one up when one starts to make assumptions and generalizations on this level.

Again, you can't make statistics on immeasurable values. That's like arguing over how more attractive people make x more money than less attractive people. Sadly, it tends to prove true in the real world. But you can't measure attractiveness, thus you can't make a statistic out of it.

No, not everyone who doesn't have a college diploma fails. It does, however, stack the cards against you. It does disqualify you from a ton of jobs, and makes you less likely to get hired for others. There are very, very few things in this world that apply to absolutely everyone, without exception, but the exception is not the rule.

I understand that I may well be a special case; but I refuse to accept that I am inheirantly better than my peers, merely that I put in more of myself to my work. Every full time job that I've had I've been the youngest there, and - with the exception of one rather specialized job, where I was on my way to this - I've been respected as one of, if not the, most knowledgable.

I didn't say that you were inherently better than most of your peers. Where did I say that? I am saying that you are luckier than your peers. Yes, you probably have some skills that helped you along. I don't know, since I don't know you and probably never will. But at the end of the day, a lot of it comes down to luck. Are all of the other people who have not gone to college somehow less motivated than you? They put less of themselves into their work, and that's why there's such a huge discrepency?

No. It is not simply a matter of caring and working hard enough to be able to support one's family. If it was, there are a whole lot of people who wouldn't be in poverty right now.

You never said anything of the sort. I said that because I'm pulling from my own experiences and my own successes and I don't for a second believe that it's 'luck', and I refuse to be so arrogant as to say that I'm just smarter or better than others my age. Because I'm not. I'm not special. To say, however, that I pour more of myself into my job, that I work harder than those others... That makes sense.

I'm not talking out of my ass, anon. I'm talking the reality of us 'lower class citizens' people like you s*** on because you spent a bunch of money and years of your life in college.

Yeah? I'm talking about the reality facing people without college degrees, too. You don't know my family, so before you start accusing me of prejudice, please take into account that you know nothing about my particular situation or why I have come to the conclusions I have.

I wasn't accusing you of prejudice nor was I saying anything whatsoever about your family. All I was doing was rebutting against your self riteous "I'm better than them because I'm going to college" attitude. That has nothing to do with your family.

[anonshadow]

Go out and look. Go to the manufacturing plants - where you get ahead by working, not by having a degree behind your name. Go to the small businesses, where taking less pay in the beginning by not having a degree (and thus being affordable) means higher dividends when you progress and make the business successful. Is there a statistic? No. For there to be a statistic you need measurability. How do you measure work ethic?

And your proof that I haven't gone out and look being... what?

There are two issues that you're bringing up, and I'm going to address them both.

1) The idea that having a degree means that you don't work, or that you don't work as hard. Beyond the fact that college itself is harder than you're making it out to be, entering the workforce with a degree does not somehow mean that you do not get ahead by working.

2) You seem to, again, assume that hard work will always pay off. It won't. You're saying that if you keep your head down and work hard, somehow it will always work out. That isn't the case. It often doesn't work out. That small company might fail. The factory might close. You might end up on the street. People can get away with paying you less, because you might not find better pay elsewhere. It's a crapshoot. That isn't to say that hard work doesn't help, and it isn't to say that brains don't help, but it does mean that someone can go and bust their ass at Wal-Mart for thirty years without having anything to show for it. It's just as arrogant to assume that you're where you are simply because of hard work as it is to assume that you're somehow better than everyone else.

I wasn't accusing you of prejudice nor was I saying anything whatsoever about your family. All I was doing was rebutting against your self riteous "I'm better than them because I'm going to college" attitude. That has nothing to do with your family.

It does when most of my family didn't go to college, and I don't think I'm better than them.

I'm not being self-righteous, and I don't think I'm better than someone who didn't go to college. I think (and rightly so) that I will have more opportunities open to me once I complete a degree.

[daPyr0x]

1) The idea that having a degree means that you don't work, or that you don't work as hard. Beyond the fact that college itself is harder than you're making it out to be, entering the workforce with a degree does not somehow mean that you do not get ahead by working.

I never at all said that having a degree means that you don't work. I never even implied it. I'm not sure where you're getting this from. You're right, I am simplifying the difficulty of college. This is because I find college to be - for the gross majority - little more than an extension of young adults' childhood rather than a mature place for learning and education. Think about how much more you would learn if it wasn't for all the booze, weed, and casual sex... (Now, because I just know you're going to take that and think I'm insulting you calling you a drunk and high whore, I am not in any way inferring that you specifically do such things - however you cannot tell me for a second that it's not a large part of college life for the general population. [edit] because I just reread that and realize you're going to pull from that me implying no real education goes on at college, which I am not.)

2) You seem to, again, assume that hard work will always pay off. It won't. You're saying that if you keep your head down and work hard, somehow it will always work out. That isn't the case. It often doesn't work out. That small company might fail. The factory might close. You might end up on the street. People can get away with paying you less, because you might not find better pay elsewhere. It's a crapshoot. That isn't to say that hard work doesn't help, and it isn't to say that brains don't help, but it does mean that someone can go and bust their ass at Wal-Mart for thirty years without having anything to show for it. It's just as arrogant to assume that you're where you are simply because of hard work as it is to assume that you're somehow better than everyone else.

You're right, hard work won't always work. Neither will a college diploma or a trade school certificate or any other things. Nothing will always work. I have a trade school certificate, all it did was take my money and cause me a lot of grief. Working for me I have a couple people with college diplomas who are older than I am.

I'm not going to say for a second that they're not where I am because they don't work as hard, or put as much of themselves into their work as I do. A large part of my - and anyone's, really - success is how well I work and fit in with the company and the job that I'm given.

The point is, though; that they're no more successful than I am at a young age having degrees.

The fact of the matter is that in my line of work I meet a lot of different people. Young, old, hard workers, lazy asses, drug addicts, burnouts, and guys just makin ends meet.

Every single person that I see, though, that puts in the hours, that works incredibly hard and pours themselves into their job... They're never out of work. Either I get them hired on, or they leave us because they find somewhere that's better pay.

I see a lot of people that work really hard that don't get that too, though. It's not because they don't work as hard as the others, but it's because they don't value their job, they don't pour themselves into it, and they just don't care as much. It can manifest itself as being unreliable, or as not paying attention, or any number of ways.

I'm not devaluing a college education in any way. I am, however, a firm believer that the best education you'll ever recieve is experience.

A college degree is an asset. I've never argued that. It is a good asset to have. If my situation wasn't as it is, I probably would be in college right now myself. But I'm not. And you can't tell me for a second that I'm not going to make it, or that anyone in the same situation can't make it, and can't be successful in life, based purely upon their inability to go to post-secondary education.

I wasn't accusing you of prejudice nor was I saying anything whatsoever about your family. All I was doing was rebutting against your self riteous "I'm better than them because I'm going to college" attitude. That has nothing to do with your family.

It does when most of my family didn't go to college, and I don't think I'm better than them.

I'm not being self-righteous, and I don't think I'm better than someone who didn't go to college. I think (and rightly so) that I will have more opportunities open to me once I complete a degree.

But you are saying that if your family was your age now, and they didn't go to college, that they would fail and be unable to survive in todays college dependant world. Unless, they're part of the few outliers that just happen to crop up that don't follow the norm.