Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then the federal government needs to change its policies.
Federal student aid, meaning Pell Grants and GSLs, should only be available to those who score in the upper two quintiles of the SAT or ACT.
Guaranteed student loans should only be available for those who score in the upper quintile of the SAT or ACT.
For students that don't score that high, they can seek State or private financial aid.
And, the federal government should only grant guaranteed student loans in the amount of the tuition, and no more.
This business of borrowing $30,000 a year to pay for $14,000 in tuition is why they're in trouble in the first place.
The government also needs to tie guaranteed student loans to those with demonstrated financial need, instead of handing them out to anyone who breathes.
Yes, that would mean students would have to get private loans, and that means mommy and daddy will have to co-sign, but it also means mommy and daddy aren't going to borrow $30,000 a year to pay for $14,000 in tuition.
I'll make a weird comment but I don't know the solution to the issue of student loans are. Part of it is states rolling back college funding, part of it is administrative costs, part of it is stagnant wages, part of it is the rise of college costs.
The Two Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke written by Elizabeth Warren decades ago when she still had a brain. From the summary on Amazon
Today's two-income family earns 75% more money than its single-income counterpart of a generation ago, but actually has less discretionary income once their fixed monthly bills are paid. How did this happen? Warren and Tyagi provide convincing evidence that the culprit is not "overconsumption," as many critics have charged. Instead, they point to the ferocious bidding war for housing and education that has quietly engulfed America's suburbs. Stay-at-home mothers once provided a financial safety net if disaster struck; their move into the workforce has left today's families chillingly at risk. The authors show why the usual remedies--child-support enforcement, subsidized daycare, and higher salaries for women--won't solve the problem,
That has more to do with availability than consumer demand.
There is less profit involved in building small houses and NIMBY do not wont them either because it lowers their property values.
There are millions of families that would go for a smaller home closer to work especially those with a long commute.
NAHB’s Ms. Quint denies that bigger homes are necessarily more profitable to builders, saying that the rise in bigger houses is instead “capitalism at its best.” According to Ms. Quint, “Whatever is selling, [contractors] will build. If it was first-timer, starter homes that would sell, that’s what they’d build.”
According to data from both the NAHB, Americans usually want bigger houses—17% more space than they have. “As incomes go up, people are able to consume more housing, more entertainment, more tech and everything else,” according to Jed Kolko, chief economist. “We’d expect, as society gets richer—in the long run, not just over a year or a decade—people to live in larger housing.” According to Mr. Kolko, “The kind of thing that could change this is if we got poorer, or if attitudes or policies made large homes less desirable.” For now, big is king.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Some of the problem is good jobs are increasingly isolated in a handful of high COL metro areas. Before 1980 in many small towns had high numbers of high paying union jobs. People who have one of the few high paying jobs in a low COL area can still live a 1950s lifestyle, it's just not accessible to a similar percentage of the population.
One reason is too much deregulation and loosing of working protection laws. Another reason is the rest of the world is catching up and being more competitive at landing jobs Americans used to be the best at. It's not good for an American but it is good that millions of formerly poor people are better off globally. After WW2 much of the developed world was in rubble and the poor nations lacked infrastructure for many job functions. A third reason is too much sub prime credit available that the cost of everything can rise much faster than income.
Location: San Ramon, Seattle, Anchorage, Reykjavik
2,254 posts, read 2,737,417 times
Reputation: 3203
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I'll make a weird comment but I don't know the solution to the issue of student loans are. Part of it is states rolling back college funding, part of it is administrative costs, part of it is stagnant wages, part of it is the rise of college costs.
I would say that another part of the problem is parents not acting like adults and helping their children make tough life decisions. We have many friends that insist that their children go to the parent's alma mater, even if that college tuition is now 4x that of a state school. The kids major in something like education, take out college loans of $150k over 4 years, and wonder why they have so much college debt to payoff. Parents need to be the adults in the room and help their children make the business decision on getting the most value out of college for their chosen degree.
I'll make a weird comment but I don't know the solution to the issue of student loans are. Part of it is states rolling back college funding, part of it is administrative costs, part of it is stagnant wages, part of it is the rise of college costs.
None of that is relevant.
Nowhere in the US is it necessary to attend a 4-year university for four years to be graduated.
You can go to a much cheaper junior college, technical college or community college and complete an Associate Degree, then transfer to a 4-year university, go two years and graduate.
In fact, 4-year universities only require 30 credit hours for matriculation, and I'm aware of no exceptions.
