Seeking Alpha

As Pres. Obama touts changes to student loans, the College Board reports an 8.3% increase in...

As Pres. Obama touts changes to student loans, the College Board reports an 8.3% increase in tuition at four-year public universities. The cost of a full course load passes $8,000; add room and board, and the average list price now runs at least $17,000/year. Real wages for college grads are dropping, and Obama's proposals may barely put a dent in the problem, but hey, it's good politics.
Comments (40)
  • untrusting investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9923) | Send Message
     
    Did anyone send the report to Banana Ben and his fellow morons at the Fed. Surely even Uncle Ben can understand that an 8.3% is much more inflation than the bogus CPI is showing.
    26 Oct 2011, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    College costs have been outpacing inflation for years because it's a very labor-intensive process, and because colleges like layering on political perks like football onto the backs of students.

     

    Also, states are reducing aid to colleges, which aren't responding by cutting their own costs.
    26 Oct 2011, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    blankenhorn.

     

    Not to dispute your comments,

     

    But, Many division 1 schools actually make lots of money off their football programs.
    26 Oct 2011, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Not many. Try a dozen. It used to be 30, but costs keep going up. It's true with many types of sports franchises. The NBA reports 22 of their teams are money-losers.

     

    So why do it? Politics is the only reason I can come up with. They want political power, more money from the state, and one way to assure that is to have powerful alums who brag about the football team.
    27 Oct 2011, 07:43 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Good grief - a dozen division one programs earn money???? Not! I believe every single BCS league member but one earned money last year. SI did a pretty decent report on D1 football earnings a few years ago - they were huge. Basketball was the only other overall profit maker. Everything else is what gets subsidized.

     

    http://thesent.nl/rsL7h8

     

    This is from 2008. TV contracts have gotten much larger since then.

     

    Without Division 1 football there would be no women's softball team. No women's lacrosse. No woman's judo. No women's badminton, etc, etc.

     

    And that list doesn't even include the additional revenue generated by alums when their teams win big bowl games, conference championships, etc, etc.

     

    Leave football alone. Its that last bastion from the gender equity nonsense that permeates our society.
    27 Oct 2011, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    According to the NCAA http://bit.ly/vFaHMj

     

    "Less than 7 percent of Division I athletics programs had positive net revenue between 2004 and 2010. In the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), only 22 of 120 schools showed positive net revenue for the 2010 fiscal year, eight more than in 2009." In 2010 average income to a D1 football program was $35.3 million, average expense $46.7 million.

     

    A few years ago my own alma mater sent out a long letter detailing the costs of its athletic program. Back then it was a $10 million annual net loss. I'm sure it's more now.
    27 Oct 2011, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1826) | Send Message
     
    College is the new housing.

     

    People believe that it is worth whatever it costs.

     

    Government has expanded the money available for its purchase.

     

    When you increase the money supply and make that increase specific to the purchase of specific goods or services whose supply is relatively inelastic you get one guaranteed result: higher prices of those specific goods or services.

     

    In short: prices rise where and when money supply is expanded and spent.

     

    D
    26 Oct 2011, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • Brandon Gibbs
    , contributor
    Comments (225) | Send Message
     
    i work at a for profit university, and all i see is students turning a cold shoulder to loans, and working/saving cash to take weight off of their loans before they jump into school. do they see slight tuition increase while working/saving? yes. but do they save b/c less weight on big interest loan? absolutely.
    26 Oct 2011, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    For profit universities should not be able to get their students government sponsored loans. They are a big part of the problem.

     

    The other big part of the problem is that States have reduced their support of the state universities. The average per student is lower, partly because of increased enrollment but also partly due to making other choices - namely health care and paying bureaucrats.

     

    We need to rein in the pay of the public unions and tell people to take care of themselves as adults and restore the public funding of the state university systems.... we cannot continue to choose the oldest generations over the youngest generations and expect to have a robust economy for the next generation.

