11 ms·

It seems like even when we have enormous wealth as a whole, we've decided that it's an aberration to be free of enormous obligations when starting life. I doubt

It seems like even when we have enormous wealth as a whole, we've decided that it's an aberration to be free of enormous obligations when starting life. I doubt it was any sort of evil machination, but it sure has been handy for already pretty-well-off people. The person who starts life off in massive debt, or who knows they'll be homeless if they don't somehow come up with a pile of hundred-dollar-bills every month, or (as is often the case) both, is somebody who: * doesn't write for leisure * doesn't organize politically * doesn't innovate except on things they get paid to research * and (perhaps most importantly) doesn't start a competing company. These are on average, of course. A few people will still manage to do those things (especially if they come from wealth) but on the whole such activity is reduced. God help you if you have a kid and want to, say, run for office. How do you plan to pay for childcare? Meanwhile, they are a person who will work on the things incumbent holders of power (owners of large businesses) want them to work on, for the sake of enriching 1) those owners, 2) landlords, 3) People who bought houses decades ago. The system of entirely manufactured housing shortages and crushing student debt is pretty handy for keeping your population doing just what you want it to do. I think a lot of people would actually be better off starting life with nothing and living somewhere cheap rather than starting with -$50,000+ and a huge rent bill every month. After all, we have the internet. But too many people don't discover this until it's too late, and they are shackled with a lifetime of obligations. I was lucky to graduate without student debt largely thanks to my parents. My wife was not. I have been far, far more free in my choices in life, including the choice to live somewhere cheap, than her.

