TED Conversations

Hanne Lore

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How do you feel about the responsibility of the government towards the young people (18-25) regarding the economic and financial crisis?

Who is going to pay the longterm debts of the crisis? I strongly believe that many young people are/will be fed up with paying the price in the end. We are fed up with being called the 'lost generation'. If we are lost, why don't you save us?

Related Talks:
Topics: financial crisis global crisis government politics student young people aspirations youth
+15
Share:
progress indicator

  • Tim Streetman

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: You have a right to paint your face green, if you choose not to ... thats not my issue

  • Tim Streetman

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: See, it appears that we made similar post at the same time, i suppose ...

  • Tim Streetman

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: My dear i never saw that post until this very second in email]
  • thumb

    Michael Wolok

    • +1
    Nov 8 2011: We need to create free online colleges with interactive programing, where all students need to do is play a game. As they progress they reach higher and higher levels. Upon completion they get a PhD.

    Wff N' Proof was a college course in Propositional Calculus. The manuel w;hich was 244 pages. The rules of the game, were the rules of propostional calculus, and reverse Polish notation.
  • thumb

    Estela Estela 10+

    • +1
    Nov 8 2011: I'm quite saddened by the circumstances for people within that age bracket, actually.

    I can only imagine how trapped I would have felt if things were this bad when I was 20. I was working during the day and going to college at night and I had no real alternative option than to room with someone to make ends meet as living with my parent wasn't an option.

    Now, having said that,humans of all ages have a habit of overcoming the worst of circumstances. And at the risk of sounding too optimistic, sometimes problems can become opportunities for much needed change, during difficult times.

    I feel like our country, heck the world really, is going through a change. Change, both good and bad, can produce some painful, growing pains, however, so I am not surprised that most of us are feeling a little bruised.

    It's time to put out some innovative ideas and throw them to the wall. What do we have to lose?

    How about free college? (too wild?) Okay, how about forgiving student debt and giving those institutions that incurred that debt something in return (no idea what). What about creating volunteer positions for young people to work in fields that need workers with specific skills (bio-engineering, computer security etc.) and, first, provide them with training in those fields and then, eventually, these young people can earn grants so that they can further their education in said fields, but the employers can hire them without the education, because once they have the skills they can do the job now and get the education later? What about giving an incentive to employers who do this.

    The above examples are all employers who deserve tax breaks. Those who help the community, who build on the society that helped build them. I'd be willing to give those companies all kinds of tax breaks, wouldn't you?

    Anyway, just a thought and for all it's worth I feel for you!
  • thumb

    Michael Wolok

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: . . . continued from my last message.

    What else could I say about it, other than I would sell it to potential gang members looking to belong to a family, looking for loyalty, prison inmates, and people who care too much about others. Warmest and kindest regards, Michael

    You can always contact me at UltraEmpathy@aol.com
  • thumb

    Michael Wolok

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: Education should be completely free to qualified students. The US government, and every US citizen benefits from an educated populace. Why should primary education be free, but not secondary education? Educated citizens make better choices selecting polticians, they pay more taxes, they provide valuable services, they help a country grow, they place less burden on society for creating prisons. They are the real wealth creator. They find the cure for cancer and other diseases. It would be a shame if we lost the cure for cancer because some bright, promising student could not afford to go to college, or had to spend so much time working his way through college he couldn't spend the time on his studies he otherwise would have been able to spend. But hey, as long as we give our best atheletes total scholarships that is all that is important to a nation of sports fans. After all we need the best NFL and NBA players possible. Who cares if we are unable to cure some disease that eradicates the human race. What good are educated college students anyway, when we first seek treatment for pancreatic cancer from witch doctors, believe in ghosts, and refuse to believe what they tell us regarding global warming. This is why the Chinese and other countries will be supplanting the US in the near future. Cheers, Michael P.S. TED moderators removed my big idea for creating a new religion based on Empathy and Loving Kindness and nothing else, as being too vague. My religion has no God, no prayer, no dogma, no holidays, and no rituals. It merely requires its followers to dedicate their entire lives to lessening human and animals suffering, helping the less fortunate, helping others reach their full-potential, helping the mentally ill, the mentally defecient, the orphan, widow, elderly, weak and disabled. Of course, this religion is related to the question posed. Do you find my description of this religion vague? TED is telling me I am out of characte

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Linda Hesthag Ellwein 50+

      • 0
      HostTED AttendeeTED TranslatorAssociate
      Nov 8 2011: I'm not hearing that Tim. I'm hearing happiness is not a given, and the 'pursuit' of it is a constitutional right. They're different. Do you agree?

