Kollege, Part XXXIV

College today is the new High School.  So it is no surprise to me that many college grads end up on jobs that don't require a college education.  Besides, how is a degree in Art History going to "qualify" you for a job?

This CNN report tells another story:

"Though the demand for college graduates rebounded after the Great Recession, it has leveled off over the past 18 months, according to new Federal Reserve Bank of New York research.

This is not to say that recent grads aren't getting jobs. In fact, their unemployment rate has fallen to just over 5%, down from a peak of slightly more than 7% in 2011. And it's less than half the rate of young workers who don't have a bachelor's degree.

But many recent grads are underemployed, working in jobs that don't require degrees. The underemployment rate has been on the rise since 2003 and now stands at 46%"

In other words, these folks all have jobs, but not the jobs they think they are entitled to.

Emphasis on the word "entitled".

I had a dream last night that colleges started offering majors in "Celebrity".   After all, it is a career path, and why not train and groom our celebrities through college education, rather than the haphazard way we choose our celebrities today?  It would avoid that whole Justin-Beber syndrome.

But of course, I am being sarcastic.   Just because you major in something - or a college offers a major in something - is no guarantee you will find a job in that field, or indeed that you will be entitled to one (Engineering and Medicine perhaps being one of the few exceptions to this rule - but those majors do interfere with the all-important partying aspect of college).

Over the last several decades, our government and our politicians have pushed this idea that "everyone who wants to go to college should have the chance to" - which was a swell idea.  Sadly, it somehow got morphed into "Everyone should go to college" and today, more people go to college, as a percentage of our population, than ever before.

People graduate from colleges with worthless undergraduate degrees.  And the sheer number of graduates is more than the job market can absorb - for traditional "college degree" jobs.   And like anything else, the law of supply and demand kicks in.

When everyone has a college degree, a college degree is worth less (but perhaps not worthless).   Like I said, college is the new high school, and a college diploma in liberal arts is about the equivalent of a high school degree in years gone by.

And I am serious about this.  One of my ancestors taught in a one-room schoolhouse in Pompey, New York, and the high school kids had to learn Greek and Latin, as well as master geometry and trigonometry.  It was taken for granted that they should be able to speak and read their native tongue (English) as well.   Today?  Well, they're barely able to handle English.

And my ancestor's experience wasn't an anomaly.   Look at the curriculum of any high school even just a few decades back.  The coursework required was much higher and more challenging.   Today, they don't even teach Latin in most schools.   Heck, anything that is not on a standardized test is chucked.   And we wonder why no one wants to hire these kids.

Maybe the government should create jobs where the only duty is to fill out standardized tests all day long - we have trained an entire generation for that job!

It is funny, but kids learn so little these days.   I learned how to use machine tools in shop class.  I learned the art of lost-wax casting in Art class.   I even made a stab at trying to play the piano and the cello.  I learned enough French in four years to be able to order off the menu in Paris and make a hotel reservation at least (not bad for a "C" student).  All of these skills came in handy in life.  I feel sorry for kids today who have had these programs cut.

And as you might imagine, English and writing classes certainly helped me - along with typing.   I recall telling one young person that typing was a valuable skill to learn in this age of computers.   Her response was "I don't want to be no damned secretary!" - as if that was all typing was good for.  The joke is, of course, the job of "Secretary" is rapidly evaporating, as people are expected to be able to type all of their own documents these days.  Those who can't type, wither on the vine.

Oh, and my young friend who "didn't want to be a damn secretary"?  She ended up being a damn waitress.

And that right there is the problem with "kids these days".   Everyone wants some high-paying status job with a corner office, few duties, and a huge paycheck.   I blame television shows like "The Office" which perpetuate such stereotypes.   Sadly, few such jobs exist.

So, kids go off to college because things like learning to weld or how to wire a house are "beneath them" and they graduate with a worthless college degree in Anthropology (and $40,000 in student loan debt) and work in the service industry at dead-end low-wage and minimum-wage jobs.  They then blame Wall Street for their woes.

Meanwhile, the "dumb" kid who went to welding school or became an apprentice electrician, ends up owning his own company after a decade or so.   It ain't glamorous perhaps, but it is a degree of financial independence and security.

