4 ms·
The flaw in his logic that I see is that somehow the $104,000 that was supposed to pay for going to college will somehow magically appear the first year that th
by jgoewert 16y ago
The flaw in his logic that I see is that somehow the $104,000 that was supposed to pay for going to college will somehow magically appear the first year that the kid will not go to college so that they can start a business. This is instead of how it normally appears with select education loans. I highly doubt lenders are itching to lend $104,000 to multitudes of fresh 18 year olds that dream about owning their own business but don't want to "waste time" in college.
- Andred 16y agoAgreed 100%. You either go to school and use that money to gain knowledge, friends and life experience or you never see the money in the first place. At age 29 I STILL don't have that kind of money sitting around to invest. How would an 18 year old kid get access to it? Also, that $10,000 for living expenses is a static cost whether you go to school or not. So the number is really somewhere closer to $64k.
- jonsmock 16y agoAgreed, the math here is way off. No mention of amortization to either side of the argument: the "saved" $104,000 OR the expected $800,000. Perhaps I invested the $800,000 (or what's left after I pay my student loans)? Depending on how the $800K is distributed over my lifetime, that investment could be well over $1.4mil when I retire.