      Perhaps another challenge lies in how we define happiness. Debra's example referred to her kids, and the idea that video games might bring happiness. You differentiate it as the opposite of the pursuit of money. Those definitions are miles apart in my estimation. Debra is suggesting responsibility is an important factor. My guess is you both feel the same way about happiness...that it doesn't come from money or sitting on our butts. It is the result of finding satisfaction through what brings the most meaning to us, and is self sustaining. The values people choose may vary, but the experience of real happiness - the deep down kind - might be the same.
      • thumb

        Debra Smith 200+

        • +1
        Nov 8 2011: Thanks for this adept clarification Linda. I appreciate your ameliorative spirit here and it is insightful. I have in fact raised my five grown children to pursue meaningful lives with purpose and with the belief that they should maximize their happiness as long as it is not at the expense of others. In fact, I have raised them to believe that maximizing the happiness of others will often maximize their own. I use the concept of 'preferring others' as a model for good manners.

        I also raised them to become fully functioning and independent adults who are aware that adults sometimes have to 'buck up' and do the hard stuff to get to the leisure and the fun. I worry that so many strong healthy capable adults children are still acting like children in their expectation that it is someone else's job to supply their happiness. Many other generations can be blamed but we all travel similar roads to adulthood and in counselling psychology, clincial psychology and common sense we all have to arrive at the concept of personal responsibility.
        • thumb

          Linda Hesthag Ellwein 50+

          • 0
          HostTED AttendeeTED TranslatorAssociate
          Nov 8 2011: It's in the framing, yes? Tim has his definitions couched in a constitutionalist frame, while yours are in one of personal responsibility. The irony is they're both about freedom and individuality. The biggest difference I'm gleaning is Tim's definitions are based on a document which he is fitting himself into, or words he follows - while yours are intuitive and coming from within.

          Tim, why do you ask if someone is anti-Christian or anti-Constitutionalist? What about her comments made you identify her like that? I'm curious to know if language is what gets in the way, or perhaps better said - language based on ideologies? I'm genuinely curious, not challenging you.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Debra Smith 200+

          • 0
          Nov 8 2011: Hey Tim, I absolutely hope that you willl stay and enjoy the process and conversation. I am sure you have a unique and valuable perspective to add. There are three levels of conversations or types, debates, questions and ideas that are put forward. It sort of takes awhile to adapt and if you take the time you will agree that there is some truly valuable information exchanged and I find that my thinking processes are broadened.
      • thumb

        Debra Smith 200+

        • 0
        Nov 8 2011: Linda, yes it is about the way we frame things. It is also about trying hard to understand and we all need the reminder to try a bit harder sometimes so I really appreciate it when you encourage me to make that effort. It is worthwhile and in the end a lot more productive. thank you.
    • thumb

      Debra Smith 200+

      • 0
      Nov 8 2011: Tim, I am having trouble discerning whether or not you are addressing me and my posts. If it is a right to be happy why are people not happy? If it is a right to be happy who will fulfil that 'right'?

