O-Trap;1475642 wrote:I didn't suggest it was fair. That wasn't the intent of the deck-stacking comment. My comment was to suggest that you might by disheartened to see your children MORE empowered and equipped than you ever were, and still not able to live happily because of the disproportionate difficulty in affording life today, particularly for starting out....

I didn't imply you did suggest it was fair. I was further clarifying my position...not yours. I don't disagree that no matter how much I desire for them to be prepared that they still may indeed be unable to achieve. I have never disputed that. It doesn't change that more than wanting the best for them I want to foster a desire and ability to seek a better lifestyle.

O-Trap;1475642 wrote:...The problem is, there are those who, on a month-to-month basis, are not able to afford the basic necessities because of how expensive they are in proportion to the person's take-home pay. It's not as simple as "get a better paying job," because they're often already to the point where they would do so if such a job existed for someone of their education and experience level. Essentially, every month is an "emergency" in regard to feeding everyone enough to live....

They couldn't go without them even if they wanted to. I'm talking about the basics: eating, housing, driving, heat, etc. They won't likely be able to go without these things, and yet how might you encourage someone to not go without them and still encourage them not to take out a loan for them if the person does not have the funds to do so.

I don't disagree that unnecessary loans are foolish. I'm suggesting that the loans we're talking about here are not always unnecessary, at least not for everybody. ...[/quote]

That is indeed a problem...one in which is not solved by take on debt. Staying in the house where they had been fed and sheltered would solve such a problem. Going elsewhere and taking on debt to cover such expenses doesn't.

The loans I'm talking about are in the form of student loans that are used for room and board.

O-Trap;1475642 wrote: ...Not in motivation, you're right. In function, however, it's quite similar.

As such, based on the logic you've articulated about necessities and their relationship to loans, Social Security is a bad idea. As such, would you, then, agree that it should be done away with?

I disagree that it's even similar...even if were it's not the same which is what I stated.

Being forced to place money for future use and then having the fiduciary misuse or mismanage the assets is not even close to being the same as choosing to take a loan out.

Con_Alma;1475658 wrote:I didn't imply you did suggest it was fair. I was further clarifying my position...not yours. I don't disagree that no matter how much I desire for them to be prepared that they still may indeed be unable to achieve. I have never disputed that. It doesn't change that more than wanting the best for them I want to foster a desire and ability to seek a better lifestyle.

And in the event that they did not adopt this desire and/or ability?

Con_Alma;1475658 wrote:That is indeed a problem...one in which is not solved by take on debt. Staying in the house where they had been fed and sheltered would solve such a problem. Going elsewhere and taking on debt to cover such expenses doesn't.

You assume that everyone still has such a house where they were fed and sheltered available. Some do. Others, however, do not. What of them? What alternative do they have?

Con_Alma;1475658 wrote:The loans I'm talking about are in the form of student loans that are used for room and board.

I understand that. I'm suggesting that there are circumstances for some individuals that still make that the only real option sans dropping out of school altogether.

Con_Alma;1475658 wrote:I disagree that it's even similar...even if were it's not the same which is what I stated.

Being forced to place money for future use and then having the fiduciary misuse or mismanage the assets is not even close to being the same as choosing to take a loan out.

Switch the roles. The Fed is the lendee in the SS example. Look at it that way. It's quite similar.

O-Trap;1475663 wrote:And in the event that they did not adopt this desire and/or ability?...

They may not. It was not their desire that was asked about. It was my desire. Their choices will have their own rewards and consequences.

O-Trap;1475663 wrote:...You assume that everyone still has such a house where they were fed and sheltered available. Some do. Others, however, do not. What of them? What alternative do they have?


I understand that. I'm suggesting that there are circumstances for some individuals that still make that the only real option sans dropping out of school altogether....

No, I assume they came from somewhere and it provided enough to get them to the point of enrolling in college. I would bet the vast majority of those who have student loans were in such a position. It is not the exception I am speaking of.

O-Trap;1475663 wrote:...Switch the roles. The Fed is the lendee in the SS example. Look at it that way. It's quite similar.

...but the roles aren't switched. That is not the choice an individual is making.

Con_Alma;1475665 wrote:No, I assume they came from somewhere and it provided enough to get them to the point of enrolling in college.

How are you not assuming that staying there is an option, when your actual words were that "staying in the house where they had been fed and sheltered?" I know plenty of people who: (a) don't have parents involved in their lives anymore, (b) don't have parents willing to allow them to live with them anymore, (c) don't have parents who are able to support them like they did growing up, and (d) don't have parents who ever really supported them -- think urban poverty on the last one.

Those examples, I'd suggest, account for more than some miniscule exception. They're not the rule, but I'd say they still warrant being addressed in the matter.

