|
Obvious epiphany to be had here is that you cannot use the government to subsidize your investment in S&P. At least not legally, and to my knowledge. At college, you can live a pretty comfortable life. You get a place to live, food to eat, work to do, material to learn, friends to talk to, supervisory staff to help you with hard problems, etc. I hate to say it, because I think US higher education costs are absolutely ridiculous, but I still think that higher education is more rewarding than working a salaried job for a couple years to dump some money into S&P. I'd even go so far as to argue that people who have graduated a college or university are more likely to be prepared to safely, responsibly handle problems that occur in the real world moreso than someone who just happens to have a lot of money from S&P. I know that's a bit vague, but I think my point is clear enough that having wealth is not a replacement for having a satisfactory, stimulating wealth of knowledge and a sense of purpose for one's life. Not to knock people in finance, I love finance, but it's not for everybody and if the whole next generation of college students just decided to structure their whole lives based on how much money they're LIKELY (ie, not necessarily guaranteed) to make, then it'll be a boring generation that the next one has to learn from. Student loan debt regulations need a rethink. How can we:
a) not lose money from paying for kids' school b) not fuck kids over, incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt for admittedly mediocre education (compared to some euro schools, or asian schools) c) keep new system automated enough to reduce politician's potential for corruption by manipulating the money and d) provide some sort of transition schedule to move current students (paying traditional loans off) to new system, without fucking over agencies/firms that are rightfully owed ??? We owe our kids better solution than this |