NYT: "Wait a Minute. How Can They Afford That When I Can’t?"

[Aelias]

Interestingly, this article seems to have drawn its inspiration from a rather ancient thread on our very own MMM Forum.

Just look at a forum on the popular financial blog Mr. Money Mustache. The question asking whether 'the "everybody seems wealthy" illusion — is it really just fueled by debt?” attracted a wide variety of opinions, but more than a few expressed the sentiment of the commenter GeorgeC.  “I often have this struggle where it seems as if everybody around me is wealthy,” he wrote, adding that he often wondered how people he knew earned as much or less than he did could afford things he could not. “To be honest, at times, it kind of makes me feel dumb and sometimes even like a failure at what I do,” he added.

If the NYT is looking to 3 year old forum threads for article ideas, then, after years of pointless chasing, it seems the personal finance internet had finally managed to catch its own tail.

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/your-money/financial-security-envy.html?fallback=false&recId=547784252&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=MA&recAlloc=top_conversion&geoCountry=US&blockId=published-assets-bq&imp_id=780767371&action=click&module=Most%20Popular&pgtype=Homepage

Original 2016 Thread: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/the-'everybody-seems-wealthy'-illusion-is-it-really-just-all-fueled-by-debt/

[Laura33]

I just read that article a few minutes ago, and the part that struck me was the suggestion that the real difference nowadays is "inconspicuous consumption":

The top 1 percent of households still spend money on conspicuous consumption but “the thing that really separates them is their spending on inconspicuous consumption,” said Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, who analyzed Americans’ spending habits for her book “The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class.”

Over the last few decades, wealthy people have increased how much of their spending they direct to education and retirement, compared with members of the middle class, whose expenditures in those areas have remained more or the less the same.  For example, in 2014, the last year of Ms. Currid-Halkett’s analysis, the top 1 percent of American earners — those making at least $340,000 annually — directed, on average, 6 percent of their total expenditures to education. According to her research, that percentage has climbed significantly since 1996.

Only about 1 percent of the expenditures of the middle class — people making about $40,000 to $60,000 annually in 2014 — was devoted to education, a number that has stayed static for almost two decades, Ms. Currid-Halkett said.

And about 20 percent of the top earners’ expenditures go to personal insurance and pensions — an annual average of $32,500 in 2014 — compared with just under $4,000 or about 8 percent for the middle class.

This is certainly consistent with my own "stealth wealth" approach -- we have definitely prioritized college savings and retirement savings above everything else.  And our UMC status rewards us for that, with deductions for 529 contributions and various work programs that allow us to put more money aside in tax-sheltered accounts (profit sharing, deferred comp, etc.). 

What I would be interested in seeing is whether/how these numbers have changed over time.  It makes perfect sense that people making $40-60K are going to put a lower percentage of their income toward tomorrow's needs, because a much higher percentage of their income is required to cover today's needs.  But are wealthy people today putting more towards education/retirement than wealthy people 20 years ago?  That would suggest that there are larger societal shifts going on that are converting education and retirement into luxuries that only the wealthy can afford.  I suspect this is true given the spiraling cost of college tuition and medical costs/long-term care/etc. in old age, but I'd be interested in the data.

[DadJokes]

...snip...

That would suggest that there are larger societal shifts going on that are converting education and retirement into luxuries that only the wealthy can afford.  I suspect this is true given the spiraling cost of college tuition and medical costs/long-term care/etc. in old age, but I'd be interested in the data.

Given that it is still pretty easy to access a free (or nearly free) education at a public school and the existence of the FIRE movement, I don't see how that can be true at the moment.

I would assume that diminishing returns are associated with throwing additional money at education beyond a certain point. Does spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on private school provide a substantially better education than public school if the parents are just as involved? I doubt it.

[Philociraptor]

@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.

[Cali4en]

I think most people would be shocked (and dismayed) if everyone walked around with a virtual call-out above their head that displayed their net wealth.  The vast majority of wealth signifiers out there are really debt signifiers.  The data on car loans alone is really depressing.

[Indexer]

I used to wonder about this. How were people that I thought made less than me or at least about equal buying crazy expensive things I wouldn't buy.  I learned it wasn't an income difference, it was a debt difference. The average american has a lot of debt...

[use2betrix]

I think most people would be shocked (and dismayed) if everyone walked around with a virtual call-out above their head that displayed their net wealth.  The vast majority of wealth signifiers out there are really debt signifiers.  The data on car loans alone is really depressing.

Wouldn’t this be interesting.. According to the article, my individual income is right about the 1% range..

Yet my DD is a beat up 1999 Toyota Camry. As I drive it through my major metropolitan I realize I typically have one of the crappier (yet very reliable) cars on the road.. I seriously smile on a weekly basis about my reliable heap vs my income.

[Bloop Bloop]

I think a lot of consumerism is designed to look expensive but is really not. One night's stay in a fancy hotel or a trip to an overseas destination is well within the reach of all middle-class earners - it just becomes a matter of what their savings rate will be afterwards. If they are comfortable with debt they can drive a plush car too.

If I were content for my savings rate to be 0% rather than 70% I could live like a frickin' king. Hookers and cocaine and first class flights and hatted restaurants. I can't imagine ever doing so, but it's clear that many people are content to have such a savings rate, so of course it's possible for them to live a really nice lifestyle.

Anyway to be honest I think really fancy trappings (car, holidays, lifestyle etc) are now seen as déclassé if you post about them on Instagram, or show off about them etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't indulge - by all means do so  - but it's one thing to enjoy something and it's another to show off about it. As the article posted above states, it's mostly inconspicuous consumption now that is practised by the rich, and conspicuous consumption is something that the "new middle class" do.

[Cali4en]

Yet my DD is a beat up 1999 Toyota Camry. As I drive it through my major metropolitan I realize I typically have one of the crappier (yet very reliable) cars on the road.. I seriously smile on a weekly basis about my reliable heap vs my income.

About two years ago I had to run down to our local Fidelity office in person to turn in a 401K form.  Unfortunately, I got tied up beforehand dealing with a troublesome tree I was taking down, so I ended up having to rush down there at the end of the day without time to clean up.  Torn jeans, tree dust all over me, leaf scraps in my hair, dirty arms, sweaty as hell...I was a mess.

Surprisingly, the lobby staff and the account supervisor were both super gracious to me right from the start despite my shabby appearance.   When I complimented the account super on their customer service, he said a decent portion of their customers with significant assets come in looking differently than you might expect.  He was quite charitable about it...windblown and threadbare was how I think he put it.

