The Ownership Society

[Milton Kuo]

Re: The Ownership Society

True, but if there are more fools than prudent, and the fools blow up, the system will find a way to make the prudent pay. I am convinced of that.

With the exception of student debt, all debt is ultimately dischargable by the borrowers. Thus, they are enabled to live beyond their means and when they ultimately default, the prudent are stolen from to make whole the reckless lenders. Dr. Michael Hudson has stated in referring to nations that while threats are made that defaulters will never be able to borrow money again--thus encouraging them to enact austerity policies to avoid such a fate--the exact opposite is true. I believe this is also the case with individual borrowers. If they default en masse as they did in the housing bubble, who will the lenders lend to? The reckless lenders and prudent will only borrow that which is necessary or profitable (via carry trades). The Federal Reserve appears to be acting on a policy of robbing the prudent until the prudent run out of money or the Federal Reserve's printing press gets taken away.

[don]

Re: The Ownership Society

The Federal Reserve appears to be acting on a policy of robbing the prudent until the prudent run out of money

The transfer of wealth can only come from those that have wealth.

Elementary, Watson!

[lektrode]

Re: The Ownership Society

....Hudson has stated in referring to nations that while threats are made that defaulters will never be able to borrow money again--thus encouraging them to enact austerity policies to avoid such a fate--the exact opposite is true.

and THEN we have krugman - who admits 'economics failed' - and in the classic definition of insanity, is now saying that even more debt would prevent 'sweden from turning into japan' ? - when even HIS editors cant keep things straight

along with his merry bunch of cheerleaders in CA - apparently intent on driving every last profitable biz OUT of the state - who can only come up with MORE MORE MORE .gov/deficit spending WITHOUT A COHERENT PLAN on even WHAT to spend it on (except for the usual lib-dem pandering to the various .gov/edu/social/welfare industrial complexes, whereby lots if not most of it gets sucked-up by 'administration', cost-overuns and/or FEES by their enablers/contributors in lwr manhattan

I believe this is also the case with individual borrowers. If they default en masse as they did in the housing bubble, who will the lenders lend to? The reckless lenders and prudent will only borrow that which is necessary or profitable (via carry trades). The Federal Reserve appears to be acting on a policy of robbing the prudent until the prudent run out of money or the Federal Reserve's printing press gets taken away.

and THEN we have the nagging 'little question' of all the PENSIONS that depend upon something more than NEGATIVE RATES to generate returns sufficient to pay all the benefits?

and all this to allow - read: bail out the banks ('profits' & bonuses) with ENDLESS 'FREE' MONEY while they continue to PAY as little as 1/10 of 1% on saved NET-income, even as they CHARGE 4, 5, 10, 15, 24% on car loans/credit cards etc?

boy howdy - i tell ya, Mr K - it sure is a good thing they 'fixed' all the problems with the frank-in-dodd 'reforms', eh?

[Slimprofits]

Re: The Ownership Society

True, but if there are more fools than prudent, and the fools blow up, the system will find a way to make the prudent pay. I am convinced of that.

Yes, I failed to connect the dots on that one, you are most likely correct.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: If it's that bad

I went to top schools and more often than not I am working for someone who went to "no name" university. Companies care about what you can do for them, not about what diploma is on your wall.

Companies care what school you went to because they won't interview the guy from University of Georgia but they will interview the 5 kids from Yale, Harvard, NYU etc for the "top jobs."

I am speaking only of the jobs that you will be making 100k+ in salary etc.

Everyone else gets a cost of living adjustment on their already pretty low salary.

[flintlock]

Re: If it's that bad

Thanks for the response. As of now she is considering Vanderbilt, Duke, UNC, UVA, and a few others. For some reason she is not particularly interested in the Ivy League although her cousin is going to Brown next fall. A lot depends on major and what she wants to do. If she was a techie she could hardly do better than GA Tech right here at home. Shes not. She is a typical academic. Has a hard time connecting the idea of learning with earning a living. Not crazy about the idea but she would probably make a good lawyer.

