Bearcat, I think you'd be absolutely floored at how many 30 and younger year olds in the Bay Area, NYC, and maybe a few others are reaching up into the six figure before-tax salary range ... especially damn software developers.

(04-19-2017 05:08 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 03:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 09:35 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 08:48 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 08:24 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't disagree with any of that. I'm merely saying the runaway costs of college have very little to do with athletics. In other words, the money athletics is "losing" would likely have to be spent on traditional marketing and alternative student amenities if you didn't have a D1 athletics program.

In Texas, Gov Perry had an initiative to create a quality public 4 year college degree that would cost just $10K. It now exists, but it requires jumping through a lot of hoops and is only available in limited locations. So, if you don't live near those locations, you'll need room and board which runs up the cost to near traditional contract college levels. The answer is a state wide system that utilizes the local community colleges, on-line facilities, and at least one of the major state systems---to create a $10K degree that's accessible no matter where you live in the state. That way, you can live at home while you finish the degree, minimizing costs. It shouldn't really be that hard to create in today's connected internet environment. Its time has come.

The flipside is that there is a large group of students that want the high end college experience, not just a degree at the lowest cost. They want Disney World not Walmart. Schools cater to this group since it often includes the students that are in the highest demand, however it drives up the cost for everyone. Those complaining about the high cost of education generally ignore that this is a significant factor driving the cost. However, I applaud those trying to create value options for students and their families.

That could very well be true. However, even for this group of students the cost of attendance may cut into their time on campus and thus ultimately governed by finances. Your best and brightest - those who can get a full academic ride - and even those who can get scholarships for some type of achievement - will likely still go to campus. Even some of the poor who will get grants and scholarships for poverty may be too. However, the majority of the kids will be middle class and will need to carry some level of debt even pursuing the cheaper alternatives. We'll see how it unfolds in the future, but I suspect with these types of changes you won't see the same level of alumni donations as in years past because the experiences will be much more in line with Walmart than Disney.

There's some validity to what you're stating, although the broader issue for society is that the "middle class" is really not that large. Instead, we have a large upper class and a large lower class. The income distribution is more barbell-shaped as opposed to having a bulge in the middle.

As a result, the upper class segment that is attracted to and willing to pay for amenity-filled colleges is likely larger than what you're arguing. For instance, there are around 1.7 million people that live in DuPage County and Lake County in the Chicago suburbs and they're two of the highest income counties in the nation. Just those two counties alone graduate tens of thousands of students each year that have the grades, test scores and finances to attend a whole slew of colleges. Now, cost certainly matters even to higher income people. However, in these "mass affluent" communities, they're generally not choosing fewer amenities for lower tuition. Instead, they're choosing lower tuition for schools with similar amenities, e.g. Indiana University offering enough money to make it less expensive than in-state tuition at the University of Illinois.

I think the news media focuses too much on the wealthiest 1% (similar to how so many news stories about college life use Harvard as a proxy). However, it's really the top 20% that disproportionately fill up the top tiers of universities in large numbers and they're quite picky. Cost is certainly a big factor, but they also take into account prestige, program rankings, amenities, environment and other factors beyond simply straight cost. These aren't small numbers of students -- they're enough to fill up the classes at the top 100-plus universities in the country.

Note that "amenities" can be interpreted in different ways. Some of those might be the big-time sports programs that we talk about here. Others could be the fact that they're liberal arts colleges with smaller class sizes. Others could be a location in a highly desirable area, such as NYU in Manhattan. The amenities that are important for each individual student are going to be different, but the point is that colleges that are competing for the "mass affluent" generally need *some* type of hook beyond just straight cost.

I agree that the focus on 1% is overblown. But the middle class is not disappearing. A lot of people (particularly politicians) profit by spreading this myth, but it's still a myth.

My little brother and my grandma both technically are in poverty according to US government statistics. They'd fall in the lower end of the "barbell." But "college poor" and "retired" are a lot more similar to "middle class" than they are to "poverty."

Simple income distributions don't tell the full tale. Think of it this way: how many people who are younger than 30 or older than 65 earn over $100,000? It's almost zero; only people from 30-65 (44% of households) have a chance to earn over $100,000 a year. Yet despite this, 25% of American households earn over $100,000 a year.

