Live data from Hacker News

On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

erikrood.com

521–530 of 669 posts

Re: On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

#521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And college got expensive partly through policy choices. Offering easy loans tends to make people price insensitive, so tuitions go up and a lot of that money goes to things like increasingly fancy buildings and making textbook publishers' shareholders rich. Meanwhile often less is going to state schools that, with low in-state tuitions, were historically a way up for a lot of people. (An older friend went to Berkele…

And then there is the bit where rich foreigners want to send their children to top schools, which usually translates into sending them to the United States as well as the general population increase. With more people competing for the same (or in some cases even fewer) spots the prices could only go up. So now we get to see other effects at work and some of those effects expose this rise in price as unrealistic.

Not a fair statement, as highly esteemed foreign teachers and professors also get bought by US colleges and universities. These top school would not be top without the capital they have.

Although I do want to mention that in my eyes these so-called top schools are overvalued. With both their professors and students gaming the system in order to 'stay the best'.

Re: On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

#522
post #517

Problem: college tuition is too damn high. Solution: universal, free or heavily subsidized access to quality higher education. So, Americans, number 1 war economy and slaughterous rulers over our blood and minds, what exactly is your major political malfunction preventing this?

Well, it's partially probably because Republicans aren't going to want to vote to subsidize the Democratic Party.

Re: On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

#523

There is something seriously wrong with society when accountants run the world. Money is a tool, education provides long term wealth and stability. Providing fuel for people considering skipping collage is very short sighted.

It's saddening, yet unsurprising, that the whole discussion here on HN is around wealth and few people mentioned learning minor skills like time management and writing or partying and making friends.

In other countries, universities are/were usually seen as a way to cultivate your mind.

Quoting wikipedia on "culture":

The modern term "culture" is based on a term used by the Ancient Roman orator Cicero in his Tusculanae Disputationes, where he wrote of a cultivation of the soul or "cultura animi,"[2] using an agricultural metaphor for the development of a philosophical soul, understood teleologically as the highest possible ideal for human development.

Re: On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

#524

First of all, instead of going all the way to free higher education in one go, try a better loan system. Basically since educated youth is a national interest, set up an authority that lends money to students with very reasonable interest rates and repayment. Interest rate can be set at the inflation level plus a small margin, repayment is set as a fraction of annual income, and the loans should not count against fut…

And base the rate off of the major. The lower your expected earnings, the higher your interest rate. Should help deter some stupidity.

Re: On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

#525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone that didn't panic sell during the crash has recovered. What does 500 shares of Pets.com sell for these days? All the people who had pensions heavily invested in Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leveraged Fund came out OK after a bit of time? --- Investment carries risk at all levels. The longer you play the market, the more likely it is that you'll get burned at some point. Professional inv…

You are building strawmen. The suggestion was to "invest into the stock market", not to "gamble on the single riskiest stock you can find". If an amateur invests their money into a passive index fund or even a diversified equity fund like, say, Fidelity Magellan, they would have done well over any 20-year span. Nuff said.

Both of the investments I referenced were solid until they weren't.

My adult life has seen 3 major market crashes and a terrible recession. I've watched neighborhoods go into foreclosures on 80% of their homes. I've had friends go unemployed for over a year.

When I see people spread investment advice as if there's no downside, I have to shake my head. There's money to be made in the market, but it's not without risk.

The Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11 in the dotcom crash.

The S&P 500 declined 57% from its high in the housing crash.

The Dow lost more than 5% in a single day at least 5 times in 2008. The next time one of the major indexes drops 700 points in a day look around and tell people "you'll be fine if you don't panic sell. Think about it in 20 year increments. It'll all average out. You're money is all in an index fund, right? Those are totally safe. You didn't want to spend anything during this presidential cycle anyways."

Where was the index fund advice in '98? Where were all the people who had well balanced / well hedged portfolios in '07-'09? I'll tell you where they weren't. Every house with brown grass that the banks had foreclosed on and decided not to keep up.

There was an army of day-traders once upon a time not all that long ago that blew all kinds of sunshine up people's asses about investments. There's no reason to. People who have the money to can invest if they want and if they do they should learn about the risks and ask the people who are giving them advice how they fared during the crashes. If those advisors don't admit it was hairy and ridiculously stressful, they are lying through their teeth.

Index fund advice became widespread after '08. Now Black Rock, State Street, and Vanguard own majority stock in 440 S&P companies. You aren't invested in the S&P500 anymore. You are invested in BR/SS/VG management. Who aren't incentivized towards the interest of any particular firm. What happens as these funds grow? If investors herd to passively managed funds, what's the outcome? Faster cycles. The indexes do more securities lending, which makes them less liquid come crash time. Do investors know that these funds will have liquidity problems if the market goes belly up? A whole shitload of people are going to learn the term "halting redemptions" really quickly. Do investors realize that the growth of passive investment increases anti-competitive behavior? Which isn't good for the economy and sure as shit isn't good for small investors.

