24 y/o with a teaching job.
No real income is what she has. Probably on top of a shitton student debt.
Don’t forget how much money she spends on classroom supplies for her “not real kids”!
Apparently she doesn’t have a good parent either.
“no real bills” I’d believe…if the parent said she lived at home (no rent, and food provided), was on parents’ insurance (health, auto, etc.), had no student debt, and was walking distance to work.
But given that her parent didn’t, I’d guess that isn’t the case. Turns out rent, food, transportation, and like you said, student debt, are all…what’s the word…real bills?
To a lot of people “serious bills” means credit card debt for shit they didn’t need.
She’s also probably paying for school supplies.
'Murica!
By the description it sounds like she lives at home? Teachers start most places at $40k+ a year. If she doesn’t have any bills and she’s 24 and no longer wants to wear glasses or contacts, yeah. That’s on her.
*Edit: Some of you disagree with my remarks about most teachers starting at over $40k. So in a below comment I provided facts and sources. The “teachers start most places at $40k+” is spot on.
Where are teachers starting at $40,000? That was 10 year salary in most of the US not even 5 years ago. My brother, his wife, and one of my sisters all started at ≈$24,000 a year, and they still had to supply their classrooms with basic supplies. They all got into teaching at completely different points over the last 19 years. One in '05, one in '12, and the last in '16 and they all started at ≈$24,000 a year. This was in Indiana, Georgia, and Virginia.
Straight from the National Education Association website.. This is a .org pro teacher and pro education website that is actively trying to increase teacher pay.
The National average for NEW teachers is $44,530. 28 percent of districts that staff a total of 300,000 teachers start at below $40,000. However, 23 percent of districts start at over $50,000, and those districts staff a total of 1,300,000 teachers. So over four times more teachers start over $50k, compared to the under $40k crowd.
Furthermore, Montana and Missouri have the lowest average starting teacher salaries and they are still at $34,500 and $36,800. So even if you’re in the dead last worst off state in the country, you’re still average new teacher salary is about $35,000.
So your numbers you have are a far, far, cry from reality for all but the lowest paid teachers in the lowest paid areas and are like a decade back from today’s rates.
As a completely superficial note, my friend just got her first full time teaching job for grade school and is in the 2nd lowest paying state for new teachers in the country; Missouri. Her starting salary is $51,000.
So if you want to have any argument or discussion about my original statement for teacher salaries being incorrect, do as I have and back it up with facts and sources.
Thats because teachers have been fighting tooth and nail to get a proper salary and its still fucking awful.
Them and everyone else. Why unions are finally on the rise again. The idiots have stopped being brainwashed by the ultra wealthy telling them unions are bad.
My starting teacher salary in 2016 was $33K before taxes
And that was a long time and a lot of inflation ago.
And a lot of inflation means that, unless wages kept with it (they didn’t), this situation is exponentially worse.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t have student debt. Or understand it at all.
This pervasive selfishness in older generations sickens and astounds me.
Imagine not wanting to give your kids everything.
I would forego food if I had to in order to help my kids see better.
I would forego food to make sure my kids had glasses or contacts, sure.
I would not forego food so they could have elective surgery.
Pay once or pay multiple times a year? LASIK pays for itself, you’ll always be buying glasses and contacts.
LASIK isn’t some great cure. It has potential side effects and you can end up seeing worse than you did before.
I know I’m just one person, but it was one of the best decisions I ever made. I was almost legally blind without glasses/contacts, and just the stress of making sure my glasses prescription was up to date once I switched to contacts, making sure I packed glasses, contacts, extra contacts, solution, etc, for a trip, and losing 1 contact while at the store or something was instantly erased.
I could read the street signs on the highway on the way home from the surgery. I hadn’t been able to do that unaided since I was probably 10.
Do I need readers now that I’m older? Yep, just like they told me I would because everyone does because it’s a different issue that comes with aging. I wish they had a similar treatment for Presbyopia!!!