But of course, this posting is worthless.  It won't convince some 18-year-old that maybe going to Party University and getting drunk for four years is maybe a bad idea.   Worse yet, it won't convince his parents, who are scared to death that if junior doesn't leave home at age 18, they'll be stuck with him for life.   And what will the neighbors think, if he goes to welding school?   Again, people care more about what other people think - including people they don't even know or barely know - than what they think about themselves.

A friend of mine in Buffalo mentioned that in that town, there is a shortage of skilled tradespeople.   Down at the Union Hall, they are looking at a crises.  Most of the skilled tradesmen are aging and near or at retirement age.   There is no one in the pipeline to replace them, either.

Sadly, young people with the requisite skills, motivation, and education are lacking.   And the few getting into the business often do so after starting out in another career - perhaps even after wasting a lot of time and energy going to college and then trying to find a college-type job.

Almost everyone ends up finding themselves in their career or life this way.  I know I did.   Everything I learned along the way helped me out in one way or another later on in life.   College was a 14-year part-time experience for me, and I was able to steer that experience based on where my interests took me, rather than cram four years of knowledge all at once - with no idea where I was going with it, if anywhere.

Since then, things have changed, dramatically.  College is now hyper-expensive and nasty new student loan products are out there, which kids willingly sign.   You can really screw things up these days, at age 18, and end up paying for it for the rest of your life.

Maybe college isn't worth a mortgage on your career.   Just a thought!

Asperger's Syndrome - the Disease Du Jour

Prepare to be outraged.

A reader wrote in her blog that she likes reading my blog, although sometimes she is outraged by what I write.   Well, dear reader, prepare to be outraged again.   If I hold back and try to "play nice" then I might as well just stop writing, as there would be nothing to say, other than to put up a happy face and a "have a nice day!" sign.

The reader in question has a blog concerning Asperger syndrome, which is a popular disease as of late, as are all Autism Spectral disorders.  Asperger's is basically a very mild form of Autism, and if you read the symptoms of it (which are all behavioral) it is not hard to convince yourself you might have it.   To some extent, I believe, there is a lot of self-diagnosing of Asperger syndrome going on these days, particularly by parents (see my posting on Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy).    

To understand Asperger's you have to first understand Autism.  And diagnosis of Autism is on the rise these days, but I think more because of the increased awareness of "Autism Spectral Disorders" rather than any real rise in the number of severely Austic people.  You know if someone is Austic - there is no mistaking that.  But Asperger's is much more difficult to diagnose, and thus it is easier to misdiagnose it.  And there is a lot of self-diagnosis and doctor-shopping going on.

Real Autism isn't funny or cute like Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man."   I had a friend who worked with Autistic and retarded adolescents and adults.  It was hard work and very challenging.   With the retarded kids, it can be rewarding, as they communicate and want to be a part of the greater world.  The facility he worked in ran a restaurant staffed by the retarded, and I used to visit him there regularly, on my lunch hour.

He also cared to Autistic adolescents and adults, and this part of his job was a lot harder.   Many were there as a part of an adult day-care program, giving their parents a breather so they could do things like shop and clean the house and whatnot.  Having an Autistic child, particularly a severely Autistic child, can be a lifelong commitment and a full-time job, seven days a week with no vacation.

We would go for walks with "Nancy" who was one of his patients.   She was about 30 and almost catatonic, as she did not respond, or hardly responded to other people (she did, but you had to have worked with her for months, to appreciate her feedback).   She wore a polka-dot dress from the 1960's and platform shoes.  It was cold out and I asked my friend why she was dressed so inappropriately.

"She will wear nothing else," he replied.   It turns out she fixated on this outfit at an early age, and if her parents tried to get her to wear anything else, she would scream at the top of her lungs as if she were being burned by hot water.   Her parents finally gave in and went back to the store and bought up every copy of the dress (and the shoes) in her size.  Over the years, they have had to replace the dresses many times, but once the manufacturer stopped making them, they had to hire a seamstress to make them from fabric they had to go out and find.

And any new dress had to be put into her dresser drawer for at least a month, so it would acquire the same smells as the other dresses - or the screaming would begin again.

