Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23581
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:37 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 199):
You can get loans

If you have good credit. People try to better themselves by going to school. Banks will only finance full time students. Regular people only have time for part-time studies. Even if they can get a loan for school, they still have to pay through the nose for it because they don't have mommy and daddy to pay for it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 199):
No you're not. That's crap and you know it.

I know I live in the real world. I wish we could switch places for six months so you could see what a real working person does and so I could save money by living at home and have an allowence from mommy and daddy.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:19 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 200):
If you have good credit.

They give those loans to 18 year olds who have no credit. I know, I was one. If you ruin your credit, that's your problem.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 200):
Regular people only have time for part-time studies.

Regular people? Hate to tell you, but when I started school, I was about as regular as you could get.

Going back to school after you have other responsibilities is harder, but that's the price you pay for not seeing the value of education until later on.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 200):
I could save money by living at home and have an allowence from mommy and daddy.

According to the statistics I've seen, I make more money than over half of the country, including my parents. I know you want to make me out to be the privileged rich kid, but that just isn't true. And, by the way, I do have student loans to pay but they amount to about half of what I pay in federal taxes.

What I'd like to know is why you feel you are more entitled to the money earned by other people (including myself) than the people who actually earned it.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:57 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 198):

But how much do people pay for education? IMO, way too much. If someone wants to be a doctor, that is great. A lot of hard work and deep, deep debt. Same with lawyers.

Depends on which country you live in, here in Norway you can do any degree for free, no student loans, no crippling debt to pay off. Just another nail in the coffin of the US system student debt.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:22 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 202):
Depends on which country you live in, here in Norway you can do any degree for free, no student loans, no crippling debt to pay off. Just another nail in the coffin of the US system student debt.

That's nice, but again what relevance is it citing Norway as an example? That's like saying we should all be more like lottery winners.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:27 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 203):
but again what relevance is it citing Norway as an example?

Why not? It's always worth pointing out that there is a better way of doing things when clearly the US has got it wrong in many respects especially education and healthcare. IMO those are two of the factors which have caused a decline in US income over the years which is the topic of this post.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:33 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 204):
Why not? It's always worth pointing out that there is a better way of doing things when clearly the US has got it wrong in many respects especially education and healthcare. IMO those are two of the factors which have caused a decline in US income over the years which is the topic of this post.

Free stuff isn't a better way of doing things when you have a finite level of wealth though is it.

Has nothing to do with the decline of income either. Not sure how you can relate those 2 things.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:02 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 202):
here in Norway you can do any degree for free, no student loans, no crippling debt to pay off. Just another nail in the coffin of the US system student debt.

The US already spends a ton on education.

I don't want the Norwegian system, since someone could go to school for a degree in Women's Studies or something and then not have a job, or have a job that's basically the same as what any lesser educated person could get (think Starbucks) and do it all on the taxpayer dime.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:42 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 206):
since someone could go to school for a degree in Women's Studies or something and then not have a job, or have a job that's basically the same as what any lesser educated person could get (think Starbucks) and do it all on the taxpayer dime.

Norway is pretty good at limiting places for degrees and only funding what is required. What you mentioned above could happen but isn't all that likely.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:17 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 207):
Norway is pretty good at limiting places for degrees and only funding what is required.

It's also not a desirable situation for the government to dictate what people can and cannot study.

Keeping it a commercial system is a good thing. The government should provide merit based aid, and I'm okay with that being different for different fields. If they pay, they can make decisions about what the product is.

But student loans should be market based. Banks should be more willing to fund degrees in business than Asian studies because the business degree is more likely to be paid off. It would also put immense pressure on schools to make sure their degrees are good value for the money, since banks won't want to finance students getting overpriced degrees.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
B747-4U3
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2002 8:08 am

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:31 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 208):
It's also not a desirable situation for the government to dictate what people can and cannot study.

There is quite an interesting book by Prof. Alison Wolf on the subject of education and it found that the government didn't make especially great decisions when it came to education. If I remember correctly one of the mistakes at one point was encouraging people to do degrees in a certain sector right before a crash in that sector and thus a massive oversupply in graduates for that particular sector - I forget which sector it was (might have been something IT). The conclusion was actually that individuals make the best decisions regarding their further education requirements.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 208):
But student loans should be market based. Banks should be more willing to fund degrees in business than Asian studies because the business degree is more likely to be paid off.

The problem is, just as the government makes poor decisions with regards to education, what makes you think banks will do any better? I appreciate that a bank is a business and thus has the commercial drive to be profitable and thus make "good" loans, however they - like the government - aren't experts at further education.

a) They will likely take the "easy" option and be more willing to fund degrees in what they deem to be the best degrees for repayment - this I believe will differ somewhat from what actually are the best degrees for repayment.

b) Because they are more willing to fund such degrees it will likely encourage people who would have done other degrees to do business degrees - for example - potentially leading to an oversupply which then cuts down the chances of repayment.

c) Someone who needs a degree to further their employment aspirations may be "encouraged" by the banks to do a degree that they do not really want to do and as a result get a poorer score than they would have done had they had more freedom in choosing their degree. This would then be counter-productive for that individual.

d) Banks may simply not bother offering loans for obscure degrees because they do not have enough data about the likelihood of repayment.

e) As mentioned before - are banks a better judge of what degrees people should and should not be doing - I think not.

