Design employers want Adobe Illustrator, InDesign AND Canva/chatgpt, experience!

[kcollinsdesign]

If you have time to fix the 'fast' problem... you have time to do it correctly the first time. IMO

The "fast" designer using AI and Canva will cost you $20/hr. A talented designer with the skills needed to create professional vector art using Illustrator will cost you $40+/hr. Allocate your resources appropriately.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

The "fast" designer using AI and Canva will cost you $20/hr. A talented designer with the skills needed to create professional vector art using Illustrator will cost you $40+/hr. Allocate your resources appropriately.

That's only on the front end. What is the backend in cost going to be?

There are people that will choose the cheaper option, but when it comes to production, they are losing those savings (sometimes going to be in the hole if this is going to be for a long run production), because in order to do it quickly, production efficiency is usually sacrificed. Depending on the production in question, even a well done "professional" vector file can have issues with it. There is "fast" that is due to efficiency and there is just slipshod "fast".

 

[Bobby H]

It amazes me when you mention movies, TV and music, yet video games eclipse them all, COMBINED, and no mention of video games.

The video game industry does bring in a lot more revenue than the movie industry. But that's because video games cost a lot more than a movie ticket. The gaming consoles and computers made to play video games are expensive. The video game industry's customer base is mostly a niche market; the demographic is mostly males in their teens and 20's. Music, TV shows and movies reach far more people across both genders and across more age groups. American music and movies do more to influence world popular culture. Social media apps and short video streaming services (YouTube) are reaching the most people.

There are so many factors that go into this issue (some of which I know will drive some people up the walls my even mentioning). It isn't the straight cost of parenting

The cost of parenthood is the biggest factor driving down birth rates. But, yeah, living costs are certainly not the only factor. The problem with falling birth rates involve a multitude of other factors, which makes the trend far more difficult to reverse once the downward slide takes hold.

There is a pretty serious social divide between men and women. The gulf is wider today than it has been in the past. The problem isn't so much about sexism and politics as it is our society's average of in-person social skills have kind of gone to shit. Grown adults in a variety of age groups have socially withdrawn, interacting more through digital devices and letting in-person friendships and relationships wither. Too many kids of spent their childhoods sheltered in their bedrooms connected to their digital pacifiers (TV, tablet, computer, phone, game console, etc). They reach adulthood not being comfortable around other people. They prefer being alone. Social skills require in-person practice to improve and maintain. Someone looking to attract a mate needs the next step above social skills: they gotta have game. No one is going to have game if they spend most of their free time alone.

I get art from clients that they made in Canva or Powerpoint (or on some online printers website and they they saved a screen image of it).

Most of the time the client artwork I receive from Canva is crap. It's rare that I'll get something that's actually use-able. In those instances I'm often having to walk the client through the steps of exporting a PDF. Powerpoint files are garbage too. The military (US Army in particular) really loves Powerpoint. Usually the PPT file is nothing more than a container for a JPEG image pasted inside of it.

The "fast" designer using AI and Canva will cost you $20/hr. A talented designer with the skills needed to create professional vector art using Illustrator will cost you $40+/hr. Allocate your resources appropriately.

99% of people using Canva don't really know what they're doing. They don't know the difference between pixels and vectors or the differences between CMYK and RGB. Basic stuff.

A designer that knows what he is doing, who can produce artwork that is production-ready, is going to be using applications more suited to the job. Most people use Canva because it's free and it has a lot of pre-made templates and clip art. They can fake it at being a graphic designer to a certain degree.

 

[JBurton]

The video game industry does bring in a lot more revenue than the movie industry. But that's because video games cost a lot more than a movie ticket. The gaming consoles and computers made to play video games are expensive. The video game industry's customer base is mostly a niche market; the demographic is mostly males in their teens and 20's. Music, TV shows and movies reach far more people across both genders and across more age groups.

Really?

The number of mobile game players in the US is higher than it has ever been at more than 191 million people, or 57.3% of the population.[14]

The average age of a U.S. gamer is 35, the average number of years a U.S. gamer has been playing games is 13.[8] In 2021, it was reported that the age distribution of U.S. gamers were 20% under the 18 years old, 38% were in between 18 and 34 years old, 14% were in between 35 and 44 years old, 12% were in between 45 and 54 years old, 9% were in between 55 and 64 years old, and 7% were 65 years old or over.[15] The American gamer population is 54% male and 46% female. Of those females, women 18 and older account for a greater portion of the population than males younger than 18.[8] The average female video game player is 44 years old, while the average male video game player is 35.[16][17]

Video games in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Couple that with constant updates, skins, purchases, subscriptions, and video games are dominating media. Just not xbox, they gave up, and at this rate the PC will go from a windows machine to a linux box in the next 5 years.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

The video game industry does bring in a lot more revenue than the movie industry. But that's because video games cost a lot more than a movie ticket. The gaming consoles and computers made to play video games are expensive. The video game industry's customer base is mostly a niche market; the demographic is mostly males in their teens and 20's.

