251–260 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going to college isn't right or wrong it can only improve your chances of getting a job or a higher salary in certain careers. If this doesn't work out moving to the probability of a windfall maybe desperation but it's not smart. If people believe this is their only hope that's sad and we should guide them to make better decisions.
College is no guarantee of anything anymore. Many schools and degrees don't even have a positive ROI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Condo home owners association control the fees. They go to insurance, money to replace common owned properly like the roof, exterior walls, paint, parking, landscape etc. You can go get elected and convince the board to not invest in these things and lower the fees. You can also vote to increase it to pay for things like to add solar. Did you ever look HOA financial docs that details exactly what the HOA spent money…
In the condo I owned? Yes, I became quite familiar with how the money was spent, and most of it was in principle logical for the building it was in, and the board wasn't doing anything unethical or anything like that. It was, unfortunately, just a very bad situation for the building, which was aging poorly from its origins as a low unit count high value building with a lot of expensive amenities, windows that couldn'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the condo I owned? Yes, I became quite familiar with how the money was spent, and most of it was in principle logical for the building it was in, and the board wasn't doing anything unethical or anything like that. It was, unfortunately, just a very bad situation for the building, which was aging poorly from its origins as a low unit count high value building with a lot of expensive amenities, windows that couldn'…
Every condo I’ve owned the condo fees were controlled by the HOA. Sometimes we were members of two HOAs, one for the neighborhood and one for the condo complex.
The main difference between a condo association and an HOA here is what kind of property is involved. But HOAs are also a relatively recent development here and aren't regulated as strongly so they vary more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of what you've described can also be applied to condominiums. The only difference is that you can occupy them year round, but I don't think that's a relevant difference. Are the "fundamental economics" of those also "a scam"?
> The only difference is that you can occupy them year round, but I don't think that's a relevant difference. Most people think it's a pretty relevant difference. For one thing, if you occupy a place year-round, you can keep your belongings in it. That's a pretty significant feature for most people, which is the reason most people choose to live in a permanent domicile rather than moving every week. But different str…
Most vacation destinations are somewhat seasonal. Maybe the most major cities with year round cultural activities, but not in places like beach and ski towns.
You can potentially have 52 "1-week-a-year" people fighting over the 16-20 weeks a year the location is most desirable, and maybe settling for lesser times, or just not using it that year. Hell, why not sell 60 memberships, knowing some will just punt in any given year?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
College is no guarantee of anything anymore. Many schools and degrees don't even have a positive ROI.
That's the same thing I said
If so, I don't necessarily agree. College is an expensive (dollars and time) proposition that rarely pays off. Trade schools, boot camps, etc. are probably better investments for many people. And frankly, saving your money and hoping for a windfall is probably smarter than going to college unless you have a very clear idea already of what you want to study and what career you want to go into afterward.
College is not an automatic positive. For a lot of people, their degree ends up not being worth their student debt.
Or maybe I misunderstood the "it can only improve your chances" part... like maybe you meant "it can improve your chances, but only in certain fields", vs "it can only improve your chances (not worsen them)"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this economy!? Anecdotally, I had 20000x more money at 22 than 28. If I remain employed for the rest of the year I might be on par by the end of it. Graphing my income over the last 10 years would look like a memory leak
Ha, what did you do right or wrong to end up with declining income?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really hope that they meant disposable income and they're just maxing out 401k contributions and have kids and the like!
I'm hoping the same. Regarding 401k please remember that employer matches do not count towards the contribution limit, always calculate your deduction so that you max it out without the employer match. The employer match is the cherry on top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha, what did you do right or wrong to end up with declining income?
Really hope that they meant disposable income and they're just maxing out 401k contributions and have kids and the like!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk... I know like 10 people who got degrees in math and none ended up working in a job that requires any degree at all. Food service, secretaries, factory workers, insurance salesmen. I just think there isn't nearly enough jobs in the field compared to the amount of people who are graduating with math degrees. There's only 27,700 actuaries in the US - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/actuaries.htm
First, you're sample size of 10 people has no value. Second mathematics is just one degree and can not be used as a representation of all degrees. Finally actuaries are just on career that someone with a math degree might get so that total number doesn't have value when talking about the potential of a math degree
They are a libertarian thinktank, so take it with a grain of salt, but it's a lot more data than we've had in this thread so far.
TLDR: Engineering pays, computers pay almost as much, art and music are usually a net negative (over 42 working years).
Looking at math, 88% of graduates will earn a 42-year ROI of https://freopp.org/how-we-calculated-the-return-on-investmen...). Only 3% of math majors should expect a negative ROI (i.e., they would've been better off NOT getting their degree). By comparison, 68% of art & music majors will have a negative ROI on their degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you say 'footie' that makes me think you are Australian. "Raffles" in australia have very specific legal requirements.
The Gold Coast and Queensland are in Australia, so you're 100% on the money. You see Surf Life Saving raffles for gorgeous homes and cars all the time. I imagine the laws in our country (I'm also in Australia, though not Australian) mean the advertised prizes have to be winnable.