     

    Its not too much different than the housing bust - only this time government is directly responsible for giving loans to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
    26 Oct 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    I don't know why the answer given every problem has to be to stop people from being able to organize and collectively bargain. Unions are one way people take care of themselves as adults. You don't think baseball and football and basketball owners would willingly have give players big salaries were it not for collective bargaining and organized legal action, do you? If you do you're wrong. And if it's good enough for Kobe, it should be good enough for Professor Whosis. And the janitor. At your company as well as in the public sphere.
    27 Oct 2011, 07:46 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Dana, you continue to miss the whole point. Kobe works in private industry (well except when idiot politicians give away taxpayer money for new arenas). He can organize with whomever he wants and however he wants. There is PROFIT motive in private industry and I'm totally fine with workers organizing so that they have a place at the table along with the owner and management.

     

    Public entities have NO PROFIT MOTIVE!!! And when politicians sit across the table from organized labor who is left out in the cold????? Oh, just the taxpayers!!! Its theft and graft and corruption all rolled into one.

     

    It would be like saying that shareholders have no rights in private industry. Only management and workers can decide things. And workers get to choose the management team!!! How long before that firm will be broke? Geeze probably about as long as its taken to BK this country the past decade!!!

     

    Private industry and public institutions are not the same!!!
    27 Oct 2011, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Oh, so organizing at private companies OK, organizing public workers not OK.

     

    Funny, but private workers have been stripped of their organizing rights systematically, over many years. The only workers organized in any large way are public workers.

     

    So it's heads you win, tails you lose then.

     

    Workers are workers. Bosses are bosses. You either support allowing people to organize or you don't. I do. You don't.
    27 Oct 2011, 03:04 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Sorry. It's heads you win, tails they lose then. Bad typing. (Fire him!)
    27 Oct 2011, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    No, bosses aren't bosses. Politicians are elected by the people - and unions have been bribing them for years and years to get more pay and benefits in exchange for their votes.

     

    And again you just make up lies when your arguments fall flat. I clearly stated that I support private industry workers to do as they please.

     

    but then again when your arguements have no merit I guess thats all thats left!
    27 Oct 2011, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    So you're saying politicians can't be trusted? At all? Really?

     

    Look, I happen to support market actions of all types. Capital can organize. Thus so can labor. It's really quite simple.

     

    We have a big problem of income inequality in this country right now, one that's driving down consumption, thus the markets people sell to. Trickle down hasn't worked. Maybe we need a little trickle up.

     

    And not from the government. From within the market.
    27 Oct 2011, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    From the economic studies I've read (and my mind is admittedly getting older by the day) about 70% of the growth in income from the top end comes from investment income. ie, those that save and invest see their returns increase over time. And some people create vast businesses that allow them great wealth. That makes sense to me.

     

    The other 30% comes from a government action. The special tax on salaries over $1MM that congress introduced led companies to begin issuing equity to avoid the tax...... then CEO's realized that if they put effort into stacking the board, they could issue themselves as much equity as they'd like.......30% of the disparity comes from stock options and equity grants. Something which didn't exist until idiot politicians played to the crowd and "cracked down" on million dollar CEO's.... what they did was turn million dollar CEO's into 30 million dollar CEO's with stacked boards.

     

    And what has that led to? An almost unbelievable focus on next quarter's numbers by each publicly traded company. After all the CEO needs his options to be worth 80 million instead of 70 million. And that leads to people saying we can earn 34% GP in Mexico instead of 24% GP in Nebraska..... so lets close down the plant and open a new one in Mexico, China, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc.

     

    So a bunch of stupid politicians set in motion a whole set of actions that enriches the very top end of society and damages the bottom end of society. And along the way the same politicians write all kinds of tax code favors for the same CEO's (whom after all are funding their campaigns and quietly hire their brother in law as a 300K consultant)

     

    The solution to that is fairly straight-forward. Fix the tax code. Get rid of all deductions. Get rid of carried interest. Get rid of all the hocus pocus bought and paid for tax giveaways that all the politicians have taken bribes for over the past three decades. Getting politicians out of the tax code and thus out of the business of being able to pick winners and losers (and just outright enrich their friends) would be a vast improvement. Leave the code progressive - pick whatever numbers you want for each level of income. Tax all income the same.

     

    But then the answer isn't more government. Its far less government. Its not about trusting idiot politicians and bureaucrats. Its about personal responsibility.