I asked him what caused this and whether there was a cure.  And the story is pretty frightening.   No one really knows what causes Autism.  Many psychologists thought it was cold, indifferent parents (the "refrigerator parent" theory) that caused the disorder.  This has since been discredited and also seen as especially cruel - blaming the parents for their child's disorder.

As for a cure, well, if you don't know what causes it, how can you cure it?   For people with severe Autism, life can be difficult.   They will likely outlive their parents and end up institutionalized.   For the parents, it can be equally as difficult, as things like vacations and retirement plans might have to be changed.

Some parents, however, take this in stride.  I've seen folks with Autistic children, with bumper stickers that say "I love my Autistic Child!"   I do too.  I think they're a scream, quite literally.  I am not sure I could handle that as well as they could.  In fact, I am sure I could not.  My hat is off to them.

Diagnosing Autism is not as hard as Asperger's.  The behaviors are so extreme that they are readily apparent.  Asperger's, on the other hand, is more subtle, and it is all-too-easy to make an armchair diagnosis of Asperger's.  And as more magazine articles and television shows are made covering this syndrome, well, awareness has gone up - as has diagnosis.

 

The reader also wonders if I have Asperger syndrome.  And in response, I would say the question is irrelevant.

Why?  Well, first of all, the diagnosis is based on fairly subtle observed behaviors, not some physical aspect of the body that be measured.   So it is easy to self-diagnose Asperger syndrome or be mis-diagnosed with it.   Second, there is no "cure" for Asperger syndrome (if indeed such a "cure" were even needed - people with this syndrome often function very well in society).   So once you are diagnosed, what do you do?   Nothing.  

So like I say, it is kind of irrelevant.

But I think it is dangerous in our society these days when diseases become popular in the press and get reported a lot and then people start to popularize them.   Remember "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome?"   No one gets that anymore because it was an 1980's disease and we've all moved on to "Fibromyalgia".

Remember Lyme Disease?  We were all supposed to get this from ticks, yet the reported incidence of the disease remains small - compared to public awareness of it.   If you walk in the woods and get bit by a tick, you might get it - and it might never be properly diagnosed.   You can either stay home and cower under your bed, or wear bug spray when you walk in the woods, and move on with life.   The popularization of Lyme Disease really hasn't accomplished much in terms of prevention or diagnoses.

And the same is true with Asperger syndrome.   It is all-too-easy to think that you (or your child) may have this disease, as the diagnoses is based on behavior.   Are you clumsy and poorly coordinated?  Do you walk around like Frankenstein (clump, clump, clump!)?   Maybe you have Asperger's!   Do you have difficulty with non-verbal communication?   Do you tend to focus on one intense interest at a time?   Maybe you have Asperger's!

Or.... maybe you are just clumsy.   It happens.  Not all of us are ballet dancers. In fact, few are.   Communication skills are lacking in all of us - particularly in this day and age.   And being focused on one interest - well that is the definition of modern man.  We are all specialists in this day and age.

Which is why people diagnosed with Asperger's can and often are high-functioning people in this country.   Or maybe, people are misdiagnosed.

And sadly, people are not content to diagnose this in themselves or their children, but have taken to applying the label to others - and even those from the past, long dead.   Did Abraham Lincoln have Asperger's?   (We all know by now that he was Gay, right?  The poor dead! They cannot rest in peace).  The label has in fact be flung at me, as I noted above.

But even if the label sticks, what do you do about it?  Again, the cure is, well, "nothing".   And funny thing, many kids diagnosed with this illness (no doubt by their Moms) tend to "grow out of it" - I suspect about the same time they move out of the house.

Of course, one young man diagnosed with this malady recently made headlines when he shot up an elementary school.   I suspect, however, that he did not have Asperger's but rather was a run-of-the-mill Schizophrenic whose sicko Mom doctor-shopped until she found the diagnoses that matched what she learned from a magazine.   This is the same Mom who took Junior to the gun range and bought him firearms, thinking it would help his mental condition - it didn't.  There is a real danger in kitchen-table diagnosis of diseases.