The dynamics are very different from 1970, when most 22 year olds had been working full time for 4 years, and there were few retirees. These days people spend a lot lower percentage of their lives working their "real" job where they earn peak incomes.

Once you account for a person's age, the vast majority of Americans are solidly middle or upper-middle class.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2031...in-the-us/

This is 2015 data, and it mixes all households in the U.S. I see no barbell in this graph. In fact, it is a rather broad bell curve - if you can even say that. It looks more like a Weibull distribution than a normal one. See below the curve for when the beta is = to 2.



IMHO, my points still stand. Frank may be right in that the top 100 publics in the country may ultimately be fine and will still charge high premiums for attendance. But again, as we factor in ROI's on a per degree basis, the generally high debt loads that the kids would have to shoulder on their own and/or the current debt loads of upper income families with college age children...expect to see a lot of changes in these various schools.

Frank, your example may be a little too insular on this subject (I assume not intentionally so) by assuming too high of a level of affluence in the country based on your personal experiences where you live.

(04-19-2017 05:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 05:08 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 03:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 09:35 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 08:48 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The flipside is that there is a large group of students that want the high end college experience, not just a degree at the lowest cost. They want Disney World not Walmart. Schools cater to this group since it often includes the students that are in the highest demand, however it drives up the cost for everyone. Those complaining about the high cost of education generally ignore that this is a significant factor driving the cost. However, I applaud those trying to create value options for students and their families.

That could very well be true. However, even for this group of students the cost of attendance may cut into their time on campus and thus ultimately governed by finances. Your best and brightest - those who can get a full academic ride - and even those who can get scholarships for some type of achievement - will likely still go to campus. Even some of the poor who will get grants and scholarships for poverty may be too. However, the majority of the kids will be middle class and will need to carry some level of debt even pursuing the cheaper alternatives. We'll see how it unfolds in the future, but I suspect with these types of changes you won't see the same level of alumni donations as in years past because the experiences will be much more in line with Walmart than Disney.

There's some validity to what you're stating, although the broader issue for society is that the "middle class" is really not that large. Instead, we have a large upper class and a large lower class. The income distribution is more barbell-shaped as opposed to having a bulge in the middle.

As a result, the upper class segment that is attracted to and willing to pay for amenity-filled colleges is likely larger than what you're arguing. For instance, there are around 1.7 million people that live in DuPage County and Lake County in the Chicago suburbs and they're two of the highest income counties in the nation. Just those two counties alone graduate tens of thousands of students each year that have the grades, test scores and finances to attend a whole slew of colleges. Now, cost certainly matters even to higher income people. However, in these "mass affluent" communities, they're generally not choosing fewer amenities for lower tuition. Instead, they're choosing lower tuition for schools with similar amenities, e.g. Indiana University offering enough money to make it less expensive than in-state tuition at the University of Illinois.

I think the news media focuses too much on the wealthiest 1% (similar to how so many news stories about college life use Harvard as a proxy). However, it's really the top 20% that disproportionately fill up the top tiers of universities in large numbers and they're quite picky. Cost is certainly a big factor, but they also take into account prestige, program rankings, amenities, environment and other factors beyond simply straight cost. These aren't small numbers of students -- they're enough to fill up the classes at the top 100-plus universities in the country.

Note that "amenities" can be interpreted in different ways. Some of those might be the big-time sports programs that we talk about here. Others could be the fact that they're liberal arts colleges with smaller class sizes. Others could be a location in a highly desirable area, such as NYU in Manhattan. The amenities that are important for each individual student are going to be different, but the point is that colleges that are competing for the "mass affluent" generally need *some* type of hook beyond just straight cost.

I agree that the focus on 1% is overblown. But the middle class is not disappearing. A lot of people (particularly politicians) profit by spreading this myth, but it's still a myth.

My little brother and my grandma both technically are in poverty according to US government statistics. They'd fall in the lower end of the "barbell." But "college poor" and "retired" are a lot more similar to "middle class" than they are to "poverty."

Simple income distributions don't tell the full tale. Think of it this way: how many people who are younger than 30 or older than 65 earn over $100,000? It's almost zero; only people from 30-65 (44% of households) have a chance to earn over $100,000 a year. Yet despite this, 25% of American households earn over $100,000 a year.

The dynamics are very different from 1970, when most 22 year olds had been working full time for 4 years, and there were few retirees. These days people spend a lot lower percentage of their lives working their "real" job where they earn peak incomes.

