pacino wrote:now, the crash helped me because i upped my amount per pay an inflated amount for a year (while i lived at home with my parents) and bought up a bunch of shares for rock-bottom prices and now have a lot more shares than is common for being at my job as long as i've had. thems the breaks, i guess.

Unsolicited investment advice: It sounds like you have a lot of company stock. You probably want to diversify into various low-cost index funds. You don't want to have both your job and your investments dependent on the same company.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:now, the crash helped me because i upped my amount per pay an inflated amount for a year (while i lived at home with my parents) and bought up a bunch of shares for rock-bottom prices and now have a lot more shares than is common for being at my job as long as i've had. thems the breaks, i guess.

Unsolicited investment advice: It sounds like you have a lot of company stock. You probably want to diversify into various low-cost index funds. You don't want to have both your job and your investments dependent on the same company.

im a state worker actually, so this is shares in the 457 i'm in. currently pretty aggro and i decreased it to a normal level. i figure i'm 35+ years from retiring yet, and not even sure how long i'll be with the state.

pacino wrote:you are correct, but the corresponding bump did not erase the deficit, and the volatile bear/bull market over the past 15-20 years created some artifical gains anyway. this is all i'm saying...no one can 'game' the market and figure it out. hell, it doesnt seem banks whose livelihoods are becoming further entwined in it seem to have figured it out, why do we think joe schmo will?

The health of one's pension is dependent upon the discipline of those funding/managing it, just like the health of a 401k account is dependent on the health o those managing it. While I agree that improved financial education should probably be combined with widespread use of 401k instruments, I'd rather be the one in charge of my financial future. We're having so many problems with the underfunding of pensions that it's clear that this model is not working. And the reason is simple: the math doesnt add up. It doesnt matter if it's privately funded or funded by your employer; one must put a lot of money of way per year if one is to expect that 30 years of work will fund 30+ years of retirement and health care. The fact that the auto workers had previously successfully negotiated for unsustainable pension plans (that the companies could not affford) does mean that pension plans are clearly superior to 401k plans.

Werthless wrote:There are ways to become a teacher, or an artist, or to follow any other career path that has a low expected income without going $160,000 into debt. That's my argument. If you don't think this is true, that it's not possible to go leverage some combination of [community college, state schools, merit scholarships, need based grants, etc] to prevent $160,000 in loans from accruing, then I don't want you teaching my kid anyway.

Yes, you're right, $160K in debt is not necessary to these careers. I kind of think it is bad, though, that we set up our whole society to revere places like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., and then demand one of two things of those who are admitted: (1) Be rich enough to pay for it in cash or (2) Only go there if you are going to convert that degree into a high-paying job. So, if I am a kid from a modest home, one not so poor I qualify for aid but not so rich my family can put me through a $50K+/year school, and I apply to Harvard, and get in - a dream come true for any academically-minded kid - I'd better either take an engineering or science degree or turn them down. If I want to study the classics and go on to teach them, I am SOL.

What makes this really bad is that it's not like I can expect to go to Middle Wyoming State to take a degree in the Classics, and then get into Harvard grad school with a funded line. Where you went to undergrad has a lot to do with what grad schools you can get into.

Werthless wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Werthless wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Werthless wrote: So if you want to go $160,000 in debt to be an art teacher, loan organizations will just say no.

Weren't you an econ major? Wouldn't your prospects out of college only be marginally better than someone with a teaching degree?

My prospects were good, both when I entered college as a biology major and left it with an economics degree with political economy and finance minors. I did not have to borrow the full amount, and likely would have chosen a different school if I had been forced to. I qualified for need-based aid in a mix of grants and loans, so my loan payments are very reasonable.

I have 18k per year in grants and scholarships. I'm still going to end up 100-110k in debt for my political science degree. I could have probably ended up saving 20-30 grand going to a state school but I think I benefited educationally and socially going to a smaller university.

I guess I take exception with the idea that I shouldn't educate myself because my parents make just enough money to not qualify for a lot of need based aid while also not having the ability to pay my tuition.

Also, Werthless's idea essentially means that anyone interested in teaching pretty much anything will have to come from substantial means. No more teachers who come from the working classes; only those from priviliged backgrounds need apply.