Makes sense to some extent.  It's easier to build wealth if you aren't too concerned with keeping up with social expectations or status signaling.

Camrys are a good ride.  Lots of them out there with hundreds of thousands of miles on them.

[Buffaloski Boris]

Anyway to be honest I think really fancy trappings (car, holidays, lifestyle etc) are now seen as déclassé if you post about them on Instagram, or show off about them etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't indulge - by all means do so  - but it's one thing to enjoy something and it's another to show off about it. As the article posted above states, it's mostly inconspicuous consumption now that is practised by the rich, and conspicuous consumption is something that the "new middle class" do.

I’ve noticed that as well. Seems like a lot of folks are suddenly being very inconspicuous in their consumption habits. A fun people watching exercise is “spot the millionaire” at Aldi.

[Milizard]

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

[Ynari]

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

On top of that, the "Harvards" of the world tend to have more generous aid packages for lower and middle income students. My out of state school was the same cost as my in state school due to financial aid. Some of that is due to rising costs overall (my state school was just over $20k per year when I applied 9 years ago, now it's over $30k) but for the same price, the out of state school has more "signalling" power, if nothing else.

So part of the issue is lack of transparency - lopsided information is what makes scenarios like the current educational, health care, job, and even consumer markets so detrimental to the people who don't have the information. Similarly, in the initial article, the mirage of consumption makes those without full information feel worse and make worse choices. Transparency would help, but it would take the wind out of the sails of the competition the "winners" think they are "winning".

[OtherJen]

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.

[elysianfields]

I just read that article a few minutes ago, and the part that struck me was the suggestion that the real difference nowadays is "inconspicuous consumption":

The top 1 percent of households still spend money on conspicuous consumption but “the thing that really separates them is their spending on inconspicuous consumption,” said Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, who analyzed Americans’ spending habits for her book “The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class.”

Over the last few decades, wealthy people have increased how much of their spending they direct to education and retirement, compared with members of the middle class, whose expenditures in those areas have remained more or the less the same.  For example, in 2014, the last year of Ms. Currid-Halkett’s analysis, the top 1 percent of American earners — those making at least $340,000 annually — directed, on average, 6 percent of their total expenditures to education. According to her research, that percentage has climbed significantly since 1996.

Only about 1 percent of the expenditures of the middle class — people making about $40,000 to $60,000 annually in 2014 — was devoted to education, a number that has stayed static for almost two decades, Ms. Currid-Halkett said.

And about 20 percent of the top earners’ expenditures go to personal insurance and pensions — an annual average of $32,500 in 2014 — compared with just under $4,000 or about 8 percent for the middle class.

This is certainly consistent with my own "stealth wealth" approach -- we have definitely prioritized college savings and retirement savings above everything else.  And our UMC status rewards us for that, with deductions for 529 contributions and various work programs that allow us to put more money aside in tax-sheltered accounts (profit sharing, deferred comp, etc.). 

What I would be interested in seeing is whether/how these numbers have changed over time.  It makes perfect sense that people making $40-60K are going to put a lower percentage of their income toward tomorrow's needs, because a much higher percentage of their income is required to cover today's needs.  But are wealthy people today putting more towards education/retirement than wealthy people 20 years ago?  That would suggest that there are larger societal shifts going on that are converting education and retirement into luxuries that only the wealthy can afford.  I suspect this is true given the spiraling cost of college tuition and medical costs/long-term care/etc. in old age, but I'd be interested in the data.

If you're old enough to remember the 2001 Bush ("I hit the trifecta.") tax cut (aka "EGTRRA"), you might remember how it led to large increases in 401(k) and IRA contribution limits. 

The IRA limit was $2000 before Bush, increased to $5000 during his second term, and has been linked to inflation since then.  Source

Similarly, the 401(k) limit was $10,500 when W. took office.  EGTRRA raised it to $11,000 in 2002, up another $1,000 each year until 2006 when it reached $15,000, CPI-linked it since then.  Source

I don't have hard data on actual retirement contributions, but the levels of tax-sheltered retirement contribution limits certainly increased both in nominal and real terms since 2001.

I leave exploration of the changes in 529s, ESAs, Coverdells - all tax-sheltered educational buckets - as an exercise to the reader, and suggest that the top 1% can also afford to "invest" in lobbying that serves their interests.

[NorthernBlitz]

Anyway to be honest I think really fancy trappings (car, holidays, lifestyle etc) are now seen as déclassé if you post about them on Instagram, or show off about them etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't indulge - by all means do so  - but it's one thing to enjoy something and it's another to show off about it. As the article posted above states, it's mostly inconspicuous consumption now that is practised by the rich, and conspicuous consumption is something that the "new middle class" do.

I’ve noticed that as well. Seems like a lot of folks are suddenly being very inconspicuous in their consumption habits. A fun people watching exercise is “spot the millionaire” at Aldi.

I hope it's less being "inconspicuous" and more being "intelligent". I think it's possible that going through the downturn in 2008 made lots of people realize that fancy cars (and houses) have fairly equal substitutes that cost significantly less.

[havregryn]

I just read that article a few minutes ago, and the part that struck me was the suggestion that the real difference nowadays is "inconspicuous consumption":

The top 1 percent of households still spend money on conspicuous consumption but “the thing that really separates them is their spending on inconspicuous consumption,” said Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, who analyzed Americans’ spending habits for her book “The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class.”

Over the last few decades, wealthy people have increased how much of their spending they direct to education and retirement, compared with members of the middle class, whose expenditures in those areas have remained more or the less the same.  For example, in 2014, the last year of Ms. Currid-Halkett’s analysis, the top 1 percent of American earners — those making at least $340,000 annually — directed, on average, 6 percent of their total expenditures to education. According to her research, that percentage has climbed significantly since 1996.

Only about 1 percent of the expenditures of the middle class — people making about $40,000 to $60,000 annually in 2014 — was devoted to education, a number that has stayed static for almost two decades, Ms. Currid-Halkett said.

And about 20 percent of the top earners’ expenditures go to personal insurance and pensions — an annual average of $32,500 in 2014 — compared with just under $4,000 or about 8 percent for the middle class.

This is certainly consistent with my own "stealth wealth" approach -- we have definitely prioritized college savings and retirement savings above everything else.  And our UMC status rewards us for that, with deductions for 529 contributions and various work programs that allow us to put more money aside in tax-sheltered accounts (profit sharing, deferred comp, etc.). 