Once you account for a person's age, the vast majority of Americans are solidly middle or upper-middle class.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2031...in-the-us/

This is 2015 data, and it mixes all households in the U.S. I see no barbell in this graph. In fact, it is a rather broad bell curve - if you can even say that. It looks more like a Weibull distribution than a normal one. See below the curve for when the beta is = to 2.



IMHO, my points still stand. Frank may be right in that the top 100 publics in the country may ultimately be fine and will still charge high premiums for attendance. But again, as we factor in ROI's on a per degree basis, the generally high debt loads that the kids would have to shoulder on their own and/or the current debt loads of upper income families with college age children...expect to see a lot of changes in these various schools.

Frank, your example may be a little too insular on this subject (I assume not intentionally so) by assuming too high of a level of affluence in the country based on your personal experiences where you live.

The barbell is with savers for retirement. Some who make $200k a year have absolutely no savings squirreled away. Some blue collar types making $40 k will have a relatively luxurious lifestyle in comparison, as they learned the value of compound interest early on with their savings. Was amazed at the number of people that refused to "give" to their 401k so they could earn an extra 3% or more tax free.

(04-19-2017 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 03:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 09:35 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 08:48 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 08:24 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't disagree with any of that. I'm merely saying the runaway costs of college have very little to do with athletics. In other words, the money athletics is "losing" would likely have to be spent on traditional marketing and alternative student amenities if you didn't have a D1 athletics program.

In Texas, Gov Perry had an initiative to create a quality public 4 year college degree that would cost just $10K. It now exists, but it requires jumping through a lot of hoops and is only available in limited locations. So, if you don't live near those locations, you'll need room and board which runs up the cost to near traditional contract college levels. The answer is a state wide system that utilizes the local community colleges, on-line facilities, and at least one of the major state systems---to create a $10K degree that's accessible no matter where you live in the state. That way, you can live at home while you finish the degree, minimizing costs. It shouldn't really be that hard to create in today's connected internet environment. Its time has come.

The flipside is that there is a large group of students that want the high end college experience, not just a degree at the lowest cost. They want Disney World not Walmart. Schools cater to this group since it often includes the students that are in the highest demand, however it drives up the cost for everyone. Those complaining about the high cost of education generally ignore that this is a significant factor driving the cost. However, I applaud those trying to create value options for students and their families.

That could very well be true. However, even for this group of students the cost of attendance may cut into their time on campus and thus ultimately governed by finances. Your best and brightest - those who can get a full academic ride - and even those who can get scholarships for some type of achievement - will likely still go to campus. Even some of the poor who will get grants and scholarships for poverty may be too. However, the majority of the kids will be middle class and will need to carry some level of debt even pursuing the cheaper alternatives. We'll see how it unfolds in the future, but I suspect with these types of changes you won't see the same level of alumni donations as in years past because the experiences will be much more in line with Walmart than Disney.

There's some validity to what you're stating, although the broader issue for society is that the "middle class" is really not that large. Instead, we have a large upper class and a large lower class. The income distribution is more barbell-shaped as opposed to having a bulge in the middle.

As a result, the upper class segment that is attracted to and willing to pay for amenity-filled colleges is likely larger than what you're arguing. For instance, there are around 1.7 million people that live in DuPage County and Lake County in the Chicago suburbs and they're two of the highest income counties in the nation. Just those two counties alone graduate tens of thousands of students each year that have the grades, test scores and finances to attend a whole slew of colleges. Now, cost certainly matters even to higher income people. However, in these "mass affluent" communities, they're generally not choosing fewer amenities for lower tuition. Instead, they're choosing lower tuition for schools with similar amenities, e.g. Indiana University offering enough money to make it less expensive than in-state tuition at the University of Illinois.

I think the news media focuses too much on the wealthiest 1% (similar to how so many news stories about college life use Harvard as a proxy). However, it's really the top 20% that disproportionately fill up the top tiers of universities in large numbers and they're quite picky. Cost is certainly a big factor, but they also take into account prestige, program rankings, amenities, environment and other factors beyond simply straight cost. These aren't small numbers of students -- they're enough to fill up the classes at the top 100-plus universities in the country.

