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.
Difference in pay between employee A with prestige degree and employee B without? Zilch.
Difference in ease for employee A to secure employment compared to employee B if their company pulls an Enron and both find themselves unemployed? Huge.
Difference in ease for employee A to completely switch careers and transition into a "do what you love to do" type of job compared to employee B? Again, huge.
For what seems to be the umpteenth time:
1) I am all for more people obtaining college degrees, provided they're from real universities and not deVry and similar. Even if all we're talking about is associates degrees from community colleges. How many? As many as possible. And regardless of age. The university I attended had an "over 65" program which offered absolutely free tuition to anyone over 65. (They still had to buy books and they weren't allowed to live in the dorms. But the tuition was zero. Good. There were always one or two older people in all my 100s level classes. Most didn't stick with it. But a few did. Good for them.)
2) I am NOT all for people leveraging themselves into a financial sinkhole to obtain a degree. This is something to be avoided. Good luck trying to pay for medical school waiting tables. But to the extent possible, graduate with the lowest debt. There is serious risk involved taking out student loans. Many cannot be forgiven via bankruptcy. The only thing worse than no degree is no degree and six figures of debt in the fruitless pursuit of this non-existent degree. (And I knew plenty of students who washed out senior year.)
3) In my lifetime, minimum-wage earning students could attend top tier universities and graduate with a four-year degree. If nothing else, I have beaten this point to death. It is not unreasonable for a student to work a part-time job and attend full-time classes. That should be an option for the students who weren't lucky enough to draw the right parents, qualify for scholarships (athletic or academic, doesn't matter). Seriously, isn't the "student who works their way through" exactly the sort of young person we're looking for as a society? Why aren't we encouraging this? Graduating debt free should be reward enough. We should make this the path of least resistance.
Difference in pay between employee A with prestige degree and employee B without? Zilch.
Difference in ease for employee A to secure employment compared to employee B if their company pulls an Enron and both find themselves unemployed? Huge.
Difference in ease for employee A to completely switch careers and transition into a "do what you love to do" type of job compared to employee B? Again, huge.
For what seems to be the umpteenth time:
1) I am all for more people obtaining college degrees, provided they're from real universities and not deVry and similar. Even if all we're talking about is associates degrees from community colleges. How many? As many as possible. And regardless of age. The university I attended had an "over 65" program which offered absolutely free tuition to anyone over 65. (They still had to buy books and they weren't allowed to live in the dorms. But the tuition was zero. Good. There were always one or two older people in all my 100s level classes. Most didn't stick with it. But a few did. Good for them.)
2) I am NOT all for people leveraging themselves into a financial sinkhole to obtain a degree. This is something to be avoided. Good luck trying to pay for medical school waiting tables. But to the extent possible, graduate with the lowest debt. There is serious risk involved taking out student loans. Many cannot be forgiven via bankruptcy. The only thing worse than no degree is no degree and six figures of debt in the fruitless pursuit of this non-existent degree. (And I knew plenty of students who washed out senior year.)
3) In my lifetime, minimum-wage earning students could attend top tier universities and graduate with a four-year degree. If nothing else, I have beaten this point to death. It is not unreasonable for a student to work a part-time job and attend full-time classes. That should be an option for the students who weren't lucky enough to draw the right parents, qualify for scholarships (athletic or academic, doesn't matter). Seriously, isn't the "student who works their way through" exactly the sort of young person we're looking for as a society? Why aren't we encouraging this? Graduating debt free should be reward enough. We should make this the path of least resistance.
Exactly how is someone earning low wages with no college degree supposed to earn enough to pay tuition and living costs working part-time?
The federal poverty level of $12,000 for a single can be used as a bare minimum for living expenses. Add in another $1,000 for textbooks and $5,000 for annual tuition, total is $18,000.
This requires a pretax income of ~$21,000.
With a 20-hour-a-week, 50-week-a-year job (1000 hours/year), you'd have to earn $21.00 per hour, and the kicker is - you must do it without a college degree!
With a 20-hour-a-week, 50-week-a-year job (1000 hours/year), you'd have to earn $21.00 per hour, and the kicker is - you must do it without a college degree!
I did it when the minimum wage was in the $3 per hour range. (And I worked my butt off to do it. I'm not saying this is easy.) This was once possible in America. I have repeatedly tried to point out that what was once possible, is now basically impossible. Community college and the least expensive of the state colleges are still possible. And that's better than nothing.