What I would be interested in seeing is whether/how these numbers have changed over time.  It makes perfect sense that people making $40-60K are going to put a lower percentage of their income toward tomorrow's needs, because a much higher percentage of their income is required to cover today's needs.  But are wealthy people today putting more towards education/retirement than wealthy people 20 years ago?  That would suggest that there are larger societal shifts going on that are converting education and retirement into luxuries that only the wealthy can afford.  I suspect this is true given the spiraling cost of college tuition and medical costs/long-term care/etc. in old age, but I'd be interested in the data.

Did you read the book they mention in the article, I really loved it and it talks about this https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691162737/the-sum-of-small-things

It's essentially about how more and more people can now afford ("afford" in the sense of they will somehow get money to make this purchase, not necessarily it will be affordable to them in a Mustachian sense) traditional luxury products like cars and watches and high  fashion and they most often will buy them and flaunt them because that is what they think the "next level" is, so the upper class people were "forced" to develop a new culture of their own that is much more subtle and takes a lot more implicit knowledge to be a part of than just having money. 

In short, the middle class people can now use credit to buy what used to be upper middle class symbols, and the upper middle class can't necessarily inflate their consumption to multimillionaire level because that is one hell of a threshold so they invented this whole culture of moral superiority through conscious consumption that is difficult for an outsider to understand.

[FIREby35]

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.

That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."

My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.

As for the aid packages, I thought it was a scam to be told I could have 20 or 30k in scholarships/aid only to learn I'd still have to pay 20 or 30k plus the cost of living in a big city. At the end of the day, the education wasn't 200k but 100k. That was still 100k more than I had.

[OtherJen]

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.

That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."

My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.

As for the aid packages, I thought it was a scam to be told I could have 20 or 30k in scholarships/aid only to learn I'd still have to pay 20 or 30k plus the cost of living in a big city. At the end of the day, the education wasn't 200k but 100k. That was still 100k more than I had.

It’s absolutely a state leadership problem. Our legislature has systematically cut funding for public higher ed over the last couple of decades.

My hometown actually has a community college linked to the public school district (the two share a board of trustees and some funding). Although anyone can enroll, it’s a great deal for city residents who get special resident tuition rates. In the last few years, the comm. college has also implemented 5-year programs for academically eligible kids in the three city high schools. After dual-enrollment for the last 2 years of high school and 1 full-time college year, the kids graduate with both their diploma and an associate’s degree, at no extra charge. These are great and highly popular programs, and several friends have enrolled their kids. I would love to see more opportunities like that but recognize that my hometown is somewhat unique.

[merula]

Did you read the book they mention in the article, I really loved it and it talks about this https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691162737/the-sum-of-small-things

It's essentially about how more and more people can now afford ("afford" in the sense of they will somehow get money to make this purchase, not necessarily it will be affordable to them in a Mustachian sense) traditional luxury products like cars and watches and high  fashion and they most often will buy them and flaunt them because that is what they think the "next level" is, so the upper class people were "forced" to develop a new culture of their own that is much more subtle and takes a lot more implicit knowledge to be a part of than just having money. 

In short, the middle class people can now use credit to buy what used to be upper middle class symbols, and the upper middle class can't necessarily inflate their consumption to multimillionaire level because that is one hell of a threshold so they invented this whole culture of moral superiority through conscious consumption that is difficult for an outsider to understand.

I read The Sum of Small Things in 2017, so I might be forgetting it, but I thought it was more about invisible consumption replacing physical consumption among the Upper Middle Class and Upper Class.

There has always been a disconnect between how one class thinks the class above them lives, and how that class actually lives. That's what's behind the whole concept of nouveau riche; that external class signifiers are subject to such Byzantine rules that no outsiders can mimic them without exposing themselves as outsiders. You can find this concept as far back as Shakespeare, Austen and Bronte, and probably further. There's a great quote from a former Tory MP describing a colleague as "the kind of person who bought his own furniture", which is a stunningly rich commentary on class divisions.

The difference with modern invisible consumption is that (1) it's specifically designed to consolidate wealth in future generations, and (2) unlike past "old-money" signifiers, where the lower classes would know that the rich had better stuff than them but just couldn't replicate the details to imitate them, the lower classes today by and large don't even realize the kind of money that goes into education and healthcare.

[Seadog]

I think most people would be shocked (and dismayed) if everyone walked around with a virtual call-out above their head that displayed their net wealth.  The vast majority of wealth signifiers out there are really debt signifiers.  The data on car loans alone is really depressing.

Not sure where I first saw this, and wouldn't be surprised if this has been posted on this forum before:

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

An interesting phenomenon I've noticed, is that whenever there is a problem with something often financial, any efforts to mitigate the problem simply result in a brief reprieve, a shifting of the balance point generally to someone completely unrelated's benefit, and the same problem remaining, because ultimately trying to apply an advantage across the board to make a finite resource (ie # of jobs in top 10%, number of homes, amount of waterfront property) more accessible, merely changes the balance point. An advantage given blindly to everyone is no advantage at all.

School was expensive and out of reach for people, so they instituted a vast loan system so people had access to more money. Well now that everyone has access to $40k/yr of student loans, university can now charge that, because people have access to the money. Before people simply did not, so they couldn't charge those rates except for a tiny minority of people who had access to it. The main benefactor here seems to be universities who can now charge much higher tuition to much higher numbers of people, and the result is those top jobs which is the reason why people wanted to get a degree in the first place are no more accessible, the costs and debt load are considerably worse, and the universities and banks are laughing. 

When an improvement is made in any system, there are two things that can happen. Either the quality can improve with a system the same size (make school more affordable to a fixed number of people), or the quality can remain the same while the system gets bigger (school remains unaffordable, but student population grows 3x). You see this play out over and over again.

A car lets you commute 10x as fast as biking. You could use that to shave 90% off your commute time, but invariably people have chosen to maintain the 30 minute commute, but live 10x as far away arguably being no better off.

Money given to poverty stricken areas could be used to improve their quality of life. Instead it seems to simply allow for populations to expand, while maintaining that cusp of survival lifestyle.