But for the rest of us, the real danger lies in obsessing about something in our lives that really cannot be changed or altered, no matter how much we obsess about it.  Turning any disease or illness (particularly mental illness) into a hobby is a dangerous thing, as we then tend to view our lives through the lens of our illnesses - and become "sufferers" rather than human beings.

I do suffer from some long-term medical problems.  But I'd rather not talk about them.   Why?  Because I don't want to end up as one of those people who just talks about their aches and pains and other symptoms, or who spends all their time on a disease website - or ends up viewing their lives through the prism of an illness, disease, or syndrome.

And sadly, I've known a number of people who have done just that.   Life passes them by while they spend their time naval-gazing and looking inwardly.   Look outwardly, take control of your life, be yourself, not a disease!   Live!

Is that really such an outrageous or offensive thing to say?

Now, don't get me started on ADHD!   Some folks, it seems, just can't come to grips with the fact that their kids aren't little carbon copies of themselves, and have to go looking for explanations as to why Junior isn't doing well in school.   Junior is stupid.  Just scrap those college plans and get him into Vo-Tech training.   He'll probably end up making more money that you!

What Happend to Obama (or more precisely, his fundraising campaigns?)

Barack Obama pioneered the use of the Internet to raise little bits of money from a lot of people.   It worked out well - enough to elect him President, twice.   But lately, his e-mail come-ons have taken on the air of a carnival barker, or worse - Motley Fool!

I donated money to the Obama campaign, both times around.  Now before all you Libertarians go off on saying he's a Socialist, bear in mind that if you think that, then so was Ronald Reagan.  In fact, both parties are not much different from each other, in terms of execution of policy.  One is a little to the Right the other a little to the Left.

The GOP has always posited itself as the party of big-business, fiscal conservancy, and so forth.  If that were true today, I'd vote for them - and so would a lot of other people.   But lately, the GOP is the party of Creationism, anti-abortion, Fundamentalist Christians, Gun Nuts, Tea Partiers, and all manner of crackpots.   Some would argue that the GOP panders to this "base" (base in every sense of the word) as a means of getting elected (much as the Democrats pander to the far-left hippy-dippies and rarely follow through on a real Leftist agenda).

And that would be OK, too, if they were supporting a conservative fiscal policy.  But instead, they merely pander to their own corporate contributors and plunder the treasury for a different group of people.

So.... when it comes down to making a choice between free-spending Democrats and free-spending Republicans, I guess I have to vote for the party that isn't constantly threatening to put me in an internment camp and teach "Creationism" in public schools.  The GOP has gone off its rocker with this far-right gun-nut racist homophobic religious "right to life" bullshit nonsense that constantly denies reality.

The Democrats may be insane too, but at least their perception of reality is marginally better than the GOP's.  Actually a whole lot better.

But Obama's fundraisers seem to be losing their mind, lately.  Since I donate once, I get e-mails from them all the time.   I get e-mails from Speaker Boehner, too, as I once sent him an e-mail saying "stop being a dick with this shutting down the government nonsense!"   In reply, he has spammed my inbox over and over again with his right-wing nonsense.  And he is a sneaky little prick, too.  I put an e-mail filter on him, to send his e-mails to my TRASH file automatically.  But he (or his minions) keeps changing his e-mail "from" address, to bypass my filters.  I must have 20 Boehner filters on my e-mail by now, but he keeps at it.  Little prick!

But Obama's minions are little better.  The e-mails I get are classic come-ons with suggestive titles that invite me to click on what's inside.   They do seem to filter better than Boehner's, although the Obama crew uses the trick of getting other people to send the e-mails, so I end up busy filtering his trash, too.

The latest series of gags is how I can get to meet the President (always called "POTUS" - as a New Year's resolution, can we now bury that term?).   If I donate money, I get into some lottery or something where I can attend a barbecue or luncheon and meet the real President of the You-Knighted States of Amuurica in person!

These e-mails usually have some sort of come on, like, "Do you want an aisle or window seat?" (for my supposed flight to DC to meet ol' POTUS).

Here's the deal:   The donors who get to meet the President (and sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom) arrive in their own private jets.  And they donate a lot more than I got, for that privilege.   It doesn't matter if there is a Democrat or Republican in the White House, that is how it works.

