(10-30-2020 11:32 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Say the people that went to Rice when it cost next to nothing

Nice dodge and non-answer there westside. Care to tee up another answer?

As an aside, please do tell exactly when I attended Rice? My recollection is that my tuition, while not at the level of Harvard or so at the time, was still a decent proportion of that. Far more expensive than any state school I would've done as an alternative.

(10-30-2020 08:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2020 06:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:The point about senior positions being held up by retirees clinging to their salaries is that they are doing just that, eating up the necessary bandwidth for junior and mid-career employees to be promoted and receive adequate raises that could help them pay off student debt or build equity for a future home purchase.

Lad, if you dont like boomers in senior positions 'standing in your way', my suggestion is that you buy a company, become a check writer, then fire and layoff away.

Anything else kind of smacks of being whiny.

Plus, somembody needs to point out to him, those unretiring boomers did not force those junior employees to build up student debt or fail to save the equity for a future home purchase. Not the ants’ responsibility to bail the grasshoppers out.

But what I really want to hear is how higher taxes will make this better.

Perhaps he thinks the higher taxes will be an incentive to fire older employees and promote younger ones who cost less? Is that the Democratic Plan?

You’re absolutely correct that no one forced any 18 year olds to take on a mountain of debt, and in the end, one must be responsible for their decisions.

But this gets back to my original point that they have been told for their entire lives to go down this path, so why are we now shocked that they’re taking on debt to do the thing they have been told they must do? And let’s be honest, do 18 year olds make the best financial decisions?

I think there is some responsibility for the generations before, who preached that taking the path to higher education was THE path to the American Dream, do what is necessary to keep that path open and accessible.

I don’t see the direct connection to higher taxes and a discussion on higher ed costs, unless we’re talking about increasing taxes to fund it. I would support the idea of making public higher education debt free for all students, potentially regardless of which stay you reside in. This should be coupled with a developed track for technical careers, should high school teenagers decided higher ed isn’t for them, but want to develop a good paying career.

And I would support finding a way to curtail government funding for private institutions, as the ease of government loans has almost certainly led to the tuition increases at private universities like Rice.

(10-31-2020 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2020 11:32 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Say the people that went to Rice when it cost next to nothing

Nice dodge and non-answer there westside. Care to tee up another answer?

As an aside, please do tell exactly when I attended Rice? My recollection is that my tuition, while not at the level of Harvard or so at the time, was still a decent proportion of that. Far more expensive than any state school I would've done as an alternative.

It would be best to compare tuition to median income, not peers...

Sorry y’all get so bent out of shape when a societal problem is highlighted and the possible cause for it isn’t borne solely on the shoulders of 18 year olds with absolutely no life experience.

Wow. It seems some people never outgrow being 18.

Interesting that Lad admits that youngsters don’ t always make the best decisions, since his side depends on votes from that demographic. Apparently he thinks they are pretty smart in electing leaders for our country.

I did attend Rice when it was “free”, although I was charged tuition my last semester after dropping out and coming back. Does that entitle me to keep my job? How much tuition is enough?

In any case the room and board were pretty high (over 2K) for a time when a blue plate special was $.98, chicken fried steak, potatoes, green beans, rolls, and tea. No tax. That’s a lot of CFS. Then.

FYI, I also was advised to go to college for a better life. I just never expected the Greatest Generation to shuffle off into,the sunset to make room for me. That is new.

The same advice was tendered to my younger siblings, who are Boomers. Don’t act like it was given to just Millennials.

But good news - I retired. Opened up a spot that nobody filled.

I guess I just don’t see the problem with competent people continuing to work. I sure don’t understand the resentment. In an case, the bad advice was to get a degree, any degree, and borrow a ton to get it.


As for what they have told all their lives, I agree. Bad advice. But still nobody was forced to take out debt. My grandson chose not to. Maybe if he had known that the debt would be his entry into countless jobs and promotions, he would have chosen to get on the lifetime gravy train.

But the correction is to stop telling people to go to college and start telling them to learn a skill. It is not giving them a lifetime pass.

Maybe you and Wolf could be more specific about what the young Boomers are doing wrong. I just don’t see that doing good work and earning a living is that evil.

(10-31-2020 08:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2020 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2020 11:32 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Say the people that went to Rice when it cost next to nothing

Nice dodge and non-answer there westside. Care to tee up another answer?

As an aside, please do tell exactly when I attended Rice? My recollection is that my tuition, while not at the level of Harvard or so at the time, was still a decent proportion of that. Far more expensive than any state school I would've done as an alternative.

It would be best to compare tuition to median income, not peers...

Sorry y’all get so bent out of shape when a societal problem is highlighted and the possible cause for it isn’t borne solely on the shoulders of 18 year olds with absolutely no life experience.

Yet you feel absolutely comfortable tossing the brunt of the 'cause' not just on those 'people in senior positions' who 'cling to those positions' at the expense of less experience persons, but broadly on pretty much every generation that preceded. That is as they 'pulled up the ladder behind them' in your characterization. Good grief.

