| ▲ | zug_zug 6 days ago |
| I can't speak to this, but I suspect something is afoot. I know my mom went to a university that she paid for with a part-time job while a student. Currently that university's tuition is 80,000 a year. When I looked at what inflation figures said for college education, it wasn't enough to account for that 10x+ increase. |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Currently that university's tuition is 80,000 a year. University tuition is a known example of an extreme inflation outlier. The cause is also known: The availability of loan dollars and the laws preventing their discharge in bankruptcy. Tuition figures are also misleading because almost nobody pays that number. The tuition number is the maximum possible amount someone could pay without financial assistance, but when you look at the numbers you would be surprised to see that often 80% or more of students have some financial assistance. At many universities now, students with families below certain income levels have tuition adjusted down to $0. You can’t judge university prices by the number on the website any more. |
| |
| ▲ | zug_zug 3 days ago | parent [-] | | My point is that it's part of the standard basket and the rate they allegedly calculated for its growth didn't match up to lived experience. |
|
|
| ▲ | apical_dendrite 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most US students don't go to selective private universities that charge $80,000 a year (and most students at those universities don't pay $80,000 a year). Only about a quarter of students go to private universities and most of those are not particularly selective. Most students go to state schools that are a lot cheaper and where tuition is subject to different economic forces. You can't decide that official inflation figures are inaccurate based on a specific, outlier example, when the official figures are based on averages. |
| |
| ▲ | vel0city 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Also, the list prices for tuition and what the average student actually pays out of pocket in the end can be two very different figures after grants and scholarships come into play. And yes, absolutely, $80k a year in tuition is a massive outlier. Average in-state university tuition is closer to $12k-13k/yr, before grants and scholarships. The extreme majority of US undergraduates aren't shelling out $80k/yr for tuition payments. |
|
|
| ▲ | saghm 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's wild, I had no idea they had gotten that high. When I was in college (2012-2016), the most expensive places were in the $50k-60k range, which already was quite absurd. The fact that they've grown so much even in the past decade is mind-boggling. |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You entered college over a decade ago. We’ve had a lot of inflation in that time. From an inflation adjusted perspective, I’d actually rather pay $80K now than to have had to pay $60K in 2016 when you graduated. You also probably know that most students don’t pay full price due to sliding scales. | | |
| ▲ | saghm 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I understand. I just didn't really have any other expenditures anywhere close to that high at the time; I've never purchased a car, and like most college students, I certainly never purchased a house back then. I hadn't paid much attention to tuition prices since graduating, so seeing the number now made the inflation feel much more visceral to me than comparing the prices I can recall of much less expensive things I purchasing to what they are now. |
| |
| ▲ | whimsicalism 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | $80k is basically $60k in 2012 dollars |
|
|
| ▲ | chasd00 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| as far as college education prices go, there's no ceiling on education prices because there's no risk to lenders, they can lend as much as they want with no risk. As long as young people feel there isn't an alternative to a college education and risk to lenders is close to zero then there is no limit to what colleges can charge. |
|
| ▲ | outside1234 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Many more people want to go to university now yet we haven't increased the supply of quality universities. I suspect this is also bimodal as well. The top universities can charge this, but the bottom probably are struggling to survive. |
|
| ▲ | 9rx 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Inflation seeks to understand the change in value of a currency, not the change in value of a good or service. College being worth more (in the eyes of the customer), rather than the currency being worth less, is what accounts for the 10x increase. I don't know how old your mom is, but it wasn't that long ago that people only went to college if they had good reason to, not because they were told they "had to" under the "A diamond is forever"-style marketing campaign. That shift in mindset enabled colleges to charge basically whatever they want. That is not a product of inflation. |
| |
| ▲ | gosub100 6 days ago | parent [-] | | People didn't need to go to college before the death of the middle class. A couple generations ago you could rent an apartment and have a decent life working at a restaurant or warehouse or factory. Now most entry level jobs pay poverty level wages. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | People didn't need to go to college because nobody cared. Employers were able to look at qualities of the actual person, not some outside attribute bolted onto the side. What changed was Griggs vs. Duke, which outlawed effectively all filtering mechanisms except a college degree, forcing the hand of employers. That still didn't mean the workers had to comply, though. What do you think would happen, with respect to employment, if nobody attained a college degree? Not much. "Welp, no more college graduates. I guess we'd better shut our business down." would be said by nobody. Hiring would carry on as usual (aside from the lines possibly being longer, there being no legal mechanism to cull applicants early). But colleges certainly took the opportunity to present that idea and the people bought it hook, line, and sinker. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not true though. We keep hearing about coding tests given to applicants in high tech, and those are still legal. The decision said that the test had to be reasonably related to the job, not that they couldn't be used. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > We keep hearing about coding tests given to applicants in high tech, and those are still legal. I was referring to pre-engagement. Those coding tests are generally only given after an applicant has shown enough potential to give them the time of day. Whereas employers with tens of thousands of resumes on their desk look for a way, as to not overwhelm the process, to throw most of them out before opening lines of communication with the person. That was "No degree, garbage it goes". But yes, now that everyone and their brother has a degree, this doesn't work so well nowadays, which is why employers are quickly moving back to not caring about degrees — as you observed with said coding tests trying to stand in as a replacement. But there was that time in even more recent history... I also said "effectively". There are technically other ways, yes, but they aren't all that practical at scale which is why a degree was settled on as the de facto solution, at least during the time it was effective. |
| |
| ▲ | gosub100 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | A 1970 court case doesn't explain why my childhood friends' parents could afford to own 3 bedroom houses and have 1-2 kids while working at chain restaurants, distribution centers, and hospitality. This was in the 1990s. People cannot have this life now with the same jobs. Even with college degrees, it's barely attainable. People are doing the same amount of work but what would have been their wages are being diverted to the rich. To the point that they can barely afford to survive. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 6 days ago | parent [-] | | That is explained by housing also becoming more valuable. It wasn't that long ago that owning a house was considered a necessary evil at best, not the path to riches as it is recognized as today. Historically, you were lucky if you got your money back out of a house when you decided to sell it. Nowadays, if one doesn't get a double digit percentage return on investment they are crying like it is the end of the world. That shift in mindset allows homeowners to charge more when they sell their home[1]. That is not a product of inflation. [1] Which also further perpetuates the idea of housing being an investment with said homeowner realizing a tidy return in that ability to charge more, which sees even more people wanting in on the action so that they too can make a fortune; lather, rinse, repeat. | | |
| ▲ | gosub100 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, it became "more valuable" to corporations that want to extract wealth from them instead of living inside them. Another way for the wealthy to extract wealth from the poor. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Its not just corporations wanting to extract this wealth. Go to a city council meeting and see the people arguing against increasing density and housing availability. Its not corpo suits, its crowds of old boomers. Its not like only corporations can be selfish. Home ownership rate today is pretty much the same today as it was in the 1970s, its slightly higher. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This has probably been suppressing prices for the last few decades. Inflation numbers would look even worse if the pay in those kinds of jobs has continued. People want lower prices for everything, no matter the cost to workers. | | |
|
|
