Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

pandodaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 183 posts

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#51

Post by BenoitEssiambre »

rayiner wrote: post #28
BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #24

Since the beginning of the financial crisis the media has constantly been repeating that the housing market was key to recovery and that the government had to do things to help prop up house prices. As someone who would like to own a house in the future, I find it quite unfair that the government is helping to maintain bubble prices. It is yet another way for current homeowners to to extract as much money as possible…

The punchline, of course, is that retirement won't be a realistic option for our generation at 60. 25-75 leaves 50 working years, and that's what it'll probably take so we can pay for the boomer generation to retire and also save for our own. And I don't think it's a bad thing. It's patently ridiculous for a person to spend half their life not working, why should it involve less than an unreasonable savings rate to d…

That is my conclusion too. I hope I can still code at 70.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#52

Post by muzz »

snogglethorpe wrote: post #46
muzz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main fallacy of the whole rising-college-tuition thing is that students don't actually pay "sticker price". The actual cost is much less: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-27/misconceptions-101-...

> The actual cost is much less ... often. OTOH, If you don't fit the mold, you may be screwed... I've known any number of students who actually were paying full price for tuition at top-tier private universities [to the tune of $50,000/year] despite being quite poor. Some took out massive loans, others did full-time work and attended as best they could.

in the average case. sure, for every outlier on the high side it's likely there's an equally-outlying data point on the low side, etc.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#53

Post by Domenic_S »

rfurlong wrote: post #37

This article, like many articles on Hacker News equates the value of education into dollars. Education, intrinsically, cannot be solely measured in dollars. The problem isn't people getting useless degrees, its degrees that don't correspond to high paying jobs in the current economy costing too much. THERE IS NO SHAME IN GETTING A DEGREE IN LITERATURE. Education should be free. I just get a knee jerk reaction to any…

> THERE IS NO SHAME IN GETTING A DEGREE IN LITERATURE.

I agree with you, but the supply side of the education system agrees with you all the way to the bank.

The real point is: the traditional education model is usually a bad financial deal. If you want to learn, do so -- but don't be swindled into taking out loans for it.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#54

Post by brianchu »

bane wrote: post #47
brianchu wrote: post #30

Firstly, it's misleading to say that the cost of a UC Berkeley education is $210,000. That's the price is you're an out-of-state resident and you receive no financial aid. In-state residents without financial aid end up paying roughly $120,000 (and the cost is even less since most students live off-campus after their first year, but I digress). Going to the flagship state college in the state you live in is generally…

>Secondly, a private school education typically runs around $200-240k, a number that is calculated to include room, board, books, and living expenses. That's not entirely correct. The tuitions at many private schools these days lists at ~$200k for a 4-year undergrad and does not include expenses. For example https://undergraduate.admissions.gwu.edu/costs-attendance Lists just tution at $45,735 while R&B is $10,530. S…

Your math doesn't add up. The total for 4 years is $225,060. Which falls in the range I provided.

EDIT (reply to below): Okay, adding the un-cited items adds up to just about $240k (keeping in mind that some of those fees are one-time only). Which is right at my range.

Obviously, $200k-240k is not some sort of hard-and-fast rule. It's an estimate I threw out there, and it doesn't really detract from my point to nitpick at it.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#55

Post by jkat »

Kerrick wrote: post #23
jkat wrote: post #2

There's plenty of money to be made, it's a question of hard work. Luck? You were already lucky to be born in the western world. I think education is the answer, but not the type people seem focused on. I'm talking about life skills children can learn from good teachers and, much more importantly, good parents. Work hard, it's important. Learn life lessons, like cooking...all the basics that are more basic than the 3…

It's not just a question of hard work, it's a question of hard work in the right field , and at the right place .

True, but fields around math, science and engineering have (as far as I'm aware) been rather reliable.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#56

Post by brianchu »

hayksaakian wrote: post #48
brianchu wrote: post #30

Firstly, it's misleading to say that the cost of a UC Berkeley education is $210,000. That's the price is you're an out-of-state resident and you receive no financial aid. In-state residents without financial aid end up paying roughly $120,000 (and the cost is even less since most students live off-campus after their first year, but I digress). Going to the flagship state college in the state you live in is generally…

Hi, I'm an out of state Cal student who gets no (free) financial aid ( I get some lower interest loans). The above number is accurate. My family has a gross income of less than what you describe, and I have no siblings. Merit scholarships are non unique to your argument. By definition few people will get them. College is still expensive, as demand for a degree exceeds the supply of high quality schools, prices have o…

That gross income figure applies only in the context of top private schools. UCs don't have enough funding for generous financial aid; I believe out of state students receive even less aid.

