Young adults still not buying houses

if you are going to spend money on a degree that will not afford you a job to pay for it then don't get that degree. The fact is those with a college degree earn enough more than a person without the degree to take that difference for the first few years and payoff that debt. Just live a slightly lower standard of living and get it done. And of course if enough people stop paying these inflated tuition rates and allowing colleges to rip them off perhaps the colleges would be forced to lower those tuition rates.

 

See post #149

 

People are making these decisions when they are 17 or 18, so they are not in the best position to know which degree would pay off or what the terms of the debt they acquire really means. Obviously, "if you are going to spend money on a degree that will not afford you a job to pay for it then don't get that degree." However the reality is that degrees that will never pay off shouldn't be subsidized by the government with federally backed student loans.

 

Interesting that you can't answer a simple question, a question posed after you prattled on about merit based systems used by the Anglosphere. I can answer it for you: yes, anti-immigrant bigots do indeed refer to merit based systems (despite knowing, as proved by Britain, that they aren't needed to maintain human capital quality).

 

Oh well let's just let them off the hook then. Or maybe we should raise the voting age back to 21 so we are sure people capable of making responsible decisions get to vote. And I agree the government should either raise to requirements to obtain a student loan and lower how much they will load. It's a vicious circle, the students complain it cost too much, the government makes more money available, the colleges see there is more money available so they raise their tuitions and the students once again complaint it cost too much.

Average Student Loan Debt in The United States
The average college debt among student loan borrowers in America is $32,731, according to the Federal Reserve. This is an increase of approximately 20% from 2015-2016. Most borrowers have between $25,000 and $50,000 outstanding in student loan debt. But more than 600,000 borrowers in the country are over $200,000 in student debt, and that number may continue to increase.
https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-student-loan-debt

Can't copy and paste the graph but here is the median income by educational achievement

https://www.statista.com/statistics...old-income-in-the-united-states-by-education/

So take that $10k to $40K above median income and live a median income standard of living your first few years and pay for your education.

 

That's why parents should always be heavily involved in this decision making process!

 

Ironic. I've been asking simple questions of you this entire thread, and after I realized your vocabulary limitations, really simple ones. I don't understand why you can't start a thread on this topic instead of hijacking this one? Why is that so difficult?

 

No surprise that young people are slow to enter the housing market. It takes years to work the way up the employment ladder to earn enough (and save enough) to afford a house.

 

No need to flounce! I've answered the question for you. It is indeed bigots who obsess over the value of a merit based system. Thanks for agreeing, mind you.

 

I used to agree with you, but I've since changed my mind. One reason is I was buying new tires for my Tundra last Friday. A younger guy was there applying for a credit card because he couldn't afford to pay for his tires outright. Then I noticed him playing on his iPhone while waiting. He walked out a returned from the Chili's next door with something to eat. It's anecdotal, but if you need to finance tires maybe you're spending too much money. So I did a little research.

75% of Americans have a subscription television service. 77% of Americans have a smart phone. Americans routinely spend over $1000 a year eating out. 80% have high def tv sets.

Seems to me if you can't save anything you might want to consider cancelling your Netflix and cable, switching to a flip phone or something cheap, eating out less, selling your television, getting into a cheaper vehicle, and any of the other millions of things a person can do to reduce their spending.

 

While free "antenna TV" is available with very inferior programming, I think it's unreasonable to suggest selling or not having a TV. Cellphones: a cheap flip phone will cost about $75. But the actual expense is in the monthly cost of service, and that begins at about $20/month (check Consumer Cellular). Cheaper vehicles usually come with higher maintenance costs.

I'm all for living within your means. But it's hard to ask a person to settle for a significantly lower cost lifestyle than they are accustomed to. However, that said, there are those who are financially ignorant and so make bad choices. But they probably mostly represent the balance of your numbers: the 25% who don't have TV carrier subscriptions; the 23% who don't have a smart phone; those who spend under $100 per years eating out; and the 20% who don't have HD TVs (which almost all TVs are today).

So your assumption that lots of people spend plenty and yet cry poor, is in need of more statistics and evidence.

 

So what. If you can't save anything then you shouldn't be paying $60+ a month for television service.

