If someone told me I was doing above average and they appreciated my work, I would feel... appreciated and proud of my work.

The world where killing and crushing are used in an unironic way is tiny and occupied mostly by people under 30. Can you retire at 30?

Cruise won’t work out. GM is dead.

E.g., the massive amount of money that is redirected from productive cities into relatively unproductive rural counties, many of which subsist on jobs that would not exist without superfluous military bases, over-incarceration, massive farm subsidies, or, yes, branch campuses of state university systems. This happens at the state level too. Many of our state’s rural school districts are almost entirely funded by redistributed taxes. Because their local populations won’t even pass no-tax-increase no-debt-load-increase bond issues to fix roofs.

Hopefully work from home will take off and rural communities/states will find a way to become more productive.

OFC some examples are clearly just the product of either drugs or a bad week, or more likely both.

Kind of like reading slashdot articles about "websites", hacker news articles about "capitalism", or newspaper article comment sections about "immigrants" in the late 20th/early 21st century. Or whatever. You get the point ;)

I'll risk sounding like an asshole or making an ass of myself and just straight up ask: Have you ever taught before? Somewhere other than a top ten CS or ivy league university?

What you're proposing sounds way more expensive than the status quo.

Finance capitalists keep the vicious cycle going. Doctors' unions scratch and claw for high comp because without it their new entrants are screwed.

Yes, at least in all the markets I'm aware of. If someone moves in after in the middle of a month, you'll pro-rate the rent for that first fraction of a month so that everyone's back on the monthly cycle for the rest of the lease (typically 12 months, but in some markets there's a strong preference for a particular month and so the lease will be written to end after less than 12 months. Typically uni towns where you really want to lease to end on August 31st regardless of when it started).

To clarify the 15th: paychecks typically also always arrive bimonthy and on fixed days. So, people would fail to budget for the 1st but would be able to cover rent when their second bimonthly paycheck hit their account. As a land owner extracting rent from folks, I think it's more than fair that they get a ~10 day interest fee loan as needed. And even if I were an asshole, it wouldn't be in my economic interest to do anything about those sorts of 10 day delays.

But I sort of suspect a lot of the folks who couldn't afford rent on the 1st of April 2020 won't be able to afford rent on the 15th of April 2020 either...

The difference here is that the percent of that 31% who really can't afford the rent -- not now, and not any time soon -- is probably closer to 100%.

Accredited institutions can issue degrees if you pass their courses. There are various "grades" that bucket people, but as far as getting the degree goes, you just need to pass. Grading is at least ostensibly objective. Admissions to accredited institutions is selective, and colleges compete with one another for students.

The only two differences are price per class and "objective grading".

The former amounts to "what if we had our current system, except everything were cheaper". Which, I guess I have to admit, would indeed be nice. It'd be nice if healthcare and cars and real estate were cheaper as well. Not sure how to actually do it, though.

And for the latter, we've done that in K12 (standardized tests). Almost everyone seems to agree it's a terrible system.

1. That wouldn't allow us to pause all economic activity. Not even close. Not even remotely close. Notice that 0% of the economic damage caused by coronavirus could have been prevented by stockpiling food and water.

2. Lots of economic activity is not possible to pause. Think about e.g., large construction projects or any manufacturing process. There's an enormous amount of economic activity that just can't easily be paused, at varying timescales. At the short timescale, for example, you can't simply stop pouring a foundation and come back to it later. On a longer timescale, you simply can't restart an oil well at $0 cost. These facts aren't due to bad planning. They're due to the fundamental laws of physics. And for any given type of disaster scenario, even the most resilient and localized supply chains might be disrupted. In fact, it's not really clear that localized or even redundant supply chains/processes would make you more resilient in any given scenario. There are likely fundamental tradeoffs and, even if not, individuals and small firms simply can't plan for every possible apocalypse.

3. That level of food/water stockpiling would be enormously expensive. Stockpiling would become a nontrivial drag on GDP, not only through unproductive resource allocation but also due to new frictions (e.g., moving 2 states over now becomes a five figure investment).

4. Like it or not, most folks simply don't have the means to stockpile at that scale. A waitress working 80 hours a week will never be able to afford the space and continuous investment necessary to maintain a multi-year food and water stockpile. Heck, even the largest firms with the best margins have to take on some existential risk in order to operate. At some point, the choice is between extreme resilience and having a given sector of the economy.

5. I can't find the problem you're trying to solve with multi-year food/water stockpiling. I'm having trouble figuring out what scenario would only last a few years, and would result in substantial destruction/disruption of the agricultural sector, but would not result in either a) also damage stockpiled food/water or b) trigger extinctions/mass-deaths that aren't possible to prevent through stockpiling. Literally no massive natural disaster or attack I can think of fits that bill. Not blight. Not super volcanoes. Not pandemics. Not nuclear war. Not bioterror. In none of those scenarios would stockpiling likely be particularly helpful at a multi-year timescale. Maybe in some of those scenarios stockpiling buys you a full growing season, if all of the other stars perfectly align.

So, people are choosing to go to expensive universities that don't subsidize their tuition. It's a choice, and there are much cheaper options for most of the country.

If you're paying $30K in tuition and planning on a "normal" career path, then you're paying way too much.

> This whole post seems a little holier than thou

Well, if sound financial advice is perceived as a personal attack, then we're never going to solve this problem.