Con_Alma;1475665 wrote:I would bet the vast majority of those who have student loans were in such a position. It is not the exception I am speaking of.

Perhaps the vast majority of suburbanites, sure. That's not the majority of the population, though.

Con_Alma;1475665 wrote:...but the roles aren't switched. That is not the choice an individual is making.

The example as a whole: Party A lends to Party B with the agreement of both parties that Party B will repay Party A. Both parties know, more or less, that Party B will not likely ever repay Party A, even going in.

Again, the compulsory nature of it is what makes the motivation different. It's what forces Party A to loan to Party B in the above example. However, in form wherewith it is manifest, it plays out in a similar role.

O-Trap;1475669 wrote:How are you not assuming that staying there is an option, when your actual words were that "staying in the house where they had been fed and sheltered?"

Different question than above that I responded to. Where are these students going in the summer? Again, I would venture the vast majority came from somewhere and chose to leave and take a loan out for living expenses. Do you think that's not the case?

O-Trap;1475669 wrote:...Perhaps the vast majority of suburbanites, sure. That's not the majority of the population, though....

Not the majority of population but rather the majority of students in school who took out a student loan for living expenses.

O-Trap;1475669 wrote:...The example as a whole: Party A lends to Party B with the agreement of both parties that Party B will repay Party A. Both parties know, more or less, that Party B will not likely ever repay Party A, even going in....

The key difference is the choice that I have referred to several times. Being forced to provide money to a fiduciary that mismanages it is not even close to being the same as choosing to take out a loan.

Con_Alma;1475673 wrote:Different question than above that I responded to. Where are these students going in the summer? Again, I would venture the vast majority came from somewhere and chose to leave and take a loan out for living expenses. Do you think that's not the case?

I wouldn't venture to guess, even. However, I do recall being "urged" by most adults to do so, and I was told by them that it was good for me, because it would help me "gain independence," or "learn to live on my own," or "find myself," or some other such nonsense.

So, while it might have still been a choice technically, it was made out to be the better option.

Con_Alma;1475673 wrote:Not the majority of population but rather the majority of students in school who took out a student loan for living expenses.

How do you know this? I'm curious.

Con_Alma;1475673 wrote:The key difference is the choice that I have referred to several times. Being forced to provide money to a fiduciary that mismanages it is not even close to being the same as choosing to take out a loan.

And I keep pointing out that choice is not part of the process. It's the catalyst for the process. Once the process begins, the two are very similar.

Lender : Student :: Citizen : Social Security Fund

O-Trap;1475688 wrote:I wouldn't venture to guess, even. However, I do recall being "urged" by most adults to do so, and I was told by them that it was good for me, because it would help me "gain independence," or "learn to live on my own," or "find myself," or some other such nonsense.

So, while it might have still been a choice technically, it was made out to be the better option.

...and it's my opinion that it is unwise to finance such living expenses.

O-Trap;1475688 wrote:...How do you know this? I'm curious. ...

I haven't written with such certainty. It isn't unreasonable to believe student at colleges were fed and sheltered to a point that enabled them to survive up until the point the enrolled in school.

O-Trap;1475688 wrote:...And I keep pointing out that choice is not part of the process. It's the catalyst for the process. Once the process begins, the two are very similar.

Lender : Student :: Citizen : Social Security Fund

That's were we disagree. I believe it is a choice.

I also don't think obtaining a loan is the same thing as as being forced to provide assets to a fiduciary for later use.

Con_Alma;1475692 wrote:...and it's my opinion that it is unwise to finance such living expenses.

When an alternative is possible, sure. I don't necessarily blame the student, though, given the instructions.

Con_Alma;1475692 wrote:I haven't written with such certainty.

Um ... sure you did.

"Not the majority of the population but rather the majority of students in school who took out a student loan for living expenses."

I sense no qualifier to suggest that this is stated in any way other than fact.

I was merely curious how you might have come across such knowledge.

Con_Alma;1475692 wrote:It isn't unreasonable to believe student at colleges were fed and sheltered to a point that enabled them to survive up until the point the enrolled in school.

Nobody is necessarily contesting that (except in some cases). I'm contesting that there are plenty who, after that point of enrollment, are not able to continue being fed and sheltered in the same way, for the reasons I mentioned before.

Con_Alma;1475692 wrote:I believe it is a choice.

I didn't disagree with whether or not it's a choice to begin such a process. Re-read what I wrote. I said that the choice happens prior to the process. I never said there was no choice.

Con_Alma;1475692 wrote:I also don't think obtaining a loan is the same thing as as being forced to provide assets to a fiduciary for later use.

