College Costs......

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Cool story, bro

If Government funding medical care INCREASED COSTS, the why are costs HIGHER in the USA with our less goverment controlled healthcare system, than in all other Developed nations that have socialized, government run healthcare.

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2022: Accelerating Spending, Worsening Outcomes

This cross-national comparison of health care systems assesses U.S. health spending, outcomes, status, and service use relative to 12 other high-income countries.

www.commonwealthfund.org

. Too bad the Data says that the REDUCTION in State Government funding of higher education is the reason Tuition costs have exploded the the last few decades. Higher ed has to make up for the funding cuts, and it was done via increased tuition. Which lead to more Student loans, which hide the true cost of college.

Cites:

Two Decades of Change in Federal and State Higher Education Funding

States and the federal government have long provided substantial financial support for higher education, but in recent years, their respective levels of contribution have shifted significantly.

www.pewtrusts.org

The History of Student Loans in a Timeline | LendEDU

Explore the history of student loans, their impact on education access, and their economic effects on borrowers.

lendedu.com

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding

PS CRAZY that you think housing going up 2-5x over the past decade is because of Dryers and College costs too much because of goverment spending...

The US already has the most government spending per capita on healthcare. The government already has a heavy hand in healthcare from setting reimbursement rates to controlling the number of graduate medical education residency slots.

The easy availability and inability to discharge student loans cannot be ignored when it comes to decreasing state funding. From a government budgetary perspective, it's easier to pass the costs to the people directly benefiting from the education rather than try to increase the amount spent from collected taxes. It's also not a red state/blue state difference; tuition has been rising quickly across the country no matter which party controls state and federal governments. You can't simply say decreased government funding has caused increased tuition and more borrowing when the easy availability of loans could be the underlying cause of decreased government spending. It's near impressive to tell which.

Universities will increase their spending to the space available provided by student loans. Suppose bulldozing an old dorm and replacing it with a shiny new one would increase tuition per student by $500/year. If it were hard for students to absorb that increase, the university might not do it. But if it's not problem for students to just borrow an extra $500/year then it's easy. And everyone has to pay, even those who don't want to get loans.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Me, me and me. I married a woman who makes more and works longer hours. I was the head butt wiper too. Meanwhile, we built a house, a nice one, that she wanted and in a neighborhood she preferred with maybe the highest price per square foot where we live (I enjoy living here, though). She bought her own car, it wasn't cheap, and decided what cars the girls should get. I bought my own which cost less than the cars driven by any female in my household. She also insisted that the girls attend private school (I'm public school trash). She was right to do so. She's not my boss and she's not bossy to me. It's an arrangement that works best. The girls shop for themselves now often with my credit card. "Not even close" is a stretch. There are studies showing that men spend more and women spend more than men. The numbers aren't far off. What's "not even close" is that women spend more time shopping and make most consumer purchases, sometimes it's not for them. But, this isn't the 1950s. Women are independent and they make their own decisions. They aren't victims of the patriarchy or some other abstraction.

All of this clearly indicates to any reasonable person that I'm a mysoginist who loves Andrew Tate.***

Appreciate the answer, just know that you are well in the minority. And you touched on the reasons why. Your wife makes more, but more importantly, she works longer hours. Its not that women, on the whole, control discretionary spending moreso than men because of anything inherent to their gender. It’s because the member of the household that spends the least amount of total time working and commuting is going to have more time available to engage in discretionary purchases for the household or for themselves.

And of course it’s not the 1950’s anymore. But there are still far more instances of husbands out-earning their wives, which usually means husbands are the ones working and commuting longer hours, and therefore have less time to make random purchases for the household (or themselves) throughout the week. As you’ve illustrated, its not always that way, but its still the plurality case if not the outright majority for middle class families.

The other key aspect as it relates to marketing is that women tend have a disproportionate amount of purchasing power compared to the income they bring in, at least “income” in the traditional sense. It could certainly be argued that the work done by a stay at home parent of 2-3 small kids is worth well over six figures per year (if you could even put a number to it), in spite of the fact that actual income generated from this work is $0. But I digress. Example - a stay at home mom is going to typically have 50% or more control over the daily bank account even though she doesn’t bring in 50% of the income. Apply that same principle to the part time working spouse who brings home 25% of the monthly income, or the full-time working spouse who brings home 40%. So as long as women are the more typical “stay at home” or “part time” parent than men, and as long as women in general are working less hours than men, they are going to be the leading discretionary spenders that are targeted by marketers. All of the above items are still very true in America today. That gap isn’t nearly as big as it was 30 years ago, but its still there.

