Mortgage Lenders Bad, Student Loans Good

[SwimExpert]

If there are 110 people trying to get into the 100 seats, it would make sense to raise the price so that there are only 100 people left wanting to get into the seats at the higher price. Otherwise you will have a shortage.

Not of nobody is willing to pay the higher price.

The likelihood which is:

0.

Especially when considering the whole sector in an aggregate.

Which you base on nothing more than your assumptions that your previous assumptions are correct.

 

[SwimExpert]

The reason colleges can charge so much is because we have more kids than ever attending college.

Yeah, kinda--It's not so much that there are so many people attending college. It's that the checkbook is attached to a bottomless pit.

College is a must for many because those good paying monkey jobs went to China or are being replaced by automation.

When I was in school back in the 70's, out of a class of 35, only about six or seven went to collage after that. Today, it's well over 60%.

When anyplace is making 20% profit, you know darn well that the demand must be out of this world.

When there was competition in that market, price did play a factor to attract these kids. Today, there is no competition because there are so many that want to go to your college that you can just about charge anything you want. Your competition isn't worried about what you are charging because no matter what they charge, there are still many fighting to get into their college as well.

The need, and the alleged long term financial benefit, are the driving forces. Personally, providing for higher education is one of the few areas I'm happy for government funding to be involved. But really, we don't have government funding higher education very much. We have government bankrolling the cost up front, while squeezing you for 30 years to recoup at a massive profit. It would be better if people were paying out of pocket, because that would force the price down to what people are able to pay on their own.

 

[Norman]

If there are 110 people trying to get into the 100 seats, it would make sense to raise the price so that there are only 100 people left wanting to get into the seats at the higher price. Otherwise you will have a shortage.

Not of nobody is willing to pay the higher price.

The likelihood which is:

0.

Especially when considering the whole sector in an aggregate.

Which you base on nothing more than your assumptions that your previous assumptions are correct.

Of course, it's very likely that 10 million people are going to buy education priced at 50 K, but every single one of them is going to drop out of the market at 51K. Completely realistic assumption... About as realistic as the leftist regressivist assumption that everyone is the same.

Thankfully, these assumptions have been empirically verified, so that's that...

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you not understand that as more people are demanding THE WILLINGNESS TO PAY A SPECIFIC AMOUNT FOR SPECIFIC SERVICE INCREASES (the aggregate demand)!

False. You are making an assumption here. And, amazingly, that assumption is based on your preexisting misconception that demand equates to volume. Your circular reasoning continues.

I don't understand how even after going through all those sources you STILL don't understand! We are talking about BASIC ADDITION HERE!

Because you are wrong. I don't understand how, after going through all of those sources, including the very video that you yourself provided, that all define "demand" based on willingness to pay, you still can't get it through your thick skull that demand does not equate volume.

 

[SwimExpert]

If there are 110 people trying to get into the 100 seats, it would make sense to raise the price so that there are only 100 people left wanting to get into the seats at the higher price. Otherwise you will have a shortage.

Not of nobody is willing to pay the higher price.

The likelihood which is:

0.

Especially when considering the whole sector in an aggregate.

Which you base on nothing more than your assumptions that your previous assumptions are correct.

Of course, it's very likely that 10 million people are going to buy education priced at 50 K, but every single one of them is going to drop out of the market at 51K. Completely realistic assumption... About as realistic as the leftist regressivist assumption that everyone is the same.

Thankfully, these assumptions have been empirically verified, so that's that...

See, your problem is that you think that this all boils down to linear mathematical relationships, and you're trying to appeal to statistical interpretations to justify your assumptions in the absence of any ability to actually justify your claims.

I get the impression that you're the kind of person who likes to be in control of everyone and everything using simplistic measures, and probably even believes that it's possible. Guess what....you're wrong. It's just not as simple as you would like it to be. I understand, you feel entitled to whatever easy answers you want. But you're not.

The really ironic thing is that you're desperately trying to support your interpretation that demand equates to volume, and in doing so your "best" attempt is to posit that volume implies willingness to buy. Your very own argument relies on the very premise that you are trying to disprove.

