3 ms·

All that economists agree on is that the number of pieces of paper in an average American wallet has stayed the same. The problem is that pieces of paper in a

All that economists agree on is that the number of pieces of paper in an average American wallet has stayed the same. The problem is that pieces of paper in a wallet are not intrinsically useful. They're only useful because they buy things. Since economists aren't asking what these pieces of paper buy, they're not asking the right questions. It is, of course, much easier to focus on dollars in the wallet, because that's easy to measure. Well-being is much harder to measure, and economists aren't doing much to answer that. "save for college" - few Americans have ever been so privileged to save for college, yet this has not stopped the ever-increasing average educational attainment for Americans. "save for retirement" - also a privilege few ever had, which is why we have Social Security. And I'm not going to cry much over the fate of retirees as they enjoy their Medicare Part D benefits, allowing them to take drugs that did not exist years ago. As for income inequality, I have never regarded this as an important conversation to have. Able has $100. Baker has $10. If inequality is the problem, then a good solution is to make Able have $50 and Baker have $9. I disagree that such an outcome would solve anything. It's a problem if Baker can't get ahead. It's a problem if the system is rigged in Able's favor. The mere fact that Able has $100 and Baker has $10 is not a problem. As someone who is far from the 1% I can say that I will be no better off if the rich have less and I have no more. Yet such an outcome would reduce inequality.

intopieces 11y ago
>few Americans have ever been so privileged to save for college, yet this has not stopped the ever-increasing average educational attainment for Americans. Americans didn't have to. They could pay for it with a part time job. But the cost of college has risen far faster than wages, helped by cheap student loans from the government. >Which is why we have Social Security Social Security will need to be vastly expanded to keep up with an aging population. With a new generation having no pensions, retirement savings or property (student loans in lieu or mortgage), the next "middle class" doesn't look like much different than the working poor of today. The cost of living is not going down. The concern with income inequality is not that the rich are getting richer, it's that the middle class is getting poorer. And this has a ripple effect both inside the economy and into other areas: the justice system, politics, public safety. Lots of people can afford to ignore it now. It doesn't look like that is going to last, however.
- greggyb 11y ago
  > They could pay for it with a part time job. Still can. I graduated within the last 5 years. My sister and I both waited tables throughout college and got out of undergrad (and for her, also a two year grad program) without debt. I lived solo, bought a car, and went to state school in that time. I came out with enough of a savings buffer for a ~1 year job search. State school, ~20-30 hours a week waiting tables (worked summers at a summer camp for less money than waiting). What you can't do is pay sticker price at a private university, but that's a red herring because almost no one pays sticker. The average debt of a student coming out of undergrad in the US is <$30K[0], and the median income is $45K[1]. Please, have your way with my anecdata, but I'd be much more interested in the argument that a $30K debt load for someone earning $45K is crippling. [0] http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2015/02/17/10-colleges-that-leave-graduates-with-the-most-student-loan-debt http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list... (average is in the sub-headline) [1] http://time.com/money/3829776/heres-what-the-average-grad-makes-right-out-of-college/ http://time.com/money/3829776/heres-what-the-average-grad-ma...
  - intopieces 11y ago
    "It wasn't a problem for me, so it's not a problem for anyone." Your scope is too narrow. You're leaving out what else that $30k could have gone to - a down payment on a house, for one. You're also refusing to consider the effect this kind of arrangement has on the future economy. With an upper class that seems averse to taxation, whose going to pay the social security for the generation with no assets? The equation is so much more complex than "just go to state school." You ignore that complexity and choose smug criticism. Student loan debt surpassed credit card debt and defaults got so bad (almost 14%) the Obama administration had to step in and change the program. The genie is out of the bottle and what students "should have done" (feasible or not) is irrelevant.
    - greggyb 11y ago
      > Please, have your way with my anecdata, but I'd be much more interested in the argument that a $30K debt load for someone earning $45K is crippling. I was not offering a solution or even saying there are no problems. I was addressing a bold claim that Americans could once afford college by working part time, with the strong implication that this cannot be done anymore. I am not refusing to consider anything, and my scope was clearly defined by the claim that I quoted and to which I offered a refutation. Moving the conversation broader, you raise several issues. These are not relevant to the claim made and addressed. You have inferred that my post is smug criticism of real issues that exist (some of which you have touched on). That was not my intention, and I promise I did not feel smug in responding. The only point you've raised that addresses my post around student debt is that the average $27K of debt that students graduate with could have gone to a down payment on a house. Ignoring the fact that real estate for residence is historically a terrible investment, how would $27K of debt somehow convert to a down payment? A down payment comes out of savings. The fact that a graduating student has debt implies they didn't have the cash to put toward a down payment. With the return to college still being large and positive, I would argue that this debt is typically well worth it.

