This is not the question I would pose, but journalism's crude way of getting us to read Jack Hough's article (and for educators like Leroy and me to comment).

<link>

Anyone who had the temerity to question the housing sacred cow at the time of its greatest apparent success in 2007 automatically earns my respect. And Hough's Savings graph is indeed alarming. It shows a typical high school graduate accumulating over $1.2 million in savings by age 65 as opposed to less than $400K accumulated by the typical college graduate by age 65. Parenthetically, I'd point out that the median savings of the average American worker is less than $100K and of the age 55-64 cohort probably less than double that. Many roadblocks and detours beset average, real Americans during their working lives, and not that many make it to 65 without changing careers or even spending some time out of the workforce.

I was still amazed that a high school graduate starting at age 18 with $16,594, saving only 5% of income, and earning 8% a year could amass $1.2 million upon retiring at 65. I did a quick check on Excel and came up with less than $900K after 47 years of saving--still a considerable sum.

I would also point out that the median before tax income in the US is around $32K a year, and our hypothetical high school graduate is surely earning more, since his after tax income is about that from age 35-55. Hough must be using mean, not median incomes.

Another factor is the secular decline in average (both mean and median) incomes of high school graduates since 1973--a good 30 years or more headstart on the decline of college graduates' average income. It is hard to know how to interpret Hough's charts: do they represent current incomes or historical incomes, and are they an accurate projector of future incomes?

Another observation: college graduates delay their period of servitude by four years or more--which some often waste in stupid fraternity partying. But can one really envision 47 years of uninterrupted wage-slavery? The blue collars may indeed come out ahead of the white in some ideal cases, but at what cost? The drudgery and occasional dirty and unsafe working conditions should be a consideration.

and God only knows what the currency will be worth in the year 2056. Maybe a cup of coffee will cost you that. Still, the high school graduate comes out ahead of the college graduate. What say you, Leroy?

I can imagine 47 years of uninterrupted wage-slavery since I had 46 years of essentially (one break of about 6 weeks in the 5-th year) uninterrupted wage-slavery. I happened to usually like what I was doing, but still it was wage-slavery. It never really occured to me during that time that there was anything particularly unusual about it. The people around me were pretty much like me although I had a degree before I was 21 which left a little more time than average. I think it is essentially impossible to predict what position one is going to be in almost a half century after the die is cast. Events like the Supremes selecting Bush can literally change everything. The market is certainly not very predictable, especially for any individual over the long run. Neither is the future trends in inflation or the value of major investments. You like to point out that many economists predicted the sharp drop in home sales and thus prices, but many other economists didn't. I would not make even a small bet on the future of Social Security.

Summary: I think making the kind of predictions Hough did is presumptuous, believing them is foolish. But then again, he may rank right up there with Nostradamus.

even if I did not have you specifically in mind when I talked about 47 years of uninterrupted drudgery. For one thing, anybody who gets to use the Calculus on the job is performing mental work which always has a higher prestige value than most manual labor--which is, after all, what remains for the high school graduates. Liking one's job makes a huge difference and makes the years roll by quicker and one live longer.

I would not make even a small bet on the future of Social Security.

Gosh, I sure hope you're wrong about that. Just got my latest projected benefit ststement, and they claim that even if nothing is done before 2040 that they'll be able to pay out 78% of benefits. I'll likely be dead well before then. Stick it to the generation born after 2040 I say!

I didn't want to imply that I was betting against it. I just meant that there is so much possibility of unpredictable events that I wouldn't make bets about its future. For instance, even though a projection of the future value of the Trust Fund would tend to make things look OK, the appearance of a Bush III might change the whole game.

There's a growing number of young people who are finding that, for them, college was probably was probably a huge mistake-- a 40k, 60k, or 80k mistake.

Of course, there's a stigma associated with not going to college, and it's stigma that touches everywhere. I know a few farmers with that own more than a square mile of land and have no college education. When you consider all the knowledge, work ethic, etc a farmer that's keeping a farm of that size running has, you know he could easily have done college, yet, he's still going to feel uncomfortable around people who are far far less wealthy and successful but more formally educated.

With college, you have a serious chicken-egg thing: there are very few "Ernie"s out there. Pretty much everyone is pressured into being a Bill, so, it seems, the only people not going to college these days are the types who probably couldn't succeed there, --let's call them Balboas, since they'd be as dumb as rocks-- unlike a few decades ago when you had smart, hard-working self starters for which college would have been fluff. And I think Bill is always going to beat Balboa unless it's a street fight. In the case of Ernie, he's going to go through life with everyone thinking he's a Balboa, which is not pleasant. To make matters worse, there's a lot of Balboas going to college too. If you send 3 Bills to college and give the college 6k in subsidies, that's 2k per bill. Send 3 bills and 2 Balboas, whoops, now you're spending 1.2k per student average. But, Balboas cost more than Bills, yes? Remedial classes, extra years, etc. So, instead of getting a 2k subsidy, it's likely all those Bills are paying an extra 1k in tuition to subsidize the Balboas in class.

You mean Jenna Bush is gonna become President?!??!

OH MY GAWD NO!!!!!!!