So let's imagine that you're right for a moment. Let's assume that more people wanting a product will result in all of those people being willing to pay more for that product (an absolutely ridiculous assumption, obviously, but we'll indulge you for a moment). The underlying mechanism is still the willingness to buy. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Frank's usually "Obama Shot My Dog" posting aside, there are some valid issues here.

The first is that because our business world has made a college degree a requisite for making anything near a living a wage, then it should be accessible to everyone.

The problem is, of course, is that we really don't need a college degree for most jobs. Business wants bachelor's degrees because HS Diplomas have become meaningless.

High school diplomas are worthless because the left has destroyed public education.

Now Joey go back to watching Fat Mike's great movies.

Public education is NOT about educating. It is about racketeering...government protects teachers unions and in turn the D party gets tons of campaign donations. Win/win.

Just exactly how has the left destroyed public education? Are colleges now only accepting private and home school students?

I hate it when so-called conservatives go stone-cold stupid on an issue they know nothing about and just repeat the talking points provided by people who make their living by bashing public schools.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

High school diplomas are worthless because the left has destroyed public education.

Really? Who were the ones who insisted on expunging all references to Evolution from the science books?

Right wingers.

Who insisted on cutting funding to education?

Right wingers.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

Who insisted on medicating the shit out of kids with Ritalin?

Rightwingers

Public education is NOT about educating. It is about racketeering...government protects teachers unions and in turn the D party gets tons of campaign donations. Win/win.

again, if you ever got any education, it was a wasted effort.

There are a lot of problems with education. Part of it is because with the parents working four jobs, no one is making sure that kids are doing their homework.

The Left has run education down into the dirt. Even NYC Borough Presidents, who happen to be black, are decrying how horrible the inner city education system has become. It cheats their constituents children of a future, just as benefits the Democrat Party; that was their intent all along

We spent more money per student that any other country on the planet and it all goes to fund a sick, malevolent bureaucracy that practices intellectual pedophilia on school kids

So does that apply to all of the other public schools that are not in the inner city or overrun with immigrants? No. Put the broad brush away and get back to reality.

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course, it's very likely that 10 million people are going to buy education priced at 50 K, but every single one of them is going to drop out of the market at 51K. Completely realistic assumption... About as realistic as the leftist regressivist assumption that everyone is the same.

Thankfully, these assumptions have been empirically verified, so that's that...

Meanwhile, let's do some simple math, using the numbers you've supplied, that even you should be able to comprehend.

If there are exactly 10 million people willing to buy at $50k, that makes a total of $500 trillion in total revenue in the industry.

What happens when the price is increased to $51k? Well, in order for the increase to be profitable there needs to be more than 9,803,922 people who are still willing to buy at the higher price. In other words, any reduction in volume must be no greater than a 2% reduction. If the reduction is 2% the result will be a break even. If the reduction is greater than 2% then the result will be a loss of total revenue.

Now, you're making an assumption that at least 98% of people will be willing to pay at the higher price. What is your basis for that assumption? Everything you have said thus far would base your assumption on the ridiculous idea that they'll be willing to pay, simply because there are a lot of people who want to go to college. In short, you think that an individual's willingness to pay is altered by another person's willingness to pay.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Left has run education down into the dirt. Even NYC Borough Presidents, who happen to be black, are decrying how horribly the inner city education system has become. It cheats their constituents children of a future, just as benefits the Democrat Party; that was their intent all along

We spent more money per student that any other country on the planet and it all goes to fund a sick, malevolent bureaucracy that practices intellectual pedophilia on school kids

Common Core and No Child Left behind were wonderful Republican ideas. How come you guys take no responsibility for your part in the mess?

I knew Bush was a lying scumbag as soon as he passed the chance to not only dismantle public education but let that fat fucking murderer Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind Bill

Just how on God's green earth do you envisions "dismantling public education"? Are you that looney tunes?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

High school diplomas are worthless because the left has destroyed public education.

Really? Who were the ones who insisted on expunging all references to Evolution from the science books?

Right wingers.

Who insisted on cutting funding to education?

Right wingers.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

Who insisted on medicating the shit out of kids with Ritalin?