How it has always worked, how it works, and how it will continue to work.   Again, reality calling, pick up the phone.

This is not a bad thing - our country is still the best place in the world to live (please, no comments about how great Sweden or Finland is - they allow less immigration that we do!).   Everyone wants to move to the US of A.  Few want to leave for foreign shores.  That says it all, period.  Reality, again.

It disturbs me, though that the President has stooped to such lowbrow fundraising efforts.   These e-mail come-ons are an insult to my intelligence. 

As with the NRA and Evangelical Religions, the come-ons are pitched as dire necessity.  "If you don't donate today, they'll [come take your guns away]/[legalize gay marriage]/[overturn Roe v. Wade]!!!"

Hillary, of course, completely screwed up her chances in 2008 by not understanding the Internet.  Not only did she not seek out these small donors (whose money overwhelmed her "whale" contributors), she tried to censor content on her own site, if she (or more precisely, her minions) felt there was even a hint of anti-Hillarism.

So, despite the perception that Hillary is a steamroller whose inevitable election is a foregone conclusion, she could be vulnerable.  The hoopla and come-ons that Obama uses to raise money are odious, but then again, they must work, as the plebes keep sending in their money.

On the other hand, if the GOP puts forth an even somewhat moderate candidate, Hillary could be vulnerable.

But, hey, this is the GOP we're talking about. The delusional folks who think Rick Perry is Presidential and that Sarah Palin is an intellectual.

Maybe Hillary in '16 is a foregone conclusion!

Viewer Mail: Reality is Value-Neutral

A reader writes:

Hello Robert:

Let me make this as brief as possible. I notice that most of what you write in your blogs is not something that the mainstream media would tell the average Joe and Jill Sixpack.  So my question is this: Do you think that your way of thinking -- which most people would label as negative thinking -- is the truly sane way to approach life?  My answer is surely a resounding "yes," but I have to ask this question because we are inundated with all these self-help gurus out there proclaiming the need to be positive in a negative world. Zig Ziglar comes to mind when I think of this.

I am of the opinion that mental illness strikes the hardest at people who are sold all the lies they are being presently sold in our made-for-mass-consumption culture. If people were told reality as it is (whatever that may be), then maybe they would be more sane. Of course, no one would be buying worthless stuff and financing themselves to the bone the way they have been, would they?

I spent years going through the whole "positive thinking" schick back in the late 1990s, and I know that most motivational gurus probably despise the very people that made them rich and the ones that attend their seminars. I never spent a lot of money on the stuff (material), but I nevertheless listened to a lot of it rented from the library and had it copied to me by others who were trying to tell me how great this particular Nightengale-Conant speaker was (Denis Waitley, Zig Ziglar, Brian Tracy, Jim Rohn... and the list goes on).

I think you need to do an article on this industry. Something seem very sinister and peculiar about it. Authors years ago were more realistic on the human condition, and there seemed to be no profit motive involved either. Books like Golden Gems of Life seemed to deal straight-forwardly and forthright with life at the present time (1880s). Are motivational gurus and self-help gurus -- in your opinion -- being 100% honest with themselves and with their audiences? I have a sneaking suspicion they're not.

Thanks for the e-mail.  Excellent comments and ideas!     See my posting on"Gurus".   It explains all.

REALITY is neither "Negative" or "Positive" - it just is what it is.  How you choose to interpret it, is up to you.

The man who lives in fantasy land, believing in "Positive Thinking" ends up getting burned by mean old Reality all the time.

He thinks he can fly, so he jumps off the Empire State building.  For a few seconds, his "positive thinking" is working - he is flying!   But then mean, old reality steps in, in the form of the fast approaching concrete sidewalk, and then spoils all the fun.  This is, of course, a metaphor.   The Empire State building represents leased cars, overpriced mini-mansions, big-gulp sodas, Jet Skis and all sorts of things that consumers (i.e., human beings) buy, that end up hurting them in the long run, financially, physically, or both.

I agree with you.  Positive thinking seminars are not only worthless, they are EVIL.   When you tell someone (or a company's employees) that the whole problem with their lives or company is their ATTITUDE, you are taking what are reality problems and then blaming them on the person or employee.   Poor management loves this, as it takes the pressure off of them.