  • Erich Kreppenhofer

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: Is this tpic imtemded to imply the right, birthright of happiness? Or is it a discussion about the elements of Education? Some here must misunderstand the question, he parphrases the " constitutional quoted right for the pursuit of happyness"! The american constitution grrants you the right of pursuit...it does not demand Government has to give it to you without paying for it. Does it also apply to the committment of crimes because the gains make you happy? We put a large burden on goverments, items that are way out of norm, individual interest groups get attention by becomming the squeaky wheek. Does God, Allah, Jehova or Ulah Khane, any god you will quote stand in the way of your pursuit? Education is a marketable item, we can aquire it and reap benefits for the rest of our lives. The government therefore has to make it available, the same way as a drivers licence or a passport. WE trade taxes for wisdom, but reading many of these comments I can see the ineqities of education. Where all of us have a god or something to believe in, we cannot go to the village priest and demand he make us smarter than we are, or can we? A god given right, a nice phrase for the demanding crowd, but even rights have to be earned by the ones in need. Many of us are happy working the fields, many are happy with just one good meal a day, ask the children in the jungles of the Congo. Here we are discussing education, not the merit of the constitution and all its amendments. Yes you have the right to pursue happiness, on one condition, do not interfere with mine or anyone elses rights. We give free education at a huge expense to the early grades to highschools levels, and still twenty percent drop out, money is more important to a young person so he quits and now he protests because things are broken. Education is the first step to earning a decent living, still we cannot take too much from the ones that retired or the ones that are not borne yet. It is all our spending that caused it.

  • en ne

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: It's more complicated than that, but it's a threat. And I'm not having any part of it.
  • thumb

    Manuel T. Ortega

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: cont'd...
    Psychopathology, socio-pathology are difficult to discern. Think Dick Cheney. Bill Clinton.
    Brain damage too. Think Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush.
    I argue unregulated capitalism has failed the general public. China has indisputably destroyed the myth a single party communist system and regulated capitalism are not compatible. Cuba has demonstrated, with great pain and sacrifice, that a tiny nation can withstand US onslaught to destroy it.
    A recent study showed 147 global corporate entities control 40% of humanity’s wealth (please confirm, using recall here). 7 billion people are at the whim of profit motivated entities.
    Profit as motivation is a human creation. It’s time to evolve this antiquated concept. It’s time to empower the individual. To underwrite individuals natural abilities and passions. To facilitate individuals ability to be the best they can be. Contribute to their community, society. Lead a fulfilling life.
  • thumb

    Manuel T. Ortega

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: Another fundamental fact is if nature did not create it, a human mind conceived it, and human hands realized it. All manner of calamity humanity suffers from now, not created by nature, such as economic inequities, healthcare inequities, housing inequities, war, famine, strife of all manner, between humans etc. etc.etc., have been created by humans. By in large to satisfy an agenda imposed on a population at large by a handful. Very few humans as compared to the total population of particular regions or on earth as a whole.
    What is different in our current historical moment from past era’s?
    Education, knowledge, bountiful information, robust communication infrastructure on a scale never before experienced on earth.
    The general public must capitalize on this to effect change. To think different is not enough. To do different is a must.
    The failure of the counter-culture revolution of the 60’s and early 70’s was the failure to evolve institutions to better address emergent needs.
    Evolving (changing) entrenched dogma has never been easy throughout history.
    Think Copernicus, Darwin.
    Denial is a powerful psychological force.
    Change is frightening.
    Change requires effort. Persistence. Patience. Thinking. Purposeful, deliberate action.
  • thumb

    Kat Haber 500+

    • 0
    TED AttendeeTEDx OrganizerAssociate
    Nov 8 2011: Hanna,

    What are you personally doing to "be saved"? What ideas do you have to balance this generational inequity: services supplied to seniors today, paid for by tomorrows workers-you? Do you feel well served by the Occupy movement in the US now? It is Super Tuesday with a pessimistic electorate and voting is the one sure way for citizens to affect change. What more will under 25's do? Which are the priority issues? What are the innovative solutions your generation is offering up? Have you linked in with a TEDxYouth event for the weekend of November 19-21? Which one appeals most to you? Action is what is needed now. If there is an election in your community, will your voice count in the form of your vote? If you could alter our current governing system to be more reflective of our digital age, what might it look like and at what pace would it require its citizens to respond?

  • Jason Stenack

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: Tim, you're absolutely right about the banks doing really shady and illegal stuff and should face the legal system for that. When I said to blame the government, not the banks, I meant that as blame government as the SOURCE of the problem. Had the government not backed the loans and created these artificially low interest rates, the banks wouldn't have been able to do this kind of crap on the scale they did. They could have tried to do it, but they would have very quickly collapsed, long before things could escalate to the level they did. I doubt they would have tried though, if they didn't have a government safety net to bail them out.