That's a great way to reduce the quality of teaching.

There are ways to become a teacher, or an artist, or to follow any other career path that has a low expected income without going $160,000 into debt. That's my argument. If you don't think this is true, that it's not possible to go leverage some combination of [community college, state schools, merit scholarships, need based grants, etc] to prevent $160,000 in loans from accruing, then I don't want you teaching my kid anyway.

So I'm good then since I'm only at 110?!?!

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:now, the crash helped me because i upped my amount per pay an inflated amount for a year (while i lived at home with my parents) and bought up a bunch of shares for rock-bottom prices and now have a lot more shares than is common for being at my job as long as i've had. thems the breaks, i guess.

Unsolicited investment advice: It sounds like you have a lot of company stock. You probably want to diversify into various low-cost index funds. You don't want to have both your job and your investments dependent on the same company.

im a state worker actually, so this is shares in the 457 i'm in. currently pretty aggro and i decreased it to a normal level. i figure i'm 35+ years from retiring yet, and not even sure how long i'll be with the state.

When you said "a lot more shares," I assumed you meant shares of a company. If you mean shares of something like an index fund or mutual fund, then you can probably just refer to the amount. In other words, "I have a lot more invested than is common for my age because I wisely increased contributions during the downturn."

mozartpc27 wrote:

Werthless wrote:There are ways to become a teacher, or an artist, or to follow any other career path that has a low expected income without going $160,000 into debt. That's my argument. If you don't think this is true, that it's not possible to go leverage some combination of [community college, state schools, merit scholarships, need based grants, etc] to prevent $160,000 in loans from accruing, then I don't want you teaching my kid anyway.

Yes, you're right, $160K in debt is not necessary to these careers. I kind of think it is bad, though, that we set up our whole society to revere places like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., and then demand one of two things of those who are admitted: (1) Be rich enough to pay for it in cash or (2) Only go there if you are going to convert that degree into a high-paying job. So, if I am a kid from a modest home, one not so poor I qualify for aid but not so rich my family can put me through a $50K+/year school, and I apply to Harvard, and get in - a dream come true for any academically-minded kid - I'd better either take an engineering or science degree or turn them down. If I want to study the classics and go on to teach them, I am SOL.

Harvard, Yale, etc are in a different place than other second-tier elite colleges without the endowment to provide generous grants. Harvard, in particular, has a generous aid program that they have worked to make public. From their website:

No contribution is expected from parents with incomes under $65,000. Beginning with the class of 2016, those parents with annual incomes between $65,000 and $150,000 are asked to contribute from zero to ten percent of their income. Some families with incomes above $150,000 still qualify for aid. Families at all incomes who have significant assets will continue to pay more than those in less fortunate circumstances. Students are also asked to contribute to the cost of their education through term-time and summer work.

No one is forced to decline Harvard because their family cannot afford it. Now, if your parents make $200,000/yr and don't want to pay for your college, that's a different story.

It's private colleges without the endowment to fund generous grants, that are a gamble. Here's some free advice: you should not go to Bucknell to become a teacher if you must pay $56,190 per year to attend (either in loans or your parents' cash). You should consider Temple, Penn State, or some school with scholarship opportunities.

mozartpc27 wrote:What makes this really bad is that it's not like I can expect to go to Middle Wyoming State to take a degree in the Classics, and then get into Harvard grad school with a funded line. Where you went to undergrad has a lot to do with what grad schools you can get into.

Depends on the program; some programs rely more heavily on work experience, and also consider your test scores like the GMAT. If you went to an elite undergrad, then a grad school is likely willing to tolerate a lower GPA. They may treat a Harvard applicant with a 3.3 GPA like a 3.8 applicant from Temple.

There's no easy road to a grad program at Harvard. You need an impeccable resume. And while it's possible to go from Middle Wyoming State to Harvard, you must have other indicators of elite scholarship beyond a 4.0 GPA. And luck.

mozartpc27 wrote:

Werthless wrote:There are ways to become a teacher, or an artist, or to follow any other career path that has a low expected income without going $160,000 into debt. That's my argument. If you don't think this is true, that it's not possible to go leverage some combination of [community college, state schools, merit scholarships, need based grants, etc] to prevent $160,000 in loans from accruing, then I don't want you teaching my kid anyway.