Note that "amenities" can be interpreted in different ways. Some of those might be the big-time sports programs that we talk about here. Others could be the fact that they're liberal arts colleges with smaller class sizes. Others could be a location in a highly desirable area, such as NYU in Manhattan. The amenities that are important for each individual student are going to be different, but the point is that colleges that are competing for the "mass affluent" generally need *some* type of hook beyond just straight cost.

That totally depends upon your definition of "upper class". We aren't talking about the wealthiest here which actually are less than 5% of the population. I would think the group you are talking about has an adjusted gross in six figures which was once described as the Upper Middle Class. If so then I can buy your illustration. Lower middle class are those who work and live just above the poverty level. The middle middle class are those who earn an adjusted gross over 50,000 but under six figures, and everyone's classifications vary some on those ranges.

People making $130,000 are in the top 10% but there isn't a notable difference in standard of living compared to someone making $80,000 and in the top 25% or $70,000 and in the top 50% or $200,000 and in the top 5%.

There are differences of course but not huge differences.
Two good friends and myself hit the range of top 25% top 10% and top 5%.

Houses range in age from 40 years to 15 years. Difference in sq feet about 400 sq ft from largest to smallest.
All three of us ended up taking Florida beach vacations for a week (consecutive weeks, go figure) ranging from a beach front condo, block off the beach townhouse, larger beachfront condo locations spread over 9 miles. Highest earner's newest vehicle is a year old Audi A6, lowest earner three year old GMC Yukon, mid-range guy 2 year old Toyota Camry (and the cheapest vehicle of the three).

My wife has relatives who buy a new vehicle every 4-6 years for more than their home is worth.

The charts just don't provide a real picture because you've got climb a bit more to really change your standard of living.

But at around $60,000 your standard of living can start dropping a good bit for every dollar in reduction.

(04-19-2017 09:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 03:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 09:35 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 08:48 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The flipside is that there is a large group of students that want the high end college experience, not just a degree at the lowest cost. They want Disney World not Walmart. Schools cater to this group since it often includes the students that are in the highest demand, however it drives up the cost for everyone. Those complaining about the high cost of education generally ignore that this is a significant factor driving the cost. However, I applaud those trying to create value options for students and their families.

That could very well be true. However, even for this group of students the cost of attendance may cut into their time on campus and thus ultimately governed by finances. Your best and brightest - those who can get a full academic ride - and even those who can get scholarships for some type of achievement - will likely still go to campus. Even some of the poor who will get grants and scholarships for poverty may be too. However, the majority of the kids will be middle class and will need to carry some level of debt even pursuing the cheaper alternatives. We'll see how it unfolds in the future, but I suspect with these types of changes you won't see the same level of alumni donations as in years past because the experiences will be much more in line with Walmart than Disney.

There's some validity to what you're stating, although the broader issue for society is that the "middle class" is really not that large. Instead, we have a large upper class and a large lower class. The income distribution is more barbell-shaped as opposed to having a bulge in the middle.

As a result, the upper class segment that is attracted to and willing to pay for amenity-filled colleges is likely larger than what you're arguing. For instance, there are around 1.7 million people that live in DuPage County and Lake County in the Chicago suburbs and they're two of the highest income counties in the nation. Just those two counties alone graduate tens of thousands of students each year that have the grades, test scores and finances to attend a whole slew of colleges. Now, cost certainly matters even to higher income people. However, in these "mass affluent" communities, they're generally not choosing fewer amenities for lower tuition. Instead, they're choosing lower tuition for schools with similar amenities, e.g. Indiana University offering enough money to make it less expensive than in-state tuition at the University of Illinois.

I think the news media focuses too much on the wealthiest 1% (similar to how so many news stories about college life use Harvard as a proxy). However, it's really the top 20% that disproportionately fill up the top tiers of universities in large numbers and they're quite picky. Cost is certainly a big factor, but they also take into account prestige, program rankings, amenities, environment and other factors beyond simply straight cost. These aren't small numbers of students -- they're enough to fill up the classes at the top 100-plus universities in the country.

Note that "amenities" can be interpreted in different ways. Some of those might be the big-time sports programs that we talk about here. Others could be the fact that they're liberal arts colleges with smaller class sizes. Others could be a location in a highly desirable area, such as NYU in Manhattan. The amenities that are important for each individual student are going to be different, but the point is that colleges that are competing for the "mass affluent" generally need *some* type of hook beyond just straight cost.

