That is the complete nonsense as a generalizing statement in an economic framework.
It is perfectly rational economic decision making in the classic micro economic analysis to engage in income smoothing and cover the current consumption in the cases of the reasonable expectation of the future pay off of an investment such as in the income generation capacity increase by the investment in education.
Whether there is a specific good or bad decision in this depends on the specific case.
Nonsense. Food is not an investment in future income generation, at the individual level.
Oh, well, that is completely different. Thomas Sowell said it, so it absolutely must be correct.
:rolleyes:
Of course it is, as part of the other activity (and in the extreme, not dying).
That is economics.
Nonsense. Education is an investment in future income generation, at the individual level, and living expenses while pursuing an education are a part of the cost of education.
Some people might argue that it’s a better choice to work part time instead of taking out additional loans, but that can have other impacts, like increasing the time to complete one’s education or reducing the quality thereof due to lack of focus. But tThat calculation depends on how much one can earn part time, how much one expects to earn after completing their education, the cost of borrowing, etc.
No, because one would have to eat, whether or not he is pursuing a higher education.
And no reasonable banker would extend a loan for groceries. Note: storefront payday loan places and the U.S. government are not reasonable.
Boring attempt at the avoidance and deflection.
You’ve ignored the fact that, at least at Univ. of Cal. campuses, a meal plan is required in the residence halls. The student pays a single fee for “room and board”.
Depending on the school, any cooking may prohibited in student housing.
Harvard is a bad example, because they have a very good scholarship program thanks to their immense endowment. A low income major at an expensive second rate college might be a better one. Plus, going to Harvard gives you a good network that can pay off in any field.
All worth debating (and it has been - search for the threads) but the student thinking of taking out a loan doesn’t have the luxury of not doing so because the states were cheap. The claim seemed to be that all college debt was irrational, not just that which pays for low income occupations. And people change fields all the time in any case - the women’s study major of yesterday might be the HR exec of today.
The same could be said about your posts, my dear.
Never paid for groceries with a credit card, I take it.
running coach is quite correct. If you live in a dorm you are probably required to take the food plan, and you get one bill. The student is not going to have a big income, and is restricted to living on or near campus. Living with the parents doesn’t work if the parents are 1,000 miles away.
And if the student can pay for 20% of her education, for instance, is it any different to have this payment apply to room and some board or to some of the tuition? The loan is the same in any case.
A meal plan is required at my alma mater as well. Unlimited food at $10 a day. A college student would be hard pressed to spend less than $3.33 per meal at McDonalds, for heaven’s sake.
I’m confused. Are you saying that pollution limits should be basically zero, or that any pollution limit is an infringement on the freedom of the polluter.
And if the limits are too high (possible) I bet the victims aren’t the ones lobbying the regulators to make the limits high.
Was it a separate fee or did it get lumped in with the housing fee?
And that 10 a day is not universal. Better schools generally cost more across the board.
Not one that isn’t paid off in full every month. Plus I get airline miles and other perks for using the card.
You know, I just realized something.
Three main costs are soaring out of control.
Housing. I think the reason housing costs soar out of control is 2-fold.
a. Government refuses to promptly and rationally allow higher density building in hot metropolitan areas, with reasonable and consistent rules that are straightforward to comply with.
b. Government guarantees banks, and allows banks to make loans for housing. Government fails to require those banks only loan as much money as a house’s economic value, which is 15 times the annual rent.
Medical care.
a. Government gives private companies publicly funded drug research, and allows them to extort vast profits from a monopoly on production of a drug
b. Government puts unreasonable restrictions on production of generic medication, allowing private companies to create artificial shortages
c. Government requires unreasonable delays and costs to verify a new drug, and fails to assess the risk:reward of prolonged investigatory periods. So thousands of people die because they can’t get access to drugs for their terminal illnesses, and it costs over a billion dollars to get a single drug approved.
d. Government artificially restricts the supply of healthcare providers, especially doctors, by failing to fund enough residency positions.
e. Government denies foreign doctors a license to practice without repeating residency
Education
a. K-12 schooling is inadequate to obtain a living wage for most workers, and the government fails to provide adequate education
b. Government funds with state and federal money degree programs that don’t usually lead to a living wage for the graduates, instead of focusing the limited money on programs (and the students in them) that actually pay off
c. Government provides near-limitless student loan money, which allows every college in the industry to eternally inflate how much they spend annually
But if the government just abdicates, none of these problems get any better. The wealthy will do just fine, of course, in a Libertarian world, but not the rest of us. And they are already immune to these 3 problems anyway.
I pay mine off also. I’m not running down credit cards - just noting that the many people who don’t pay off their cards every month and use them for groceries are getting a loan for food. Ditto restaurants. I’m not saying it is smart, just that it happens.
I’ve emphasized the word ‘Fact’ since it seems so amusing coming from you! 
In another recent thread I posted a link showing the U.S. having much less economic mobility than countries of Europe. If your Google skills are poor, I’ll help you out, but first please explain which “backwater states” you’re referring to.
Hint: Many Dopers who post in these threads are so knowledgeable on economic matters that it’s easy to spot when they’re being ironic or exaggerating to amuse. You, OTOH, would do well to speak more precisely. Stifle the value judgments, whether intended as sarcastic or otherwise, so that the rest of us might at least have a chance to guess what in heck you’re talking about.
I, for one, am trying to “take one for the team” by learning what, if anything, is the basis for your socio-economic “ideas.” Thus, the following question was quite sincere. It’s not a ‘Gotcha’; it’s an honest attempt to understand Farnabyism.
And you did have the courtesy to respond.
There are those “backwater states” again. Albania?
If I had to guess, it looks like you agree with Friedrich Engels that the state will eventually wither away, but are unwilling to take a stance on how the judges, if any, will be selected.
Other than that, your response didn’t seem particularly … responsive. Care to try again?
Social mobility is not necessarily economic mobility. We often use the latter to measure the former, although Gregory Clark has shown that long-term (i.e. not the 2-3 generations typically studied) measures of social mobility reveal similar immobility across nations regardless of social policy. But his research seems rather lonely so I’m curious to read a critique of it.
Never mind that due to gross inequality here, the same absolute change in income can seem much more mobile elsewhere. Looking at Eurostats, I see €20k can take you from the lowest to the highest personal income quintiles in Sweden, whereas the equivalent $24k here only gets me from what, the lowest to right around average? And I can purchase more with that $24k due to differences in PPP. But I’m probably starting out a lot shittier than the Swede, so YMMV.
Careful with PPP. Americans often pay more for healthcare and more for college tuition than Europeans do. This has a big effect on net purchasing power but AFAIK is not reflected in usual PPP quotations.