Sure, everyone’s experience is different, but it almost was akin to a miracle for me. Life changing for sure.
And on the other side of the spectrum my friend was at -10, got it done and has been complaining for the past 15 years or more. He can barely drive at night now and it hasn’t fixed all his issues so he still needs glasses and has needed them since the operation (just not as much for his myopia) so he’s not saving any money
I’m not doubting at all that there are cases like this and I’m terribly sorry for your friend. I only wanted to present a different perspective for those considering having the procedure. It’s definitely not a decision that should be made lightly.
mate at -10 he wasn’t doing great before he had lasik either.
Was 100% functional with glasses now not functional at night with or without glasses, dry eyes, still needs glasses
Every procedure has that risk, even a routine vaccination or stitches, strange reason to pay for glasses and contacts forever.
There are people who legitimately can’t get the surgery, but that’s obviously not who’s being discussed here.
What’s the ratio on people being worse of for vision after? Cant make a claim like that and not provide some data.
Glasses and contacts also don’t fix the issue and can lead to worse vision too, so arguably that’s non-factor in a discussion like this anyways.
LASIK is the only chance to have a permanent fix. It’s a very important factor to consider, above and beyond the complications, that are also applicable to the glasses and contacts. I’ve not heard of many people’s vision getting better by their continual use.
No, what you are comparing to is a one in a million. Lasik has a rather large complication rate with doctors lying about it and using “satisfaction rate” instead of actually counting complications. Basically people think “it’s worth it to have these problems”. But issues like dry eye, halos, glare, shitty night vision are extremely common. They’ll tell you shit like “serious complications are at 1%” when what they mean is 1% go basically blind - or unable to do daily activities like driving at night.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/lasik/lasik-quality-life-collaboration-project
46% of participants who didn’t have visual problems before lasik, said they have at least one 3 months after the surgery. 30% had dry eye issues. Those aren’t vaccine numbers.
with doctors lying about it
The last person I spoke with who used those words was trying to convince me she could cure cancer with electricity.
You do need electricity to run the machines.
To be fair, using enough electricity will cure everything. Technically.
Three months after surgery is too early for such a conclusion. It is expected that you still have dry eyes and stuff like that for a larger period of time, around 6 months or so with daily eye drops. Your vision post surgery is also not 100% improved, and gets better for up to a year after, while your eyes and brain adjust.
Source: my wife had it. Certainly worth it. Your link is not very relevant.
In October 2009, the FDA, the National Eye Institute (NEI), and the Department of Defense (DoD) launched the LASIK Quality of Life Collaboration Project (LQOLCP) to better understand the potential risk of severe problems that can result from LASIK. The project’s goal was to develop a tool for determining the percent of patients who develop difficulties performing usual activities following LASIK, and to identify predictors for those patients.
The technology is leaps and bounds better than it was 15 years ago, got anything modern?
And the risk of your eyes getting worse with glasses and contacts is worse than that, your eyes can’t get better without mechanical intervention, and glasses WILL deteriorate your vision further. It’s 100% with glasses and contacts.
glasses WILL deteriorate your vision further. It’s 100% with glasses and contacts.
Do you have anything to share on this? I am asking because I remember I specifically asked my eye doctor this question, and he said no. (I asked something like if there is any downside in wearing glasses always vs only when needed e.g., reading, watching TV etc.).
I am also wearing the same glasses for almost 13 years now.
Really it’s the upfront cost. Over the last 20 years I can say confidently that I have not spent more on corrective lenses than I would have on LASIK, but I’m getting close. I had it priced out last year and it’s about $4500 for the procedure. I’m at a point in my life where I would feel comfortable taking on those payments now. I know growing up there was zero chance my parents could have made it happen for me, it we would have all been starving.