intopieces 11y ago

>few Americans have ever been so privileged to save for college, yet this has not stopped the ever-increasing average educational attainment for Americans. Americans didn't have to. They could pay for it with a part time job. But the cost of college has risen far faster than wages, helped by cheap student loans from the government. >Which is why we have Social Security Social Security will need to be vastly expanded to keep up with an aging population. With a new generation having no pensions, retirement savings or property (student loans in lieu or mortgage), the next "middle class" doesn't look like much different than the working poor of today. The cost of living is not going down. The concern with income inequality is not that the rich are getting richer, it's that the middle class is getting poorer. And this has a ripple effect both inside the economy and into other areas: the justice system, politics, public safety. Lots of people can afford to ignore it now. It doesn't look like that is going to last, however.

greggyb 11y ago
> They could pay for it with a part time job. Still can. I graduated within the last 5 years. My sister and I both waited tables throughout college and got out of undergrad (and for her, also a two year grad program) without debt. I lived solo, bought a car, and went to state school in that time. I came out with enough of a savings buffer for a ~1 year job search. State school, ~20-30 hours a week waiting tables (worked summers at a summer camp for less money than waiting). What you can't do is pay sticker price at a private university, but that's a red herring because almost no one pays sticker. The average debt of a student coming out of undergrad in the US is <$30K[0], and the median income is $45K[1]. Please, have your way with my anecdata, but I'd be much more interested in the argument that a $30K debt load for someone earning $45K is crippling. [0] http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2015/02/17/10-colleges-that-leave-graduates-with-the-most-student-loan-debt http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list... (average is in the sub-headline) [1] http://time.com/money/3829776/heres-what-the-average-grad-makes-right-out-of-college/ http://time.com/money/3829776/heres-what-the-average-grad-ma...
- intopieces 11y ago
  "It wasn't a problem for me, so it's not a problem for anyone." Your scope is too narrow. You're leaving out what else that $30k could have gone to - a down payment on a house, for one. You're also refusing to consider the effect this kind of arrangement has on the future economy. With an upper class that seems averse to taxation, whose going to pay the social security for the generation with no assets? The equation is so much more complex than "just go to state school." You ignore that complexity and choose smug criticism. Student loan debt surpassed credit card debt and defaults got so bad (almost 14%) the Obama administration had to step in and change the program. The genie is out of the bottle and what students "should have done" (feasible or not) is irrelevant.
  - greggyb 11y ago
    > Please, have your way with my anecdata, but I'd be much more interested in the argument that a $30K debt load for someone earning $45K is crippling. I was not offering a solution or even saying there are no problems. I was addressing a bold claim that Americans could once afford college by working part time, with the strong implication that this cannot be done anymore. I am not refusing to consider anything, and my scope was clearly defined by the claim that I quoted and to which I offered a refutation. Moving the conversation broader, you raise several issues. These are not relevant to the claim made and addressed. You have inferred that my post is smug criticism of real issues that exist (some of which you have touched on). That was not my intention, and I promise I did not feel smug in responding. The only point you've raised that addresses my post around student debt is that the average $27K of debt that students graduate with could have gone to a down payment on a house. Ignoring the fact that real estate for residence is historically a terrible investment, how would $27K of debt somehow convert to a down payment? A down payment comes out of savings. The fact that a graduating student has debt implies they didn't have the cash to put toward a down payment. With the return to college still being large and positive, I would argue that this debt is typically well worth it.