I did a very unusual degree - indeed I was the only person in the country doing it and the course is no longer offered - It was something along the lines of Asian Studies (it was actually an Asian language). I was advised when I left college not to do it because employers would not see the benefit of it and would think that you are unusual. I ignored them as I wanted to go to university to do something that I wanted to do and not follow the herd. As soon as I left university I got a job in a completely different sector to that of my degree and now earn considerably more than my friends who did Economics / Business Studies - some of whom are significantly underemployed despite having a solid degree from a decent university.

It would have been interesting to see what the banks would have predicated regarding that scenario. They would have been unlikely to fund my degree yet would likely have willingly funded the business related degrees which amongst my friends a least have proven in cases to be worthless.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 206):
I don't want the Norwegian system, since someone could go to school for a degree in Women's Studies or something and then not have a job, or have a job that's basically the same as what any lesser educated person could get (think Starbucks) and do it all on the taxpayer dime.

Such a degree would not necessarily be worthless. The person doing it needs to be the right person with the right career aspirations (perhaps wanting to work for the UN or something). If the person has the drive then the degree might be appropriate for them. At the same time it is quite specialised so I would not expect more than a couple of people doing it.

I think the key is getting more information out about employment prospects. Degrees from a bad university are not going to be worth much. A Woman's Studies degree from a quality university might be worth more. If more information is available before, a robust interview as to why someone wants the degree and frank advice about employment prospects it should discourage a good number from doing such degrees so that only those who are likely to make it pay decide to do them.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:41 am

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 209):
The problem is, just as the government makes poor decisions with regards to education, what makes you think banks will do any better? I appreciate that a bank is a business and thus has the commercial drive to be profitable and thus make "good" loans, however they - like the government - aren't experts at further education.

Interesting points, there's no reason why banks wouldn't start to specialise in student loans - possibly in collaboration with universities - though. It wouldn't really matter if banks didn't fund every itty bitty course as jobs in those sectors would just start paying more, like your job. This would in turn make banks more likely to invest in those jobs, or people to self-fund, or the employers who offer those jobs to fund the degrees themselves.

I'd personally be in favour of every kid just getting a grant when they reach 18*. Say 20k which they can spend on what they like. Or you could restrict it to be able to spend it on a house deposit, healthcare, education, rent etc.

That way education and such is still subject to market forces, and people who don't benenfit from university still get a chance in life - i find the idea of somebody who is already gifted in life getting free education rather unfair.

*I would of course do away with benefits to counter that
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:19 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 208):

It's also not a desirable situation for the government to dictate what people can and cannot study.

Why not if the country needs more doctors or engineers training accountants and lawyers isn't going to be of much use, those accounts and lawyers might end up waiting tables at starbucks just as easily as the arts students.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:39 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 211):
Why not if the country needs more doctors or engineers training accountants and lawyers isn't going to be of much use, those accounts and lawyers might end up waiting tables at starbucks just as easily as the arts students.

Price/wage signals do that automatically, far better than it can be planned by any government.
 
zhiao
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:52 am

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:52 pm

Does anyone bother to fact check these numbers? They are off. According to the Census itself, median household income in the 60's and 70's was never higher than in 2011, contrary to what it says in the MSN graphic. See for yourself in table H6:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Second, the Census, being a survey is only as good as the info that people supply them with. Unfortunately, the Census income concept has been less accurate at capturing income. Wages, SS, pensions, self employment, etc., are more underreported than they were as recently as 2004 and even more vs 1990. I did a research paper on this, took into account the undercounting, recalculated HH income, and found that while median household income in 2010 remained $3000 below its all time high in 2000 and 2007, it was still higher than at any time before 1999, and only just below most of the years in the 2000's.

The thing is, people take what they see from the Census at face value DESPITE their warnings in the methodology. In summary, the reality is not as bad as some want it to be. Sure it's bad that income is still below it's all time high (by around 5%), but at least it's higher than at any time prior to 1999, which most do not realize, because nobody that I know of has udertaken the burden of correcting the Census numbers for underreporting. Shame on MSN however for misreporting the Census' own figures though!

[Edited 2013-08-11 09:56:51]
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:35 pm

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 209):
The problem is, just as the government makes poor decisions with regards to education, what makes you think banks will do any better?

Banks are going to understand and try to account for all the dynamics you list. Furthermore, competitive pressures will likely keep them from clamping down too tightly. One reason why banks are better than governments is that you can have a choice of banks and switch between them at will.