     

    Enforce the law. Its the politicians that bailed out the banks - hang them and the bankers that committed fraud. How can we trust the government when Dick Fuld - who knowingly and repeatedly hid Lehman's debt level from investors is still living on his $60 million ranch? The government is bought and paid for and exists to enrich the public unions, politicians, and financial elite.

     

    The answer is to destroy the triumvirate and return our freedoms and tell people they are responsible for themselves.

     

    I've never once met a person who tells me a bureaucrat has turned his or her life around - NEVER ONCE. Bureaucrats and government programs only keep you subsistent and dependant. They benefit only the bureaucrat.

     

    We don't need trickle up or down... We need hard work.... We need personal responsibility....We need to cut all government spending drastically.......... and we need our Freedoms and Liberty!!!!!!!!
    27 Oct 2011, 07:55 PM Reply Like
  • Native Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (-724) | Send Message
     
    Well said, David!
    27 Oct 2011, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Hang them. Really? Eliminating deductions will increase revenue AND the progressiveness of the tax code?

     

    Bureaucrats are the problem. Really? You know what a bureaucrat is? It's someone who organizes and runs a large enterprise. There are private as well as public bureaucrats. You can't have GE without bureaucrats. Can't have Morgan Stanley without 'em.

     

    Obviously I wish I could drink your Kool-Aid but I got this thing called a brain which understands something really important. The world is complicated.
    28 Oct 2011, 08:08 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    And when GE see businesses decline they fire their bureaucrats if thats what you call them.

     

    And again you simply change what written to suit your poor arguement. I said "Leave the code progressive - pick whatever numbers you want for each level of income"

     

    But your right - getting rid of deductions WOULD make the current tax code more progressive since the largest beneficiary of the tax code is the rich and upper middle class.

     

    And bureaucrats are the problem - We have way too may of them. Shrink government and fire bureaucrats and we'll have balanced budget and a lot more freedom.

     

    My brain like freedom.
    28 Oct 2011, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    No it doesn't, I'm afraid. Your brain like ideology. It likes pretending it wins. It likes pretending it can't fail, because only leaders fail, never the ideology. Your brain on auto-pilot.

     

    Real life more complex. Complexity is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.
    28 Oct 2011, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • Showbiz1
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    Sir your knowledge of public sector unions is among the most elementary, childish and foolish I've heard. Public sector unions are inherently problematic because the persons who fund the salaries of the public sector union employees, namely the taxpayers, are completely left out of any negotiation process. This then sets up a mechanism in which union bosses in conjunction with politicians form an unholy alliance in which they conspire against the taxpayers in order funnel more money from the taxpayers to the union. This is why it is illegal for public sector unions to form at the federal level. I am glad to see the states following the same path. The issue is not - and I repeat not - how much money you think any public sector employee should make. The issue is how much are the private sector taxpayers able to pay. And without any representation for taxpayers, it breeds corruption of the highest level. The unions press the politicians for more money. So the politician passes laws, signs orders to get more money for the union at the taxpayers expense. This helps the politician get elected/reelected. This is also a contributing factor in why so many people lose their homes to property taxes. Namely, these ever-increasing taxes go to the municipal treasury and then given to unions, particular teachers unions. Don't believe me? Look at Detroit. I strongly suggest you put down the twinkies, stop blogging and take a break from your novel writing and develop your brain to think more critically when it comes to this issue. It is now common in many areas of this country to see public sector employees make more and have superior retirement-medical-dental benefits than the private sector employees who fund them. The amount of money abused by this unholy alliance over the decades far surpasses all the money in the bank bailouts, all of which by the way, were paid back with interest and dividends, resulting in a profit for taxpayers. And don't complain about income inequality either while you make your "living" blogging on the internet and spend your time writing a novel. Give me a break. My grandfather, now 78, works 5 days a week and takes call three nights a week while you write your novel.
    28 Oct 2011, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • Native Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (-724) | Send Message
     
    Well said.
    28 Oct 2011, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Then produce just one set of numbers that shows getting rid of deductions wouldn't make the tax code more progressive!!!

     

    You never have facts, data, numbers. Your the one that just spews ideology - your BIG BROTHER NIRVANA.