I dont really see her working in NYC anyway but I suppose anythings possible.
Not sure an honor student at a Georgia would have a problem landing a good job in most places anyway so its really about how far she wants to take it. Depends on the field, but after that first job not sure it really matters that much. I know I work for a lot of millionaires, very few who went to the best schools. Amazing how many 30 year olds buying $1 million homes lately. Better talkers than students. People skills are way underrated by academia. Perhaps because its hard or impossible to teach.

[vt]

Re: If it's that bad

Elite Colleges Don't Buy Happiness for Graduates

Poll of 30,000 Grads Finds Strongest Correlation Between Inspiring Professors and Future Well-Being

By DOUGLAS BELKIN
CONNECT

Updated May 6, 2014 2:47 p.m.

A major new survey by Gallup finds that it isn't where you go to college that is predictive of whether you are successful at work and happy in life -- rather, it matters what you do while you're in school that counts. Douglas Belkin reports. Photo: Getty Images.


A word to high-school seniors rejected by their first choice: A degree from that shiny, elite college on the hill may not matter nearly as much as you think.
A new Gallup survey of 30,000 college graduates of all ages in all 50 states has found that highly selective schools don't produce better workers or happier people, but inspiring professors—no matter where they teach—just might.

The poll, undertaken this spring, is part of a growing effort to measure how well colleges do their jobs. This survey adds an interesting twist, because it looked not only at graduates after college; it tried to determine what happens during college that leads to well-being and workplace engagement later in life.
Enlarge Image


Concordia University Irvine undergraduate students get pumped up as the 2014 graduation ceremony begins in Irvine, Calif., on Saturday. Zuma Press




The poll didn't measure graduates' earnings. Rather, it was rooted in 30 years of Gallup research that shows that people who feel happy and engaged in their jobs are the most productive. That relatively small group at the top didn't disproportionately attend the prestigious schools that Americans have long believed provided a golden ticket to success. Instead, they forged meaningful connections with professors or mentors, and made significant investments in long-term academic projects and extracurricular activities.
"It matters very little where you go; it's how you do it" that counts, said Brandon Busteed, executive director of Gallup Education. "Having a teacher who believes in a student makes a lifetime of difference."






The poll is the brainchild of former Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, who became president of Purdue University in January 2013. As he prepared for the job, Mr. Daniels said he kept bumping into the same problem: a lack of benchmarked data to measure the value of a college degree. Last spring, during a trip to Gallup's D.C. offices, he seized on the idea of applying their engagement and well-being questions, which had been used in other contexts, to college graduates. The index will soon be broken down to the level of individual schools "for those that have the will, and frankly, the nerve," Mr. Daniels said.

"There is a lot we don't know about higher education, and there is a sense it's skating on its reputation," Mr. Daniels said. "We needed to know with more rigor how well the experience is serving people."

Changes in the SAT test are coming in 2016, and parents and prospective college students are in a tizzy over how to prepare. MarketWatch's Thomas Bemis discusses five things the SAT won't tell you. (Photo: Getty Images)

The poll found that just 39% of college graduates feel engaged at work—meaning, for instance, that they enjoyed what they did on a daily basis and are emotionally and intellectually connected to their jobs. And only 11% reported they were "thriving" in five different aspects of their lives, among which are financial stability, a strong social network and a sense of purpose.
That relatively small handful of graduates—who tend to be more productive—went to a variety of colleges, though they were slightly more likely to go to larger schools and less likely to have attended for-profits.

The strongest correlation for well-being emerged from a series of questions delving into whether graduates felt "emotionally supported" at school by a professor or mentor. Those who did were three times as likely to report they thrived as adults. Graduates who reported having "experiential and deep learning" were twice as likely to be engaged at work as those who didn't.
University of Pennsylvania Professor Martin Seligman, who has studied the psychology of happiness, said it was impossible to know whether the college experiences Gallup asked about were the cause of later success or simply coincidental to it.