zozbot123 8y ago
Rural America doesn't have "enormous wealth". (To be fair, it doesn't have a "housing shortage" problem, either!) > I think a lot of people would actually be better off starting life with nothing and living somewhere cheap The question is how to do this while working in your preferred sector. It's not just the tech industry that seems tied to the sort of agglomeration economies you only get in big urbanized areas; large parts of the service sector are like this, too.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  I was referring more to the US as a whole, really.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
qzy 8y ago
Given than in Europe we have no debt but we don't do any of those things either, I'd say you're looking at something else.
- paganel 8y ago
  Young people still have to pay a huge percentage out of their monthly wage on rent or mortgage. I remember reading that in Norway you can contract a 90+-year mortgage, that's basically putting you and your kids and grand-kids into servitude.
  - Thlom 8y ago
    WTF? Normal mortage is 20-25 years down payment, I've never heard anyone having even a 35 year down payment, let alone 90 years.
    - ido 8y ago
      I too remember reading this, but about Stockholm not Norway.
    - michaelt 8y ago
      In the UK there's such a thing as an "interest-only mortgage" where you don't pay down the principal at all! Which of course means lower monthly payments. The theory is, if your mortgage interest rate was X% but some other investment like the stock market had much higher returns, a sophisticated investor might want to take the money they would have spent on repaying the principal and instead put it into that better-performing investment, then after 20 years pay off the mortgage principal with said investment. Post-financial-crisis rules were put in place that mean banks actually have to ensure you're _making_ that higher-performing investment.
  - farrisbris 8y ago
    I have never heard of this. I cannot really believe any norwegian bank would grant you anything even close that that.
  - 8y ago
kortilla 8y ago
Pretty tortured analysis given that very little innovation and competition comes from countries like Norway that have large entitlement programs to avoid debt.
- stefanfisk 8y ago
  I'm not sure that the data supports your assertion that Norway produces no innovation or competition. The country is really really small though, so in absolute numbers they won't be very noticeable. Here's a nice example of where the Scandinavian countries clearly seem to have something in common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_lau...
  - samatman 8y ago
    I mean... those laureates earned them fair and square, but also, y’know. Home court advantage...
    - close04 8y ago
      Don't imply something you can't support. It's either fair and square or home court advantage. Can't have both. I'm seeing a lot of "born in" (~100) next to the laureates in the US category. That doesn't diminish the achievements for US as a country.
      - samatman 8y ago
        I mean, that's straightforwardly not true. It's a sports term. In sports, when you win, you win fair and square. Also, you might have a 'home court advantage' if you're playing at home. I don't see why Nobel prizes would be any different. There are always more people who deserve a prize than receive it. So yes, you can have both.
        close04 8y ago
        The Nobel prize is awarded for academic, cultural, or scientific advances. If at any point the decision is influenced by your nationality, birth place, eye color, or anything other than the intellectual achievements mentioned earlier than it is not fair and square. If all other things equal you get the prize for coming from a certain country it is not fair. The implication was clearly that the particular "home" advantage made the difference and without it the person wouldn't have won. And the comment sounded like "I'm not saying it was unfair but it was unfair". P.S. In sports you usually play both home and away to even out that unfair advantage. Big one time matches might even be held on neutral ground for the same reason. Let's not play on semantics here. It's common sense not to suggest something is fair but then imply someone's nationality made the difference. I'm not saying I know nationality doesn't make a difference when awarding a Nobel prize. Just that if it does, then it wasn't fair.
lsc 8y ago
>I think a lot of people would actually be better off starting life with nothing and living somewhere cheap rather than starting with -$50,000+ and a huge rent bill every month. After all, we have the internet. But too many people don't discover this until it's too late, and they are shackled with a lifetime of obligations. I mean, sure, if it's likely you are going to spend your life making very little money, then sure, avoiding debt at the outset should be paramount. But getting some education, for most people, is probably the strongest thing they can do to decrease the chances that they will spend their life making very little money. I would argue that the next biggest thing you can do is to surround yourself with people who are going the direction you want to go. I think the social and personal development sides of a metropolis are also pretty great. If I want to, (and I do) I can spend all day around people who are smarter than I am. I mean, substitute in your own figure of merit; no matter what you value, if you are in a dense area, chances are, you can find a group of people you can surround yourself with who have a lot of it. This isn't just because of the migration of people who are financially able into the cities... this is also because there are more people of any type that are within your reach; there's a much larger and more diverse pool of people from which to pick your friends. If you are the average of the three people you spend the most time with? you want to be in a dense area where you can choose three really amazing people. My own impresison, as someone who makes a good living without a degree, is that where you live actually matters a lot more if you don't have a degree; the difference in sysadmin jobs between silicon valley and less dense places is absolutely huge; much greater than the difference, say, in doctor jobs or even software engineer jobs.
- hoaw 8y ago
  I don't disagree with you, that is why people make those choices. But from a larger perspective it doesn't make any sense. Essentially everyone is in agreement that there are in theory more access and less barriers than ever. With that in mind it is completely ridiculous to spend twenty or thirty years working for security. With more opportunities you need more access to security, not less, so people can pursue those opportunities.
  - lsc 8y ago
    If you mean financial security, I think most Americans think you will work harder without financial security. It's just not a thing that most americans (at least once you factor in our privileging of rural votes) want our government to facilitate. I mean, I personally think education is a great investment opportunity for the government; it's like those schools that give you an education and then take a bit of your income for a while, right? it seems like good free education would more than pay for itself. But most people (or, at least most voting power) seem to disagree with me.
drewg123 8y ago
I was also lucky enough to graduate with no debt in the early 90s. It has made all the difference in my financial life, and has allowed me to avoid other kinds of debt. In my case, graduating without debt was mostly due to the low tuition of New York state (SUNY) schools in the 80s. My tuition was $675/semester, and the minimum wage at the time was $3.35. That means in roughly 10 40 hour weeks over the summer, I could save enough for the year's tuition. Combine that with a 12hr/week job working in the computer labs and sysadmin'ing, and I could pay for my share of the rent & my car. People talk about free tuition. But maybe we just need to get back to the middle ground of affordable tuition as measured by the minimum wage. Eg, put a cap on tuition so that it can't be more than X hours of work at a state's minimum wage.
- isostatic 8y ago
  $675 per semester in 1985 is $1580 now, or $3200 for the year. By comparison, New York state spend $21,000 per pupil in public school (new york city this was $27k). This is higher than the national average of $11,000. The cheapest state, Utah, still spent $6500 per pupil. Your $3200 isn't going to touch it, so who picks up the rest of the bill?
  - digitaltrees 8y ago
    The state paid a portion of the cost in the 1980s, so the $675 was only part of the cost. I would expect the cost for education hasn’t increased over time; rather the share has been shifted more greatly to the student. To your last point, Society is going to pay in one way or another. We can subsidize tuition and benefit from an educated population, with greater innovation and culture that results; or we can have less growth, innovation, and poverty.
    - dsajames 8y ago
      Cost has increased. Health care is a huge part. Housing another. Higher pay to compete with industry another in select fields.

