I can't help but feel that if this was financially legally binding - for him to have to pay these dividends - it would be a great way to fund your way through college, E.G: I'm too poor to afford college, if you fund me the $40,000, you can have 10% of my life income.
It makes sense, assuming you pick your candidates wisely and aren't scammed (and that's a big if!):
$40,000 down-payment for 10%
10% per year for $3,500 per year [1] over a career of around 30 years:
"Upstart.com, a company founded last year by Google exec David Girouard, offers a bit of capital in exchange for a cut of a college graduate’s future earnings."
I checked the link - it's not exactly right, they are funding graduates who have already completed their college course, and it has to be minimum a 4 year course.
What I meant, was funding 18-30 year olds to actually go to college, obviously, something like "history of art" would probably not have significant returns, but a Masters in CS? They would rake the money in.
(P.S. It's US only unfortunately and I'm in the UK)
The bank wants their money regardless of how much you earn. With this scheme, if you don't earn anything you don't pay anything and when you do pay it is always a managable amount. This sort of arrangement could be very handy for a programmer-mendicant or compulsive volunteer.
The HOPE scholarship, if you're referring to the one in Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship) is still alive. I went to school, getting full tuition plus a book and fee stipend for my undergraduate degree. Eligibility became more difficult sometime after I graduated, but it's still around.
>some people may prefer a little comfort than living on Ramen noodles for 4 years
Hm, I'd be wary of investing in someone who was more interested in having nice things than focusing on their education. Is it really that bad for students these days, living without a dishwasher and cocktails three times a week? I know students in NYC and London who don't seem to be complaining about poverty.
I'd prefer to invest in a student that is going to be more responsible about their health than eating ramen for a significant portion of their meals. But I'd also rather not invest in one that is going to spend it frivolously drinking every day of the week. Alas, if only there was a rational middle ground position to hold.
Ramen noodles were just an example to be honest, personally, I've been through a student style life in the last year or so - at one point I had nearly no money for food, but now I have a moderate income, I mostly eat home cooked meals with the occasional pack of noodles.
They aren't a terrible meal if you add some real meat and vegetables in the mix.
Yours was obviously an example, and I liked it! I'm teasing the parent post for totally missing your point and/or creating a false dichotomy that students have either ramen noodles or nightclub cocktails all day.
Also, if you are using real meat and vegetables why not splurge on real egg noodles and spices also :)
Well, one thing I always found the the difference between "bad" Ramen and "good" Ramen tends to be the content of the package and how well it holds up with water being added, poor Ramen tends to have loads of air pockets between the Noodles, whereas good Ramen will be packed in tight, and when you add water to good Ramn, it tends to keep it's consistency, poor Ramen tends to become overly liquid.
That aside, if you have, say, The Nations Noodle (UK), it's cheaper than "Super Noodles" but still a quality Ramen - the price difference is 300%, but when we are talking about $0.60, it's not much to be honest.
As for spices, I tend to add a bit of Mixed Spice, otherwise it would spend the next 20 years sitting on my top shelf, and Hot Chilli powder gives a nice kick, especially if you add it to the meat during preparation.
You misunderstood me, I meant that I used to live nearly solely off Noodles, cheap Beans and Spaghetti in a tin, etc, but now I have enough money to afford nice food, when I have Noodles I tend to add in meat and vegetables.
To be honest, I don't have a clue - I'm not now nor have ever been a college level student, I taught myself, but in the UK, students seem to live pretty poorly.
Your reply was a little passive aggressive but I'll respond amicably:
sure, it might be a little "capitalist" to have the idea of selling your life's work for start up capital but it's the same as any other industry - you get a mortgage for your home, you get a student loan for your college, you sell equity to fund your start up.
In all honesty, I don't see the issue with this, it will force the college loan office to be more competitive, at the moment it holds a monopoly, which is more capitalist? One "company" (because it IS a for profit organization) which controls every single loan, or multiple entities/individuals competing to give the best one?
It makes sense, assuming you pick your candidates wisely and aren't scammed (and that's a big if!):
$40,000 down-payment for 10%
10% per year for $3,500 per year [1] over a career of around 30 years:
30 * 3,500 = $105,000
Average profit: $65,000
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...