    This is what Ron Paul is always talking about in his debates when he says that we first need to understand the problem and when he begins to explain it, he runs out of time or gets interrupted. This is why he is against bailouts and government involvement. Now if I were forced to do a bailout, I would have given the money to the people in trouble, not the banks. I would have then gone after the banks who did commit illegal acts. Even this would have been a bad deal though, because it would create a moral hazzard and isn't fair to the people, like me, who made responsible decisions and bought a house they could afford and not under the speculation that they could flip it for profit.

    I think we're on the same page here, Tim. It was a combination of my poor wording and your misinterpretation of my bad wording, which is my fault, that brought about the disconnect here.

    I think everyone should watch this video by Peter Schiff, "Why the Meltdown Should Have Surprised No One": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

    Great video. He really goes into great detail, far better than what I could do here. Well worth the watch.

  • ian wild

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: The key thing alot of people miss is that we actually have the money to pay off the debt. Its sitting in the 1%s bank acounts. The govn deregulated big buisness and gave them tax cuts under the understanding that the money would then be trickled down to the people. Well it wasnt. So the money actually isnt even theirs. it was designated funds that didnt reach its destination so the govn should step in and redirect the money to its rightful place. Problem solved. Increase tax on the rich regulate big buisness especially the banks not matter what their threats are take their power away. OH MY GOODNESS we just resolved the economic crisis and saved the world. so simple

  • Judy Voigt

    • 0
    Nov 8 2011: Personal responsibility is the cornerstone of all civilizations. I'm 63 and I guess I'm old or at least old-fashioned as it has never occurred to me to ask anyone else to save me. Forty years ago I was responsible for making decisions about my life; today is no different. If you are lost look to your internal compass, your value structure, not an amorphous someone else.

    • Tim Streetman

      • 0
      Nov 8 2011: Judy, I hear you, and agree, well hon I'm 50, but let me ask you something, that perhaps you may not have considered. I do look at it like this. Thanks to one of the best books I have ever read, Looking Backwards, by Edward Belemy I do believe that as human beings we are all equal, and that we are supposed to love and care for each other. It has occurred to me that life has changed to a degree that it is really messed up. See back in the day, a man had a family, etc,etc.and the natural "Death progression was grandfather, then grand mother, then mom, dad w/e, etc, etc, so really the OLDER generation always had in essence, someone to care for them. but as the world changed, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers left the family Home, farm w/e to cities for work, (Wars) w/e and WERE KILLED, disrupting the natural "Death" Progression, hence leaving OLDER generations at home, and often AGED and incapable of caring for themselves. As now if you are alone, no family, and were to hurt yourself and couldn't support yourself, OR THE RICH SCAMMED YOUR NEST EGG !, As a HUMAN being, it is MY duty to help you. So, I say as a civilized society, YOU ARE , as a HUMAN BEING, entitled to help. As Civilized humans , as a society, we Honor and love, so we will of course help you ... But as IT IS TODAY, we can't afford to help YOU because the RICH have PLUNDERED EVERY PENNY THEY CAN SNATCH. So my dear, I concede YOUR Point, but also, i hope you can see mine as well. why some of us are MAD AS HELL, because we cant afford to to what WE FEEL IS RIGHT ! Entitlement from a humanitarian point of view is COMPLETELY different that someone NOT WORKING because of laziness and demanding entitlement. Same with a crippled person that perhaps the family was killed in an auto accident, with NO surviving realities, they have a RIGHT as a HUMAN Being. I believe as Americans, we constructed OUR Government to take OUR taxes to help those IN NEED,
      I hope I was able to articulate my point

      • Judy Voigt

        • 0
        Nov 9 2011: No, I don't think you've articulated your point well. BTW, I'm a quadriplegic from a car accident 16 years ago. My husband sustained a traumatic brain injury. We went on to build another hi-tech engineering manufacturing company in our county employing 350 people. We sold that to a major corporation 5 years ago. My husband died of cancer 6 months ago. I have a strong family and friend group. I'm continuing the art foundation we formed to bring the joy of outdoor sculpture to the people of our community. You create your own reality.

  • Christopher Henningsen

    • +2
    Nov 8 2011: Interesting issues brought up here. I want to respond to two things I saw brought up here...