The average age range for a gamer in the US last time that I looked was between 35-44. Remember we are in a steady decline of population, in the range that you quoted, there isn't enough of a market to support games. Especially at any higher of a cost. Certainly not able to be big enough to support a niche form of entertainment.

The demo and who makes up the demo also plays out in other ways, which concerts are still selling out bigger venues, why movies/shows are they rebooting all of the time? It's late GenX and early millennial stuff that is still being put out. Younger generations due to it's size can't support what is coming out enough to make it financially worth while, doesn't have a generation culture like what came before that defines the time that they grew up. Why do younger kids want older stuff, older tech even, it's been romanticized to them by what is being put out and has been for most of their life.

Games also haven't really kept up with inflation. People are complaining about the $70 price tag for games (deluxe editions go for more), however, hitting close to $70 for games was not unheard of in the N64 time. (OoT went for $65 new, that was almost 30 yrs ago). The biggest difference is that there isn't a used market anymore.

Music, TV shows and movies reach far more people across both genders and across more age groups. American music and movies do more to influence world popular culture. Social media apps and short video streaming services (YouTube) are reaching the most people.

If that was the case, why is the gaming industry actually doing better compared to movies etc? And the price tag for going to the movies isn't all that cheap either. Ticket prices have gone up, concessions have gone up. But quality of the movies has gone way down. I used to go to the movies sometimes 3 times a week (sometimes to see the same movie). I haven't been to the movies since 2015. Based on what they are putting out, it has not culturally relevant anymore. With regard to social platforms, what is also being streamed among those platforms? Games, politics/news, and depending on some, the naughty stuff.

The cost of parenthood is the biggest factor driving down birth rates. But, yeah, living costs are certainly not the only factor. The problem with falling birth rates involve a multitude of other factors, which makes the trend far more difficult to reverse once the downward slide takes hold.

No, it's not. If one looks at the breakdown of who wants kids versus who doesn't. It's been steadily trending downward for women to want kids versus, actually ticking slightly upward for guys (women were sold a bill of goods, given that we have research like this article here tends to lend some credibility to that assertion, also people need to keep in mind what work stress etc has on bodies and who can take it versus who can't and that does affect fertility as well). Considering reproduction is handled by females (as it is in most species, they get to choose the mates), they are in control over that. Almost half of women between the ages of 18 to 49 have zero intention of having children. I think it's somewhere like 45-46% of women. While 52-53% of the men want to have kids, but again, who controls that, women (oh the irony).

There is a pretty serious social divide between men and women. The gulf is wider today than it has been in the past. The problem isn't so much about sexism and politics as it is our society's average of in-person social skills have kind of gone to shit.

Neither are mutually exclusive. Most younger women think everything is SA, when it's really being talked to by a guy that they find unattractive or someone that is awkward, but trying to take their chance and talk to a girl that they are interested in. And yes, there is a huge break in the politics between men and women as how things are now. I think GenZ is somewhere between 40% of women leaning liberal, but only 25% of men leaning liberal. And typically one side can handle being with someone that even leans the opposite, but that doesn't go the other way as much. It's either all or nothing with them.

Yes, you are correct that in person social skills have gone down hill, but that is a symptom not a cause. My social skills aren't going to improve either if I have to tiptoe around being called something nasty regardless if I was or wasn't being such.

Even if you were to exclude social skills, have you seen those videos of women on camera talking about their minimum requirements for a man to even date them? For men in their 20s, it's 6 figures, over 6 feet (which is not even 15% of the US men population) and this is across the board from women of all shapes/types. The odds of a match are not that high, and these are the people choosing the future generations. That isn't done by men, that's done by women. They aren't matching, even if they wanted kids, which there is a growing demo of them that do not, their criteria is pretty out there at best. But that isn't even getting into the "ick" (I think that's the term that the youngins use now) if there is reverse criteria.