Rightwingers

Public education is NOT about educating. It is about racketeering...government protects teachers unions and in turn the D party gets tons of campaign donations. Win/win.

again, if you ever got any education, it was a wasted effort.

There are a lot of problems with education. Part of it is because with the parents working four jobs, no one is making sure that kids are doing their homework.

When my children were born, I vowed that they would NEVER walks the halls of a p-school. They never did.

I did not want them turning out like you. A statist loving dunce.

I've got my daughter in private school and I've vowed that she'll never step into a public school.

Good for you! Now, don't ever complain about school choice. You made your choice.

 

[Norman]

If there are 110 people trying to get into the 100 seats, it would make sense to raise the price so that there are only 100 people left wanting to get into the seats at the higher price. Otherwise you will have a shortage.

Not of nobody is willing to pay the higher price.

The likelihood which is:

0.

Especially when considering the whole sector in an aggregate.

Which you base on nothing more than your assumptions that your previous assumptions are correct.

Of course, it's very likely that 10 million people are going to buy education priced at 50 K, but every single one of them is going to drop out of the market at 51K. Completely realistic assumption... About as realistic as the leftist regressivist assumption that everyone is the same.

Thankfully, these assumptions have been empirically verified, so that's that...

See, your problem is that you think that this all boils down to linear mathematical relationships, and you're trying to appeal to statistical interpretations to justify your assumptions in the absence of any ability to actually justify your claims.

I get the impression that you're the kind of person who likes to be in control of everyone and everything using simplistic measures, and probably even believes that it's possible. Guess what....you're wrong. It's just not as simple as you would like it to be. I understand, you feel entitled to whatever easy answers you want. But you're not.

The really ironic thing is that you're desperately trying to support your interpretation that demand equates to volume, and in doing so your "best" attempt is to posit that volume implies willingness to buy. Your very own argument relies on the very premise that you are trying to disprove.

So let's imagine that you're right for a moment. Let's assume that more people wanting a product will result in all of those people being willing to pay more for that product (an absolutely ridiculous assumption, obviously, but we'll indulge you for a moment). The underlying mechanism is still the willingness to buy. Thanks for proving my point.

Before continuing, I just want you to answer the following question:

If university is offering an education for 50K a year and decides to hike prices to 55K, are:
a) Less people going to attend
b) More people going to attend
c) The attendance going to remain the same.
after the price hike?
(provided all else equal).
You can find the answer here if the question is too difficult: Law of demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are trying to make something that is extremely simple, extremely complicated. At this point I would honestly start wondering, why is such a simple concept so difficult for you to understand? Were you beaten to the head with the Marxist text-books or what? You certainly understand language just fine so why is this so difficult!!

And no, the result is not only theoretical, but also empirical (barring some extreme cases called "giffen goods" - which education certainly isn't).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The reason colleges can charge so much is because we have more kids than ever attending college.

Yeah, kinda--It's not so much that there are so many people attending college. It's that the checkbook is attached to a bottomless pit.

College is a must for many because those good paying monkey jobs went to China or are being replaced by automation.

When I was in school back in the 70's, out of a class of 35, only about six or seven went to collage after that. Today, it's well over 60%.

When anyplace is making 20% profit, you know darn well that the demand must be out of this world.

When there was competition in that market, price did play a factor to attract these kids. Today, there is no competition because there are so many that want to go to your college that you can just about charge anything you want. Your competition isn't worried about what you are charging because no matter what they charge, there are still many fighting to get into their college as well.

The need, and the alleged long term financial benefit, are the driving forces. Personally, providing for higher education is one of the few areas I'm happy for government funding to be involved. But really, we don't have government funding higher education very much. We have government bankrolling the cost up front, while squeezing you for 30 years to recoup at a massive profit. It would be better if people were paying out of pocket, because that would force the price down to what people are able to pay on their own.

Only if there is a reduction in applicants.

Colleges don't care how you pay, just as long as you pay. As long as you have more people wanting to attend your college than the classes that you have, the higher price you can charge.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The reason colleges can charge so much is because we have more kids than ever attending college.

Yeah, kinda--It's not so much that there are so many people attending college. It's that the checkbook is attached to a bottomless pit.

College is a must for many because those good paying monkey jobs went to China or are being replaced by automation.