    First, regarding a free market approach to solving the economic problem: isn't the current system of affairs the outcome of free markets? It would seem to me that votes are simply a service people exchange for some perceived benefit. Or, if you're like many youths today, a service withheld because the perceived benefit is too low.

    But regarding universal education, I do have an idea that I think would work, and I'm interested to hear what you think of it. The fact is, education is expensive. It may be overvalued, but it will always be valuable. And having worked as a teacher, I know it's not something like water that can be easily provided for many people. But information, unlike education, is even easier to provide than clean water. It's already universally available in the developed world, even rural areas have computer access centers, and anyone who walks to one, or to their public library, can learn all they want at khan academy or MIT. So learning isn't actually expensive. What is expensive is getting a degree.

    So rather than subsidize everyone's education, why don't governments simply require that final exams and qualifying examinations be open to all who wish to register? Universities would still be able to attract students who want to interact with experts and their peers, but anyone who gained their knowledge otherwise could have it recognized officially.

    This would give skilled people who trained in other countries a chance to practice their professions here, and anyone who wished to get a degree could earn one without taking on debt, if they were dedicated or talented enough. I think this would be a good compromise to the problem of expensive education.

    • Comment deleted

  • Erich Kreppenhofer

    • 0
    Nov 7 2011: Education....is it a privilage or a right? A government, any government has to balance its books. We can have or ask for it, the difference will always be what we can afford. Take Greece, a government in dire sytaights, indebted to the world and to its people! Why? It was unable to balance socialistic ideas with affordability. Education is a right to a specific term, lets say to the basic intelligence of the individual, end of high school, From then on only the intelligent, the best of the best should be able to use public funds to go to institutions of higher learmning. All og these offer subsidies for the qualified. The ones that cannot cut the grade should not be a burden or an expense to the rest of the social network we all incorporate in our lives. It means the old, t5he invalid, the extremely poor or handicapped. Huge strikes in sveral countries, a sort of excessive demand has reduced such cost to the extreme. You hear cut this, cut some more and on the other side you hear more demands frrom unions for higher wages and benefit. Education needs corporate sponsordgip at higher levels of Education, so lets not mistake it is money that goes into the coffers of these institutions. Education should also be based on present and future job demands, Teachers in abaundance are digging ditches, Mater of Arts are driving buses. I have to think they were misplaced in their educational programs. No we cannot allow education to become a aspect of affordability, but we can make it a demand for ability and need. It is all of us citizen paying for it, parents and grandparents and homeowners and even the welfare recipients pay for it by being cut in the small allowance that is given out. We need better tests to screen applicants and better selection in the pre university entrance exams. Student loans should be based on the quality of the student and the demand in his selection of courses. Otherwise a free education cost more than the student will ever benefit!

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • thumb

    Phillip Beaver 10+

    • 0
    Nov 4 2011: Ms. Lore, I see that you live in Belgium. I have visited a few cities, but know little of the politics. I read enough to see that it is a federal, constitutional monarchy.

    I started scanning the Constitution, and stopped at Articles 23 and 24: I think indicating the problem. Perhaps to win votes, politicians in the past have claimed that they will provide everything a person wants in life. No human can provide another human a life free from want.

    The world is counting on the young people of the world to overcome the past and forge personally rewarding lives regardless of the crisis. The first hard cold reality they must face is that just governance can only come from the governed. To assure good governance, most citizens must be well informed about governmental affairs and take constructive action.

    I think the answer is to reform the government to specify governance by the people. Choose under ten broad goals, instead of the impossible promises now claimed. Reorganize institutions and laws accordingly, and make certain that most citizens are committed to take responsibility and accountability for the results of their votes. I think just governance has serious penalties for elected officials who do not uphold the Constitution.

    I do not know of a country that has just governance by the governed. If anyone knows of one, I'd apprecieate the idea. (This is the first time I have examined a Constitution of a country other than my own--the United States of America.)


    This seems an exceptional proposal, but coming to the age when the service to humankind you planned for is not demanded is a shock I cannot imagine and it calls for exceptional, constructive action.

    Phil

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • thumb

    Marien Rodriguez

    • 0
    Nov 4 2011: Education's price should definitely be reduce.In England and other countries fees are outrageous! Government should get money in a different way but education should be an open, cheap source for everyone to have access to.