 

[Podgy]

It's been a good life as a minority

 

[MSUDC11-2.0]

College is still free to those of us who actually belonged there. Most of you would have been better off at a trade school.

I have friends and family members that either paid their way through college or took out loans and they are among the smartest people I know and have advanced degrees. Some are even doctors. On the flip side, I also know people who had full scholarships to four year universities and totally screwed around and ended up flunking out.

My college was not close to free, but my two degrees, professional certification, and the fact that I’m making triple the salary at 30 as I was at 23 tells me that I feel like I probably belonged in college. So I’m glad your college was free but screw that high and mighty mindset.

 

[PK Dawg]

I have friends and family members that either paid their way through college or took out loans and they are among the smartest people I know and have advanced degrees. Some are even doctors. On the flip side, I also know people who had full scholarships to four year universities and totally screwed around and ended up flunking out.

My college was not close to free, but my two degrees, professional certification, and the fact that I’m making triple the salary at 30 as I was at 23 tells me that I feel like I probably belonged in college. So I’m glad your college was free but screw that high and mighty mindset.

I seem to have touched a nerve. That was my intent!

 

[Perd Hapley]

It's been a good life as a minority

It can certainly be a good life in the minority or majority of this particular topic. Doesn’t really matter which spouse makes more or stays home if you have a strong marriage built on trust in all things, but especially finances.

I was only pointing out that, in most cases, the products for which there are the most sales competition and opportunity for brand switching, etc. are in markets controlled mostly by women, for the reasons mentioned, and thus the heavy spending on marketing towards women. Not saying it should (or shouldn’t) be that way, but it is that way.

 

[MSUDC11-2.0]

I seem to have touched a nerve. That was my intent!

Congrats?

 

[The Cooterpoot]

 

[mstateglfr]

I seem to have touched a nerve. That was my intent!

why?

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Women don’t spend more than men on the whole. Not even close. But they are the ones that dominate discretionary spending in most single family middle-class households, which is the bread and butter focus group for every damn product there is. With remote work and other social shifts that have been happening, that balance is starting to tip back a little bit towards men more than before, but it’s still women-dominated.

It’s really just the typical household roles that have always been there. To all you hetero married dudes on here, ask yourself who does most of the grocery shopping? Who is the one who normally buys the kids clothes and toiletries when they are needed? School supplies? Thats daily discretionary spending and that’s the type of spending where marketing costs actually generate the biggest rate of return.

Men, meanwhile, tend to still be the big decision makers for home purchases, vehicles, insurance policies for both, new expensive toys like boats and riding lawnmowers and big screen TV’s, etc. So they are spending more on the whole. But not on the day to day commodities which are heavily targeted by marketing investment strategies.

Agree with most of this, but we still haven't gotten to the reason 'why'. And we likely won't without the thread going off the rails. But most of us know.

 

[Podgy]

It can certainly be a good life in the minority or majority of this particular topic. Doesn’t really matter which spouse makes more or stays home if you have a strong marriage built on trust in all things, but especially finances.

I was only pointing out that, in most cases, the products for which there are the most sales competition and opportunity for brand switching, etc. are in markets controlled mostly by women, for the reasons mentioned, and thus the heavy spending on marketing towards women. Not saying it should (or shouldn’t) be that way, but it is that way.

Single women spend slightly less than single men. Single women are more likely to own homes than single men. Single men are more likely to spend money on single women, that's how dating works, than vice versa: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...gle-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/

 

[Perd Hapley]

Single women spend slightly less than single men. Single women are more likely to own homes than single men. Single men are more likely to spend money on single women, that's how dating works, than vice versa: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...gle-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/

All certainly believable for sure.

But in terms of product marketing, there is more money in married households than single ones, based on typically further career advancement, older individuals on average, etc. And that’s where the big gap is.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Agree with most of this, but we still haven't gotten to the reason 'why'. And we likely won't without the thread going off the rails. But most of us know.

You seem to be alluding to some taboo topic. I’m unsure of what it is.

There’s certainly plenty of gender stereotypes, assumptions, or studies you could go with that are totally inaccurate, partially inaccurate, partially accurate, or mostly accurate. Hard to know without you spelling it out, though.

 

[Podgy]

There have been some weird, respectful responses by people who sometimes disagree. How in the world did that happen instead of this thread becoming like Flag Island? I guess with football on the horizen disagreements are less important.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Agree with most of this, but we still haven't gotten to the reason 'why'. And we likely won't without the thread going off the rails. But most of us know.

It's pretty much been mentioned.

Who makes the most money? Who has the time to do certain things?

Sometimes it’s that simple.

 

[Boom Boom]

why?

I'm thinking he was satirizing the common calls for more trade workers and less college.