That totally depends upon your definition of "upper class". We aren't talking about the wealthiest here which actually are less than 5% of the population. I would think the group you are talking about has an adjusted gross in six figures which was once described as the Upper Middle Class. If so then I can buy your illustration. Lower middle class are those who work and live just above the poverty level. The middle middle class are those who earn an adjusted gross over 50,000 but under six figures, and everyone's classifications vary some on those ranges.

People making $130,000 are in the top 10% but there isn't a notable difference in standard of living compared to someone making $80,000 and in the top 25% or $70,000 and in the top 50% or $200,000 and in the top 5%.

There are differences of course but not huge differences.
Two good friends and myself hit the range of top 25% top 10% and top 5%.

Houses range in age from 40 years to 15 years. Difference in sq feet about 400 sq ft from largest to smallest.
All three of us ended up taking Florida beach vacations for a week (consecutive weeks, go figure) ranging from a beach front condo, block off the beach townhouse, larger beachfront condo locations spread over 9 miles. Highest earner's newest vehicle is a year old Audi A6, lowest earner three year old GMC Yukon, mid-range guy 2 year old Toyota Camry (and the cheapest vehicle of the three).

My wife has relatives who buy a new vehicle every 4-6 years for more than their home is worth.

The charts just don't provide a real picture because you've got climb a bit more to really change your standard of living.

But at around $60,000 your standard of living can start dropping a good bit for every dollar in reduction.

My philosophy has been quite different. Save. Owe nothing but your home mortgage. Live frugally. Retire Early. And try to stay active doing what you enjoy. But above all else stay away from stupid people. Stupid people get you killed! Cell phones and texting have made this very hard to accomplish.

The latter was the first maxim that I drilled into the heads and hearts of my children. All the rest has been their struggle with spouses who were raised in debt. I started them out with a free education and a new, fully paid for, vehicle. The rest was up to them.

If I was an insurance executive I would find a reduced rate for those who could prove that they neither were friends with, nor work with, stupid people. The odds of their surviving into retirement are significantly better. The hardest thing for a parent to handle are the stupid people that try to befriend your children, or worse date them. 14 - 24 is the most dangerous decade a parent must endure.

After that it's all good.

We don't need half of what we think we want. We don't enjoy the majority of things we buy. And then what we do have and think we enjoy we worry about, which robs us of our freedom. If we travel we so over schedule that we don't remember what we see, and spend so little time with the cultures we visit that they remain foreign to us. We have forgotten how to simply be. And we have forgotten just how wonderful a long conversation with a friend, uninterrupted by technology, really is.

That is wealth. The rest is just existing.

(04-19-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If I was an insurance executive I would find a reduced rate for those who could prove that they neither were friends with, nor work with, stupid people. The odds of their surviving into retirement are significantly better. The hardest thing for a parent to handle are the stupid people that try to befriend your children, or worse date them. 14 - 24 is the most dangerous decade a parent must endure.

My mother always said, "I trust you, I don't trust your friends because the IQ of a group of teenagers is equal to the lowest IQ in the group"

(04-19-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If I was an insurance executive I would find a reduced rate for those who could prove that they neither were friends with, nor work with, stupid people. The odds of their surviving into retirement are significantly better.

On average, this is probably true ... but obviously there are several easy counters to this:

- "stupid" vs "smart" doesn't even necessarily correlate to "risk taker" vs "doesn't make poor choices"
- even if you shield yourself from people who make bad decisions, all it takes is one "stupid" person to ruin your life, out of the blue. Every time you drive through an intersection ... someone you never met could T-bone you and leave you disabled for the rest of your life, if not kill you

(04-19-2017 09:05 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 05:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 05:08 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 03:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 09:35 AM)miko33 Wrote:  That could very well be true. However, even for this group of students the cost of attendance may cut into their time on campus and thus ultimately governed by finances. Your best and brightest - those who can get a full academic ride - and even those who can get scholarships for some type of achievement - will likely still go to campus. Even some of the poor who will get grants and scholarships for poverty may be too. However, the majority of the kids will be middle class and will need to carry some level of debt even pursuing the cheaper alternatives. We'll see how it unfolds in the future, but I suspect with these types of changes you won't see the same level of alumni donations as in years past because the experiences will be much more in line with Walmart than Disney.