People had a hard time coming up with 20% down payment for a home, and banks were hesitant to risk their own money. So make a gov't backed system where they guarantee the loans, and allow people to buy with only 5% down. This hugely increases the number of ppl able to buy, causes prices to rise, benefits the banks and previous home owners who enjoy higher prices, more and bigger loans which are less risky, and the bar has simply been moved that 5% is as much of a road block now as 20% was 30 years ago.

[DadJokes]

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.

Well, that's what happens when demand exceeds supply - prices go up.

Everyone thinks their child should go to college. People begin to think that any price is worth going, but not everyone can afford the price. The government steps in and starts guaranteeing loans for everyone, which allows colleges to simply charge more. It's absolutely a broken system, but the fix isn't going to be more government meddling; it's going to be when people realize that the cost of college outweighs the benefit of going.

For what it's worth, I graduated two years ago and didn't pay a dime for school. In fact, I received extra money on top of my tuition being paid. It's certainly possible to graduate debt-free still. Anyone who wants to get a degree without going into debt can. But they aren't willing to put in the work for that, and I don't think we should subsidize their laziness.

[GodlessCommie]

That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."

My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.

This is a problem that can be addressed on multiple levels. I don't mind it being addressed on the federal level, simply because more people would benefit - but in the absence of a federal action, no reason not to address it on the state or local level. Tennessee and Indiana are two examples of states that I know which are not thought of as progressive but took the right steps in higher ed.

And then, let's not forget about trades. Honest, well-paying, plentiful jobs and not that expensive to teach.

[havregryn]

I read The Sum of Small Things in 2017, so I might be forgetting it, but I thought it was more about invisible consumption replacing physical consumption among the Upper Middle Class and Upper Class.

There has always been a disconnect between how one class thinks the class above them lives, and how that class actually lives. That's what's behind the whole concept of nouveau riche; that external class signifiers are subject to such Byzantine rules that no outsiders can mimic them without exposing themselves as outsiders. You can find this concept as far back as Shakespeare, Austen and Bronte, and probably further. There's a great quote from a former Tory MP describing a colleague as "the kind of person who bought his own furniture", which is a stunningly rich commentary on class divisions.

The difference with modern invisible consumption is that (1) it's specifically designed to consolidate wealth in future generations, and (2) unlike past "old-money" signifiers, where the lower classes would know that the rich had better stuff than them but just couldn't replicate the details to imitate them, the lower classes today by and large don't even realize the kind of money that goes into education and healthcare.

Well, yes, but I felt the theory was that the only reason the upper class is doing it is that it has become easy for the lower classes to emulate their previously stereotypical lifestyle. I mean, not consciously, it's not that the rich people are going around thinking "OMG this peasant has a Rolex, the only way for me to show I'm rich is to send my kids to a coding camp at Harvard", but that kind of spontaneously arose from the situation where you could no longer judge how "upper classy" someone is just based on their "stuff".
And that this is now actually creating even more of a class divide because it is so difficult for the poorer classes to even grasp.

I sort of get this impression observing my surroundings (and we live in Luxembourg which is pretty much an experiment in upper middle class lifestyle, given that you inevitably have to be rich to live here - median household net worth in Lux is over 500 000€, it's mostly in property but still, it's what it is). By any globally valid definition, pretty much everyone is wealthy here and still you can see the divide between the ultra high net worth individuals who live in their own universe, affluent people who are a part of this culture that the book talks about (who display very little obvious wealth but are raising a generation of extremely privileged kids who will be forever taken care of financially) and then all these paycheck to paycheck high earners who spend every cent they make on flashy stuff and are always one minor disaster away from having to leave the country with nothing but an expensive car full of expensive clothes.

[FIREby35]

That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."

My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.

This is a problem that can be addressed on multiple levels. I don't mind it being addressed on the federal level, simply because more people would benefit - but in the absence of a federal action, no reason not to address it on the state or local level. Tennessee and Indiana are two examples of states that I know which are not thought of as progressive but took the right steps in higher ed.

And then, let's not forget about trades. Honest, well-paying, plentiful jobs and not that expensive to teach.

Not to mention you can get a trades job without the opportunity cost of many years of studying. Also, tradespeople who want to strive for financial independence can become owners of lucrative businesses. A lot of money flows in the construction industry. I shake my head at attorneys who study for seven years, rack up the debt but then take a public job making less than a trades person with a few years of experience, no debt and better hours.

[charis]

Anyway to be honest I think really fancy trappings (car, holidays, lifestyle etc) are now seen as déclassé if you post about them on Instagram, or show off about them etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't indulge - by all means do so  - but it's one thing to enjoy something and it's another to show off about it. As the article posted above states, it's mostly inconspicuous consumption now that is practised by the rich, and conspicuous consumption is something that the "new middle class" do.

I’ve noticed that as well. Seems like a lot of folks are suddenly being very inconspicuous in their consumption habits. A fun people watching exercise is “spot the millionaire” at Aldi.

This surprised me the other at Aldi (arguably the "worst" one in our city but most convenient during the week) when I looked up and saw an older man in well worn but well made/cared for clothing who had that look about him.  We exchanged a brief look that could be described as recognition, maybe of common purpose, maybe class.  Meanwhile I have friends mortgaged to their eyeballs who wouldn't drive to that street, much less that store, and seem to be embarrassed at the suggestion that they might shop at an Aldi

[mizzourah2006]

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

On top of that, the "Harvards" of the world tend to have more generous aid packages for lower and middle income students. My out of state school was the same cost as my in state school due to financial aid. Some of that is due to rising costs overall (my state school was just over $20k per year when I applied 9 years ago, now it's over $30k) but for the same price, the out of state school has more "signalling" power, if nothing else.

So part of the issue is lack of transparency - lopsided information is what makes scenarios like the current educational, health care, job, and even consumer markets so detrimental to the people who don't have the information. Similarly, in the initial article, the mirage of consumption makes those without full information feel worse and make worse choices. Transparency would help, but it would take the wind out of the sails of the competition the "winners" think they are "winning".

Is that with room and board or without? My alma mater is $12k/yr for tuition and fees and the state school for the state I currently reside in is under $10k/yr. I don't think it's really fair to count room and board in the cost of education because that basically assumes it would be free for you to live and eat if you didn't go to school.

[Milizard]

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.

Well, that's what happens when demand exceeds supply - prices go up.

Everyone thinks their child should go to college. People begin to think that any price is worth going, but not everyone can afford the price. The government steps in and starts guaranteeing loans for everyone, which allows colleges to simply charge more. It's absolutely a broken system, but the fix isn't going to be more government meddling; it's going to be when people realize that the cost of college outweighs the benefit of going.