Someone looking to attract a mate needs the next step above social skills: they gotta have game. No one is going to have game if they spend most of their free time alone.

It's kinda hard to improve one's game when any little thing could be lambasted as some type of ist and phobe and be accused of SA for any little thing. If there is a greater chance of having some label attached to you and that could ruin things greatly for a person, what is a safer bet? Not to even try.

I'm so glad that I don't have to deal with this, I do worry about my kids, but I'm glad that I don't have to worry about this.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Just not xbox, they gave up, and at this rate the PC will go from a windows machine to a linux box in the next 5 years.

Steamdeck baby. Although it's easier and cheaper to create your own. Plus a lot of ways to do the retro stuff in Linux as well.

 

[Johnny Best]

Bobby H and Wild West talk about the future and kids, do either one of them have kids

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Bobby H and Wild West talk about the future and kids, do either one of them have kids

Why would I say this:

I'm so glad that I don't have to deal with this, I do worry about my kids, but I'm glad that I don't have to worry about this.

If I didn't have any? By the way, I have 3.

I can't comment on Bobby though on if he does or does not.

 

[Bobby H]

The number of mobile game players in the US is higher than it has ever been at more than 191 million people, or 57.3% of the population.

That statistic you cited must be using a ridiculously broad definition for what passes for a person being a gamer.

I think of a typical gamer being a person who has a serious gaming PC or a PlayStation/Xbox console and actively buys/uses games made for those platforms. A lady who opens the Words With Friends app on her smart phone during her lunch break isn't the same thing.

No, it's not. If one looks at the breakdown of who wants kids versus who doesn't. It's been steadily trending downward for women to want kids versus, actually ticking slightly upward for guys (women were sold a bill of goods, given that we have research like this article here tends to lend some credibility to that assertion, also people need to keep in mind what work stress etc has on bodies and who can take it versus who can't and that does affect fertility as well). Considering reproduction is handled by females (as it is in most species, they get to choose the mates), they are in control over that. Almost half of women between the ages of 18 to 49 have zero intention of having children. I think it's somewhere like 45-46% of women. While 52-53% of the men want to have kids, but again, who controls that, women (oh the irony).

In studies and news articles on this topic, cost always ranks as the top reason why couples decide to either delay having children or choose not to have children at all.

It is an objective fact the costs of raising children in the US are very expensive and those costs continue to rise. Health care costs related to prenatal, delivery and post-natal care are extreme. The only people who can withstand such costs are those with either great health insurance policies and/or high incomes. The US is in a severe price bubble for housing, particularly housing big enough for families. Then you have day care costs; those are insane too. Couples who aren't financially well-off are forced to have one spouse stay at home to watch kids if they don't have a stay-at-home adult relative who can do the child-watching. There's all sorts of other stuff to add to the cost list. Price-wise, parenthood is increasingly becoming a lifestyle choice only high income earners can afford.

Regarding women and their supposed autonomy over reproduction -that only works if a woman stays celibate. Many women have a strong incentive to do just that since so many young men are unreliable and untrustworthy. Men in relationships can do hinky things to get a woman knocked up and then pull the disappearing act sometime before or after the child is born. No woman wants to be in a situation where she is a single mother raising an infant on her own.

Not only is there increasing amounts of anti-abortion legislation being passed, some of these new laws are threatening types of long term contraception methods. When single women do have "unrestricted" access to such contraception they're having to foot more of the bill if they have health insurance or all of the cost if they don't have insurance.

Even if you were to exclude social skills, have you seen those videos of women on camera talking about their minimum requirements for a man to even date them?

As I said before, cost isn't the only issue contributing to this decline in birth rates. Yes, I agree, many women have some really high, arguably unrealistic standards on who they're willing to date. Many men are guilty of the same thing, but for obviously different standards. I think America's popular culture and social media can be partially blamed for this, based on the imagery it sells to everyone. People now get judged by the amount of success or sex appeal in their social media presence. IMHO, most single people are holding out to some degree for "the bigger, better deal." And if they're not saddened much about being alone that makes it easier for them to hold out and wait for that perfect person. But these young adults may not realize the months and years flip by at an accelerating rate. A person who stays on the sidelines long enough will age out of that reproductive-age dating pool before they know it.