Yes, you're right, $160K in debt is not necessary to these careers. I kind of think it is bad, though, that we set up our whole society to revere places like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., and then demand one of two things of those who are admitted: (1) Be rich enough to pay for it in cash or (2) Only go there if you are going to convert that degree into a high-paying job. So, if I am a kid from a modest home, one not so poor I qualify for aid but not so rich my family can put me through a $50K+/year school, and I apply to Harvard, and get in - a dream come true for any academically-minded kid - I'd better either take an engineering or science degree or turn them down. If I want to study the classics and go on to teach them, I am SOL.

What makes this really bad is that it's not like I can expect to go to Middle Wyoming State to take a degree in the Classics, and then get into Harvard grad school with a funded line. Where you went to undergrad has a lot to do with what grad schools you can get into.

Schools like Harvard, Stanford and Yale have big fat endowments that allow them to sustain extremely generous financial aid. Stanford has an aid calculator, and for shits and giggles I plugged some numbers in. It turns out we could send Lil' Vulture to Stanford for 8k, with no loans.

Little known disgusting fact about some schools--the raise tuition because it makes them seem more prestigious. George Washington U did this.

mozartpc27 wrote:I kind of think it is bad, though, that we set up our whole society to revere places like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., and then demand one of two things of those who are admitted: (1) Be rich enough to pay for it in cash or (2) Only go there if you are going to convert that degree into a high-paying job.

Princeton replaced all loans with grants about 10 years ago. The rest of the Ivy League soon followed in some form or another.

Werthless wrote:It's private colleges without the endowment to fund generous grants, that are a gamble.

Bingo.

Swiggers wrote:

Werthless wrote:It's private colleges without the endowment to fund generous grants, that are a gamble.

Bingo.

Over the next decade or so, expect many of these institutions to shut their doors, especially the smaller ones in remote locations. We could see even see state institutions shut down as well, though that's politically very difficult.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Swiggers wrote:

Werthless wrote:It's private colleges without the endowment to fund generous grants, that are a gamble.

Bingo.

Over the next decade or so, expect many of these institutions to shut their doors, especially the smaller ones in remote locations. We could see even see state institutions shut down as well, though that's politically very difficult.

My wife works at one such school--private, non-elite but at 80-90 percent of the cost. We're pretty sure it's doomed. As she does academic advisement, she's increasingly bitter about the plummeting standards for admission so long as the sucker--I mean, student--can write a check that doesn't bounce.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:Did Eric Holder really endorse the constitutionality of killing an American who poses as an imminent threat? Talk about a dangerous precedent to set...seems like an "imminent threat" will be defined by the government. Nothing bad can come of this...we need viable third party candidates in the worst way.

I'm pretty much OK with the idea of drone strikes in principle, and I don't really care if the person is a US citizen or not if they're working with people to attack America. At that point you've renounced your citizenship in practice if not in name, and you shouldn't be allowed to wield your citizenship as a shield as you work to harm the US. If it's good enough for bombing Yemenis in Yemen, it's good enough for bombing Americans in Yemen. I continue to struggle with the concept of people being OK with blowing up entire traveling parties but being opposed to rendition and enhanced interrogation of high value subjects. But I think we've had that argument before here, and I've been told my moral compass is askew.

What's strange about that. You can kill combatants. Terrorist combatants don't wear uniforms. It is against the laws of war to hide combatants amidst civilians. The current drone strikes have far less collateral damage than past means, such as bombing and artillery barrages. No interpretation of laws of war allow one to torture enemy combatants. If they are out of uniform and you have a quick military trial to prove they are spies/combatants out of uniform, you can legally shoot them, but you cannot torture them. What we called enhanced interrogation was definitely torture. We called it that when other nations did the exact same thing.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

What we need to do, going forward from this time, is to create a new 401(k)-style retirement benefit for our future employees consistent with the retirement packages currently enjoyed almost universally by private sector employees.My plan also suggests some adjustment in the way future benefits are calculated for current employees in order to maintain the solvency of our pension system and guarantee all current and future employees a worry-free retirement.

my dad sure enjoyed when his crashed like all hell

Did he enjoy the rebound?

not especially since the money hasnt been returned and the amount of compounded interest lost was significant. have any other comments on a 40 minute speech?