For what it's worth, I graduated two years ago and didn't pay a dime for school. In fact, I received extra money on top of my tuition being paid. It's certainly possible to graduate debt-free still. Anyone who wants to get a degree without going into debt can. But they aren't willing to put in the work for that, and I don't think we should subsidize their laziness.

The issue in Michigan is that the state stopped funding the college's the way they used to.

[Milizard]

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.

That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."

My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.

As for the aid packages, I thought it was a scam to be told I could have 20 or 30k in scholarships/aid only to learn I'd still have to pay 20 or 30k plus the cost of living in a big city. At the end of the day, the education wasn't 200k but 100k. That was still 100k more than I had.

It’s absolutely a state leadership problem. Our legislature has systematically cut funding for public higher ed over the last couple of decades.

My hometown actually has a community college linked to the public school district (the two share a board of trustees and some funding). Although anyone can enroll, it’s a great deal for city residents who get special resident tuition rates. In the last few years, the comm. college has also implemented 5-year programs for academically eligible kids in the three city high schools. After dual-enrollment for the last 2 years of high school and 1 full-time college year, the kids graduate with both their diploma and an associate’s degree, at no extra charge. These are great and highly popular programs, and several friends have enrolled their kids. I would love to see more opportunities like that but recognize that my hometown is somewhat unique.

My city has a new full-scholarship program for the cc for kids who graduate from the local school systems with a certain GPA. I was supposed to get the same deal nearly 30 years ago, but they cut that right before I graduated. Therefore, I'm not counting on it to still be around in a decade when my kid is old enough for it. I'm not sure if the same deal will be around when it would matter for my kids.

[mm1970]

For what it's worth, I graduated two years ago and didn't pay a dime for school. In fact, I received extra money on top of my tuition being paid. It's certainly possible to graduate debt-free still. Anyone who wants to get a degree without going into debt can. But they aren't willing to put in the work for that, and I don't think we should subsidize their laziness.

Not necessarily laziness, but also ability.

Not everyone can work full time and go to school full time.  Or work part time, live at home, and go to school full time.  Or afford to live for the 10 years it takes to work and save up enough money to go to college.  Everyone has different levels of health, brain function, energy, family obligations, family support, etc.

Aka, just because you did it doesn't mean everyone can do it.

[Michael in ABQ]

I'm in the military so everyone's pay can easily be determined based on their rank and time in service. I had a financial planner who works for the military come in to give classes to my unit on budgeting, retirement, etc.

There's a lot of guys who have made good money and don't have a whole lot to show for it. Maybe some equity in a house, maybe some toys. But those toys (big trucks, camping trailers, boats, ATVs, etc.) either have debt on them, or have lost a significant amount of value due to depreciation. A military pension makes up for a fair amount of that. 2.5% per year of service - so 20 years gets you 50% of you final base pay. Still, 80% of people who join the military don't get a pension. So for those guys they might not have a whole lot to show for years of good income and having many of their expenses taken care of (housing, food, most clothing, etc.)

[exterous]

As it relates to high cost of education, some people reject the idea that education must be oppressively expensive. It is possible to get an education for very little at community colleges and state colleges/universities. You can receive all the licenses and titles imaginable at those institutions.

Then again, there are those who "need" a "prestigious" education to "get ahead." There are even a people on this forum that hold education costs as the exception to their otherwise frugal mindset. They paid it for themselves and the will pay it for their kids. To each their own.

For my part, I'll be a millionaire here in a few months at 35 with exactly the education I described above (and no inheritance). The community college in my neighborhood charges $69 per credit hour and the public college I attended charges $180. Harvard charges more than $1,400 per credit hour. Our local "Harvard" charges more than $800. That means those schools are a 95% discount compared to Harvard the first two years and an 85% (ish) discount for final two years. That is Mustachian!

PS I was recruited to play sports in the Ivy league and at other "prestigious" colleges throughout the United States but there was no way I could afford it unless I took huge loans. You can imagine the recruiters' shock and various sales pitches about my unexpected choice to turn down the "Ivies" for a community college in a small town somewhere in flyover territory.

I took a single, 3 credit hour class at my local community college just a few years ago. $1000 for that single class, including all the fees.  The local (formerly cheap) state college is currently $540/ch.  It's absolutely insane how much the cost of college has risen in my state since 1990 when I graduated high school.  I used to bolster my knowledge by taking cc classes here and there. I can no longer afford to do that. I need to be damn sure it's going to increase my income if I'm going to spend that kind of money after going back to that state college and getting a second degree which has done nothing for me.

Yep. The cheapest 4-year degree from Northern Michigan is $40,000 before fees and books/supplies. MSU's tuition has doubled in the 20 years since I attended.

That's amazing (in a bad way). I'm on the prairie in a state that maybe would not be seen as progressive. I love my state's attitude toward education and community college. I'm actually on the board for the community college I mentioned and talk with the president of the college often. His #1 goal is not to increase tuition no matter what. He is a great leader - 29 years at the college and no ridiculous public ambitions. He just focuses on stewardship for the benefit of the community. I'm sorry to hear your state does not prioritize equal access to education for all in your community. Sincerely, you might start talking to people in public positions about how they need at least one affordable public option for the "have nots."

My lawyer brain wants to say, that is not a federal problem. That is a state leadership problem. It could even be considered a county level or board of education level problem. That is to say, it could be impacted on a local level by people who are engaged. That is one reason I am so involved in preserving the affordability of community college in my community.

As for the aid packages, I thought it was a scam to be told I could have 20 or 30k in scholarships/aid only to learn I'd still have to pay 20 or 30k plus the cost of living in a big city. At the end of the day, the education wasn't 200k but 100k. That was still 100k more than I had.

It’s absolutely a state leadership problem. Our legislature has systematically cut funding for public higher ed over the last couple of decades.

My hometown actually has a community college linked to the public school district (the two share a board of trustees and some funding). Although anyone can enroll, it’s a great deal for city residents who get special resident tuition rates. In the last few years, the comm. college has also implemented 5-year programs for academically eligible kids in the three city high schools. After dual-enrollment for the last 2 years of high school and 1 full-time college year, the kids graduate with both their diploma and an associate’s degree, at no extra charge. These are great and highly popular programs, and several friends have enrolled their kids. I would love to see more opportunities like that but recognize that my hometown is somewhat unique.