This is what I was saying when I said that many top private colleges are more affordable than state colleges.

Merit scholarships are in the context of alternatives to Ivy League educations. If you're not a star student, and are from a middle-class family, you should be going to your in-state state school anyway.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#57

Post by jpiasetz »

shawnee_ wrote: post #43
BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #24

Since the beginning of the financial crisis the media has constantly been repeating that the housing market was key to recovery and that the government had to do things to help prop up house prices. As someone who would like to own a house in the future, I find it quite unfair that the government is helping to maintain bubble prices. It is yet another way for current homeowners to to extract as much money as possible…

the media has constantly been repeating that the housing market was key to recovery and that the government had to do things to help prop up house prices. It is interesting how many people are misinformed about this. The government hasn't and can't do anything to "prop up" house prices. It only sets the prime interest rate, which affects the ability of people to borrow money (specifically does it affect ARM mortgages…

> The government hasn't and can't do anything to "prop up" house prices. It only sets the prime interest rate, which affects the ability of people to borrow money (specifically does it affect ARM mortgages), essentially the ability of people to "afford" housing, or the rate at which they'll be able to convert the debt behind their mortgage into equity.

What about implicit and explicitly guaranteeing higher risk mortgage through Fannie Mae and bank bail outs? By taking on some of the risks the government lowers costs which increases the number of people in the housing market increase price.

>Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#58

Post by BenoitEssiambre »

shawnee_ wrote: post #43
BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #24

Since the beginning of the financial crisis the media has constantly been repeating that the housing market was key to recovery and that the government had to do things to help prop up house prices. As someone who would like to own a house in the future, I find it quite unfair that the government is helping to maintain bubble prices. It is yet another way for current homeowners to to extract as much money as possible…

the media has constantly been repeating that the housing market was key to recovery and that the government had to do things to help prop up house prices. It is interesting how many people are misinformed about this. The government hasn't and can't do anything to "prop up" house prices. It only sets the prime interest rate, which affects the ability of people to borrow money (specifically does it affect ARM mortgages…

Not quite. The prime rate isn't set by the government but by the federal reserve which should be mostly independent from the government.

Propping up house prices was done through the bailout by helping banks with the mortgage backed securities, sometimes helping underwater mortgage holders and through fannie mae and freddy mac.

Also the equity on my house will be just a small part of my retirement savings. This part should cover housing during my retirement. I also expect to need food and such.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#59

Post by unimpressive »

klibertp wrote: post #22

"Your parents and grandparents want what is best for you. But they do not understand your world in the slightest. You should probably ignore them." This is great advice. It was true when I started my career, some ten years ago - I think it's even more true now. The path I chose in life was, and probably still is, incomprehensible to my parents. They have the best intentions, I'm sure, but for the very long time they…

The ideal solution I think, is simple:

"Followers of the Way [of Chán], if you want to get the kind of understanding that accords with the Dharma, never be misled by others. Whether you're facing inward or facing outward, whatever you meet up with, just kill it! If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat. If you meet your parents, kill your parents. If you meet your kinfolk, kill your kinfolk. Then for the first time you will gain emancipation, will not be entangled with things, will pass freely anywhere you wish to go." - Linji Yixuan [0][1]

Before you object with something to the tune of "But I'm living with them!", I said it was simple, not easy.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linji_Yixuan

[1]: I'm fairly sure he doesn't mean it literally, but then I've never read the quote in context.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#60

Post by BenoitEssiambre »

nicholas73 wrote: post #41
[deleted] wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

You can achieve 4% investing in large cap dividend payers. The dividends alone can be 4%, and any price appreciation on top of that is gravy. Though of course, you have to diversify and thus put an immense amount of research in many companies.

Yeah if you are smart with your money you can still get close to 4% nominal which is about 2% real (inflation adjusted) and is what I used in my calculations. The previous generation used to be able to get 6% to 7% nominal.
Post reply on HN