Bobby H and Wild West talk about the future and kids, do either one of them have kids

I don't have any kids of my own, but I've been in relationships with women who had kids from prior marriages/relationships. I do have a good amount of lived experience with changing diapers as well as packing baby supplies and the stroller for a simple trip to the grocery store. Children require a lot of time and attention. They complicate a lot of activities we take for granted. Everyone knows this. "Selfish" is a harsh word to use, but more and more people of reproductive age don't want to give up the relative freedom they have in being child-less. They know what parenthood would do to radically change their lives, even if the situation doesn't devastate them financially.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

That statistic you cited must be using a ridiculously broad definition for what passes for a person being a gamer.

I think of a typical gamer being a person who has a serious gaming PC or a PlayStation/Xbox console and actively buys/uses games made for those platforms. A lady who opens the Words With Friends app on her smart phone during her lunch break isn't the same thing.

Not really, look at the generations that actually came up with gaming, when it was just the arcade, consoles, some computer games, but mostly console/arcade. Bare in mind, they are going to be the ones with what little disposable income that there is to be had.

In studies and news articles on this topic, cost always ranks as the top reason why couples decide to either delay having children or choose not to have children at all.

There was a Harris study from 2022 that cited why women didn't want children was due to keeping their independence, outweighing financial concerns. Remember, women are actually the gatekeepers of that. They aren't the only ones that lose their independence as well, unless they chose poorly, which is happening more and more.

It is an objective fact the costs of raising children in the US are very expensive and those costs continue to rise. Health care costs related to prenatal, delivery and post-natal care are extreme. The only people who can withstand such costs are those with either great health insurance policies and/or high incomes.

Healthcare costs have gone up across the board (I would actually blame lack of right to repair for hospitals and also what happens with insurance as well, but that's another topic. And no, they aren't the only ones that would be able to handle that as well. It's a struggle, but like with anything, it can be handled if one plans accordingly for some type of contingency. And yes, that isn't just theory for me.

Bare in mind, with people waiting longer, that's where the added cost in care is also coming in. More geriatric first time parents. More people wasting time "discovering" themselves in their 20s (which as other implications, especially for women, but I digress).

The US is in a severe price bubble for housing, particularly housing big enough for families.

There is a lot that has gone into the housing crisis, some of which may seem kinda out there. However, with regard to housing big enough for families. I think people have been sold that one has to be in such and such house to raise a family. Or has to make such and such to raise a family. That just isn't the case. What people are thinking that is needed is opulence and that just isn't the case. Sure it's nice, but there is a difference between what one wants and what is actually needed.

Then you have day care costs; those are insane too. Couples who aren't financially well-off are forced to have one spouse stay at home to watch kids if they don't have a stay-at-home adult relative who can do the child-watching.

Typically it's those that are better off that can afford to have a spouse stay behind. However, given what one can do with tech nowadays, even a stay at home parent can have atleast a side gig even with a kid(s) (I have had a home based business since the aughts(nice thing to that actually made all of my kids want to have their own business as well, which I think is better compared to working for someone, but that's just me)). The problem that is more of the case is the destruction of the family unit. That has been more of a damning problem compared to others. Even before we had an explosion in the worker population which depressed income on average, and price hikes due to more demand generated from a bigger customer base that most family units had to have both parents working (all of my grandparents worked, both my parents worked, me and my wife work).

There's all sorts of other stuff to add to the cost list. Price-wise, parenthood is increasingly becoming a lifestyle choice only high income earners can afford.

I would argue that the perception that some people have (and a negative one at that) with regard to having kids is the bigger problem. And I do think of it as a problem. Mainly because I see people lambasting those that do still have kids as they find it inconceivable that anyone would want kids in today's world.

Regarding women and their supposed autonomy over reproduction -that only works if a woman stays celibate. Many women have a strong incentive to do just that since so many young men are unreliable and untrustworthy. Men in relationships can do hinky things to get a woman knocked up and then pull the disappearing act sometime before or after the child is born. No woman wants to be in a situation where she is a single mother raising an infant on her own.

Yes, but that wouldn't be "strong and empowering" that they are lead to believe. They spend their 20s trying to "discover" themselves and in someways they tend to be lax with their mating requirements depending on the person that is showing them attention and at times that results into accidents. Well, they chose poorly and now they have a bitter taste in their mouth.

Of course, also have someone like Tia Billinger, I think she is around 26. 1k men in 12 hrs. It's been said for women that have over 5 different partners, the odds of pair bonding are significantly less compared to having fewer.

I have known women to do hinky things in order to have a meal ticket, so really no one is really free of guilt (cut the tips of condoms, say they are on something but aren't, or that they can't even get pregnant for whatever reason). I have known some men that will pretend to be an "ally" for women in order to go all the way.