(10-31-2020 08:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  18 year olds with absolutely no life experience.

Voters, you mean?

If you are to take on adult rights, probably ought to take on the adult responsibilities also.

Work hard, pay your bills, manage your money, don’t whine.

(10-31-2020 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think there is some responsibility for the generations before, who preached that taking the path to higher education was THE path to the American Dream, do what is necessary to keep that path open and accessible.

I hear this claim a lot, but is it really true? I don't recall my parents, teachers, or any of their contemporaries preaching that a college education was a sufficient condition for financial success, nor do I know of any of parents or teachers doing so today. I do recall many people in both age groups making clear that some college degrees, and some levels of academic success in college, offer a lot more financial potential than others. Your broad claim seems like a bit of a straw man (though a widely recited one).

(10-31-2020 03:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-31-2020 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think there is some responsibility for the generations before, who preached that taking the path to higher education was THE path to the American Dream, do what is necessary to keep that path open and accessible.

I hear this claim a lot, but is it really true? I don't recall my parents, teachers, or any of their contemporaries preaching that a college education was a sufficient condition for financial success, nor do I know of any of parents or teachers doing so today. I do recall many people in both age groups making clear that some college degrees, and some levels of academic success in college, offer a lot more financial potential than others. Your broad claim seems like a bit of a straw man (though a widely recited one).

Hey man, where did this dude say it's sufficient?

Heading down "THE path" to some place satisfies a necessary condition to get there, but isn't sufficient all by its lonesome.

(Sorry sorry bro I'm studying for the LSAT!)

(10-31-2020 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2020 11:32 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Say the people that went to Rice when it cost next to nothing

Nice dodge and non-answer there westside. Care to tee up another answer?

As an aside, please do tell exactly when I attended Rice? My recollection is that my tuition, while not at the level of Harvard or so at the time, was still a decent proportion of that. Far more expensive than any state school I would've done as an alternative.

You sound pretty old but not like super old. So, maybe you did college in the 80s?

This says Rice U tuition was $4125 a year in 1985. https://www.demos.org/sites/default/file...ized_0.pdf

Other dude is a millennial and 1989, so he probably did Rice in the late '00s? This says $29,960 in 2008.
https://news.rice.edu/2007/12/18/rice-ke...threshold/

Do a little inflation magic, your $4,125 goes to $8,254 in 2008.

Compare the 2 over four years, and we're talking $119,840 vs $33,016. Phew that's a difference of $87 grand. That might be small potatoes to you now big man, but that's not just a down payment that's like half a dang house.

And ****, it's not like it's slowed down any. Rice is damn near $50k a year right now. That's a 70% increase from when the millennial dude did the school thing -- and regular inflation has only been like 20% since then.

I know it's a much nicer ride than back in the day, I know the old dorms were crapholes. But if yall don't see it's a way different value proposition than when you did it, you're not paying attention.

(10-31-2020 03:53 PM)JimTiger Wrote:  

(10-31-2020 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2020 11:32 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Say the people that went to Rice when it cost next to nothing

Nice dodge and non-answer there westside. Care to tee up another answer?

As an aside, please do tell exactly when I attended Rice? My recollection is that my tuition, while not at the level of Harvard or so at the time, was still a decent proportion of that. Far more expensive than any state school I would've done as an alternative.

You sound pretty old but not like super old. So, maybe you did college in the 80s?

This says Rice U tuition was $4125 a year in 1985. https://www.demos.org/sites/default/file...ized_0.pdf

Other dude is a millennial and 1989, so he probably did Rice in the late '00s? This says $29,960 in 2008.
https://news.rice.edu/2007/12/18/rice-ke...threshold/

Do a little inflation magic, your $4,125 goes to $8,254 in 2008.

Compare the 2 over four years, and we're talking $119,840 vs $33,016. Phew that's a difference of $87 grand. That might be small potatoes to you now big man, but that's not just a down payment that's like half a dang house.

And ****, it's not like it's slowed down any. Rice is damn near $50k a year right now. That's a 70% increase from when the millennial dude did the school thing -- and regular inflation has only been like 20% since then.

I know it's a much nicer ride than back in the day, I know the old dorms were crapholes. But if yall don't see it's a way different value proposition than when you did it, you're not paying attention.

Before you get lost in your trek into the weeds is that the original issue is the rather douchy tactic of blaming any older generation for the current generation issues in this respect — that specifically was lost by the non-sequitor whine of ‘oh you went to school for free’. An error that you have continued on that track with’big man’ (just returning the snark ass ad hom there almost precisely as you dealt it out to begin with, tiger...)

If you stop and put your analytical hat on, instead of whiny non-sequitor one on, one might realize that post 1960 the amazingly inherent advantages the US enjoyed began to dissipate - mainly because the rest of the world had either been bombed to dust in the 1940s and really started their recoveries in earnest then.

That trend accelerated through the 90’s and doubly accelerated with the rapid rise of China.

Bummer.

