<p>"but I wouldn’t want to deny college to others, and I suspect many Americans would disagree with that. "</p>
<p>Yes, we instead waste massive amounts of money on kids that don’t graduate.</p>
<p>"As it is paying for college is done with after-tax dollars so it’s actually a lot more than the sticker price. "</p>
<p>This is a good point which is lost on many with lower incomes, that may not even pay income tax.</p>
<p>"Yes, we instead waste massive amounts of money on kids that don’t graduate. "</p>
<p>Sadly, I think this is true. And far too many kids are pushed into college that don’t really want to be there. Some of the blame is on HS counselors, who steer kids towards college, and away from the trades. Some trades pay very well. It’s an elitist thing. Obama’s proposal to have every kids attend some college doesn’t bode well, in my mind. Let’s worry about getting kids their HS diplomas first.</p>
<p>I would like to see a bit more of the European model here. I wish more states were like California, Virginia, Michigan where the state schools are the best schools in the state and sought after. If the state systems were the best and most desired, some cost issues could be greatly reduced</p>
<p>“I wish more states were like California…”</p>
<p>You mean bankrupt?</p>
<p>No, no, Shrinkrap. I mean having a state system that has schools that are in the top echelons and are desirable to most top students. Hopefully that is not what is bankrupting the state; I don’t know if that is contributing to the financial problems.</p>
<p>I live in a state that tried to copy your state’s model for the university system and has not succeeded. The SUNYs do not have anywhere the reputation, prestige, and attraction that the UCs have.</p>
<p>The states in New England don’t even pretend to try.</p>
<p>No, they don’t, it seems. It’s a shame. Though I am increasingly hearing about UVermont.</p>
<p>“Hopefully that is not what is bankrupting the state;”</p>
<p>Massachusetts education spending is 21% of their budget. (not sure of year)</p>
<p>California K12 spending is 39.3% of their budget with higher ed at 11.6%. (2007-2008) So 50% of their budget is education. It looks to me like K12 spending is the budget-buster in CA.</p>
<p>I think Obama said every child should have at least a year after HS, and did include a year at a trade school.</p>
<p>We don’t have the capacity at our community colleges and trade schools to give everyone an extra year. Logistics would be a nightmare too. When I went to high school, we had training for trades right in the high-school. 11th and 12th grade. I took a number of courses in the shops but it was a huge high-school with the facilities to teach the trades.</p>
<p>I don’t know if high-schools have those specialties today.</p>
<p>We have major problems in K-12. K-12 has pushed those problems onto community colleges and universities. Continuing that path is just an expensive attempt to work around the problem. It wastes money and it wastes the time of our young. For some reason, it is very, very hard to fix the K-12 problems in so many schools.</p>
<p>Yes, there are schools that do an excellent job but it seems that we cannot replicate that to the majority.</p>
<p><a href=“calmom:”>quote=BCeagle91</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Do you understand how loans work? The time value of money? That a bird
in the hand is worth two in the bush?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Calmom is entirely correct. Your talk about “time value of money” only makes her case. </p>
<p>The time value (and any other value) of money, increases as you escalate in wealth. The low-income patient can’t, as an alternative to paying up-front, put the money in hedge funds and use the profits to pay the doctor in installments; nor can the money easily be lent out at interest. The doctor, however, could make capital investments in the business, put the lump sum into the stock market, or otherwise employ the “time value” of the payment. </p>
<p>So the time value of money is nil for the poor guy and substantial for the doctor. The so-called discount of paying up front really reflects the fact that in most transactions, the customer (if poor) is paying for the difference in value between his dollar and the vendor’s dollar.</p>
<p>“The time value (and any other value) of money, increases as you escalate in wealth. The low-income patient can’t, as an alternative to paying up-front, put the money in hedge funds and use the profits to pay the doctor in installments; nor can the money easily be lent out at interest. The doctor, however, could make capital investments in the business, put the lump sum into the stock market, or otherwise employ the “time value” of the payment.”</p>
<p>You can just read the news if you want to disprove the rubbish that you and Calmom just wrote.</p>
<p>“So the time value of money is nil for the poor guy and substantial for the doctor. The so-called discount of paying up front really reflects the fact that in most transactions, the customer (if poor) is paying for the difference in value between his dollar and the vendor’s dollar.”</p>
<p>I grew up in a poor household but we still managed to save. If you didn’t well, I guess that was a poor management issue.</p>
<p>How does that contest the fact that the “time value of money” is higher for the wealthy, who have more options per dollar? For example, the poor guy who starts saving can put the money in a mattress or get negligible interest in a savings account. Someone with more money can put savings into a CD (large deposit, higher interest). Higher time value, do you agree?</p>
<p>Those other options for the wealthy have been disastrous. </p>
<p>The poor guy didn’t get the chance to invest with Bernie Madoff.</p>
<p>Global wealth destruction was $50 trillion. Most of that was in investments for the wealthy.</p>
<p>How does (some) wealthy people mismanaging their money alter the fact that a wealthy person’s dollar is worth more and has a higher time value than a poor person’s dollar, due to the larger set of options for what to do with that dollar?</p>
<p>The wealthy have lost more in the aggregate.</p>
<p>If you are wealthy, you have to put the money someplace. Every one of those places carries risk. If you had a lot of money last fall, you’d understand this.</p>
<p>The wealthy can, if they wish, put their money in exactly the same places as the poor: mattresses, low-interest low-risk savings accounts, lottery tickets, etc. They don’t HAVE to earn higher returns, but the option to try and do so has financial value. This, again, is a difference between rich man’s dollar and poor man’s.</p>
<p>I’d suggest you try it yourself sometimes. It’s a lot harder than it looks.</p>
<p>It is such a shame about the K12 education in California. Compared to other states, your education spending is relatively low, I believe, and the results you get are bad. As a Northeasterner, I am shocked to hear my friend’s tales of all the basic supplies they are expected to bring to their schools (big packs of paper, etc.) because the schools lack them. I don’t know if the salaries have improved, but not only were they terrible, last time I checked, but they were particularly bad in relationship to the cost of living. Classroom sizes were large, libraries were closed, and the education was ranked somewhere around 40th in the country. There is really no excuse for a fabulously rich state like California not to have fantastic education. I don’t know if it speaks to the values or just to things like Proposition 13. But it’s a shame because there are plenty of smart people in your state who deserve the best.</p>
<p>California spends 39% of their state budget on K12 education which is high compared to what I’ve seen in New England. What numbers are you looking at that shows that California doesn’t spend that much? Dollars per pupil? I haven’t looked at those numbers but if they’re spending 39% of their budget on K12 education and the dollar amount is low, then they have massive problems.</p>