But it backfires, as you can't fix your personal problems by positive THINKING, but rather by positive ACTIONS.  And similarly, all the positive thinking can't save a company that is mired in debt, has second-rate products, and a poor quality reputation.

General Motor's problem wasn't lack of positive thinking.  Their problem was their inability to confront reality and make hard decisions (such as confronting the unions, dealing with their debt problem, shedding unprofitable divisions).  Reality, in the form of bankruptcy, forced them to deal with messy reality.  In the reality of Bankruptcy, they could unload Pontiac and Saturn (the latter a departure from reality if there ever was one - GM spent more developing that division that it would have cost to BUY Toyota Motor Corporation outright).   They could force the union to renegotiate their contract (which previously required GM to retain people, even if they weren't needed!).  They could shed the onerous retirement benefits off onto the union.  It took bankruptcy for GM to confront reality.   Until then, it was fantasy-land, fueled by cheap gas and robust SUV sales - and the fantasy that it could go on forever this way.

I am not a "negative" person, just a realistic one.  Reality seems "harsh" only to those who avoid dealing with it.  Oddly enough, the folks who fail to confront reality are usually the ones who are most depressed.

Take my friend, who smokes pot all day long and lives in a fantasy world, where "evil corporations" run the world, and "government conspiracies" explain everything.  He is unemployed and 57 years old.  Is he happy?  Is he a "positive thinker"?  Hell no, and his problem is failing to comprehend and understand reality.

Myself on the other hand, am grateful to be alive in a country where you can make a little money without working too hard - where you have the freedom to speak what you want and do as you choose, up to a point.  Where our greatest health problem is too much food!   I marvel at that one, every day.

I am a positive person, because I have a constructive relationship with reality.

With regard to the reader's comment on mental health, they are right on point.

Most mental illnesses are created when a person's view of the world is disassociated from reality.  Whether it is depression or schizophrenia or whatever.

The depressed person (see my posting on Learned Helplessness) tries to alter his environment, and nothing he does seems to make a difference.  As a result, they become depressed and passive (and excellent consumers!) rather than proactive.   And this is why, if you are depressed, changing something in your life can be a way to help yourself.  Even something trivial as a new haircut programs the brain by saying, "I can control aspects of my life!"

For others, (like a friend of mine, who started going off the rails in his teen years, when schizophrenia sets in) reality seems harsh and unobtainable.  Making the transition from straight-A honor student and Boy Scout to adult working in corporate America seems impossible to do. So he went off into a fantasy world, aided by drugs.   It did not work out well.

I was lucky, I guess in that at age 18 I became a salaried employee of GM.   I learned that I could work for a living, that I had job skills, and that the "captains of industry" were just schmucks like you and me.   Reality, as it turned out, wasn't all that scary.  In fact, it was rather mundane most of the time.   But fun nevertheless.

Of course, extreme mental illness is marked by a total disconnect from reality - hallucinations, hearing voices, etc.

Now, to get to the reader's question - does our society induce mental illness (from mild to wild) by pushing a media version of "reality" that isn't real?   I think they are on to something there! People are dumb enough to believe that a "reality" television show represents reality. That actors in a car commercial reflect real life.   But most of us realize that the Hollywood version of life is fake.

See my posting on "How themedia portrays our lives".   I noticed this disconnect as a kid, when on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, they showed Ms. Moore going out and buying a brand-new car, on her limited salary.  The television (and movies) always do that - showing us regular folks living in houses far beyond our means and driving cars we cannot afford.  (unless it is a "gritty drama" in which case they show an overboard representation of poverty).

Again, this is why turning away from the media is so important.  The average American watches 4.5 hours a day of TeeVee, and I suspect it makes them more than a little crazy!

Maybe there is some sinister motive behind all of this.  Perhaps not.  I think snake oil salesmen have been around for a long time.  Whether it is an Ad Man from Madison Avenue, a Hollywood producer, or a banker, they all know you can sell anything to anybody, if you can first create a disconnect from reality in the purchaser.

You Can Tell a Lot About Someone by How They Play Monopoly...

