A simple comment

I sat through my "Sociology of Education" lecture today, and the topic was on Sports Education. My lecturer gave an example about how a sportsperson representing Singapore would receive $1 million from the state if he/she became a Gold medallist in the Olympics. Rounding off this example, she said, "$1 million from the state. It is alot. But (how about) over Life?" Most students laughed. It was a smart joke, or was it not?

I probably left the lecture with less than what I should on Sports Education. However, I left the lecture theatre with a few important lessons from the particular example stated above. These are the issues that arise as a result from the lecturer making a statement such as above:

1. The lecturer has an authority over students in terms of knowledge pertaining to her expertise, which is Education and its impacts on society. There is a problem when this authority spills over into areas beyond her expertise, and in this case on wealth management. She is clearly wrong and I will demonstrate why later.

2. The lecturer has indirectly sent out the message that even "striking a windfall" is of no use. This further implies that one has to work for the rest of his/her life, in vain. It has an air of pessimism.

3. Subtle messages such as those above are subconsciously accepted by the students.

4. This is another example of how powerful the school serves as an institution that restricts social mobility and reinforces inequality.


I believe why my lecturer thinks that $1 million is unable to last a lifetime is because of economic problems such as that of inflation. She probably hints a little about an alteration of lifestyle to that of luxury, I do not know. However, I beg to differ. Consider this simple scenario:

I put the $1 million into a well diversified portfolio** which yields an annual return of 5%. This is a figure that is sustainable in the long term.

$1,000,000 X 0.05 = $50,000/yr = $4167/mth

This is monthly income for no work done. Note also that the $1 million is still present.


Clearly, my lecturer speaks from the point of view of a spender, rather than a money-saavy investor. Without an intention to mislead, my lecturer's simple and seemingly harmless comment is that capable of reinforcing wrong perceptions about investments. What about statements such as these:

1. I just lost $______.

2. Investments is risky.

3. I am not interested in such things.

These are rife. Instead of engaging in such a topic with people whose vocabulary on investments are as such, seek those out who are financially literate and a whole new world of possibilities will open up before you. If there are financially illiterate people, there must be those who can take you to wealth you never knew you had.

Finally, a simple comment as above is capable of reinforcing a whole audience's social positions, unless their conscious attentions are brought to this problem. My dear reader, please do remember that words are this powerful, and be consciously selective of what you digest.

**It is important to note that acquiring assets for strategic long term purposes and speculation are two different things. The latter is gambling. The former is what should be done, ie through discipline, system and consistency.