John1234

It has nothing to do with intelligence or education.

Its all about greed and desire.
Some of the best and most educated minds can also be some of the worst out there for managing their money.

talloulou

They should definitely teach a finance course in high school. Not only do kids need to learn how to balance a checkbook but they need to understand how credit cards work. It would also be advantageous to go over investing too and maybe play some games where they have pretend money invested in the stock market over a semester and see how they do with that.

americanwoman

I agree with this because once a kid comes out of high school and of legal age, credit cards become a convenient way to furnish and live their life in a style similar to how they lived at home. I know many people now in their mid- twenties up to their ears in credit card debt because they didn't understand how credit cards actually work.

It would just really help when people hit the real world and can get into credit trouble real quick. I think a mandatory finance class is a great idea. Better to serve you in life than chemistry or algerbra. Maybe they are important classes but to me it was boring and never held my attention. I did what I had to do to pass those classes and now it seems have no need in my life for any lessons learned there.

WI Crippler

Thats exactly what we did in our economics class. Its kind of suprising to me that it isn't cirriculum in other areas you guys are from.

__________________
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."- Reg

tryreading

I think throughout a kid's school years he should be taught basic things about personal economics, like only ever get simple interest loans on houses.

There are some exceptions to that, but too many people were getting sub-prime loans on houses they they couldn't afford. If you can't afford to buy a house at the current competitive 30 or 15 year mortgage rate, buy a smaller house.

Kids need to be taught that most people use credit cards to buy things that do not appreciate, yet interest has to be paid to purchase those things that will be worthless in a short time. So, a TV is bought that's obsolete in 5 years, but often it isn't paid off for 10 years. Seems like its the American way to fall into this trap. Credit cards should only be used when you want extra protection on a purchase.

I think public schools should have courses to teach kids how to avoid being suckers for other people who want to make money off of them.

Gipper

I balanced my mother's checkbook in the 4th grade. Seriously.

Having said that, if the fodder felt that a class was necessary, it could definitely replace one of your more worthless classes, like history or social studies.

If not, fine with me. The truth is that America prospers as a whole when stupid people indebt themselves. I call it "economic Darwinism".

__________________
A government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. - Barry Goldwater

SFLRN

The inefficiency is more likely to be related to factors other than fear of old age poverty. A house (to some) is generally seen as a safer long-term investment that also gives one the benefit of living in it (stocks seem "riskier" to most people). It also provides a number of non-pecuniary benefits to familiies. The level of home ownership is also very much determined by the layout of where one lives (New York City, Paris, Berlin, London, vs. rural areas of the United State's South, the Midwest, and others).

Scucca

Have a look at international differences in home ownership rates. In general, it is countries with stunted social welfare provision that have higher rates. Of course that is insufficient for proof. However, it certainly is consistent with the hypothesis

A study here (I'll have to try and dig it out if you're interested) found higher mental illness amongst home owners. That wouldn't be consistent with the non-pecuniary benefits angle.

There certainly are regional differences. However, in countries with high general home ownership, I'd suggest that house price bubbles that hinder the supply of first time buyers are a significant determinant of those

__________________

SFLRN

Which countries (other than the U.S.) show this trend?

Mental illness is a very broad term. It may simply be that those who own homes are more likely to report mental illnesses (as they can afford the treatment, or to view it as an socially acceptable). Moreover, that sounds more like correlation than causation. That's one non-pecuniary cost. The pecuniary benefits are plentiful (privacy, stronger sense of community, usually less noise so as to provide more restful sleep, and much more).
Determinant of layout?

Scucca

Have a look at all Western countries. You'll find that, in general, countries with lower social welfare provision have higher home ownership rates. The only issue is the direction of causation. For example, you could argue that there is a lower incentive to invest in the welfare state when there is high home ownership (and therefore self-insurance)

Its British evidence and therefore falls under the NHS umbrella. Why would a home owner view mental illness as socially acceptable?

Actually you can go the other way and suggest lower benefits. For example, with the poor being a high proportion of home owners, it is increasingly difficult to maintain housing quality. There aint much fun in damp and rot.