I'm not an investing guru and have a fake job at the moment, but my limited experience with 401ks was that you're generally more heavily invested in stocks/higher risk funds early in your career and as you get closer to retirement your portfolio shifts to more conservative positions so you are less likely to be negatively impacted by a short term significant downturn. To the extent your dad was/is still investing in equities it shouldn't have taken that large of a bite out of his 401k and the subsequent upturn in stocks should have mitigated the losses to a large extent if not erased them. Maybe that's just how it worked at my old place of employment.

I didn't watch the 40 minute speech but I read your post and commented on the aspect of it which I found interesting.

The stock half of my 401K took a pounding but has fully recovered. If his Dad got creamed, likely he switched out of stocks near the bottom and didn't participate in what has been a very strong recovery. If you had normal, relatively safe and diverse stock portfolio and made no changes since the crash, you really should be whole today.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:Did Eric Holder really endorse the constitutionality of killing an American who poses as an imminent threat? Talk about a dangerous precedent to set...seems like an "imminent threat" will be defined by the government. Nothing bad can come of this...we need viable third party candidates in the worst way.

I'm pretty much OK with the idea of drone strikes in principle, and I don't really care if the person is a US citizen or not if they're working with people to attack America. At that point you've renounced your citizenship in practice if not in name, and you shouldn't be allowed to wield your citizenship as a shield as you work to harm the US. If it's good enough for bombing Yemenis in Yemen, it's good enough for bombing Americans in Yemen. I continue to struggle with the concept of people being OK with blowing up entire traveling parties but being opposed to rendition and enhanced interrogation of high value subjects. But I think we've had that argument before here, and I've been told my moral compass is askew.

what about the children of an alleged terrorist? should they be killed?

also, if it's ok to bomb americans in yemen, there's no reason to think it isn't ok to bomb them here.

Of course there is. You can't arrest an American-citizen terrorist in the tribal areas of Yemen, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. You can here in the US. You don't get a badge of safety because you are an American citizen fighting against America in a war zone. Yemen is most definitely a war zone. You can also arrest a terrorist in Paris or London, so simply being overseas doesn't permit a drone strike against you.

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:Did Eric Holder really endorse the constitutionality of killing an American who poses as an imminent threat? Talk about a dangerous precedent to set...seems like an "imminent threat" will be defined by the government. Nothing bad can come of this...we need viable third party candidates in the worst way.

I'm pretty much OK with the idea of drone strikes in principle, and I don't really care if the person is a US citizen or not if they're working with people to attack America. At that point you've renounced your citizenship in practice if not in name, and you shouldn't be allowed to wield your citizenship as a shield as you work to harm the US. If it's good enough for bombing Yemenis in Yemen, it's good enough for bombing Americans in Yemen. I continue to struggle with the concept of people being OK with blowing up entire traveling parties but being opposed to rendition and enhanced interrogation of high value subjects. But I think we've had that argument before here, and I've been told my moral compass is askew.

What's strange about that. You can kill combatants. Terrorist combatants don't wear uniforms. It is against the laws of war to hide combatants amidst civilians. The current drone strikes have far less collateral damage than past means, such as bombing and artillery barrages. No interpretation of laws of war allow one to torture enemy combatants. If they are out of uniform and you have a quick military trial to prove they are spies/combatants out of uniform, you can legally shoot them, but you cannot torture them. What we called enhanced interrogation was definitely torture. We called it that when other nations did the exact same thing.

I just think it's kinda weird that you can blow up a group of people who you're not exactly facing on the battlefield but scooping the specific target up and treating him in an inhumane fashion is really really bad. I guess one is quasi legal and one is illegal. I have a hard time thinking the latter is worse morally.

And the american citizen child of an alleged american citize terrorist? We hqve not declared war in yemen or pakistan. Do that, then come back to me.

Jh is right that you cant trade one illegal action for another.

pacino wrote: from what i can tell, he's not going to a 401k system YET, but wants to march towards it? am i reading this wrong?

nope, just backing down the benefit promise, and 'aligning incentives' for more enduring employee contributions