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 209):
Degrees from a bad university are not going to be worth much.

That's part of the beauty of a commercialized finance system for education: schools would be extremely pressured to make sure their degrees offer good value, otherwise nobody will get them.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 211):
Why not if the country needs more doctors or engineers training accountants and lawyers isn't going to be of much use, those accounts and lawyers might end up waiting tables at starbucks just as easily as the arts students.

It restricts freedom.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 212):
Price/wage signals do that automatically, far better than it can be planned by any government.

  
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:58 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 214):
It restricts freedom.

So does the Patriot Act.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8600
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Mon Aug 12, 2013 3:42 am

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 209):
a) They will likely take the "easy" option and be more willing to fund degrees in what they deem to be the best degrees for repayment - this I believe will differ somewhat from what actually are the best degrees for repayment.

The best degrees for repayment are going to be the ones in most demand and best wages. Today, that's probably IT degrees.

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 209):
b) Because they are more willing to fund such degrees it will likely encourage people who would have done other degrees to do business degrees - for example - potentially leading to an oversupply which then cuts down the chances of repayment.

Encouraging people to change degrees to something more marketable is more of a positive than a negative. It should not lead to oversupply because wages would depress and people would not only look at other degrees, but as you said, the chances of repayment would decrease leading to a decrease in the supply of loans to such a degree. But more on this below. . .

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 209):
c) Someone who needs a degree to further their employment aspirations may be "encouraged" by the banks to do a degree that they do not really want to do and as a result get a poorer score than they would have done had they had more freedom in choosing their degree. This would then be counter-productive for that individual.

Aptitude testing is one way to minimize the risk of that. In fact, at least in the US, a lot of universities accept students on the basis of how likely they are to succeed academically.

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 209):
d) Banks may simply not bother offering loans for obscure degrees because they do not have enough data about the likelihood of repayment.

Obscure degrees like the one you chose would be better self-financed. Something of a second career that one pursues when one is already established in a "fall back to" job.

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 209):
As soon as I left university I got a job in a completely different sector to that of my degree and now earn considerably more than my friends who did Economics / Business Studies - some of whom are significantly underemployed despite having a solid degree from a decent university.

It would have been interesting to see what the banks would have predicated regarding that scenario. They would have been unlikely to fund my degree yet would likely have willingly funded the business related degrees which amongst my friends a least have proven in cases to be worthless.

The banks would not have predicted it, just as they and other economists didn't predict the disaster around the corner.

Back in 2005, I remember watching a CNBC program featuring a ranking of the highest paid and most in demand degrees: finance and economics were number 1 and 2. Banks would have no problem funding this back then.

That was a bubble, just like the rest of the market was in. And this "business degree bubble" is a decent parallel to what happened in the rest of the market. Due to unwise monetary policies, market signals got distorted. Banks, investors, depositors, and even college students made decisions relying on these bad signals. Central banks were pouring money into the financial sector, these firms grew, and as they did they required more talent, and talent became scarce. This causes employment opportunities to increase and wages to go up, which in turn turns the head of college students.

There were no "iffy" practices going on at business schools that led to an increase in people seeking these degrees. There was no direct government incentive to boost business degrees anymore than any other degrees. And yet, there was still a bubble. And clearly, the problem is not de to a lack of draconian government regulations controlling the number of business students, but rather a much more fundamental problem that was caused in the first place by government management of the monetary system.

[Edited 2013-08-11 20:50:27]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Topic Author
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:08 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 216):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nt-glass-steagall-back-should-you/



I suggest that more regulation is needed, not less.


As far as business schools such as Harvard Business, Wall Street was syphoning them off because of the get rich mentality of Wall Street, the greed was infectious, still is because there is not enough oversight. I watched Elliot Spitzer admit that most of the wealth is syphoned off by insider trading on Wall Street before anyone gets shot to invest. Members of congress come to mind. Of course I am sure some on here know more than Spitzer.

[Edited 2013-08-12 18:34:45]
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5843
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:37 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 215):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 214):
It restricts freedom.

So does the Patriot Act.

A point well made; all too often, people forget that, if you are to be a true patriot, you must champion freedom for everyone, not just for the people with whom you agree.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 217):

I suggest that more regulation is needed, not less.

As regards keeping banks from owning investment houses, and thus (1) avoiding obvious conflict of interest, and (2) promoting open disclosure of transactions, you are correct, sir.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Topic Author
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: US Income Through The Years.

Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:08 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 217):
Of course I am sure some on here know more than Spitzer.

I guess I was wrong, nobody is challenging Elliot Spitzer and his statement about how Wall Street operates. Hmm.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 218):
As regards keeping banks from owning investment houses, and thus (1) avoiding obvious conflict of interest, and (2) promoting open disclosure of transactions, you are correct, sir.

I will take a compliment anytime, I do not seem to generate many.  
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: as737, Bing [Bot], c933103 and 74 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos