Why is talking about money so taboo?

[Torie]

It seems personally too nosey, and just isn't done. It also can too easily seem like bragging, and/or embarrassing to someone else in a different situation. Two chaps in a rather similar situation might disclose a bit more while relaxing over a beer, or bong or whatever.

[memphis]

Hope you have lots of life insurance.

Yes, actually my wife and I both bought extra coverage on top of what the employer provides. 
Seems morbid, doesn't it? 

That's taboo, even by my relatively relaxed standards.  I'd say that talking about death is weirder for me than talking about personal finances.

I wish you excellent health and a long life. But you never know.  Could get hit by a bus tomorrow.  Taking care of that child until he's old enough to take care of himself is a six figure enterprise. Plan for the worst. Hope for the best.

[opebo]

The grossly inefficient packaging that has evolved has caused tremendous price increases and a debtor society.  People like memphis are unnecessarily burdened with long-term debt.  I guess it's the American Way, but I don't have to like it.  I suspect others don't like it either.

The grossly inefficient packaging to which you refer is capitalism, angus.  Attempts to reform it 'halfway' make things problematic.  Simply nationalizing education, or ending capitalism, or conversely allowing the poor to toil uneducated are better alternatives in some ways (depending on who you are in the power structure).

[opebo]

The State University of New York charged no tuition until the 1960s. I knew several retirees who attended state colleges during those years.

Well, this is what we on the left have been advocating for years - make college education free.

[memphis]

The State University of New York charged no tuition until the 1960s. I knew several retirees who attended state colleges during those years.

Well, this is what we on the left have been advocating for years - make college education free.

Difference is, back in the old days, there was no expectation that a majority of kids would go to college. Trouble is, now we've convinced everybody in the world that college is the only way to go. And now the marginal students frequently drop out, but still have the loans. Don't even get me started on the bs for profit schools.

[© tweed]

Difference is, back in the old days, there was no expectation that a majority of kids would go to college. Trouble is, now we've convinced everybody in the world that college is the only way to go.

this is precisely because higher ed is no longer free or anything close to it.

[muon2]

I'm against student loans.

Without them only the very rich could go to university, angus.

Before federal student loans the very bright could also go to private schools on an academic scholarship. A family with a very bright child could count on at least one college to offer a free ride. However in 1965 LBJ signed the Higher Education Act as part of the Great Society. One of the results was that academic scholarships were adjusted to reflect income, so that a very bright student with a middle class family would pay about the same at any private college. Federal loans would make up the difference between any scholarships and the expected ability to pay. The academic free ride became a feature only for the poor.

[Torie]

I'm against student loans.

Without them only the very rich could go to university, angus.

Before federal student loans the very bright could also go to private schools on an academic scholarship. A family with a very bright child could count on at least one college to offer a free ride. However in 1965 LBJ signed the Higher Education Act as part of the Great Society. One of the results was that academic scholarships were adjusted to reflect income, so that a very bright student with a middle class family would pay about the same at any private college. Federal loans would make up the difference between any scholarships and the expected ability to pay. The academic free ride became a feature only for the poor.

Actually, second and third tier colleges and universities still do buy talent (attempting to up their prestige) with non means tested academic scholarships. My nephew had a fully paid ride at Fordham University. Other options were the University of Delaware, USC, and I think Rice (not second tier perhaps). Maybe also Vanderbilt. The "cost" to the student is that he or she goes to a lower tier school, than for what the student is able to be accepted in. Top tier Universities don't give academic scholarships.

[angus]

Difference is, back in the old days, there was no expectation that a majority of kids would go to college. Trouble is, now we've convinced everybody in the world that college is the only way to go. And now the marginal students frequently drop out, but still have the loans. Don't even get me started on the bs for profit schools.

All good points.  I'd thought of saying something about that as well, but decided against it.  It's a discussion we should have at some point.  The world needs paramedics, electricians, woodworkers, drivers, etc.  In the fracking boomtowns two miles above the North Dakota shale lands skilled and semi-skilled laborers are making far more than most college graduates.  Of course those jobs are cyclic.  Today you're making five thousand dollars per week.  Six months from now your job may not exist.  I'm not advocating any of that, but the idea that we're pushing on everyone is that you must get a four-year degree, and state institutions are pushing it because they stand to gain.  It's not necessarily in society's best interest that we push everyone like that.  In the end lots of folks drop out with nothing to show for it but tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt.

[opebo]

I'm against student loans.

Without them only the very rich could go to university, angus.

Before federal student loans the very bright could also go to private schools on an academic scholarship. A family with a very bright child could count on at least one college to offer a free ride. However in 1965 LBJ signed the Higher Education Act as part of the Great Society. One of the results was that academic scholarships were adjusted to reflect income, so that a very bright student with a middle class family would pay about the same at any private college. Federal loans would make up the difference between any scholarships and the expected ability to pay. The academic free ride became a feature only for the poor.

Haha,yes, darn that LBJ.

[muon2]

I'm against student loans.

Without them only the very rich could go to university, angus.

Before federal student loans the very bright could also go to private schools on an academic scholarship. A family with a very bright child could count on at least one college to offer a free ride. However in 1965 LBJ signed the Higher Education Act as part of the Great Society. One of the results was that academic scholarships were adjusted to reflect income, so that a very bright student with a middle class family would pay about the same at any private college. Federal loans would make up the difference between any scholarships and the expected ability to pay. The academic free ride became a feature only for the poor.

Actually, second and third tier colleges and universities still do buy talent (attempting to up their prestige) with non means tested academic scholarships. My nephew had a fully paid ride at Fordham University. Other options were the University of Delaware, USC, and I think Rice (not second tier perhaps). Maybe also Vanderbilt. The "cost" to the student is that he or she goes to a lower tier school, than for what the student is able to be accepted in. Top tier Universities don't give academic scholarships.

Then I suspect there's been some relaxation in those scholarships since the mid 70's. I speak from personal experience that at least one high achiever couldn't get a free ride anywhere back then (and Rice was among those).

[Torie]

Yes I know, Carlton offered full paid academic scholarships back then.   My brother tried to get into Carlton, and failed, by the way. His grades were not quite good enough. He ended up going to Grinnell.

[muon2]

Yes I know, Carlton offered full paid academic scholarships back then.   My brother tried to get into Carlton, and failed, by the way. His grades were not quite good enough. He ended up going to Grinnell.

Carleton (MN) certainly did not in 1975. The package of scholarships was intentionally adjusted so that the difference matched the magic number computed from your Family Financial Aid form (no FAFSA back then). Though the nominal price differed by almost 2K$ (a big difference in 1975) from Rice, when the scholarship package was offered both schools required payments that were within 100 dollars of each other. Just a coincidence? Perhaps not when I say that other schools also hit almost the same number when all was said and done.

[Torie]

I misread everything, and thought you were saying full boat scholarships were available. My bad. Sorry to have misspelled "Carleton" too.

[muon2]

There are a number of ironies involved in the world of federal calculations for college. For example, saving for college counts against your scholarship/loan package. So unless scholarships are unlikely, and your lost opportunity from many years of savings wouldn't be as much as the future interest on a loan, savings should be avoided.

[angus]

There are a number of ironies involved in the world of federal calculations for college. For example, saving for college counts against your scholarship/loan package. So unless scholarships are unlikely, and your lost opportunity from many years of savings wouldn't be as much as the future interest on a loan, savings should be avoided.

529 not a good idea for the middle classes?  We go back and forth on that.

[Torie]

There are a number of ironies involved in the world of federal calculations for college. For example, saving for college counts against your scholarship/loan package. So unless scholarships are unlikely, and your lost opportunity from many years of savings wouldn't be as much as the future interest on a loan, savings should be avoided.

Having your scholarship money reduced if you save, is worse than the loan bit, because the loan has to be paid back - with interest. How much does the grant money get reduced per dollar of extra savings?  Is it 1 for 1? That would be horrible. As per usual, the government rewards the feckless.

[memphis]

As other have noted, saving for college is a bum deal. People need to focus on their retirements instead. Better to have your kid take out loans for school than to have to live with him 20 years later because you're broke.

[MasterJedi]

As other have noted, saving for college is a bum deal. People need to focus on their retirements instead. Better to have your kid take out loans for school than to have to live with him 20 years later because you're broke.

While that depends it is well said. Main reason why I'm putting total (what I contribute + what my company matches) 20% into my 401(k). Too bad my company is getting rid of our pension because it's getting too much to fund now. I'll be vested for about $400 a year when it's canned. Another plan is going into effect but it won't be nearly as much but anything helps.

[Leftbehind]

Because we're taught to see ourselves 'successes' or 'failures' on how much of it we have.