    • Tim Streetman

      • 0
      Nov 8 2011: TODAY, RIGHT NOW, less than two feet away from you is MORE information available to YOU than in the ENTIRE Library of Congress,

      and by the way ... EDUCATION IS FREE, always has been, ALWAYS WILL BE ! It is the cost of the sheepskin (Piece of paper called a degree) they have tricked everone into believing in, that cost the money, and OMG, My Sheepskin is better than yours, cause I went yale, harvard WHATEVER, and WHO invented this atrocity ? THE RAPING< STEALING RICH !

  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • Tim Streetman

    • 0
    Nov 4 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBNh543A81U&feature=share
    Please view ASAP Independent thinking is very new to Americans, but times are changing ....
    To answer your two questions ... Q1: imho nobody will pay this debt, the numbers are just to large, ONLY war can and will resolve it. Q2: With all due respect, The very question is the crux of the matter. We call you lost because YOU believe it is somehow OUR responsibility to save YOU. Therein is the problem, this assumption of entitlement. God endowed you, Gutenberg has freed you, your personal rejection of said freedom is your choice. Freedom is a state of mind, not a location. However, if location is hindering or oppressing that state of mind, place one foot in front of the other and continue until said oppression is just a bad memory. The answers you seek cannot be panhandled ... As crass as it may seem, there is NO us, there is only you ... God has blessed you with contemplation, read, do so ...

    • ian wild

      • 0
      Nov 8 2011: Again Tim you make a good point if only you took god out. god is a crutch. invented out of a need for purpose and guidance. You talk alot about counting on yourself and contemplation wich is good but then you say god has granted you these things, that defeats the whole purpose of your speech. god didnt grant you anything. You make your own path. Live your own life. your moral compass is always changing and so is your life goals. the way you live your life shouldnt be carved into a couple of stones by god. it should come from within you from your life experiences. And then when everyone comes together with all their experiences we form an educated society thats willing to move together to experience new things as a whole
  • thumb

    emm dubahew

    • 0
    Nov 4 2011: One day, this great planet will be led and/or influenced by the scientists and engineers-- people who actually understand and are subject matter experts in terms of resource allocation and sustainability. Should this day ever arrive, there will be no more financial crisis or lacking abundance.


    I hope it's not too late to let conventional wisdom someday have a chance to reflect a culmination of intelligence gathered and shared among the people, through all ages of time...
  • thumb

    Maxime Touzel

    • 0
    Nov 3 2011: What should be done is quite simple, a global reform of the banking system.

    Replacing the current way of the banks that inject funds in the system by getting the loans paid back with interest with money from other loans, because this system is a big fraud and that is why it doesn't work.

    Instead of printing new funds only for the banks to loan money to individuals, there would be a new world bank that would allow new funds to emerge from nothing by giving a measured value to benevolent actions which results in an improvement of the quality of life.

    These funds would also be taken away from the owners of corporations specialized in warfare and other corporations that makes a huge amount of profit with the diminishment of the quality of life of others, backed by the same principle of REAL Justice.

    This new system is not quite ready yet, but i'm working on it. The idea is to bring a certain balance and stability at a global scale, hopefully it will accepted overall by the 99%.
  • thumb

    David Chitty

    • 0
    Nov 3 2011: The thing is that if they could give all of us a job, then they would... but there is nothing really for a young graduate out there.

    In the context of England, they really have little control and are more concerned with saving peoples pensions then providing applicable opportunity for graduates. They are now taking a stronger focus on apprenticeships in the UK but there is not much going for a man like me... all the money I make (not even enough to pay rent) is from things I have sorted out through word of mouth and scraped together from bits and bats... better than dealing with the benefits system.

    Sadly, its the same for a lot of people with the older generation saying that "we are lazy" or "we just don't want to work" when I have spent my whole life working just to be able to get a job and nothing is available... but we all keep walking on being treated as the scum of society by the people who took a paycut in their mid 30's or 40's to take the graduate positions for job security.

    I'm not bitter at all as you can tell... but I don't work because I get paid a lot, I just want to make enough to be independent and those opportunities are very far and few between.
Load more comments…