"One hopeful possibility is that if college were changed to produce more emotional support, this would result in much more engagement later in life," he wrote in an email. "Another, less interesting possibility" is that people engaged at work who said they were emotionally supported in college are simply upbeat to begin with, and that rosy outlook colors their memories.

Other, less fuzzy correlations were between debt and entrepreneurship. About 26% of graduates with no undergraduate debt started their own business, compared with just 20% of those carrying debt from $20,000 to $40,000. Nearly three-quarters of U.S. college graduates leave school with debt; among those who do, the average is nearly $30,000. Graduates with that amount of debt were one-third as likely to report they were "thriving" as graduates without debt reported.

The survey's most dramatic takeaway—that graduation from an elite college provides no discernible advantage over Podunk U—echoes a refrain that began getting traction about a decade ago. Stacy Dale, an economist at Mathematica, a New Jersey research firm, co-wrote a paper in 2004 that found that students who were accepted to elite schools, but attended less selective schools, went on to earn just as much money as their elite counterparts.

"Individual traits matter more than where you went," Ms. Dale said. "It's a lot more important what you learn later in life than where you got your undergraduate degree."

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: If it's that bad

It depends on the field. If you want to get into the best tech or finance jobs you have to go to the best schools. If you work as a business analyst in a fortune 500 company etc or some other job maybe after the first job it doesnt matter but in the other fields like tech and finance the degree matters to get that first job.

Yes, I understand individuals on these boards work for a few millionaires who didnt go to the best schools but that is in the past. The entire employment landscape has shifted in the last 15 years and yet no one has realized it.

Take it from me I am one of the youngest people on iTulip, I see how it affects workers younger than 30 everyday. The experiences of someone currently 40+ during their work career is nothing like it is now. I think this contributes to a misconception about the current employment situation in the US.

In 1980 you could have a high school degree and be a trader for an investment bank on Wall Street, now you need a PhD in mathematics from a top math school or Ivy.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: The Ownership Society

From my perspective, through the Federal Reserve's expansion of its balance sheet, the lenders have been bailed out, the borrowers have been bailed out to a lesser degree, and the prudent have been swindled. The idiot up to his eyeballs in debt is doing better than a saver. At least the idiot gets to enjoy his and other people's money.

The problem is, many people borrow for luxury spending. If you borrow to fix up an apartment that you are renting out, that is totally different.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: The Ownership Society

The problem is, many people borrow for luxury spending. If you borrow to fix up an apartment that you are renting out, that is totally different.

Absolutely. I made a subsequent post indicating that the lenders and the prudent will only borrow money when it is necessary or profitable. People borrowing money to renovate or maintain an income-producing asset such as an apartment are likely to be able to pay back the loan as the asset should throw off enough income to make repayment possible. Borrowing money to buy luxuries until the debt payments for such luxuries put a borrower one paycheck away from financial ruin is reckless on the part of the borrower and lender. Neither should be bailed out at the expense of the prudent through quantitative easing and ZIRP.

[Polish_Silver]

Hiring the bottom feeders!

Companies care what school you went to because they won't interview the guy from University of Georgia but they will interview the 5 kids from Yale, Harvard, NYU etc for the "top jobs."

I am speaking only of the jobs that you will be making 100k+ in salary etc.

Everyone else gets a cost of living adjustment on their already pretty low salary.

Have you ever heard of Clemson University?

My boss at Texas Instruments graduated from there. He is probably getting paid $200k/year or close to it.

While I was working for him (~ 2009) the company hired a student who graduated from Bob Jones University. He is probably getting paid at least $70k a year, and if he becomes proficient, he can get $90k or more as an integrated circuit test engineer.

I've never heard these complaints from anyone in engineering or science. Silicon valley companies are hiring loads of engineers from india and china that did not go to "top" american schools. (Or any American school).

If american companies are so choosy, who not look abroad?