I kept putting it off… I wanted it when I was 20 but couldn’t afford it. I still wanted it at 30, but didn’t want to spend the money. At 40 I finally had more than enough in my HSA to cover my annual deductable, so I scheduled it. And I’ve LOVED it! However, around 45 I noticed that my near sight isn’t as good as it has been. Now at 48 I’m realizing that I’ll soon need reading glasses.
I still think it was worth it… but I REALLY wish I had done it in my 20s so I could have enjoyed going glasses free for all those years.
It’s on my shortlist of things to do and has always been a goal since my teenage years. I’m tired of dealing with lenses.
I mean, that’s a pretty good run. I’ve never had to wear glasses but now at 41 I need readers when my eyes are tired, and when they’re not they’re working harder for clarity than they ever had to before. I said something to my dad about it a couple years ago as I was first noticing the change and he said, “How old are you? Ah yeah, that’s about the age.” (Yes my dad had to check how old I was. 🙄)
My prescription changes all the time. There’s NO WAY I want to get lasik and end up wearing glasses in a year.
Fuck that.
LASIK procedures are “permanent”, at best, till the patient’s mid-40s. one source.
Pay once or pay multiple times a year?
no glasses wearers pay “multiple times a year” for new spectacles and lenses. the frequency does go up to once in two years or once a year after the mid-40s because of presbyopia, but that expense would be incurred anyway whether one gets a LASIK procedure done or not.
From your own link?
LASIK eye surgery may mean no more corrective lenses. But it’s not right for everybody. Learn whether you’re a good candidate and what to consider as you weigh your decision.
And maybe read the information on the over 40, it says laser is a solution to that, it says nothing about it still happening with laser, I think you are conflating issues.
do take the time to read the full article. particularly the section titled “LASIK vs. Reading Glasses”.
separately, my cohorts and I are in the mid-40s and have undergone LASIK evaluation. the unanimous consensus given each of us is that we will have to undergo the procedure again and again as our eyes age. that we will have to fall back on glasses.
i speak from personal experience on this topic.
Yes there is people for who it can’t permanently fix their vision, that doesn’t mean it’s not possible for others dude.
Presbyopia is the age-related hardening of the lens and weakening of the muscles used for focusing. The process is progressive and irreversible. Lasik is not a good option for people with presbyopia and any surgeon recommending it is not acting in your best interest as a patient. You should probably seek a second opinion!
Lasik generally comes with a 20 year warranty. Glasses and contacts come with none. Do you work for a pharmaceutical company? You certainly seem to be shilling temporary treatments rather than even semi permanent cures.
I’m also in my 40s and would rather pay for a solution that will last till my 60s rather than get glasses every year for 20 years. Lasik is just cheaper in the long run, and the fact that you call it elective would be hilarious, if you weren’t being so conservative.
Embrace modern medicine.
The 20 year warranty on Lasik doesn’t guarantee a lifetime of normal vision. The surgery can neither correct nor prevent presbyopia, the most common form of age-related far-sightedness. This reduction in vision is caused by a hardening and loss of flexibility in the lens as well as a weakening of the muscles used for focusing.
The link buddy shared above that started this entire discussion says lasik is a solution to presbyopia….
If you are an older adult considering LASIK, you might choose to have monovision to maintain your ability to see objects close up. With monovision, one eye is corrected for distant vision, and the other eye is corrected for near vision. Not everyone is able to adjust to or tolerate monovision. It’s best to do a trial with contact lenses before having a permanent surgical procedure.
Why are you saying the exact opposite of what was linked? Got a source to back this claim up?
You can get glasses for like $20 online. The ones at the optometrist are expensive because of insurance.
An elective surgery you call it, an investment in their vision, I call it. Not everyone has vision as part of their insurance, and contacts/glasses/exams can get expensive without (or even with, depending on the policy). Viewed in that way, LASIK can definitely be seen as an investment.
I mean, lasik comes with issues down the road if you go for the cheaper procedures, and even the good ones if you have complications.
If the question is money, adding risk is often not the wisest of decisions…
The same can be said for glasses and contacts too. So you have a pay once and done, or a pay forever with the same potential issues. Very few people’s vision ever get better from continual glass contact use, but it can get better permanently from lasik.