Not only is there increasing amounts of anti-abortion legislation being passed, some of these new laws are threatening types of long term contraception methods. When single women do have "unrestricted" access to such contraception they're having to foot more of the bill if they have health insurance or all of the cost if they don't have insurance.

There are some states that will allow abortion throughout the entire stage of pregnancy (just nothing post delivery). Colorado and Oregon I believe have that. Quite a few companies will also help one get that (cheaper for them to do this compared to pay for maternity leave, oh the irony). There are quite a few states that have this enshrined.

However, does one know what is the most 100% effective form of contraception that doesn't require chemicals or surgery depending on circumstance?

Roe V Wade had it's issues (even Ginsberg did not like how it was created, liked the result, but didn't like how it was create, this was always a state's issue and congress had 50+ yrs to enshrine it and they never did, always just used as a voting concern), but the biggest one is when people have a hard time defining what a women is. How can one define women's rights, when they can't define what a women is first?

And if they're not saddened much about being alone that makes it easier for them to hold out and wait for that perfect person. But these young adults may not realize the months and years flip by at an accelerating rate. A person who stays on the sidelines long enough will age out of that reproductive-age dating pool before they know it.

Some have tried to shoot their shot, but my word, the rejection that I went thru in the 80s was nothing compared to what people go thru now. Especially boys. I do agree that tiktok etc has contributed to this, but I doubt I would be able to survive it. I've been married too long, I would hate to have to deal with what guys have to deal with now.

I do have a good amount of lived experience with changing diapers as well as packing baby supplies and the stroller for a simple trip to the grocery store.

Most people mention this, but do people not realize that this isn't the perpetual state of children? They do grow up and are able to gradually handle more and more things on their own?

"Selfish" is a harsh word to use, but more and more people of reproductive age don't want to give up the relative freedom they have in being child-less.

No, it is actually quite accurate. Depending on how far back we go, people went through a lot of risks to have families that would eventually lead up to the person in question. Even when they were in peak reproductive age. Now, I'm not saying that they can't make that choice, but it is being selfish.

They know what parenthood would do to radically change their lives, even if the situation doesn't devastate them financially.

No, they don't actually "know". They have a preconceived notion, a belief of what it would be like. But no one knows how they are going to be impacted by it until it does happen.

Everyone is also so quick on the negatives, but very rarely do they talk about the positives.

Ironically, for women there are health benefits to having children compared to not having children (usually related to reproductive concerns/cancers and reduced risks etc).

There is also nothing like a family bond. I owe a lot of the type of person that I am due to the bond that I have had with my family. That comes with some costs, but there is nothing like that when it works, it really does work and it's worth having. That's why I think the destruction of the family unit is the worst thing for every demographic one can think of. And this is what has lead to the culture that we now have.

 

[Bobby H]

There was a Harris study from 2022 that cited why women didn't want children was due to keeping their independence, outweighing financial concerns. Remember, women are actually the gatekeepers of that. They aren't the only ones that lose their independence as well, unless they chose poorly, which is happening more and more.

I could copy/paste a crap-ton of news story links here talking about the cost of parenthood being the leading factor for people deciding not to have children. You keep on mentioning women being "gatekeepers" and it really sounds more and more sexist each time you do it.

There was a Harris study from 2022 that cited why women didn't want children was due to keeping their independence, outweighing financial concerns.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this cost of having children topic. It sounds like you think anyone should have no problem affording it. I extremely do not agree with that. Parenthood for quite a lot of people is an instant gateway into poverty.

There is a lot that has gone into the housing crisis, some of which may seem kinda out there. However, with regard to housing big enough for families. I think people have been sold that one has to be in such and such house to raise a family. Or has to make such and such to raise a family. That just isn't the case. What people are thinking that is needed is opulence and that just isn't the case. Sure it's nice, but there is a difference between what one wants and what is actually needed.

Opulence? Really? You sound completely out of touch and very off-putting with that remark. With that comment it sounds like you think every couple looking to have kids wants to live in a friggin' mansion. The reality is they're just trying to find a simple house or apartment with 2 bedrooms. Many ordinary, NOT "opulent" houses and apartments have been priced way the f*** out of reach.

There are some states that will allow abortion throughout the entire stage of pregnancy (just nothing post delivery). Colorado and Oregon I believe have that.