There's some validity to what you're stating, although the broader issue for society is that the "middle class" is really not that large. Instead, we have a large upper class and a large lower class. The income distribution is more barbell-shaped as opposed to having a bulge in the middle.

As a result, the upper class segment that is attracted to and willing to pay for amenity-filled colleges is likely larger than what you're arguing. For instance, there are around 1.7 million people that live in DuPage County and Lake County in the Chicago suburbs and they're two of the highest income counties in the nation. Just those two counties alone graduate tens of thousands of students each year that have the grades, test scores and finances to attend a whole slew of colleges. Now, cost certainly matters even to higher income people. However, in these "mass affluent" communities, they're generally not choosing fewer amenities for lower tuition. Instead, they're choosing lower tuition for schools with similar amenities, e.g. Indiana University offering enough money to make it less expensive than in-state tuition at the University of Illinois.

I think the news media focuses too much on the wealthiest 1% (similar to how so many news stories about college life use Harvard as a proxy). However, it's really the top 20% that disproportionately fill up the top tiers of universities in large numbers and they're quite picky. Cost is certainly a big factor, but they also take into account prestige, program rankings, amenities, environment and other factors beyond simply straight cost. These aren't small numbers of students -- they're enough to fill up the classes at the top 100-plus universities in the country.

Note that "amenities" can be interpreted in different ways. Some of those might be the big-time sports programs that we talk about here. Others could be the fact that they're liberal arts colleges with smaller class sizes. Others could be a location in a highly desirable area, such as NYU in Manhattan. The amenities that are important for each individual student are going to be different, but the point is that colleges that are competing for the "mass affluent" generally need *some* type of hook beyond just straight cost.

I agree that the focus on 1% is overblown. But the middle class is not disappearing. A lot of people (particularly politicians) profit by spreading this myth, but it's still a myth.

My little brother and my grandma both technically are in poverty according to US government statistics. They'd fall in the lower end of the "barbell." But "college poor" and "retired" are a lot more similar to "middle class" than they are to "poverty."

Simple income distributions don't tell the full tale. Think of it this way: how many people who are younger than 30 or older than 65 earn over $100,000? It's almost zero; only people from 30-65 (44% of households) have a chance to earn over $100,000 a year. Yet despite this, 25% of American households earn over $100,000 a year.

The dynamics are very different from 1970, when most 22 year olds had been working full time for 4 years, and there were few retirees. These days people spend a lot lower percentage of their lives working their "real" job where they earn peak incomes.

Once you account for a person's age, the vast majority of Americans are solidly middle or upper-middle class.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2031...in-the-us/

This is 2015 data, and it mixes all households in the U.S. I see no barbell in this graph. In fact, it is a rather broad bell curve - if you can even say that. It looks more like a Weibull distribution than a normal one. See below the curve for when the beta is = to 2.



IMHO, my points still stand. Frank may be right in that the top 100 publics in the country may ultimately be fine and will still charge high premiums for attendance. But again, as we factor in ROI's on a per degree basis, the generally high debt loads that the kids would have to shoulder on their own and/or the current debt loads of upper income families with college age children...expect to see a lot of changes in these various schools.

Frank, your example may be a little too insular on this subject (I assume not intentionally so) by assuming too high of a level of affluence in the country based on your personal experiences where you live.

The barbell is with savers for retirement. Some who make $200k a year have absolutely no savings squirreled away. Some blue collar types making $40 k will have a relatively luxurious lifestyle in comparison, as they learned the value of compound interest early on with their savings. Was amazed at the number of people that refused to "give" to their 401k so they could earn an extra 3% or more tax free.

Good points on investing, but remember that were talking about annual income and not assets. Even a retired person having liquid assets of a several million dollars are most likely drawing those assets down slowly over time to have an income somewhere around $100K - maybe more but maybe less than that depending on what their plans for the future are.

Regarding households with children who are going to university, their 401k assets are in a "lock box", and at that point in time is actually a continuing investment (not much different to a liability/debt). So most likely the vast majority of kids going to college are in situations where the majority - if not all - of the income is coming from wages.

(04-20-2017 09:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If I was an insurance executive I would find a reduced rate for those who could prove that they neither were friends with, nor work with, stupid people. The odds of their surviving into retirement are significantly better.