But I had it much better. I had more opportunity than millennials today. So I'm not going to sneer at them and tell them they aren't making it because they're lazy and spoiled. (And sure, some of them are. Same percentage of lazy and spoiled people across all generational lines.)
Why hasn't (or has he) your friend's son tried to work at the State Department as a translator. He's likely have to move here.
Because the precious little snowflake was told his whole life how brilliant he is, and how he'll get a great paying job if he just followed his dream and got educated in what he loves. Hence, the music/japanese degree. He couldn't possibly work in an office. That's not his dreeeeeeeeam.
So many millennials love to whine about being poor. Why don't they do what I do? I live at home and as a result was able to keep my expenses low and my net worth high. One day I can live off interest and spend my time checking on my investment properties.
So many millennials love to whine about being poor. Why don't they do what I do? I live at home and as a result was able to keep my expenses low and my net worth high. One day I can live off interest and spend my time checking on my investment properties.
I know a few folks that actually ended up poorer as a result of living at home. First, one of them saved nothing because the car expense for living 30 miles from work is almost as high as rent for a room near work (which would allow them to walk) - and second, living on your own, especially on a low income, forces you to learn the difference between needs and wants. Those who wait for better circumstances to move out never really learn to be as frugal, because they have never had to live on $20k/year with zero help.
I certainly have learned a lot in resourcefulness - and these lessons have allowed me to save about $35k on an income that has never been higher than $24k/year. Had my parents always paid for things, I would never have become this frugal. Not having a car can be painful, but what I can afford is what I can afford. I do not ask my parents to pay any of my bills so that I can buy a car - and I don't need to, since I rent a room close enough to both my offices that I can walk.
The key to saving money is NOT, I repeat, is NOT, in living at home. First of all, a lot of people think they can't afford to move out because they don't consider living with roommates, which can go a long way towards allowing you to save huge piles of cash. Second, unless home is close to work, the commute expense may wipe out anything you would save. Third, mooching off parents may hurt their retirement - and this is not frugality or responsibility but rather is being a parasite. Finally, living at home makes it too easy to get accustomed to a budget that has no line for "rent" - and never learn how to save for things like a house while also paying your own rent (You seem not to have learned this - you think you could not have done it. I'm almost certain you could, had you been willing to make the cutbacks discussed earlier in this post - especially (1) living with roommates, and (2) not driving to work.).
I know a few folks that actually ended up poorer as a result of living at home. First, one of them saved nothing because the car expense for living 30 miles from work is almost as high as rent for a room near work (which would allow them to walk) - and second, living on your own, especially on a low income, forces you to learn the difference between needs and wants. Those who wait for better circumstances to move out never really learn to be as frugal, because they have never had to live on $20k/year with zero help.
I certainly have learned a lot in resourcefulness - and these lessons have allowed me to save about $35k on an income that has never been higher than $24k/year. Had my parents always paid for things, I would never have become this frugal. Not having a car can be painful, but what I can afford is what I can afford. I do not ask my parents to pay any of my bills so that I can buy a car - and I don't need to, since I rent a room close enough to both my offices that I can walk.
Probably doesn't hurt I live in between SF and SJ. I save almost every cent I earn because I know I HAVE TO BE better off than those who collect welfare and rent. I KNOW I HAVE to make the best of my circumstances. Some people just don't know how to manage money. Hell I collect financial aid from college even though I personally have more net worth than most of my age bracket.
Probably doesn't hurt I live in between SF and SJ. I save almost every cent I earn because I know I HAVE TO BE better off than those who collect welfare and rent. I KNOW I HAVE to make the best of my circumstances. Some people just don't know how to manage money. Hell I collect financial aid from college even though I personally have more net worth than most of my age bracket.
Your usage of "collect" is very confusing. In the first instance, do you mean people who collect welfare and housing assistance, or do you mean people who collect welfare and are landlords? In the second instance, do you mean you collect financial aid to go to college, or do you mean something else, like that you work at a college and your salary indirectly comes from financial aid?
Your usage of "collect" is very confusing. In the first instance, do you mean people who collect welfare and housing assistance, or do you mean people who collect welfare and are landlords? In the second instance, do you mean you collect financial aid to go to college, or do you mean something else, like that you work at a college and your salary indirectly comes from financial aid?
Could be either legit or illegitimate. My circumstance is legitimate.
Could be either legit or illegitimate. My circumstance is legitimate.
I have no idea what you mean.
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.