When I was in school back in the 70's, out of a class of 35, only about six or seven went to collage after that. Today, it's well over 60%.

When anyplace is making 20% profit, you know darn well that the demand must be out of this world.

When there was competition in that market, price did play a factor to attract these kids. Today, there is no competition because there are so many that want to go to your college that you can just about charge anything you want. Your competition isn't worried about what you are charging because no matter what they charge, there are still many fighting to get into their college as well.

What effect has non-profit public college have on price?

None that I can think of. Prices are set due to supply and demand, so I don't know what possible effect non-profit colleges could have on the price.

 

[SwimExpert]

The reason colleges can charge so much is because we have more kids than ever attending college.

Yeah, kinda--It's not so much that there are so many people attending college. It's that the checkbook is attached to a bottomless pit.

College is a must for many because those good paying monkey jobs went to China or are being replaced by automation.

When I was in school back in the 70's, out of a class of 35, only about six or seven went to collage after that. Today, it's well over 60%.

When anyplace is making 20% profit, you know darn well that the demand must be out of this world.

When there was competition in that market, price did play a factor to attract these kids. Today, there is no competition because there are so many that want to go to your college that you can just about charge anything you want. Your competition isn't worried about what you are charging because no matter what they charge, there are still many fighting to get into their college as well.

The need, and the alleged long term financial benefit, are the driving forces. Personally, providing for higher education is one of the few areas I'm happy for government funding to be involved. But really, we don't have government funding higher education very much. We have government bankrolling the cost up front, while squeezing you for 30 years to recoup at a massive profit. It would be better if people were paying out of pocket, because that would force the price down to what people are able to pay on their own.

Only if there is a reduction in applicants.

Colleges don't care how you pay, just as long as you pay. As long as you have more people wanting to attend your college than the classes that you have, the higher price you can charge.

What I mean is that if we took student loans out of the picture, people would have no other option than to pay out of pocket, and that would reduce total demand. Because the price point at which people are even able to pay would be much lower.

 

[SwimExpert]

Before continuing, I just want you to answer the following question:

If university is offering an education for 50K a year and decides to hike prices to 55K, are:
a) Less people going to attend
b) More people going to attend
c) The attendance going to remain the same.
after the price hike?
(provided all else equal).
You can find the answer here if the question is too difficult: Law of demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are trying to make something that is extremely simple, extremely complicated. At this point I would honestly start wondering, why is such a simple concept so difficult for you to understand? Were you beaten to the head with the Marxist text-books or what? You certainly understand language just fine so why is this so difficult!!

And no, the result is not only theoretical, but also empirical (barring some extreme cases called "giffen goods" - which education certainly isn't).

Yet again, you are making assumptions based on your preexisting misconceptions, and using those assumptions to justify your misconceptions.

Prices rise every year. Does that mean that fewer and fewer people are buying each year? Now, you're forgetting about population increase and shifting priorities and valuations. A year from now people may perceive more value in said product, making them more willing to buy. Or they may perceive less value, making them less willing to buy.

Meanwhile, you're conflating even more concepts. The number of people willing to buy at any given price tends to be lower when a price is higher. Nobody has suggested otherwise. But that is now what we are discussing here. You think that's what we're discussing, because you have a simplistic conception of what you're trying to talk about. Your operating in an echo chamber of your own ignorance.

 

[Freewill]

The reason colleges can charge so much is because we have more kids than ever attending college.

Yeah, kinda--It's not so much that there are so many people attending college. It's that the checkbook is attached to a bottomless pit.

College is a must for many because those good paying monkey jobs went to China or are being replaced by automation.

When I was in school back in the 70's, out of a class of 35, only about six or seven went to collage after that. Today, it's well over 60%.

When anyplace is making 20% profit, you know darn well that the demand must be out of this world.

When there was competition in that market, price did play a factor to attract these kids. Today, there is no competition because there are so many that want to go to your college that you can just about charge anything you want. Your competition isn't worried about what you are charging because no matter what they charge, there are still many fighting to get into their college as well.

What effect has non-profit public college have on price?

None that I can think of. Prices are set due to supply and demand, so I don't know what possible effect non-profit colleges could have on the price.