On average, this is probably true ... but obviously there are several easy counters to this:

- "stupid" vs "smart" doesn't even necessarily correlate to "risk taker" vs "doesn't make poor choices"
- even if you shield yourself from people who make bad decisions, all it takes is one "stupid" person to ruin your life, out of the blue. Every time you drive through an intersection ... someone you never met could T-bone you and leave you disabled for the rest of your life, if not kill you

I'm pretty sure I covered that in my comments about texting and cell phones.

So you're saying that smart phones and the messaging paradigm of communication make it impossible for you to achieve the thing you advocate for?

Interesting article in Mpls paper today, about one state representative proposing that all fees at Minn public colleges and universities by "optional".

http://www.startribune.com/legislature-e...419910683/

Quote:“Students having to work extra jobs to pinch pennies and work their way through college don’t necessarily have time to participate in these student groups and are having to work extra hours or take out more in student loans to be able to afford these student fees,” he said.

Fees vary from campus to campus. At the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, students pay $432 per semester. Of the $33 million in revenue the fees generate each year, more than 90 percent goes to support the student health service, recreation and wellness facilities, the student union and a sexual-assault counseling center.

About 3 percent goes to campus media organizations, like the Minnesota Daily newspaper and Radio K, the student-run radio station. Four percent is distributed among student groups ranging from the Mock Trial Association to the Multifaith Student Council to an alpine ski team.

A student advisory group decides how to divvy up the money, and makes recommendations about the total cost of the fees. Megan Sweet, chief of staff in the University of Minnesota Office for Student Affairs, said students making those decisions in recent years have never recommended that the fees become optional.

“Right now, students participate in the process and all students can find online what these fees go to support,” she said. “If we start rolling this into tuition or if we have to create a sort of pay to participate system, it becomes less transparent.”

I'm sure the guy meant well, but it is a very stupid idea.

As they say in the article, they'll just make it part of tuition, then.


Moreover, in a general comment: I think this idea that "I don't use something that benefits a community that I belong to, therefore I don't want to pay for it" is a mental disease.

I don't think the fees are the killer - it's the tuition rates themselves.

Nice things aren't free.

You can try to crawl your way through life having to pay as little as possible for things as you can. And that sounds like a terrible quality of life, to me.

(04-20-2017 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nice things aren't free.

You can try to crawl your way through life having to pay as little as possible for things as you can. And that sounds like a terrible quality of life, to me.

Quality of life and paying less for things are not mutually exclusive subsets. You can have high quality and accomplish an economically sound decision at the same time. A quality item that is well crafted and maintained can be a much sounder purchase than a cheap one that is poorly crafted. The idea is to buy what you need, and to get the best quality you can out of the purchase. Enjoying a quality item is part of the quality of life. I'll pay more for a Honda engine on a lawn mower than I will for other brands. They are easy to maintain, last longer, and come with a fine carburetor. The cost of maintaining the other selections is about $70 a year on carburetor repair or replacement alone, not to mention the fact that the engines aren't designed to last as long.

I prefer a Guinness when fresh to anything else and will pay $70 a head or more for a fine meal out as opposed to spending $25 a head to eat at some chain that is a gastric nightmare waiting to happen.

And as to my philosophy in life Bison it is not impossible due to driving, I just have to look out for the other guy that much more. Now as for avoiding stupid people, I've considered that it would be bad for site business to simply ban them. Thanks to the last 30 or so years of public education they are ubiquitous. But that could be overcome by the satisfaction of doing it occasionally. We'll see.

(04-20-2017 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nice things aren't free.

You can try to crawl your way through life having to pay as little as possible for things as you can. And that sounds like a terrible quality of life, to me.

Quality of life and paying less for things are not mutually exclusive subsets. You can have high quality and accomplish an economically sound decision at the same time. A quality item that is well crafted and maintained can be a much sounder purchase than a cheap one that is poorly crafted. The idea is to buy what you need, and to get the best quality you can out of the purchase. Enjoying a quality item is part of the quality of life. I'll pay more for a Honda engine on a lawn mower than I will for other brands. They are easy to maintain, last longer, and come with a fine carburetor. The cost of maintaining the other selections is about $70 a year on carburetor repair or replacement alone, not to mention the fact that the engines aren't designed to last as long.