But by all means, keep shilling the passive investment advice as if you've been doing it for 40 years. Then complain with the rest of the country that the funds should have been regulated more and how people should have known not to give that much power to so few companies in the financial sector.

Re: On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

#526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is free in life except sunlight. Colleges employ people and build buildings and have ongoing costs. Taxpayer money would need to be used to pay for this, and that money must have continued value, otherwise no amount of money would actually get the job done (see Venezuela) Not everyone learns valuable skills at college. You have to watch out for conflating "learning valuable skills" with "occupying space on a…

That's not true. If it nets a return greater than the costs, then the costs don't "cost" anything. Think of it this way: do you think having a large college educated population is a net good or a net bad for the US?

It would be a net good if the people who went to college were changed in such a way that they stopped destroying value and started creating value.

That is to say, if college (more often than not) turned criminals into saints, and turned a welfare recipient into Erdos, then it would be an excellent investment for society.

But there's no evidence it does this, and it doesn't even do a better job than high school. You can learn more on youtube than you do in college.

So until then, it's a marketing racket that transfers state money into a few private hands- and the gov't goes around collecting for decades.

Re: On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

#527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me at easy credit, but lost me with the reasoning.

Savers are counter-parties to debtors. Every debtor that consumes real goods and services now in exchange for forgoing later consumption gets paired with a saver that forgoes current consumption in exchange for later. The market has to clear, and the price is the risk-free rate of return. More people interested in saving? The natural effect of this pressure is to drive interest rates and credit standards down until y…

Interest rates aren't set by a free market.

Re: On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

#528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

College in the US is used by employers as a proxy for intelligence, something that's an outgrowth of laws and court rulings that date back to the '70s. So if you want to put yourself on the path to the C-Suite in a Fortune 500 company or to a partnership in a major law firm, you have to get into one of the very top colleges in the country. That, in turn, means top colleges can charge pretty much whatever they want an…

> That, in turn, means top colleges can charge pretty much whatever they want and it's still worth the money. The most prestigious colleges actually don't charge much money, except for families that can easily pay. Financial aid, including stipends for living expenses, is extremely generous at elite schools. The sticker price might be high, but few people actually pay it. The problem is more with second tier schools…

I've seen this mentioned several times, and I wish I had realized this when I was younger. I didn't even bother to apply to top tier schools even though I would have probably been accepted there because I knew my parents weren't too well off and I didn't think they'd be able to afford to support me, and I really hated the idea of taking out big college loans ($20k+ per year to go to school just seemed insane to me at the time... now 20 years later it's the average tuition + lodging at my local public university!?!).

So instead I only applied to in-state colleges, thinking I was being sensible and pragmatic by doing so. But there's a chance I would have paid less at the top tier schools than I ended up paying for local schools.

Re: On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

#529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is free in life except sunlight. Colleges employ people and build buildings and have ongoing costs. Taxpayer money would need to be used to pay for this, and that money must have continued value, otherwise no amount of money would actually get the job done (see Venezuela) Not everyone learns valuable skills at college. You have to watch out for conflating "learning valuable skills" with "occupying space on a…

It is free for the student just as it's free for you to drive your car on the public roads to work.

There is still a price collected. The question is- "is this price worth the value delivered?"

In the case of roads, the answer is usually yes. The value they add is clear (at least until flying everywhereis the new economic norm).

People are willing to pay local taxes, tolls, insurance, licensing fees, gas taxes. A good portion of this money goes to road building and upkeep. Some of it is syphoned off and goes to other things.

If the proportion falls out of balance, and in parts of this country it does, then it no longer becomes "worth it", because of corruption and misuse.

If you've ever drive i95 from the Bronx to Stamford CT, you'll notice the portion in NY is in absolute disrepair, but the CT portion is very nicely paved. And yet, both states are flush with money. So what gives?? Mismanagement of public funds is the cause.

Similarly, if college (a 4 year holding tank after high school) is so much better than secondary education, vocational education, and self-teaching through books and youtube, then we can continue investing in it.

But since it isn't clear that college is better than these cheaper alternatives, it's just a way for public money to be siphoned from your wallet to someone else's.

It most definitely isn't free, unless you avoid the variety of taxes in our society. In which case, I applaud you for living a non-traditional and very self-sufficient life :)

Re: On average, skipping college and investing tuition costs nets a higher return

#530
In 2007, the Fed balance sheet was $858B. From http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/understand...:

"The Fed had assets worth $858 billion on its book in the week ended on Aug 1, 2007 just before the start of the financial crisis"

From http://www.investopedia.com/insights/how-will-fed-reduce-bal..., the Fed now has $4.5 TRILLION in assets. IOW, they have injected $3.6T into the economy by pushing buttons on computers to buy shit from banks so banks wouldn't have to keep them on their books and take risks.

These extra dollars have created inflation IMO, including higher college tuition. Just to get an idea of scale, M1, the US money supply, is $3.4T as of Apr 2017: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/default.h...

Post reply on HN