It is incredibly surprising. You aren't surprised because you have experienced this. But any economist would look at this and say something like this: > You c

It is incredibly surprising. You aren't surprised because you have experienced this. But any economist would look at this and say something like this: > You claim that there are people where an investment of $400 would > quickly (within a couple of years) give them a salary increase in > the range of $20,000 to $50,000 per year. That is obviously untrue. > If it WERE true, then at lease ONE person in the country would have > spent $4,000 to seed a 10-person program which granted the $400 in > exchange for a promise to contribute $8,000 back in a couple of > years. A x20 replication factor would easily swamp administrative > costs and participants who refuse to pay afterward and the program > would still be growing exponentially. I think the source of the fallacy is that while there ARE people for whom $400 is a difficult-to-surmount barrier beyond which no other major impediments stand between them and middle-class success, they are an impossible-to-find minority in a sea of people who are willing to ASK for $400 and those for whom $400 is a major impediment, but further impediments would prevent them from succeeding. Alternately, we can look at the literally thousands of charities (including schools themselves) that offer merit-based and need-based scholarships, and conclude that the economist is partly right and the system DOES exist, but isn't meeting all of the need.