I prefer a Guinness when fresh to anything else and will pay $70 a head or more for a fine meal out as opposed to spending $25 a head to eat at some chain that is a gastric nightmare waiting to happen.

And as to my philosophy in life Bison it is not impossible due to driving, I just have to look out for the other guy that much more. Now as for avoiding stupid people, I've considered that it would be bad for site business to simply ban them. Thanks to the last 30 or so years of public education they are ubiquitous. But that could be overcome by the satisfaction of doing it occasionally. We'll see.

Especially when the stupid people are loquacious.

(04-20-2017 11:42 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nice things aren't free.

You can try to crawl your way through life having to pay as little as possible for things as you can. And that sounds like a terrible quality of life, to me.

Quality of life and paying less for things are not mutually exclusive subsets. You can have high quality and accomplish an economically sound decision at the same time. A quality item that is well crafted and maintained can be a much sounder purchase than a cheap one that is poorly crafted. The idea is to buy what you need, and to get the best quality you can out of the purchase. Enjoying a quality item is part of the quality of life. I'll pay more for a Honda engine on a lawn mower than I will for other brands. They are easy to maintain, last longer, and come with a fine carburetor. The cost of maintaining the other selections is about $70 a year on carburetor repair or replacement alone, not to mention the fact that the engines aren't designed to last as long.

I prefer a Guinness when fresh to anything else and will pay $70 a head or more for a fine meal out as opposed to spending $25 a head to eat at some chain that is a gastric nightmare waiting to happen.

And as to my philosophy in life Bison it is not impossible due to driving, I just have to look out for the other guy that much more. Now as for avoiding stupid people, I've considered that it would be bad for site business to simply ban them. Thanks to the last 30 or so years of public education they are ubiquitous. But that could be overcome by the satisfaction of doing it occasionally. We'll see.

Especially when the stupid people are loquacious.

Undoubtedly!

(04-20-2017 01:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If I was an insurance executive I would find a reduced rate for those who could prove that they neither were friends with, nor work with, stupid people. The odds of their surviving into retirement are significantly better. The hardest thing for a parent to handle are the stupid people that try to befriend your children, or worse date them. 14 - 24 is the most dangerous decade a parent must endure.

My mother always said, "I trust you, I don't trust your friends because the IQ of a group of teenagers is equal to the lowest IQ in the group"

This point is behind a recent change to the teen driving laws in California. Drivers age 16 and 17 are not permitted to drive with passengers in the vehicle who are not close relatives. They can drive alone, or they can drive with a parent and/or siblings in the car, but they can't drive with friends in the car until after they turn 18.

(04-20-2017 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 01:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If I was an insurance executive I would find a reduced rate for those who could prove that they neither were friends with, nor work with, stupid people. The odds of their surviving into retirement are significantly better. The hardest thing for a parent to handle are the stupid people that try to befriend your children, or worse date them. 14 - 24 is the most dangerous decade a parent must endure.

My mother always said, "I trust you, I don't trust your friends because the IQ of a group of teenagers is equal to the lowest IQ in the group"

This point is behind a recent change to the teen driving laws in California. Drivers age 16 and 17 are not permitted to drive with passengers in the vehicle who are not close relatives. They can drive alone, or they can drive with a parent and/or siblings in the car, but they can't drive with friends in the car until after they turn 18.

Add a provision against cell phone and texting usage and you turn a wise law into a great one.

(04-20-2017 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I'll pay more for a Honda engine on a lawn mower than I will for other brands.
...
I prefer a Guinness when fresh to anything else and will pay $70 a head or more for a fine meal out as opposed to spending $25 a head to eat at some chain that is a gastric nightmare waiting to happen.

A wise man!

Sounds then to me that you're also a man who recognizes that basing every single decision in your life on "profit" is folly.

(04-20-2017 11:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  II just have to look out for the other guy that much more.

So every person who has been run into ... it's really their fault for not looking out hard enough??

Come on ...

(04-20-2017 03:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  A wise man!

Sounds then to me that you're also a man who recognizes that basing every single decision in your life on "profit" is folly.

I shouldn't take your bait, but...

You can invest funds frugally and not expect a profit. You can invest frugally and expect to maximize profits. You can invest lavishly and expect to maximize profits. You can invest lavishly and not expect to make a profit. There is no either/or dichotomy.