So what. If you can't save anything then you shouldn't be shelling out hundreds on a television.

The flip phones are cheaper, and the monthly cost is cheaper. If you can't save anything then maybe you shouldn't be buying a more expensive phone and the data plan that comes with it.

This is 100% speculation.
https://www.kbb.com/new-cars/5-year-cost-to-own-awards/best-cto-subcompact-car/

This isn't really up for debate son. You said half of Americans don't have $1000 in savings. Significantly more than half spend money where it's not necessary. You've admitted my point. Americans not having any savings isn't the result of some huge social issue. It's because they waste their money.

Get rid of all the things I listed and you can save money every month. It really is that simple.

 

And it's not up you you, son, to tell people what they can afford. How a person spends their money is their business, even if it is based on poor choices. And in a good economy that works for Americans in general, there would be far more people with savings exceeding $1000 or $2000 or more. The supposedly "good numbers for the economy" have not "trickled down" to the people. It's mostly a win for only the very rich. Capitalism is failing and is in crisis.

 

You seem confused. I don't care how people spend their money. I was responding to your post that a lack of saving represents some major economic and social problem. I think I see why you have so much time for double digit daily post counts. Your lack of comprehension is telling.

 

YOUR lack of comprehension is obvious. You didn't respond to my post "that a lack of saving represents some major economic and social problem." You never addressed whether it did or didn't represent some major economic and social problem. Rather, you just criticized about half the population for making bad choices and saying they should instead do what you think they should do. The arrogance of that viewpoint is also obvious.

 

All three of my kids were homeowners before they were 25. One while she was a teenager. All of us are relocating to another state, they all sold at a profit from $68-$137k. They are now in the state where we are relocating with two of them homeowners again, with the third house hunting. I’m in escrow now and plan to join up with them in the spring. Homeownership requires discipline, saving, credit management, and desire. Not all that difficult.

 

You've answered no question that I've ever asked, and you've demanded answers about statements I've never made. I'll be glad to answer your questions when you admit that you were too ignorant to know what the term Anglosphere meant and start a thread about merit based immigration. I would love to discuss the subject in a thread that you are not hijacking.

 

Certainly typical Americans could be a bit more careful in how they spend, but are these things you mentioned really unaffordable luxuries relative in price to all the other basic expenses?

To me, that sounds a bit like saying "You got the medium sized cola instead of the small sized cola, so you're obviously being careless with your money and I don't feel sorry for you."

 

Look, I'm not the type of person who would buy all those unnecessary things, but a smart phone and a high def tv set aren't that expensive these days.

I'll admit a subscription tv service can really start eating into the budget, month after month, but for some people that may be their main form of entertainment to deal with stress after a long day.
How do you know that man who had a smart phone also had a subscription tv service?

Maybe he felt he needed a mobile phone for some reason, and getting a smart phone wasn't that much more expensive than the regular mobile phone.

Maybe you're trapped back in a previous decade when these types of things really were expensive luxuries.

I'm not saying there's absolutely no truth to what you're saying, but I think your overall perspective may not be fitting well with reality.

 

But okay, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose young adults gave up all those luxuries. Let's actually do the math.
Would it really help them get that much closer to being able to buy a home?

 

when trickle down doesn't happen after the right's mega tax cuts for the rich and corps like they told us it would, the right calls trickle down free stuff and attacks anyone expecting it to trickle down

 

I agree. But $60 isn't really going to be a big drop in the bucket compared to everything else, and it could be possible they would end up spending even more if they didn't have a TV to keep them entertained. A TV is considered one of the cheapest forms of entertainment.

I also think if someone's really on a budget there's no reason for them to need both a computer and a TV, but then again cable service is often provided in a bundle and if you have to have one, it doesn't cost that much more to have the other also.

Anyway, I feel like I'm unnecessarily dicing small details with you.

Maybe a TV and internet are extravagant luxuries that not everyone deserves or can afford to have.

 

I have no problem with how people spend 'their' money; it's how they spend 'my' money that I have a problem with.

 

You're still flouncing. We've answered the question. Those that refer to merit based systems are often just anti-immigrant bigots. I'm sure you'll fight such bigotry mind you.

 

And the left thinks it doesn't trickle down, but it does trickle up.