Another way of looking at it is that there are fewer top jobs than candidates appropriate for those jobs.
If that is the case, most people will not get a job that is "right" for them, and who cares how the companies do the choosing?

[ddn3f]

Re: If it's that bad

I agree with PoZ that for some fields, companies recruit ONLY at certain tiered schools. In my case even if a company recruits at multiple tiered schools, there was a pay differential. About 8 years ago in my first job out of college working for a government contractor, I was paid $5K more than the Virginia Tech graduate, who was paid $5k more than the James Madison University graduate. The three of us attended 3 different colleges in Virginia and we were all hired at the same time to the same company in the same positions on the same government contract although our majors were different. I studied Engineering and the others were Information Systems.

It depends on the field. If you want to get into the best tech or finance jobs you have to go to the best schools. If you work as a business analyst in a fortune 500 company etc or some other job maybe after the first job it doesnt matter but in the other fields like tech and finance the degree matters to get that first job.

Yes, I understand individuals on these boards work for a few millionaires who didnt go to the best schools but that is in the past. The entire employment landscape has shifted in the last 15 years and yet no one has realized it.

Take it from me I am one of the youngest people on iTulip, I see how it affects workers younger than 30 everyday. The experiences of someone currently 40+ during their work career is nothing like it is now. I think this contributes to a misconception about the current employment situation in the US.

In 1980 you could have a high school degree and be a trader for an investment bank on Wall Street, now you need a PhD in mathematics from a top math school or Ivy.

[littleshark]

Re: If it's that bad

It depends on the field. If you want to get into the best tech or finance jobs you have to go to the best schools. If you work as a business analyst in a fortune 500 company etc or some other job maybe after the first job it doesnt matter but in the other fields like tech and finance the degree matters to get that first job.

Yes, I understand individuals on these boards work for a few millionaires who didnt go to the best schools but that is in the past. The entire employment landscape has shifted in the last 15 years and yet no one has realized it.

Take it from me I am one of the youngest people on iTulip, I see how it affects workers younger than 30 everyday. The experiences of someone currently 40+ during their work career is nothing like it is now. I think this contributes to a misconception about the current employment situation in the US.

In 1980 you could have a high school degree and be a trader for an investment bank on Wall Street, now you need a PhD in mathematics from a top math school or Ivy.

100% correct. Trading/Investment banking/PE/Hedge fund analyst goes about as deep as something like the Univ of Michigan maybe not even, which is about the 35th ranked school in the country. Anything below that the best you can get in finance is a job pounding pavement as a grunt for a commercial real estate broker or FA at an investment bank or in hedge fund/PE ops/accounting. To get ahead from there you better be in the right place and be lucky as heck to get an opportunity and bust your butt to make the best of it. The mobility of being a grunt for a broker then becoming one is better than trying to move through ops/accounting to a more senior trading/PM/analyst role at a hedge fund or PE.

I think most kids entering the workforce today out of a mid-tier college are better off trying something other than finance where their drive and determination can be more quickly recognized and the barriers to entry are lower.

[Polish_Silver]

A generation of debors?

. . . Borrowing money to buy luxuries until the debt payments for such luxuries put a borrower one paycheck away from financial ruin is reckless on the part of the borrower and lender. Neither should be bailed out at the expense of the prudent through quantitative easing and ZIRP.

What I am wondering is, if the fed policies of the last 20 years or so are creating a culture of credit junkies, people will never have the will power to save, and will keep themselves and their children poor for the next 50 years? And, by undercapitalizing the economy, impoverish the entire nation?

[charliebrown]

Re: A generation of debors?

I just got my property tax bill in the mail. I live in the suburbs of chicago. From last year to this year my fair market value decreased another 5%. From the peak my value is down about 15%. Although the value is down, so is all property in general, therefore my bill is up about 1% from last year. I'm now paying 2.8%
of the fair market value each year for taxes. It makes me want to chop off a room or two if that were possible.