I call bullshit on that. There are no places in the US where abortion by choice is legal in the third trimester. The only way a pregnancy is being terminated at that late stage is if there is something fatally wrong with the fetus or the mother has suffered some kind of potentially fatal condition, such as an abruption (where the placenta separates from the wall of the uterus, the mother could bleed to death).

I would argue that the perception that some people have (and a negative one at that) with regard to having kids is the bigger problem. And I do think of it as a problem. Mainly because I see people lambasting those that do still have kids as they find it inconceivable that anyone would want kids in today's world.

Single people vilifying other people for having kids? I call bullshit on that too. Most people are smart enough to pick their battles and the last thing anyone wants to do (if they're not completely stupid) is be openly critical of any parent.

Most people mention this, but do people not realize that this isn't the perpetual state of children? They do grow up and are able to gradually handle more and more things on their own?

Children in different age groups give their parents different challenges. Lord knows me and my brother gave our parents no end of them from infancy up until high school age. Thankfully we had military benefits to cover all the bones I broke doing stupid stunts outdoors -we didn't have game consoles and other stuff like that back then. We had to entertain ourselves outdoors.

No, they don't actually "know". They have a preconceived notion, a belief of what it would be like. But no one knows how they are going to be impacted by it until it does happen.

Sorry, but the financial math of parenthood is easy for anyone to grasp. They don't have to literally live a mistake to understand it. It is a factor on why the teen pregnancy rate today is a mere 1/3 of the rate in 1990. It's easy for people to see the financial pain of what other people are going through. Some people, like me, remember hard times from early childhood experience. My parents were practically kids when I came into the picture. My mother had to drop out of high school. Both my mother and dad got kicked out on their own. My dad ended up joining the Marine Corps to get us out of the small oil town in New Mexico where we lived. By the time I reached my teen years, with hormones raging, I didn't forget what my parents went through and I wasn't too keen on repeating it.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I could copy/paste a crap-ton of news story links here talking about the cost of parenthood being the leading factor for people deciding not to have children. You keep on mentioning women being "gatekeepers" and it really sounds more and more sexist each time you do it.

Everyone goes to the "ist" when it's something that they don't like hearing.

The gender that bares the most during the reproduction stage (risks, nutrient giving etc), not necessarily post parturition are the ones that gate keep it. Most of the rituals that we did (dates, asking out, shoot even the fighting at times) all bare that out. That was flipped I'm sure because someone thought it was "ist" even though the vast majority of species do it in some form or fashion out in the wild. Ironically, because it was flipped, that actually put them at a disadvantage (and some aren't liking it as much as well). While there are some species of animals that have the gender flipped, they also have risks flipped as well. That's the key thing, who bares the risks of the actual pregnancy and work therein.

Now here is the irony, depending on if it's the cost or if it's the lost of independence whatever, that is still going to be dictated by the woman's position on things. She is still the gatekeeper. There is nothing wrong inherently with that. It makes biological sense for the risk barer to be the gatekeeper. Now if the matrix of information that is used is off, that presents a problem, but that is another independent concern.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this cost of having children topic. It sounds like you think anyone should have no problem affording it. I extremely do not agree with that. Parenthood for quite a lot of people is an instant gateway into poverty.

Kids nowadays don't have financial literacy, otherwise, why would they be taking out all of these loans? We had a sub prime loan crisis not all that long ago. If there is no financial literacy, no matter what they do, they are going to be in the shit. Going to college puts people into poverty, yet I don't really see people advocating against that for quite a few jobs that actually don't need a degree (or they get a degree that is worthless, but took out huge amounts of loans and at usury rates, at least I would argue in my non legal mind). For a lot of people, college is also a gateway to poverty. One can do very well with it, but have to be smart about how one does it. One can also do well with not having gone, but do their own thing (typically that's the trade off, have to be willing to work for yourself, not always, but that does help).

And I say this, having had a grandfather that was denied a position due to lacking that very thing despite the person he would have replaced saying that he was the qualified person for it (from a practical standpoint) compared to the college grad that they hired (and the person that they hired was let go fairly quickly, now would my grandfather done better, I would like to think so, don't know because never had that chance).

Opulence? Really? You sound completely out of touch and very off-putting with that remark. With that comment it sounds like you think every couple looking to have kids wants to live in a friggin' mansion. The reality is they're just trying to find a simple house or apartment with 2 bedrooms. Many ordinary, NOT "opulent" houses and apartments have been priced way the f*** out of reach.

I refer back to the many videos of woman talking about how men in their 20s should be making 6 figures (as well as being over 6' tall). So yes, I am quite confident that there is some exaggerated over expectations out there.