     

    Enjoy your weekend.
    28 Oct 2011, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Getting rid of deductions would make the tax code more progressive? Really? If I have a $10 m house and you have one worth $200,000 and we both take deductions that's progressive? If you give $1 m to some religious charlatan and I can only give $100 that's more progressive?

     

    Every deduction out there benefits those who can take advantage more than those who can't. This is why the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was developed, years ago. To put a limit on these things.
    31 Oct 2011, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Dana, i'd say you better go back and re-read the thread - you just proved my point. Getting rid of deductions would make the tax code more progressive and you just proved it. Your 10MM house would yield zero deductions and your 1MM donation would yield zero deductions and you'd be paying a lot more taxes!!!
    31 Oct 2011, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • emburns
    , contributor
    Comments (218) | Send Message
     
    Not everyone should be taking loans to earn a ba in underwater basket weaving either.
    26 Oct 2011, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • Brandon Gibbs
    , contributor
    Comments (225) | Send Message
     
    very true emburns. lots of focus at my particular school for admissions (sales) to put emphasis on students passion. in other words, if you are going to invest in your education, make it something that you enjoy getting better at. this leads to continued development, which naturally leads to more students paying back their loans.
    26 Oct 2011, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • mike mohr
    , contributor
    Comments (451) | Send Message
     
    This is embarrassment for our crook law makers in D.C. No wonder people have lot faith in the system.
    26 Oct 2011, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • George Fisher
    , contributor
    Comments (1443) | Send Message
     
    "Obama's proposals may barely put a dent in the problem, but hey, it's good politics. "

     

    Ah, there there's the rub. Like most politicians, it's not about the cure but about the perceived cure and supporting the bail-ME-out-over-thy-n... mentality.

     

    The long-term goal of nationalizing the student loan biz back in 09 was just this sort of action - and to do so in a method that gets around the "will of the people" as expressed by Congress.
    26 Oct 2011, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    What were banks doing for their profit in this area? I'd like to know.
    27 Oct 2011, 07:46 AM Reply Like
  • Native Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (-724) | Send Message
     
    Obama to students: 'I need you'... http://apne.ws/uLt6EC

     

    Offers them stimulus money... http://fxn.ws/rLCXVl/
    26 Oct 2011, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • mike mohr
    , contributor
    Comments (451) | Send Message
     
    Obama education should be free. Instead of giving free money to your buddies in W.S. spend it on our future.
    26 Oct 2011, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • megaballs
    , contributor
    Comments (45) | Send Message
     
    This has been a national embarrassment that predates BO.I can t help but clearly see this problem in supply and demand terms. We need to increase the supply of higher education.
    Liberals should take this POTUS blurb as a reminder that he did nothing here either.

     

    Audacity of hope....nope
    26 Oct 2011, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • ConstantLearner
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    This chart is scary:
    http://read.bi/uc8sxu
    26 Oct 2011, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • HiSpeed
    , contributor
    Comments (1063) | Send Message
     
    I'd like to see some data showing where/how all that money is spent by the colleges.
    26 Oct 2011, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • Drkim
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Is it true that students will only have to pay up to 10% of their discretionary income annually towars their debt, then after 20 years be relieved of the balance. Won't this create a new problem and bailout for lenders?
    26 Oct 2011, 11:57 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    "Won't this create a new problem and bailout for lenders?"

     

    Yes, but the problem will be twenty years from now. It's called kick the can down the road. On the other hand, when inflation really hits, these loans will be worthless paper anyway.
    27 Oct 2011, 12:05 AM Reply Like
  • George Fisher
    , contributor
    Comments (1443) | Send Message
     
    "bailout for lenders"

     

    Since the student loan business was nationalized by the US Government in 2009, the "lenders" are the US taxpayers. Servicing the loans, ie collection, is subed out to private industry, but student loans originate from the US Federal Government. It seems there will be huge write-offs in 2031 and beyond, but that's ok because it's only taxpayers money that will never get fully repaid. So, who really cares?
    27 Oct 2011, 12:40 AM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    Come to think of it, is there any difference between writing off a student loan and giving a government study grant? Nothing to help the country but the taxpayer still pays.
    27 Oct 2011, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • emburns
    , contributor
    Comments (218) | Send Message
     
    Nobody will ever claim it as a 'moral hazard' though.
    27 Oct 2011, 10:39 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|