As i read, demand is at 100 percent for most colleges and has been for some time. Which means that the colleges can be selective in who they let in. By running at 100 percent one would think that the cost of running the college would be less when divided over the student body. But that does not seem to be the case. In other words administers know their capacity and are running at full capacity. Thus, the demand doesn't change it is always 100 percent. So I do not see how this causes the price to escalate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Left has run education down into the dirt. Even NYC Borough Presidents, who happen to be black, are decrying how horribly the inner city education system has become. It cheats their constituents children of a future, just as benefits the Democrat Party; that was their intent all along

We spent more money per student that any other country on the planet and it all goes to fund a sick, malevolent bureaucracy that practices intellectual pedophilia on school kids

Common Core and No Child Left behind were wonderful Republican ideas. How come you guys take no responsibility for your part in the mess?

I knew Bush was a lying scumbag as soon as he passed the chance to not only dismantle public education but let that fat fucking murderer Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind Bill

Just how on God's green earth do you envisions "dismantling public education"? Are you that looney tunes?

How? Vouchers

Are you proud of your Democrat educational system where 80% of the "graduates" can't function at grade level

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, that is my point. One would think with the families paying more that would restrain the cost not cause an increase. All the article talks about is the cost to those going to college, not what is driving the cost far exceeding inflation.

But let's say that the government made education completely free how much do you think it would cost then?

Probably less than it does now.

Here's the complaint the medical industry has about Medicaid... it doesn't pay as well as private insurance does.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Left has run education down into the dirt. Even NYC Borough Presidents, who happen to be black, are decrying how horribly the inner city education system has become. It cheats their constituents children of a future, just as benefits the Democrat Party; that was their intent all along

We spent more money per student that any other country on the planet and it all goes to fund a sick, malevolent bureaucracy that practices intellectual pedophilia on school kids

Common Core and No Child Left behind were wonderful Republican ideas. How come you guys take no responsibility for your part in the mess?

I knew Bush was a lying scumbag as soon as he passed the chance to not only dismantle public education but let that fat fucking murderer Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind Bill

Just how on God's green earth do you envisions "dismantling public education"? Are you that looney tunes?

How? Vouchers

Are you proud of your Democrat educational system where 80% of the "graduates" can't function at grade level

Do you have a link to this fantasy of yours?

Vouchers are an epic failure because people do not support them. Every voucher initiative that was left up to the people has been voted down by referendum. Those instituted without public consent are ineffective and wasteful.

 

[Norman]

Before continuing, I just want you to answer the following question:

If university is offering an education for 50K a year and decides to hike prices to 55K, are:
a) Less people going to attend
b) More people going to attend
c) The attendance going to remain the same.
after the price hike?
(provided all else equal).
You can find the answer here if the question is too difficult: Law of demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are trying to make something that is extremely simple, extremely complicated. At this point I would honestly start wondering, why is such a simple concept so difficult for you to understand? Were you beaten to the head with the Marxist text-books or what? You certainly understand language just fine so why is this so difficult!!

And no, the result is not only theoretical, but also empirical (barring some extreme cases called "giffen goods" - which education certainly isn't).

Yet again, you are making assumptions based on your preexisting misconceptions, and using those assumptions to justify your misconceptions.

Prices rise every year. Does that mean that fewer and fewer people are buying each year? Now, you're forgetting about population increase and shifting priorities and valuations. A year from now people may perceive more value in said product, making them more willing to buy. Or they may perceive less value, making them less willing to buy.

Meanwhile, you're conflating even more concepts. The number of people willing to buy at any given price tends to be lower when a price is higher. Nobody has suggested otherwise. But that is now what we are discussing here. You think that's what we're discussing, because you have a simplistic conception of what you're trying to talk about. Your operating in an echo chamber of your own ignorance.

What. The. Hell.

Can you answer the simple question without making all these hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the scenario, or with what I said for that matter.

Actually I think you already answered it, "the number of people willing to buy tends to be lower, the higher the price".

THANK YOU! Indeed, quantity demanded decreases with price, barring weird circumstance!

I think we are making progress. Even though you are still completely confused regarding everything else. That's probably because you are ignoring the supply...