I didn't say it was. I said a student obtaining a loan he cannot pay back is similar to the Fed collecting the nation's Social Security payments, which it will not be able to pay back.

The student in the parallel is the Fed. Not the citizen.

O-Trap;1475695 wrote: When an alternative is possible, sure. I don't necessarily blame the student, though, given the instructions.

I haven't blamed anyone on any of the topics either. I have stated that I think it's foolish.

Con_Alma;1475692 wrote:I haven't written with such certainty.

Um ... sure you did.

"Not the majority of the population but rather the majority of students in school who took out a student loan for living expenses."

I sense no qualifier to suggest that this is stated in any way other than fact.

I was merely curious how you might have come across such knowledge.

In the attempt to further clarify I offer to you that I am espousing my opinion. Sorry I thought that was accepted by you when no links or verification has been provided by either of us. Such knowledge has come from observation combined with a lack of indication that the opposite is true in mass.. People are living somewhere before they take on loans for living expenses and are living somewhere during the summer months.

O-Trap;1475695 wrote:...Nobody is necessarily contesting that (except in some cases). I'm contesting that there are plenty who, after that point of enrollment, are not able to continue being fed and sheltered in the same way, for the reasons I mentioned before.

Clearly this is your opinion....it seems we have to identify that now.....and it's one I disagree with. PLenty? O.K....whatever plenty means. It's all the others I speak of. I believe that the vast majority of kids in college aren't now completely independent and are no longer being claimed as a dependent by the legal guardians.

O-Trap;1475695 wrote:...I didn't disagree with whether or not it's a choice to begin such a process. Re-read what I wrote. I said that the choice happens prior to the process. I never said there was no choice....

I didn't state you did disagree with it. I post it because it's what I base my opinion on. You stating a choice happens prior doesn't change my view nor the fact that being forced to provide money to a fiduciary isn't the same as choosing to apply for a loan.

Con_Alma;1475700 wrote:I haven't blamed anyone on any of the topics. I have stated that I think it's foolish.

Fair enough.

Con_Alma;1475700 wrote:In the attempt to further clarify I offer to you that I am espousing my opinion. Sorry I thought that was accepted by you when no links or verification has been provided by either of us.

Eh, it was a fact claim, because technically, its truth is not based on subjective parameters, but I get what you mean. You weren't meaning to state it as absolute fact. I apologize.

I usually look for qualifiers with something like that (eg. "I think," or "I am of the persuasion that," or "I'm willing to bet," or "I'd wager that").

Con_Alma;1475700 wrote:Such knowledge has come from observation combined with a lack of indication that the opposite is true in mass.. People are living somewhere before they take on loans for living expenses and are living somewhere during the summer months.

Might you suggest that students ought not leave the local area, then, to attend college?

Con_Alma;1475700 wrote:Clearly this is your opinion....it seems we have to identify that now.....and it's one I disagree with.

It was intentionally vague, as you are correct to assume I do not know beyond all doubt. If I thought the majority existed this way, I would have said so. I don't know, as I only have my own observations, and I recognize that one person's observations are not an accurate sample in a scenario like this, so I simply said "plenty."

Con_Alma;1475700 wrote:I believe that the vast majority of kids in college aren't now completely independent and are no longer being claimed as a dependent by the legal guardians.

The majority indeed may. I'm not contesting that.

Con_Alma;1475700 wrote:I didn't state you did disagree with it. I post it because it's what I base my opinion on. You stating a choice happens prior doesn't change my view nor the fact that being forced to provide money to a fiduciary isn't the same as choosing to apply for a loan.

Once more, I'm not saying it is. You seem insistent to try to correlate the loan applicant to the Social Security payer. That's not the correlation that was made. The loan applicant correlates to the Fed. The lender correlates to the Social Security payer.

The loan applicant gets a loan from the lender under the agreement that it will pay it back.

The Fed receives Social Security payments from the employed citizens under the agreement that it will pay it back.

Do the two above sentences describe the parallel understandably? I've color-coded the correlated elements of the parallel.

O-Trap;1475702 wrote:....
Might you suggest that students ought not leave the local area, then, to attend college?...

In the end, secondary education is a service we much purchase. The wisest means of acquiring such service should be sought. It will be a different answer for everyone based on their own situation. Taking a loan out for living expenses in order to seek such services is foolish and if it's the only means of living while obtaining the service the individual is rolling the dice, taking a chance with their future economic stability and paying alot more for a hamburger than they might otherwise do in more common situations outside of going to college.

O-Trap;1475702 wrote:...Once more, I'm not saying it is. You seem insistent to try to correlate the loan applicant to the Social Security payer. That's not the correlation that was made. The loan applicant correlates to the Fed. The lender correlates to the Social Security payer.