If y’all want to ***** about that equalization (which what it is at its root), at least do that.

To cry that (whatever the fk older generation) “did” to you and how they are “pulling up the ropes” is a mound of horseshit - no matter whom paid what for Rice when.

That line from lad previously (and repeated here recently) utterly ignores the flip side of that equation — that being the proverbial and very pervasive amount of experienced older people shunted out of the workforce in light of vastly less experienced people at 1/4 of the cost. Yep, amazing that that isn’t touched on in the “boomers fked us” stories here now.

If you want to take a jump into the rather dumb*** esoteric extremely minor side issue of who paid what for Rice (which doesn’t amount to an ameoba size hill of beans in that larger context, mind you), by all means continue that charge up that slope, big man.

And, tiger, you may want to rework your current ‘Rice tuition load’ in light of the Rice Investment program.....

(10-31-2020 03:53 PM)JimTiger Wrote:  

(10-31-2020 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2020 11:32 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Say the people that went to Rice when it cost next to nothing

Nice dodge and non-answer there westside. Care to tee up another answer?

As an aside, please do tell exactly when I attended Rice? My recollection is that my tuition, while not at the level of Harvard or so at the time, was still a decent proportion of that. Far more expensive than any state school I would've done as an alternative.

You sound pretty old but not like super old. So, maybe you did college in the 80s?

This says Rice U tuition was $4125 a year in 1985. https://www.demos.org/sites/default/file...ized_0.pdf

Other dude is a millennial and 1989, so he probably did Rice in the late '00s? This says $29,960 in 2008.
https://news.rice.edu/2007/12/18/rice-ke...threshold/

Do a little inflation magic, your $4,125 goes to $8,254 in 2008.

Compare the 2 over four years, and we're talking $119,840 vs $33,016. Phew that's a difference of $87 grand. That might be small potatoes to you now big man, but that's not just a down payment that's like half a dang house.

And ****, it's not like it's slowed down any. Rice is damn near $50k a year right now. That's a 70% increase from when the millennial dude did the school thing -- and regular inflation has only been like 20% since then.

I know it's a much nicer ride than back in the day, I know the old dorms were crapholes. But if yall don't see it's a way different value proposition than when you did it, you're not paying attention.

prices will skyrocket when there is a plethora of people willing and able to pay for the good or service. Easy and plentiful credit will do that.

While in school I met a guy who had transferred in from Cal Tech. I asked him why he had come here. His answer: "cheap".

(10-31-2020 03:34 PM)JimTiger Wrote:  

(10-31-2020 03:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-31-2020 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think there is some responsibility for the generations before, who preached that taking the path to higher education was THE path to the American Dream, do what is necessary to keep that path open and accessible.

I hear this claim a lot, but is it really true? I don't recall my parents, teachers, or any of their contemporaries preaching that a college education was a sufficient condition for financial success, nor do I know of any of parents or teachers doing so today. I do recall many people in both age groups making clear that some college degrees, and some levels of academic success in college, offer a lot more financial potential than others. Your broad claim seems like a bit of a straw man (though a widely recited one).

Hey man, where did this dude say it's sufficient?

Heading down "THE path" to some place satisfies a necessary condition to get there, but isn't sufficient all by its lonesome.

(Sorry sorry bro I'm studying for the LSAT!)

When a person finds it complaint-worthy that a path didn't produce a hoped-for result, it stands to reason that the person presumed the path to be a sufficient condition for the result -- otherwise, there is no basis for the complaint.

Good luck and keep studying!

(10-31-2020 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think there is some responsibility for the generations before, who preached that taking the path to higher education was THE path to the American Dream, do what is necessary to keep that path open and accessible.

I don't know that anyone ever preached, or even said, that it was a sufficient condition. And if anyone suggested that it was a necessary condition, wouldn't it be a more appropriate response for them to admit and take steps to correct their mistake? We can't all be baristas at Starbucks, and many of those who are would have been better off learning a trade than getting a worthless degree.

I do remember a lot of preaching that the way out of poverty was education, and the preachers were the Democrats as they legislated more and easier financial aid. I supported that idea then.

I still remember a book cover (do they still use those? Do they still use books?) illustrating the greater average incomes for more educational levels. Since the Boomers were in middle school at that time, I don’t think we can blame them.

I guess this idea of the oldsters moving aside so the youngsters can move up has application in a lot of endeavors. The fifth year seniors and grad transfers on the football team should quit football to open up slots for the freshmen. All the military generals should retire to open up space for the second lieutenants to be promoted. Maybe just execute everybody when they reach 60.

I missed a lot of this conversation and may or may not get around to reading it all....

But it is worth noting that the biggest thing Rice did was to raise tuition, but also raise the amount of aid to people with 'need'. Net, the amount of money raised through tuition was not measurably different, but because we now had 'wealthy' people paying full freight while 'not wealthy' people often got 80+% discounts, we scored better in the metrics. With our significant increase in international students who would almost always pay full freight i would think, we may now be raising much more money... but through at least the mid-90's that wasn't the case.