People whose parents can support them by allowing them to live at home for free during college can graduate with almost no debt by attending a cheap institution, working while going to school, and getting a head start in high school or community college. And most people whose parents cannot allow them to live at home will qualify for state and federal grants.

This country does have affordable college options for most people. The problem is that most people who go to college choose the more expensive options (state flagships and non-elite private universities) even though their local state university branch campuses are capable of providing a perfectly adequate education at a third of the price.

More importantly, the only way we'll reduce the debt burden on undergraduates is by providing more subsidy to state branch campuses. That will only work, however, if people choose to go to those state branch campuses. There's just no world where the taxpayer subsidizes a big chunk of room&board&tuition at research institutions for the majority of college students. For the top ~5% of students by merit, sure. But that model just doesn't make any sense when there are far cheaper options.

> eg Grey's Anatomy

Medical debt is an entirely separate issue. Intertwining it with the undergraduate debt issue confuses things -- the solution to med school debt will be different from the solution to undergrad debt.

Cruise lines are in a rough place. Same as airlines.

Lots of convention and vacation related businesses might face a more interesting dynamic. I briefly worked for one in college. Their fixed costs were probably less than $500/year and they kept low six figures in the bank (very high variable costs, mostly enterprise clients, and a fairly old-school owner).

Lots of small travel-related business can “survive” basically in perpetuity. But they will probably face a lot of new friction when events held at the convention center start running again. They can burn capital to stay alive and feed the owner in the mean time, but as that capital burns away, so does the business's feasibility (because of cash flow issues). Bankruptcy and business closure rates are going to vastly under-estimate the number of small business that de facto die out.

Growth: emerging markets have decades of gangbusters growth ahead of them. More people will exit extreme poverty than ever before in the coming decades. China will transition from middle income to rich in our lifetimes, introducing hundreds of millions of new rich country consumers.

Federal power and responsiveness: The fed expanded its balance sheet in a rather incredible and history-making way. The CARES act is one of the largest subsidies ever.

Cheap oil energy: POTUS is currently begging SA and Russia to increase the price of oil. Meanwhile, alternative energy sources get cheaper every year.

A GD is possible, but not for those reasons.

CS was a contrarian career bet in the few years after dotcom; you didn't do it if you were listening to the wise old men and wanted a good paying job. Realizing that opportunity -- or, more commonly, doing what you wanted to and not worrying about the $, paid off incredibly well for those who took advantage from between 2004ish and today. I don't think fortunes will change for our cohort; there's still a huge dearth of principal engineers in pretty much every subarea of software engineering.

The enrollment surge also hasn't yet effected CS PhDs, because undergrad enrollment wasn't matched by a corresponding growth in phd enrollment. That might change in the next 5 years.

But the entry level positions seem extraordinarily competitive at the moment; I've never had this many qualified applicants (and that goes for before covid19 as well). The only saving grace is that more and more non-programming positions require some programming skills, and those folks seem to have a hard time recruiting/hiring.

2. Most private universities do have sticker prices in that range, but a) why go non-elite private (e.g., mid-low tier liberal arts colleges) since they're usually not even as good as comparable public schools, and b) almost no one actually pays the sticker price at private universities. The average discount factor at private universities is around 50% [3].

3. It's definitely possible to make >$10K each year while doing university full time. Even very conservative estimates -- state minimum wage and only working summers/weekends with no overtime -- put the number north of $8K [4].

4. Living at home is often an option (not always, but the percentage of people who can't live at home and also don't qualify for need-based aid has to be pretty small).

5. Four years is an upper bound, not a requirement! College-ready students can and should transfer credits from high school AP, IB, or college credit courses; one of those three options is available in the vast majority of US high schools. Students who are not college-ready should start off at community college, which, again, brings the price down substantially.

So, for example, if you:

* go to your local branch campus of a state university like SIU-E or UMSL,

* live at home,

* work a minimum wage job for 40 hours over the summer and on the most weekends during the school year [4], and

* come in with sophomore standing OR do you first year at community college

then you can graduate with a very modest amount of debt (less than a used car, or possibly none at all). Cutting any one of those assumptions still keeps you well below $100K and possibly much lower than even $30K.

Plus, some of those assumptions are conservative. E.g., for most of that time you should be able to make substantially more than minimum wage by taking internships, tutoring ($20/hr+ is typically a "low" rate), etc. Scholarships and fellowships are typically available as well.

College is far too expensive in the USA, but you really have to be a huge outlier to graduate from undergrad with $100K in debt. And it's still possible in many parts of the country to graduate with "used car" worth of debt or even no debt at all.

Part of our "college affordability" problem is real, but part of the problem is a "buying luxury goods with a credit card" problem. Attending one of the best universities in the world and living in their dorms and staying for four full years and not working full time over the summers + weekends during the school year... that's the most expensive option possible. There are plenty of much less expensive options for most college students in the US.

[1] https://admissions.illinois.edu/invest/tuition

[2] https://www.siue.edu/paying-for-college/tuition-and-fees/und...

[3] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/04/30/nacubo-report...

[4] (408.2512) + (168.25(52-12-3)) = $8,844

They don't need to be indispensable. they just need to be critical enough that not bailing them out is much more expensive than bailing them out.

The solution is to prevent this scenario from ever happening in the first place, by either requiring sufficient competition, or requiring sufficient capital reserves (see: banking and reinsurance), or just nationalizing the thing.