That means you can go to a far cheaper school for 3 years, then transfer, take 15 credit hours in the Fall Semester and 15 credit hours in the Spring Semester and be graduated.
What I've proven is people make very bad choices, for which they are responsible, not me.
And contrary to what you claim, wages are not stagnant.
The only year wages did not increase was 2009, and in that year wages actually declined, instead of being stagnant.
Average wages in 2016 were $48,642 and $50,321 in 2017.
The percent change is 3.45%, while all forms of Inflation increased 2.18% over the same period, leaving a net gain of 1.27%
Average wage in 2010 was $41,673, so there has been a 20.75% increase through 2017.
All forms of Inflation increased 11.73% over the same period, so that results in a net wage increase of 9.02%
Average wage in 2000 was $32,154 so that is a 56.49% increase, while all forms of Inflation have increased 40.9% so that represents a 15.59% net increase in wages since 2000.
Average wage in 1990 was $21,027 so wages have increased 139.31% since then, while all forms of Inflation have increased 81.94% giving a net increase of 57.37%.
That debunks the whole wage stagnation myth.
We have additional evidence, because in 1990, 79% of Americans made $30,000 or less, while as of 2017, only 48% of Americans earned $30,000 or less.
You fail to understand that wages are not supposed to increase under pressure from Demand-pull or Cost-push Inflation, and of that 81.94% of Inflation, better than 50% is Demand-pull and Cost-push Inflation, and less than 31% is Monetary Inflation.
If you don't like Cost-push Inflation, then elect better State and local government officials.
If you don't like Demand-pull Inflation, then either stop consuming or increase Supply, and your problems are solved.
Federal Government could reform min. wage by allowing States to be at a certain percentage for average COL. Example in New York certain counties $28K a year is a liveable wage. Then $34K is liveable in NYC. Where Georgia $20K is liveable and $28K in Atlanta.I
IDK how they calculate that out or create a formula.
Nowhere in the US is it necessary to attend a 4-year university for four years to be graduated.
You can go to a much cheaper junior college, technical college or community college and complete an Associate Degree, then transfer to a 4-year university, go two years and graduate.
In fact, 4-year universities only require 30 credit hours for matriculation, and I'm aware of no exceptions.
That means you can go to a far cheaper school for 3 years, then transfer, take 15 credit hours in the Fall Semester and 15 credit hours in the Spring Semester and be graduated.
What I've proven is people make very bad choices, for which they are responsible, not me.
And contrary to what you claim, wages are not stagnant.
The only year wages did not increase was 2009, and in that year wages actually declined, instead of being stagnant.
Average wages in 2016 were $48,642 and $50,321 in 2017.
The percent change is 3.45%, while all forms of Inflation increased 2.18% over the same period, leaving a net gain of 1.27%
Average wage in 2010 was $41,673, so there has been a 20.75% increase through 2017.
All forms of Inflation increased 11.73% over the same period, so that results in a net wage increase of 9.02%
Average wage in 2000 was $32,154 so that is a 56.49% increase, while all forms of Inflation have increased 40.9% so that represents a 15.59% net increase in wages since 2000.
Average wage in 1990 was $21,027 so wages have increased 139.31% since then, while all forms of Inflation have increased 81.94% giving a net increase of 57.37%.
That debunks the whole wage stagnation myth.
We have additional evidence, because in 1990, 79% of Americans made $30,000 or less, while as of 2017, only 48% of Americans earned $30,000 or less.
You fail to understand that wages are not supposed to increase under pressure from Demand-pull or Cost-push Inflation, and of that 81.94% of Inflation, better than 50% is Demand-pull and Cost-push Inflation, and less than 31% is Monetary Inflation.
If you don't like Cost-push Inflation, then elect better State and local government officials.
If you don't like Demand-pull Inflation, then either stop consuming or increase Supply, and your problems are solved.
I remember conversations that I had at the turn of the century with a friend of a friend's kid when he was in high school (he was born in 1984). His father had a BS and maybe an MS in an engineering discipline (structural or mechanical, IIRC) and he worked for a public utility. The father was also good with money. He told his son you have X amount (fairly big total) that i'll give you for your education, but no more. The kid was a top student at a top high school, but he decided that he wanted to also be able to pay for all of his graduate school with that money, and that the way to do that was to go to a Junior College for two years and then transfer to a four year school. I didn't have any conversations with him after that year he was hanging out with my friend's son, but I imagine he executed his plan. He was very confident.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