It’s not like she’s asking for breast implants or liposuction(or something else that is not reconstructive in nature). It’s lasik, and it’ll help her quality of life, no more worrying about breaking her glasses or losing contacts.
We dont know if she works in special ed where getting hit in the face could be a normal occurance for her. Maybe she struggles with contacts. Either way there are a lot of reasons for someone to want to go that route.
Also, comparing lasik to something like nonreconstructive cosmetic surgery is disingenuous. One is completely for aesthetics, the other affects function.
Would you forego getting a 3rd car or building an addition on your home or half of your yearly retirement investment so your kid wouldn’t have to spend too much money every few years on glasses?
That is the biggest chance of what actually would be the situation.
This isn’t a generational problem. It exists across all generations. Looks more like narcissism
Did you mean “isn’t a generational problem?”
The rest of the comment makes more sense to me that way, but as is written, I’m not certain what you are trying to say.
Indeed, I did.
Baby boomers were called “the me generation” by their predecessors before being called baby boomers. Sure, there are selfishness and narcissism at any period. But when everybody notices a trend, it’s hard to say they’re just like everyone else.
Dirty commie kid, he should pay for food/shelter/happiness with labor /s
I believe it’s because they’re all brain damaged due to lead poisoning from leaded gasoline that was widely used in their formative years.
I believe it’s because they’re all brain damaged due to lead poisoning from leaded gasoline that was widely used in their formative years.
She isn’t going blind. Lol.
She just doesn’t want to wear contacts or glasses anymore.
“no real kids”
“no real bills”
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
the fact that he added “real” to both means she has them but he somehow doesn’t consider them real, whatever the fuck that means. but this sounds like a total piece of shit and i feel sorry for the 24 year old.
nothing like ruining the economy and the future for the next generation and then refusing to help.
I think everyone is misunderstanding the “kids” part.
The daughter is a teacher, meaning she has “kids” (i.e. in her classroom), but not “real kids”, as in, kids of her own. A strange way of saying it, but I’m sure that’s what she meant.
The no real bills part… that could mean anything. If she’s living with her folks and doesn’t have to pay rent, utilities, etc., then I can understand how a request like that could be taken poorly by the mother.
Still, posting it on social media is Karen-like behaviour.
I’m guessing the kids comment was about pets. ‘No real bills’ I’m guessing she still lives at home and pays some token amount towards rent/utilities.
We can speculate all we like, but I could see this going either way, and I’d be frustrated if my 24 year old couldn’t support themselves too.
I mean she’s a teacher. A very hard job with lots of unpaid work that often offers downright sad wages.
Being unable to support oneself despite a full-time job is a more and more common thing in our world.
My cousin is a coparent in a polycule of 3, but she is not the biological parent of their children, she is the default parent though, as she is a SAHM and the other parents work. They’ve been together for 23 years.
Half my family acts like she doesn’t have any children, and that she’s some sad single live in nanny. They will ask her how her “room mates and their kids” are going, even if the “room mate” is standing next to her with his hand on her arse and has just finished telling a story about how in love they are.
My dad is also thinks I have “no real bills” because I don’t have a mortgage. He says rent isn’t a real bill because it’s not like the bank will take my house if I don’t pay. History opinion on evictions is “that not the same, because you can get a new place to rent that night, you can’t buy a new house in a day”
My rent is 6x more than his mortgage and I don’t know anyone who could get approved for a rental the same day they get evicted for not paying rent, but sure dad, I’m rolling in expendable income over here.
Some families are weird about denying how their relatives live.
But it could also be that she calls her cat “her baby” and lives at home with only personal bills.
i feel like if he’s frustrated about his kid and she only has pets he’d just say no kids. but people are weird with animals so who knows.
I’d expect ‘no real bills’ to include rent for their own apartment (because the parent doesn’t get how much it costs nowadays), but no car bills for example.