zozbot123 8y ago

Rural America doesn't have "enormous wealth". (To be fair, it doesn't have a "housing shortage" problem, either!) > I think a lot of people would actually be better off starting life with nothing and living somewhere cheap The question is how to do this while working in your preferred sector. It's not just the tech industry that seems tied to the sort of agglomeration economies you only get in big urbanized areas; large parts of the service sector are like this, too.

CalRobert 8y ago
I was referring more to the US as a whole, really.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

qzy 8y ago

Given than in Europe we have no debt but we don't do any of those things either, I'd say you're looking at something else.

paganel 8y ago
Young people still have to pay a huge percentage out of their monthly wage on rent or mortgage. I remember reading that in Norway you can contract a 90+-year mortgage, that's basically putting you and your kids and grand-kids into servitude.
- Thlom 8y ago
  WTF? Normal mortage is 20-25 years down payment, I've never heard anyone having even a 35 year down payment, let alone 90 years.
  - ido 8y ago
    I too remember reading this, but about Stockholm not Norway.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    In the UK there's such a thing as an "interest-only mortgage" where you don't pay down the principal at all! Which of course means lower monthly payments. The theory is, if your mortgage interest rate was X% but some other investment like the stock market had much higher returns, a sophisticated investor might want to take the money they would have spent on repaying the principal and instead put it into that better-performing investment, then after 20 years pay off the mortgage principal with said investment. Post-financial-crisis rules were put in place that mean banks actually have to ensure you're _making_ that higher-performing investment.
- farrisbris 8y ago
  I have never heard of this. I cannot really believe any norwegian bank would grant you anything even close that that.
- 8y ago

kortilla 8y ago

Pretty tortured analysis given that very little innovation and competition comes from countries like Norway that have large entitlement programs to avoid debt.

stefanfisk 8y ago
I'm not sure that the data supports your assertion that Norway produces no innovation or competition. The country is really really small though, so in absolute numbers they won't be very noticeable. Here's a nice example of where the Scandinavian countries clearly seem to have something in common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_lau...
- samatman 8y ago
  I mean... those laureates earned them fair and square, but also, y’know. Home court advantage...
  - close04 8y ago
    Don't imply something you can't support. It's either fair and square or home court advantage. Can't have both. I'm seeing a lot of "born in" (~100) next to the laureates in the US category. That doesn't diminish the achievements for US as a country.
    - samatman 8y ago
      I mean, that's straightforwardly not true. It's a sports term. In sports, when you win, you win fair and square. Also, you might have a 'home court advantage' if you're playing at home. I don't see why Nobel prizes would be any different. There are always more people who deserve a prize than receive it. So yes, you can have both.
      - close04 8y ago
        The Nobel prize is awarded for academic, cultural, or scientific advances. If at any point the decision is influenced by your nationality, birth place, eye color, or anything other than the intellectual achievements mentioned earlier than it is not fair and square. If all other things equal you get the prize for coming from a certain country it is not fair. The implication was clearly that the particular "home" advantage made the difference and without it the person wouldn't have won. And the comment sounded like "I'm not saying it was unfair but it was unfair". P.S. In sports you usually play both home and away to even out that unfair advantage. Big one time matches might even be held on neutral ground for the same reason. Let's not play on semantics here. It's common sense not to suggest something is fair but then imply someone's nationality made the difference. I'm not saying I know nationality doesn't make a difference when awarding a Nobel prize. Just that if it does, then it wasn't fair.

