It works....you just have to factor those things in to begin with, and if you can't get the profits, don't get the house. You have to look at a house by house basis. If you don't mind me asking...what's the value of the house you have, payment, and rent?
....and those that don't go to college get to pay for those that do. How fair is that?
So can you tell me just ONE product or service that the govt became the primary purchaser of (in the US), and the cost didn't go up?
That's probably a very small percentage, maybe about 2% of the jobs we have here. It's not like we're filling middle class jobs with foreigners, at a high rate.
If you increase the supply of something, the cost tends to go down. It's economics. A college degree is a product, and by creating more, you lower the value of it.
The fact is that in many areas we DO compete on a global level. The areas we don't are typically unskilled labor and production. We will always find it hard to compete with countries on many products, unless we pay next to nothing like they do OR start understanding that if we can't beat them on price, we have to beat them out on quality....but we can't make a cheap product and sell it for twice what they do.
yes. It does work if you do it right. Many people make "fatal" mistakes and never realize what they are. It drives them out of the business and then they tell everybody about how bad they got burned and how bad it was. ...without ever realizing their mistakes. For example...if you want to rent out a house that has a payment of $1000, it will not be very profitable, if at all.
That's interesting. How long to you pay?
What did the cost of the digital tv converters do when the govt vouchers expired? They dropped to less than half what they were when the govt was buying them. IN other words, they really never would have had a pricetag of $50, but when the govt put out $50 for them, manufacturers/stores made sure that the cheapest you could get one was $50.
Nope...we would have more college educated people working at jobs like waiting tables. Where are these 250,000 jobs being created? How many of those 250k visas were for jobs that didn't require a college degree?
Yes, economic rules apply to knowledge. Go get a degree in marine biology and just see how well it pays here in Tennessee. Then go to the coast and see what it pays. It's a factor of DEMAND. If you're the only person in the world that knew how to make a nuclear bomb, how much do you think you could get paid? If the thing you have the mot knowledge of is how to make a sandwich at Subway, how much do you think it will pay? Fact is that if you are in a field with bigger demand, you will usually be in a field with bigger pay. I have a college degree and have graduated trade school, as well as have a pretty nice professional certification. The pay scales for them are in that order, lowest to highest. The time spent to get each is highest to lowest. In other words, the degree took longest to get, but has paid off the least. The professional certification took the least time to get, but pays the most. Why? Demand.
Absolutely!!! Let me explain why: Lets start with a couple assumptions and rounded numbers for example's sake. Standard 4% appreciation on residential property, $100k home value, and 5% mortgage rate. I will also, for example, us you and I. We both have $100k houses. Yours is paid for. We both gain 4% VALUE (not money until you sell) per year. You choose to stay that way and I choose to mortgage and invest elsewhere. At the end of 20 years, (inc yearly compounding) you will have a home valued at $219k VALUE. You sell, and pocket $219k. This is your ONLY gains. On the other hand, my house also gained value, to the point of $219k. However, I borrowed for mine, putting $20k down. This avoids paying PMI, btw. I borrowed $80k. I invested the $80k in mutual funds, at a rate of 12%. At the end of 20yrs, my house is finally paid off. Sounds bad, right? Not really...because the 80K I invested has grown to a total of $771k. A deeper look may draw the question...how much have I paid in payments during those years? Surely it wasn't the difference we have at the end of roughly $550k
In short, I would gain the same appreciation, whether I own the house 100% or 10%. The bank is financing MY appreciation and you financed yours. I also gained the advantage of starting investing first, with $80k. You would be starting this cycle only after paying off your house, and even then would be investing the amount of your payment that you no longer have to make. Dave teaches that it's important to start saving early, and tells about the brothers...one started at 18yo and invested for 5 years (if I remember right) the other started at 40yo and invested until he was 60yo. THe one that started earlier saved less, but had much more at age 60, even though he went about 40yrs without saving at all. This same logic applies to your house. If you wait to invest until you pay off your house, you are losing time that money can be compounding in investments.
LOL... I like the analogy! The problem is, about 90% of the population are "Financial Alcoholics"! Ha
Exactly. That's why he's been able to help so many people. Think about he tells you to do the debt snowball...pay off small debts first. He doesn't approach from a speedy route of paying off high interest debt first. His logic is to pay off the small debts first, in order to get that quick rewarding feeling of paying off a debt. This is just like Alcoholics Anonymous telling you to not look at quitting forever, but to approach one day at a time.