“Can you describe the nature of the unrealness of these bills, as its own thing and not as the absence of something else?”
Just thought the dissection of that particular “weasel word” might help someone out there at some point.
“Brandy made in Germany isn’t “real” cognac. The nature of the unrealness is that it was made in Germany and not the cognac region of France.”
You may disagree but my point here is, right or wrong, you can always describe the nature of the unrealness, unless its being used as a cheap, underhanded rhetorical device.
what does “no real kids” and “no real bills” mean?
Pets and “only” bills related to the daughter and her everyday life.
And I’d bet “real bills” are only bills that the parent deems worthy — mortgage, car payment, etc. I’m guessing teacher pays rent, utilities, pays for groceries…
Nah. Rent and utilities are definitely counted as real bills by everyone. She probably lives at home, or at someone else’s house and just pays like $400 a month to stay there.
She’s a teacher, so she has kids that aren’t hers, and probably pays her phone bill and auto loan and student debt (and possibly rent to her shitty parents). Those parents of course don’t consider those real bills.
It’s worse when you consider that “real bills”, ie a mortgage, is probably out of her reach while he had it easy.
He’s mocking his own daughter, when she probably got absolutely fucked by corruption and the economy, for not having the opportunity to indebt herself for housing, when he probably bought his house on a potato salary.
The fuck does no real bills mean? Does eating, rent and gas/insurance not count as real bill?
Forget the bills, why does she clarify no real kids?
Pets, or the more grotesque option, step-children.
I assumed that they might be referring to either pets or kids in her class at school. Don’t teachers have to pay for stuff out of pocket a lot of times?
Don’t teachers have to pay for stuff out of pocket a lot of times?
Yep. But at least you can claim that on your taxes! Only up to $300 per year though.
(Spoiler alert: it’s always more than $300 a year)
Stranger still: “no real kid(s)”.
More importantly what does no real kids mean?
Step kids? Only daughters? Just pets?
Probably the kids she has in classroom.
Students, maybe?
I just assumed she lived at home a d mom and dad paid for her car, insurance and cell phone. If she’s lucky, they also paid for college.
You know what, i kinda agree. Eating, rent, transport, etc shouldnt be real bills. A teacher 100% should be able to pay for those easily.
I mean that is how it works in my country, not so much the US
She only has fake kids and fake bills
I bet it was because she is not married and has kids. The conservative mind ladies and gentleman and in betweens.
It’s her students
Dammit Mom, my 56 imaginary kids cost me nearly my ENTIRE paycheck! Have some sympathy.
But for real, what is “real kids?”
because she’s a teacher she probably pays out of pocket for school/project supplies. i’ve known a good few teachers, and refereeing to students as sort-of surrogate children is very common. i’d put my money on the mom hassling the daughter about not yet having kids, and the daughter saying something like “i already have kids!” and this idiot is still bitter about it because she feels she is OWED grandchildren.
i’m making a LOT of assumptions here, but like i said i WOULD put money on it. you hear enough firsthand stories and you start making these sort of assumptions.
Yeah, I’ve met so, so many of these kinds of parents through my job, and you can reliably predict their behavior just by wondering “what’s the most selfish and entitled action they could take here?”
Sounds like she’s bitter that she hasn’t been given the grandchildren she thinks she is owed.
I think the parent is male.
I wonder if this lady will ever realize the politicians she votes for (come on, we know which party) are why her daughter with one of the most importsnt jobs in the entire world can’t afford to see. Probably not.
If her eyesight can’t be corrected with glasses, I don’t Lasik is going to help.
Why does she say no real kids? Did she adopt or something and the mom is crazy?
Probably has a pet or two and doesn’t want any “real” kids so they don’t end up acting like their parents…
My fifth grade teacher never had any kids, and considered us as her children. Maybe something like that is what she is referring to?