My city has a new full-scholarship program for the cc for kids who graduate from the local school systems with a certain GPA. I was supposed to get the same deal nearly 30 years ago, but they cut that right before I graduated. Therefore, I'm not counting on it to still be around in a decade when my kid is old enough for it. I'm not sure if the same deal will be around when it would matter for my kids.

There are still decent rates for community colleges in MI though. GRCC charges $115/hour. WCC charges $108/hour and $95 for online. With financial aid the $48-75k income range pays ~$6800 a year. 50% of incoming freshmen to UofM get scholarships (70% of in state) averaging $17000k per student (tuition + housing appears to be around $25000)

There has been an interesting shift in many colleges and universities around tuition. Tuition keeps going up but the amount of scholarships and aid is increasing faster. Beyond covering classes and books there are now programs to supply students in need with laptops and software, covering or greatly supplementing a study abroad. To be honest I'm not sure the logistics of it all in terms of where the money comes from (international + wealthy students + tax deductions for scholarships?) but the list price for a degree is becoming more like the list price for a car: almost no one pays that

[StarBright]

@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.

Hadn't heard that one - thanks for sharing!

I was really intrigued by her use of breast feeding and funeral practices to illustrate her point.

[former player]

I'm in the military so everyone's pay can easily be determined based on their rank and time in service. I had a financial planner who works for the military come in to give classes to my unit on budgeting, retirement, etc.

There's a lot of guys who have made good money and don't have a whole lot to show for it. Maybe some equity in a house, maybe some toys. But those toys (big trucks, camping trailers, boats, ATVs, etc.) either have debt on them, or have lost a significant amount of value due to depreciation. A military pension makes up for a fair amount of that. 2.5% per year of service - so 20 years gets you 50% of you final base pay. Still, 80% of people who join the military don't get a pension. So for those guys they might not have a whole lot to show for years of good income and having many of their expenses taken care of (housing, food, most clothing, etc.)

I recall not long ago reading an article about lottery winners and why so many end up broke, and it made what to me was a new and very useful distinction - that there are assets which make you money and assets which take your money.  Houses (that you live in yourself), and cars and boats and jewellery and horses and so on are assets that take your money, whereas investments (index funds, income-generating property) are assets that make you money.  Without that understanding, it would be easy to buy "assets", end up with nothing and not quite know why.

[Aelias]

@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.

Hadn't heard that one - thanks for sharing!

I was really intrigued by her use of breast feeding and funeral practices to illustrate her point.

Agreed!  Listened to this last night and enjoyed it.  Like the host and the guest, I recognized myself in a number of the class signaling behaviors that they discussed.  In fact, I was actually breastfeeding my daughter while listening to an NPR podcast, which more or less says it all.  Recognizing myself, I felt something like guilt or shame that I fit so precisely into the description, a feeling they noted in the podcast.  But, it’s worth noting that none of the behaviors are necessarily shame-worthy in the abstract—breastfeeding is a good idea if you can make it work.  Same with doing yoga and buying local produce.  I think it’s just important to recognize, even if you’re doing these things for valid reasons, that these are definitely elite cultural signifiers and people who don’t share them may well feel excluded and looked down upon.  And you may be taking up these interests because others in your in-group are doing them too.

TL/DR — It’s fine to do yoga and eat kale.  Enjoy!  Just don’t pretend it makes you better than anyone else.

[DadJokes]

For what it's worth, I graduated two years ago and didn't pay a dime for school. In fact, I received extra money on top of my tuition being paid. It's certainly possible to graduate debt-free still. Anyone who wants to get a degree without going into debt can. But they aren't willing to put in the work for that, and I don't think we should subsidize their laziness.

Not necessarily laziness, but also ability.

Not everyone can work full time and go to school full time.  Or work part time, live at home, and go to school full time.  Or afford to live for the 10 years it takes to work and save up enough money to go to college.  Everyone has different levels of health, brain function, energy, family obligations, family support, etc.

Aka, just because you did it doesn't mean everyone can do it.

Or do 3 years of military service. Or apply for scholarships as a full time job.

Also, anyone (who isn't disabled) can work full time while going to school.

[bacchi]

@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.

Hadn't heard that one - thanks for sharing!

I was really intrigued by her use of breast feeding and funeral practices to illustrate her point.

Agreed!  Listened to this last night and enjoyed it.  Like the host and the guest, I recognized myself in a number of the class signaling behaviors that they discussed.  In fact, I was actually breastfeeding my daughter while listening to an NPR podcast, which more or less says it all.  Recognizing myself, I felt something like guilt or shame that I fit so precisely into the description, a feeling they noted in the podcast.  But, it’s worth noting that none of the behaviors are necessarily shame-worthy in the abstract—breastfeeding is a good idea if you can make it work.  Same with doing yoga and buying local produce.  I think it’s just important to recognize, even if you’re doing these things for valid reasons, that these are definitely elite cultural signifiers and people who don’t share them may well feel excluded and looked down upon.  And you may be taking up these interests because others in your in-group are doing them too.

TL/DR — It’s fine to do yoga and eat kale.  Enjoy!  Just don’t pretend it makes you better than anyone else.

A recent WaPo article mentioned that there's a whole subculture of young men that are aspiring for vintage expensive watches. One of them is in my extended family.

Are there 2 channels of aspirational classes? One is going to farmer's markets and doing yoga and the other buys expensive handbags and wants to live closer to the country club? (There is overlap, of course.)

[Kris]

@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.

Hadn't heard that one - thanks for sharing!

I was really intrigued by her use of breast feeding and funeral practices to illustrate her point.

Agreed!  Listened to this last night and enjoyed it.  Like the host and the guest, I recognized myself in a number of the class signaling behaviors that they discussed.  In fact, I was actually breastfeeding my daughter while listening to an NPR podcast, which more or less says it all.  Recognizing myself, I felt something like guilt or shame that I fit so precisely into the description, a feeling they noted in the podcast.  But, it’s worth noting that none of the behaviors are necessarily shame-worthy in the abstract—breastfeeding is a good idea if you can make it work.  Same with doing yoga and buying local produce.  I think it’s just important to recognize, even if you’re doing these things for valid reasons, that these are definitely elite cultural signifiers and people who don’t share them may well feel excluded and looked down upon.  And you may be taking up these interests because others in your in-group are doing them too.

TL/DR — It’s fine to do yoga and eat kale.  Enjoy!  Just don’t pretend it makes you better than anyone else.