lsc 8y ago

>I think a lot of people would actually be better off starting life with nothing and living somewhere cheap rather than starting with -$50,000+ and a huge rent bill every month. After all, we have the internet. But too many people don't discover this until it's too late, and they are shackled with a lifetime of obligations. I mean, sure, if it's likely you are going to spend your life making very little money, then sure, avoiding debt at the outset should be paramount. But getting some education, for most people, is probably the strongest thing they can do to decrease the chances that they will spend their life making very little money. I would argue that the next biggest thing you can do is to surround yourself with people who are going the direction you want to go. I think the social and personal development sides of a metropolis are also pretty great. If I want to, (and I do) I can spend all day around people who are smarter than I am. I mean, substitute in your own figure of merit; no matter what you value, if you are in a dense area, chances are, you can find a group of people you can surround yourself with who have a lot of it. This isn't just because of the migration of people who are financially able into the cities... this is also because there are more people of any type that are within your reach; there's a much larger and more diverse pool of people from which to pick your friends. If you are the average of the three people you spend the most time with? you want to be in a dense area where you can choose three really amazing people. My own impresison, as someone who makes a good living without a degree, is that where you live actually matters a lot more if you don't have a degree; the difference in sysadmin jobs between silicon valley and less dense places is absolutely huge; much greater than the difference, say, in doctor jobs or even software engineer jobs.

hoaw 8y ago
I don't disagree with you, that is why people make those choices. But from a larger perspective it doesn't make any sense. Essentially everyone is in agreement that there are in theory more access and less barriers than ever. With that in mind it is completely ridiculous to spend twenty or thirty years working for security. With more opportunities you need more access to security, not less, so people can pursue those opportunities.
- lsc 8y ago
  If you mean financial security, I think most Americans think you will work harder without financial security. It's just not a thing that most americans (at least once you factor in our privileging of rural votes) want our government to facilitate. I mean, I personally think education is a great investment opportunity for the government; it's like those schools that give you an education and then take a bit of your income for a while, right? it seems like good free education would more than pay for itself. But most people (or, at least most voting power) seem to disagree with me.

drewg123 8y ago

I was also lucky enough to graduate with no debt in the early 90s. It has made all the difference in my financial life, and has allowed me to avoid other kinds of debt. In my case, graduating without debt was mostly due to the low tuition of New York state (SUNY) schools in the 80s. My tuition was $675/semester, and the minimum wage at the time was $3.35. That means in roughly 10 40 hour weeks over the summer, I could save enough for the year's tuition. Combine that with a 12hr/week job working in the computer labs and sysadmin'ing, and I could pay for my share of the rent & my car. People talk about free tuition. But maybe we just need to get back to the middle ground of affordable tuition as measured by the minimum wage. Eg, put a cap on tuition so that it can't be more than X hours of work at a state's minimum wage.

isostatic 8y ago
$675 per semester in 1985 is $1580 now, or $3200 for the year. By comparison, New York state spend $21,000 per pupil in public school (new york city this was $27k). This is higher than the national average of $11,000. The cheapest state, Utah, still spent $6500 per pupil. Your $3200 isn't going to touch it, so who picks up the rest of the bill?
- digitaltrees 8y ago
  The state paid a portion of the cost in the 1980s, so the $675 was only part of the cost. I would expect the cost for education hasn’t increased over time; rather the share has been shifted more greatly to the student. To your last point, Society is going to pay in one way or another. We can subsidize tuition and benefit from an educated population, with greater innovation and culture that results; or we can have less growth, innovation, and poverty.
  - dsajames 8y ago
    Cost has increased. Health care is a huge part. Housing another. Higher pay to compete with industry another in select fields.