The loan applicant gets a loan from the lender under the agreement that it will pay it back.

The Fed receives Social Security payments from the employed citizens under the agreement that it will pay it back.

Do the two above sentences describe the parallel understandably? I've color-coded the correlated elements of the parallel.

It's never been what I have spoken to. Maybe we can agree on that. In the context that the original question was asked of me by sleeper, I don't believe the individual, which is who we were talking about is in a situation whereby the two examples are similar.

The Baby Boomer is not in a similar situation when they provide money to a fiduciary as when he/she chooses to take a loan out. Any other scenario you presented I haven't thought about any more than it not being the same as what I responded to Sleeper about.

Con_Alma and O-Trap are the only two who have posted anything of substance on these last two pages. Well done, guys, it's been enlightening reading your posts.

To sum up: SS is a ponzi scheme. Don't blame us when it blows up.

vball10set;1475471 wrote:Just because yours didn't, don't assume everyone else's doesn't. As far as wages are concerned, it's all relevant, and kid's have more expensive things at their disposal to spend their earnings on now as well.

This doesn't even make any sense. Firstly, I'm not operating under that assumption, but I know that there are people like this out there.

Secondly, I think you're missing the point I was making. The wages aren't "relevant" at all. $1.60/hr in the past would buy a hell of a lot more than $7.25/hr would today. To say kids have it easier today is flat out delusional.

vball10set;1475825 wrote:Con_Alma and O-Trap are the only two who have posted anything of substance on these last two pages. Well done, guys, it's been enlightening reading your posts.

That's because they're the only two who have posted in the past two pages.

vball10set;1475825 wrote:Con_Alma and O-Trap are the only two who have posted anything of substance on these last two pages. Well done, guys, it's been enlightening reading your posts.

Actually I've posted plenty of good solid facts and information, but there is no discussion because it's a binary issue and I'm on the "right" side. Thank you and your generation for ruining the country and enjoy your retirement.

I know I will..

sleeper;1475950 wrote:Actually I've posted plenty of good solid facts and information, but there is no discussion because it's a binary issue and I'm on the "right" side. Thank you and your generation for ruining the country and enjoy your retirement.

I know I will..

You're welcome?

dlazz;1475944 wrote:
That's because they're the only two who have posted in the past two pages.

Actually, they were not.

dlazz;1475944 wrote:This doesn't even make any sense. Firstly, I'm not operating under that assumption, but I know that there are people like this out there.

Secondly, I think you're missing the point I was making. The wages aren't "relevant" at all. $1.60/hr in the past would buy a hell of a lot more than $7.25/hr would today. To say kids have it easier today is flat out delusional.

Actually, this statement is flat out delusional.

That's because they're the only two who have posted in the past two pages.

Actually, no they weren't.

vball10set;1476210 wrote:Actually, this statement is flat out delusional.

I'm not so sure. I think I saw a blurb somewhere that if the min. wage had kept pace with inflation it would be like $20/hr. Obviously that's some pretty ridiculous implications, but at face value his statement is accurate.

Where it gets messy is adjusting for the quality/value of that dollar. This is where simple inflation-adjusted falls short. For example, in inflation adjusted dollars maybe we are paying 2-3X as much for a gallon of gas, but our cars are going 3-4X farther so net-net this today's kid comes out ahead.

And we can extend that to a number of other things, obviously cell phones and computers. Kids 30-40 years ago couldn't afford a car, much less one with a cd player (or even a tape deck). I have no idea what the relative comparisons are on the cost of a music album, but I'm pretty sure with Pandora and a variety of other very affordable music services today that kids have more there, too.

Basically, the dollars don't go as far but you get much more for your dollar. Although that's not really the case for the first two necessities - food and rent. The next big one for a kid might be college tuition - but loans are far more available today...

We can go on and on. IMO kids today might earn less in inflation-adjusted wages, but they seem to enjoy a much higher standard of living from those wages.

gut why did you have to post that? vball is your typical boomer, fat and dumb; he would have never thought of technology changes.

sleeper;1476291 wrote:gut why did you have to post that? vball is your typical boomer, fat and dumb; he would have never thought of technology changes.

Can't technology influences lower the cost of secondary education?

Con_Alma;1476295 wrote:Can't technology influences lower the cost of secondary education?

I doubt it. Phoenix has tried to do that but no one hires anyone from Phoenix besides fast food companies.

sleeper;1476299 wrote:I doubt it. Phoenix has tried to do that but no one hires anyone from Phoenix besides fast food companies.

Was it not deemed effective because it was from Phoenix or was the actual usage of technology not effective in facilitating a class?