What you say, is perfectly reasonable.

Most of this pricing out of sight, I would argue started happening when we had an explosion of the hiring pool (which depresses wages due to supply/demand) and the increase of cost of goods (for the same reason (supply/demand)). And it just spiraled from there to what we have now. I would argue that was the catalyst that started it all.

But I think we disagree on just how pervasive the over inflated expectations that there are out there.

I call bullshit on that. There are no places in the US where abortion by choice is legal in the third trimester. The only way a pregnancy is being terminated at that late stage is if there is something fatally wrong with the fetus or the mother has suffered some kind of potentially fatal condition, such as an abruption (where the placenta separates from the wall of the uterus, the mother could bleed to death).

I didn't say abortions by choice, I just said abortions throughout pregnancy. Unless the mother is unaware that she is pregnant, by the time that it gets to late stage, most women would have already decided as far as by elective choice. There are 9 states that allow abortion with no gestational time constraints. Out of those, there are 4 states (Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon and Colorado (also include DC, but not a state, just for completeness)) have clinics that openly state that they take past 28 wks. Now, if going off of Roe v. Wade, it only protected until viability, after that, it's a state's concern (it should have always been a state's concern). Now, there is one state (Alabama if I recall), also takes mental health of the mother into question. But I think that's the only one.

Single people vilifying other people for having kids? I call bullshit on that too. Most people are smart enough to pick their battles and the last thing anyone wants to do (if they're not completely stupid) is be openly critical of any parent.

I know, because my sister was. How could she want to be pregnant and have to deal with a brat that would keep her from realizing her dreams, her independence. Yes it does happen. Although I didn't say single people. This could come from married people as well. Married, childless by choice is a thing and they do that as well. Is it everyone one of them, no. Although with more and more people using social media as their diary, one can get a glimpse of it.

I also didn't say "most" or even "all" do this, I said "some" do this. Which would actually fit in with what you said.

Children in different age groups give their parents different challenges. Lord knows me and my brother gave our parents no end of them from infancy up until high school age. Thankfully we had military benefits to cover all the bones I broke doing stupid stunts outdoors -we didn't have game consoles and other stuff like that back then. We had to entertain ourselves outdoors.

Back in the 80s, had quite a few consoles, arcades. But Atari had been a thing since the mid 70s as well. I thought we were around the same age, maybe not. However, one isn't mutually exclusive of the other. Remember, me aggie. Lots to do outside as well. I have dealt with my share of accidents, usually horse related (hairline rib crack(I suspect, but no way of really knowing), had one fall on my knee, kicked in the hips, rarely saw a doc).

Some don't give them any challenges though. My sister did, I didn't (they were probably expecting it, but it never happened). Life is supposed to be challenging though, to think that it's not going to be, regardless if one has kids or not, I don't think one is actually living. Just merely existing. My kids have been good, few tiffs, but nothing like my sister did with my parents, so I lucked out. My sister's daughter didn't have much issues as well.

Sorry, but the financial math of parenthood is easy for anyone to grasp. They don't have to literally live a mistake to understand it.

Ironically, people today aren't financially literate. I have mentioned before some things that would lead into that. Is that everyone, no, however, I would say that it's the majority given the issues that we are having. And the easy credit that is afforded to people that are just 18, that is already having them start behind the 8 ball.

Ironically, we actually learn more from mistakes compared to successes. That's why it seems like some intellectuals that have only known what life is like in college seem disconnected with the real world. They have been shielded from what mistakes would have happened if what they expound was actually realized. The irony of theory versus practical knowledge.

But in this context, most aren't financially literate, because even though they may stay away from X due to financial concerns, they do the exact opposite with Y. Even though the issues are very much the same thing.

It is a factor on why the teen pregnancy rate today is a mere 1/3 of the rate in 1990. It's easy for people to see the financial pain of what other people are going through. Some people, like me, remember hard times from early childhood experience. My parents were practically kids when I came into the picture. My mother had to drop out of high school. Both my mother and dad got kicked out on their own. My dad ended up joining the Marine Corps to get us out of the small oil town in New Mexico where we lived. By the time I reached my teen years, with hormones raging, I didn't forget what my parents went through and I wasn't too keen on repeating it.