A recent WaPo article mentioned that there's a whole subculture of young men that are aspiring for vintage expensive watches. One of them is in my extended family.

Is this the same contingent as the ones who have Rolex collections because someone has convinced them they are “works of art” and “an investment”? If so, I know one of those. He’s a totally materialistic douchebro.

[Luck12]

[quote author=DadJokes link=topic=109216.msg2494459#msg2494459 date=1573315638

Or do 3 years of military service. Or apply for scholarships as a full time job.

Also, anyone (who isn't disabled) can work full time while going to school.
[/quote]

Come on, get real.   Nobody should have to do military service to graduate debt free.  Specifically, I would've hated to do military service for a country that shits on the poor and minorities.  You know they've done research on this stuff.   Scholarships are difficult to get.  It's a competitive process and most often doesn't make a large dent in college costs.  Not to mention they just cut your financial aid by the amount of the scholarships, ask me how I know.   Working full time makes it a lot more difficult to get a certain GPA, do extracurriculars, network, etc.     

Your ideas don't do anything to solve the larger systemic issues, just more of the usual American conservative/republican "why don't you pull yourself up by the bootstraps" idiotic cruel bullshit.

That's great that you managed to pull it off, doesn't mean it's so easy and anyone can do it. 

[bmjohnson35]

This is a reoccurring theme.  This is usually covered extensively in books about accumulating wealth. There is also a growing gap between the top 1% and the rest of population and the middle class continues to shrink.  There are many factors playing into this, (changes in the financial markets, self-serving politicians, increasing power of lobbyists, our debt based monetary system, consumerism, the need for instant gratification, etc), but our personal choices can still make a significant impact on our ability to build wealth. Many choose debt as a way to maintain their desired lifestyle.  When available, some use assistance from relatives as the solution.  Ego, the need to "keep up with the Jones" and popular culture drive people to hide their use of debt and/or assistance from family members.  Planning, compromise, and adhering to fiscally responsible financial choices are not glamorous or inline with what is driven by the media or society in general.

Healthcare and education have both gotten out of hand in the US.  Until Obamacare, employer group health insurance was the only real option for many.  Its far from ideal from a cost or taxpayer value perspective.  Unfortunately, government tends to throw money at issues, instead of addressing root causes and/or creating incentives that address them.  As for education, employers is also one of our best options for paying this expense.  It's how I paid for 95% of my higher education.  Once again it's not an ideal solution, but it is an option that most can utilize.   

BJ

[Cranky]

The people I have known who were Really Rich all had family trusts dedicated to education. They didn’t spend their income on that, but when they die some of their capital goes back into the trust. It’s like not buying your own furniture - some earlier person in your family did that, and you just have it reupholstered. Then you wear your grandfathers dinner jacket until it literally falls apart.

College used to be cheap because state schools were part of the public school system. What was expensive was being out of the labor market for 4 years. Similarly, 100 years ago not so many people graduated from high school, not because you had to pay tuition but because your family had to support you while you went to school.

As states have cut taxes, they yanked funding for colleges, making colleges far more dependent on tuition (and fees, which are a way to disguise tuition increases these days.) There are lots of ways to get around the tuition, but you are still stuck with the issue of supporting yourself.

My youngest dd insisted on working her way through college and it took her 8 years.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Is this the same contingent as the ones who have Rolex collections because someone has convinced them they are “works of art” and “an investment”?

Some old and new wristwatches have designs I appreciate.

I've never seen a Rolex I REALLY liked; I find their designs uninspired.

[KBecks]

[quote author=DadJokes link=topic=109216.msg2494459#msg2494459 date=1573315638

Or do 3 years of military service. Or apply for scholarships as a full time job.

Also, anyone (who isn't disabled) can work full time while going to school.

Come on, get real.   Nobody should have to do military service to graduate debt free.  Specifically, I would've hated to do military service for a country that shits on the poor and minorities.  You know they've done research on this stuff.   Scholarships are difficult to get.  It's a competitive process and most often doesn't make a large dent in college costs.  Not to mention they just cut your financial aid by the amount of the scholarships, ask me how I know.   Working full time makes it a lot more difficult to get a certain GPA, do extracurriculars, network, etc.     

Your ideas don't do anything to solve the larger systemic issues, just more of the usual American conservative/republican "why don't you pull yourself up by the bootstraps" idiotic cruel bullshit.

That's great that you managed to pull it off, doesn't mean it's so easy and anyone can do it.
[/quote]

No one has to do military service, but some choose to do military service.  It can be an effective way of paying for school.  My spouse served in the Army reserve, which helped with his engineering degree, and he was also eligible for a VA home loan, which helped us get a jump on home ownership -- no down payment, no mortgage insurance.  And he enjoyed his time in the military.

[Kris]

Is this the same contingent as the ones who have Rolex collections because someone has convinced them they are “works of art” and “an investment”?

Some old and new wristwatches have designs I appreciate.

I've never seen a Rolex I REALLY liked; I find their designs uninspired.

I am in no way a connaisseuse of watches at all. And I don't think the doucheboy I know who is buying up multi-thousand-dollar watches is, either. I think he's mostly "inspired" by people seeing he has a Rolex on his wrist. At least, that's the impression I get by the near constant posts on FB and IG about them every time he buys a new one. Literally every picture of him just "coincidentally" features his left wrist prominently.

His latest one -- his third -- was purchased just last week. A Deepsea Sea Dweller 44mm. Ask me how I know.

[former player]

[quote author=DadJokes link=topic=109216.msg2494459#msg2494459 date=1573315638

Or do 3 years of military service. Or apply for scholarships as a full time job.

Also, anyone (who isn't disabled) can work full time while going to school.

Come on, get real.   Nobody should have to do military service to graduate debt free.  Specifically, I would've hated to do military service for a country that shits on the poor and minorities.  You know they've done research on this stuff.   Scholarships are difficult to get.  It's a competitive process and most often doesn't make a large dent in college costs.  Not to mention they just cut your financial aid by the amount of the scholarships, ask me how I know.   Working full time makes it a lot more difficult to get a certain GPA, do extracurriculars, network, etc.     

Your ideas don't do anything to solve the larger systemic issues, just more of the usual American conservative/republican "why don't you pull yourself up by the bootstraps" idiotic cruel bullshit.

That's great that you managed to pull it off, doesn't mean it's so easy and anyone can do it.