People who play Monopoly with the unofficial "Free Parking" rule are more likely to be Socialists.

When I was a kid, we used to play Monopoly.  It is a fun game and teaches you the basics of free-market capitalism and also how brutal and unforgiving the marketplace can be.   

The object of the game is to acquire properties, preferably Boardwalk and Park Place, put hotels on them, and then bankrupt your opponents by charging them exorbitant rents when they land on your properties.  Like I said, it is a brutal game, and among kids, many a game has ended with the board being tossed in the air by the losing party.

The game requires some luck, to land on properties at the correct time.  It also requires some financial skill to understand which properties should be developed and how.  And it also involves risk-taking.  The player who mortgages himself to the hilt can often end up winning the game - or losing spectacularly.

Like Real Estate in real life, it requires skill, risk-taking, and a little luck.   It is a fairly accurate model of the marketplace, in that regard.

When I was a kid, we liked to play the game, and I went over to a friend's house once and they said "Let's play Monopoly!"   They were a poorer family, although not destitute.  And what was interesting was how they made up new rules for the game, to suit their whims.

And one of the most odious of these rules was the "Free Parking" house rule.  Simply stated, if you landed on "Free Parking" you would get a jackpot of money from the center of the board.  This money would comprise all the money from fines and whatnot from Community Chest or Chance (or get out of jail) .  And some kids even salted the pot with $500 to $1000 or more, right from the start.

It was not an official rule of the game and still is not recognized by Parker Brothers (although they don't discourage it, as they want to sell board games).   I never liked it.  It was wrong, and evil.  And let me tell you why.

The "Free Parking" rule turns Monopoly from a game of skill and chance to a game of pure chance.  The guy who carefully builds hotels on Ventnor Avenue is trumped by some idiot who did little more than land on "Free Parking" and win a huge pile of money.   You can be destitute one minute and then winning the game the next, all based on luck alone - with no skill required.

It takes Monopoly and turns it into Chutes 'n Ladders - a stupid kiddie game with no point to it.

And the reason why people like to play the "Free Parking" rule is that it "makes the game fairer" as the dumb kids can win as easily as the smart ones.   And it can make the game last longer, as about halfway through a given Monopoly game, it becomes clear who are likely winners and who are likely losers, and for the latter, the game gets boring as they basically play out what little cash they have left.  Free Parking can make the game last longer by randomly dumping money onto one player, late in the game.  It is an attempt to "level the playing field" by equating skill with luck.

In other words, Socialism.

And I guess it is no coincidence that the kids who played this made-up rule came from poorer families.  Why not "share the wealth" with Free Parking?   Why not gamble instead of using your skills?   Why think, when you can just roll the dice and hope you win?

And today, the poor still play the game this way - in real life.  They buy lottery tickets, hoping luck will come their way.  Myself, I built a Hotel on Marvin Gardens.  Who ends up the winner?  In real life, that is.

But increasingly, it seems, some folks call for the rules to be changed, to make it "more fair" for everyone and to "give the dumb kids a chance to win, too!"   And that sounds great, from a certain perspective, as it would be nice if life was fair and if everyone had an even chance at it.   But when you let some folks win based on luck, then others who worked their way would necessarily have to lose - at least a little bit.

And to some extent, it encourages everyone to stop trying to use their skills and hard work to win, and instead just hope to land on Free Parking instead.   The problem is, there ain't enough Free Parking to go around, so in real life, you don't get the big pot of money in the center of the board.   More like, "You've won second prize in a beauty contest!  Collect $10 and an EBT card."

Now if this sounds all conservative and whatnot, well, too bad.   But it does reflect a basic difference in philosophy in life.  There are people who play Monopoly with the "Free Parking" made-up rule, and there are those who despise such flim-flammery.

And I guess I have always been in the latter category.

Stop believing in Free Parking - it is not the way to play, and not the way to win.  Shortcuts to success, Free Ponies, and Redistribute-the-Wealth are not only wrong, they just don't work, in the short-term or the long run.

Play the game.  Pay attention.  Make wise choices.  Real life is different than Monopoly in one big way - in real life there is more than one winner - and not everyone else goes bankrupt!