She has robokids
- Teaching is a real job, probably one of the hardest
- Your daughter is fucking blind, and you’re laughing at her? You are slime
- Being a teacher usually requires a Master’s degree. She very probably has student debt.
She absolutely doesn’t need Lasik though. Calling her out isn’t cool though.
Depends on where you live
No it doesn’t
Lasik doesn’t fix blindness. If Lasik can help, most people live with corrective lenses, because they are much much cheaper even over the long haul than Lasik.
I certainly disagree with going to social media over the exchange, but Lasik is far from a “need” for anyone and isn’t something to consider equivalent to “curing blindness”
Lasik isn’t some life saving critical operation that would be provided for if she lived in a leftist European state, you make do with contacts or glasses until you can afford it. The parent is a dumbass too for running to twitter with this but it is an elective.
deleted by creator
Can confirm from the tail end of Gen X. There were some total cunts that called themselves neo-conservatives that I went to a Liberal Arts College, called Transylvania University with. One would have thought they would have taken even a cursory look at that school and declared it part of “The Leftist Elite,” but they still ended up there somehow.
No no no, you don’t understand! Liberal Arts colleges are infested with leftist agents and propaganda, and one could never gain anything of value studying there!
Unless, of course, you’re a conservative man who studied economics there; then, your education makes you knowledgable and impressive. Of course, of course…
Ok, but Transylvania University? Like even if you have any clue as to why a liberal arts university in Lexington, KY is called that, you have to know that some pretty weird people are going to be attracted to the name alone. Rocky Horror Picture Show fans, Vampire fans of a holy shit spectrum from Bram Stoker all the way to Anne Rice, while I was there. Not to mention artistic freaks of every single sort. I really don’t know what they were thinking.
Fair enough, my sentiment was towards liberal arts schools in general. Transylvania University is quite a name.
Fuck of with that stupid generationism. This is narcissism, a mental illness which exists in people of all ages.
Generationism is something that is made up to make people forget about the actual structural problems in society.
deleted by creator
Dude this is like every post on the estranged parents sub on reddit… they really are oblivious to the fact that their kids have good reasons to hate them
“No one has audacity like the people you raised” proceeds to post about it to potentially millions of people, you know like people without audacity do.
It wouldn’t occur to me to broadcast this to others on the internet, especially with personal details, even for a random solicitor, let alone a family member, let alone my own child.
And since the kid didn’t anticipate the public ridicule, it may very well be the first time they ever asked for this kind of help. What an awful way to learn your parent considers you little more than an expendable prop in their social life.
In nature, some species prey upon their young. We usually understand this as an evolutionary mechanism, to ensure only the strongest offspring survive. With that in mind, if your parent behaves like this, consider that they may no longer be your caregiver, and it may be time for you to decide what it takes to be the offspring that survives.
Social darwinism disgusts me…
Social Darwinism disgusts me…
Same, but I picked this illustration for a reason.
Abusive parents often use essentialist language to keep their children bound with obligation and guilt. Vulnerability to that rhetoric tends to be associated with notions of “natural law,” so I suspect a natural metaphor has a better chance of resonating with those that need to hear it.
And when the time comes that shitty person will ask “why she doesn’t love me? Why she threw me to this garbage asylum?” without understanding it.
And only because at some point they decided to stop hearing anyone who disagreed. It’s not just their kids who stop talking to them. Eventually everyone figures it out, and this type of person ends up pretty isolated later in life.
It wouldn’t occur to me to broadcast this to others on the internet, especially with personal details, even for a random solicitor, let alone a family member, let alone my own child.
That enrages me. I don’t understand why people feel the need to air their dirty laundry on social media. Keep that shit to yourself, the relevant parties, and your therapist.
For some reason, some folks think they can make themselves look better by making everyone around them look worse.
I’m hoping she doesn’t teach highschoolers. If her students cought wind of this post and worked out it was about their teacher, classroom management goes out the window.
Remember when our parents told us social media is bad? Here it is, they are exactly why.