Let's see, my maternal grandparents had mom when they were late teens (they only had one kid). Grandmother had a full ride to SMU on scholarship, only went for a month, she was done with HS. They were married (no, no shotguns were involved, the math worked out). Paternal grandmother went all the way to masters (both my grandmothers were the first to have part or full college). Dad had the GI Bill for his education, plus mom was working at the college so they got another discount (she went as well). While mom didn't have us quite as young, it wasn't that much older either and they were doing this while juggling kids.

Difficulty can go either way. A person can either crumble or a person can work through it. It can either increase the bond or it can destroy it if it involves two (or more) people. If one chooses well, who they choose to spend their time with, their chances are good in weathering it and coming out better for it. Unfortunately, with more and more people coming from broken homes, having that parental dynamic to grow up with, makes it hard to judge people accordingly. Doesn't always work (especially if poorly chosen), but I would say the majority of the time, it does improve one's chances. Unfortunately, that dynamic isn't as prevalent as it once was.

But like how you are skewed with your own history, I am with mine (and what has gone through my wife's as well), so there is that.

 

[Texas_Signmaker]

 

[Johnny Best]

Thank you Bobby H and Wild West with your thoughts on just about everything, somebody wake up Tex, you will have to ignore him, he was a “crackbaby”.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Thank you Bobby H and Wild West with your thoughts on just about everything, somebody wake up Tex, you will have to ignore him, he was a “crackbaby”.

I just try to spread sunshine into everyone's lives (you are the Maverick fan right?, another one of his quotes). I get the same results from the Ritalin generation.

 

[Johnny Best]

Never like Maverick, Bret or Bart.
Donavan, "Sunshine came softly in my window today, could have tripped out easily, but I have changed my ways"

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Never like Maverick, Bret or Bart.
Donavan, "Sunshine came softly in my window today, could have tripped out easily, but I have changed my ways"

I'm losing it. I'm sure someone quoted the 94 maverick movie lately, but in fairness I have slept many times since I read it, so who knows.

 

[TetroDesign]

Hi to you all!

I'm new to this community! It's a great discovery!

In response to this thread. This is my opinion. I'd like to share my thoughts.

If many of you think that AI isn't a menace, you're really shoving your head in the sand. AI is progressing like crazy. If you're using free versions, yes, you can believe that AI isn't there at all. Those free solutions are limited. As a sign designer, my job isn't quite erased from earth, but it's very damn well hit by it. I'm a freelance sign designer/conceptor. I'm losing clients to this crap like crazy! My subcontractors are now receiving concepts from their clients, all done by AI. All that's left to do, is quote the fabrication, and the the structure designs are done in-house. They almost don't need any sign design presentations anymore. Timing is extremely good and bad. Good for the clients that have tight budgets due to tariffs and inflation, and extremely bad for us designers that lose all these great opportunities. Since January, this is the absolute first time, in 17 years of freelance, I've been asked to lower my rates otherwise my regular clients will have to cease collaboration.

I also do regular graphic design. I lost almost 80% of my workload due to this AI crap. People started off by going down the environmental route decreasing the demand for print jobs, and concentrating the ads to social media platforms, now due to AI, clients are now doing their own ads, themselves.

You have to be aware of something. Not all clients are absolute professionals with the perfect IMAGE. Most of them rely on graphic designers since they don't know HECK about graphic design. And that, no matter what the designers' rates are. If they say they're graphic designers, they're graphic designers! They don't understand the trade, they just trust it blindly. And most are willing to switch to cheaper designers since they think designers have computers and programs that do everything for them. Social media now publishes ads that encourage people to think that hiring graphic designers is a thing of the past and totally unncessary, worthless fees. AI tools are now available for everyone. AI can can produce extraordinary work in a matter of seconds and most of all, TOTALLY FREE. By using the correct prompts, you're in business! AI produces print-ready PDF files in a simple click. At best, printers can adjust slighlty. Printer's won't refuse jobs.

You're all right about the quality of graphic design being hit hard with this technology, that "isn't there" yet. Sadly clients don't know, don't see and worse, don't care about the difference. They can't pay for the service anymore if they want to stay afloat.


Stephan

 

[Hal D]

Never like Maverick, Bret or Bart.
Donavan, "Sunshine came softly in my window today, could have tripped out easily, but I have changed my ways"

Thinking 'bout the time you drove in my car. Thinking that I might have drove you too far. And I'm thinking about the love that you laid on my table." (Cream/Badge).

 

[Hal D]

Never like Maverick, Bret or Bart.
Donavan, "Sunshine came softly in my window today, could have tripped out easily, but I have changed my ways"

Donavan rocked!