No one has to do military service, but some choose to do military service.  It can be an effective way of paying for school.  My spouse served in the Army reserve, which helped with his engineering degree, and he was also eligible for a VA home loan, which helped us get a jump on home ownership -- no down payment, no mortgage insurance.  And he enjoyed his time in the military.
[/quote]
What about people who don't meet the physical requirements for military service?

[KBecks]

Military isn't for everyone.  Thankfully there are other paths that people can pursue.  In addition to joining the military, my spouse and all of his siblings went to community college than transferred to a 4-year school.  This was another great way to save. 

College isn't for everyone either.  Everyone has to assess their situation and choose their best path.

[Bloop Bloop]

@Laura33 Hidden Brain on NPR has a GREAT podcast from 2017 where they discuss the Aspirational Class in-depth.

Hadn't heard that one - thanks for sharing!

I was really intrigued by her use of breast feeding and funeral practices to illustrate her point.

Agreed!  Listened to this last night and enjoyed it.  Like the host and the guest, I recognized myself in a number of the class signaling behaviors that they discussed.  In fact, I was actually breastfeeding my daughter while listening to an NPR podcast, which more or less says it all.  Recognizing myself, I felt something like guilt or shame that I fit so precisely into the description, a feeling they noted in the podcast.  But, it’s worth noting that none of the behaviors are necessarily shame-worthy in the abstract—breastfeeding is a good idea if you can make it work.  Same with doing yoga and buying local produce.  I think it’s just important to recognize, even if you’re doing these things for valid reasons, that these are definitely elite cultural signifiers and people who don’t share them may well feel excluded and looked down upon.  And you may be taking up these interests because others in your in-group are doing them too.

TL/DR — It’s fine to do yoga and eat kale.  Enjoy!  Just don’t pretend it makes you better than anyone else.

All things being equal, eating healthy and breastfeeding your kid is a much better practice than eating greasy and not breastfeeding your kid (I understand that not all mums can breastfeed; that is a separate issue). Some lifestyle choices may be made for reasons of class or taste but they may also be objectively good lifestyle choices. Of course, making good lifestyle choices doesn't make you a 'better' person since the concept of "betterness" when it comes to humans is a strange one - I don't think I am better or worse than anyone else and I don't aspire to be. I do however aspire to be someone who makes better choices!

[StarBright]

. . .snip . . .

Are there 2 channels of aspirational classes? One is going to farmer's markets and doing yoga and the other buys expensive handbags and wants to live closer to the country club? (There is overlap, of course.)

According to the author her use of aspirational is super specific and definitely does not include expensive handbags (well - logo-i-fied handbags anyway). The latest fancy handbag is decidedly middle class.

For the person who coined the term, the aspiration is about aspiring to be a better sort of person. Here is a check list she wrote:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-ways-to-tell-if-you-belong-to-the-aspirational-class-2017-06-26

And the whole Rolex thing, everyone know that a real rich person wears an understated Chopard or Patek Phillipe :)

[Dicey]

That's great that you managed to pull it off, doesn't mean it's so easy and anyone can do it.

Are we talking about education or FIRE? Your post sounds bitter. We strive to avoid that here. No one says it's easy, just that it CAN be done.

[kenner]

[quote author=DadJokes link=topic=109216.msg2494459#msg2494459 date=1573315638

Or do 3 years of military service. Or apply for scholarships as a full time job.

Also, anyone (who isn't disabled) can work full time while going to school.

Come on, get real.   Nobody should have to do military service to graduate debt free.  Specifically, I would've hated to do military service for a country that shits on the poor and minorities.  You know they've done research on this stuff.   Scholarships are difficult to get.  It's a competitive process and most often doesn't make a large dent in college costs.  Not to mention they just cut your financial aid by the amount of the scholarships, ask me how I know.   Working full time makes it a lot more difficult to get a certain GPA, do extracurriculars, network, etc.     

Your ideas don't do anything to solve the larger systemic issues, just more of the usual American conservative/republican "why don't you pull yourself up by the bootstraps" idiotic cruel bullshit.

That's great that you managed to pull it off, doesn't mean it's so easy and anyone can do it.

No one has to do military service, but some choose to do military service.  It can be an effective way of paying for school.  My spouse served in the Army reserve, which helped with his engineering degree, and he was also eligible for a VA home loan, which helped us get a jump on home ownership -- no down payment, no mortgage insurance.  And he enjoyed his time in the military.

What about people who don't meet the physical requirements for military service?

Yep--love these statements about how the military is always a great solution for people who want to go to college.  The military was never an option for me, but that's been a known fact since well before I started looking at schools/costs so I never thought much about it (except to roll my eyes at the people who insist that the military is always an option even when they're told flat out that it's not).  On the other hand, a guy I went to school with had been planning on going into the military for basically his entire life since that was how his father and grandfathers had paid for their schooling.  Guess how much support he got when about halfway through his freshman year those 'zone outs' he sometimes had were diagnosed as epilepsy?  I probably should have said 'started school with' because no, once ROTC dropped him, full time work on top of his classes absolutely did not pay the bill. 

And as someone who did treat applying for scholarships as a full time job and generally got multiple a year?  If it hadn't been for also working, and also having most of my tuition covered by an exchange program, I would have come out in debt too.  That's what happens when you live in a state with one of the worst higher ed systems in the country to the point where it's cheaper to leave (bizarrely enough, said state also has one of the highest levels of poverty in the country too. Hmm...).  There seem to be a lot of assumptions made on this board about how if Person A can do it in Person A's location with Person A's background and advantages, obviously Person B in a completely different location with a completely different background and advantages can obviously do the exact same thing.  I don't know about other countries, but in the US there are 50 states with 50 different sets of college programs, and 'well, just move' is easy to say, but do you know how long is required to establish residency in a given state to take advantage of the various programs?  I think in every state I've lived in it's a minimum of one year, and no, just going to college somewhere doesn't establish residency.

I managed to get out of college debt free, so even if my state was of zero help clearly it can be done.  Can it be done by everyone?  No idea, and I'm sure as hell not going to make that blanket assumption or heap scorn on people coming in from different backgrounds/with different challenges because their world looks different than mine.

[Bernard]

In my opinion, 12 to 18 months of military service should be mandatory for everyone. Military service changed me from a child to a man. As a nice side effect, it may change the way our politicians look at war, or, more specific, how often they send their constituents' children in war zones around the world.