Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

Here is a study by Pew on the effects of the recession on college graduates, associate degrees and high school geaduates.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2013/pewcollegegradsrecessionreportpdf.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjbvMSM8f7LAhUN2mMKHYALAm8QFgghMAg&usg=AFQjCNHw86uifiBPpHYq7y9ClhMFXgP86Q

It's clear that having a ba or bs helps you out.

[iam416]

If you have 50K in student debt it will definitely be worth it over the long haul.

If this is true, then there is no crisis and "The Bern" (and PAH) cries for free higher education have no basis in need.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the rule that college is a ticket to having a higher income is one that needs to be reexamined. Especially if you getting a degree in a field with no obvious real world applications.

Ultimately one expects to see a market correction, right? If the expectation is University, University, University, then presumably skilled blue collar workers/associate's workers will eventually be in demand. I know it's the case in Ohio that skilled welders are in demand. There are large companies that will pay for your 2-year training and then guarantee you a job at around $50K -- which for where they live is pretty decent.

[CGVT]

I think there is societal value to having an educated population.

But of course, not everyone agrees
[ame]https://youtu.be/eiRGRvE_Wqg[/ame]

[entropy]

I think Sanders' moment in the sun will fade soon enough, but I don't think that's the case for his platform. In four more years, with the natural replacement of older voters with younger, there will be significantly more support. And America will have had four more years to get used to what he's talking about. This stuff is so new in the American political discussion. As is often said, ideas are first ridiculed, then violently opposed, and then widely accepted.

The D's want it over, so he's done.

[entropy]

Those self scan machines would still be there even if the minimum wage was 2 bucks an hour.

agree..

[entropy]

Yeah. Middle class jobs are way different now. To quote Charles, Slim: "The thing about the old days is they the old days."

for my dad, middle class job was a factory. Today, it's a software engineer

[froot loops]

The market may demand it in India and China(or Kuala Lampur) instead if there isn't enough college graduates to fill a workforce in some Metro area in the US.

I don't find Bernie Sanders to have a real thought out plan in regards to free college tuition but if the larger point overall is to increase education that will help the US economy overall.

Sure there is a shortage in skilled trades, there should be programs to increase educational training opportunities there. But that doesn't mean you have less people attending college.

[froot loops]

for my dad, middle class job was a factory. Today, it's a software engineer

Correct. Or it could be something in IT. Generally in IT you can get by without any technical knowledge learned in college. RTFM still is very much the rule, so theoretically a 4 year degree is not a requirement. But a person who has gone through 4 years of rigor is going to be better equipped to succeed.

[Da Geezer]

And geezer, you may want to delete your constitutional analysis. It's wrong and ignorant. I'd hate to have that on your permanent record.

Sorry, I was trying to be funny.

Neither a right to privacy nor a right to intimacy appears anywhere in the Constitution. It just doesn't. These are the newly discovered rights of a "living document", which in turn is simply the SC imposing its will regarding social issues. Roe is based on a Right to Privacy and Obergefell is based on a Right to Intimacy. I'm like Talent. I support gay marriage, simply because what folks do regarding Intimacy is none of my business. But that is a far cry from being a constitutional right.

And Seattle, you were right in calling me a dick for what I posted about Fruit. Fruit, I apologise. I was wrong.

[Da Geezer]

It just adds up to, in most cases, tighter regulation of the market. In truth it's basically more market and less capitalism.

C'mon Hack, that is like saying there is a "pregnant virgin". Market regulation inevitably leads to considerations of the "common good" and that leads to control over whatever happens to be unpopular.

I heard this morning that 9 million student loans out of 22 million are in technical default (meaning unpaid, payment being made but not the agreed amount, or no intention of being repaid).

This is the next big bailout, estimated at around 300 Billion. What has been said about counseling is true, but the best answer to the problem is for the Colleges and Universities to be co-signers of all these loans. If the students do not repay, then the college must. I suspect that would change the counseling immediately. It would also be the death knell a lot of the non-remunerative majors, and I believe there would be a serious cost/benefit analysis.

Isn't it interesting that we are told that we must "invest" in higher education, which in the real world implies cost/benefit analyses at a minimum.

[froot loops]

No apology needed. It is an interesting conversation, I should have acknowledged previously about some of the benefits if the tax cuts of both Kennedy and Reagan. I think now it has some diminishing returns as a economic stimulus. It did little during the Bush years. That was my point in regards to a platform for Republican candidates, the main thrust of their economic message is cut taxes and watch the economy roar. You have a big segment of people who have heard that same message for a long time now and they haven't seen the benefit. That is a lot if the Trump base, even as his policy are very similar.

[entropy]

Correct. Or it could be something in IT. Generally in IT you can get by without any technical knowledge learned in college. RTFM still is very much the rule, so theoretically a 4 year degree is not a requirement. But a person who has gone through 4 years of rigor is going to be better equipped to succeed.

agree. I also would toss in a trade schools.

[entropy]

as someone who has proposed there needs to be more of a cost/benefit evaluation when choosing a college, I'm not for incentivizing Universities to drop areas of study because their graduates won't make good money.

I had the opportunity to take classes I would not have chosen because of my college's common core. The diversity of topics and discussions added to my growth and college experience. I would not want students to be limited.

[Da Geezer]

Finally, I'm half inclined to leave private schools to their own devices -- no student loans, no nothing. If you want to go spend $50,000 at Kenyon, more power to you. But there ought to be no way on earth we subsidize that decision.

I agree. Hillsdale College in MI has done that (no government help) since the 1800s, and has been successful. But this inevitably causes a bifurcation within academia with the independent schools serving the well-to-do and the subsidized schools serving the masses. A similar thing is happening in health care.

Fruit, I think what you are saying is that we are now on that part of the Laffer Curve where we would not expect a personal tax cut to increase government income. I agree with you on that. Going from 80% to 35% was a different matter. But, I believe that a corporate tax cut from the 35% the US now charges to something in the 20% range would pay for itself. The government has stopped the Pfizer merger (with Allergen, I believe) on the grounds that it is a corporate inversion. IMO, the nearly cost-free way to solve that problem is with a cut in the highest corporate rate in the world. If the US charged the same rate as Ireland, who would prefer to locate in Ireland? The US has natural advantages versus most any other country.

Cruz is talking about a flat rate 10% FIT. At this time of year, it is instructive to look at the deductions we take. The flat rate would do away with the mortgage interest deduction, property tax, the charitable deduction, probably the deduction for children, health ins., doctor fees, and some prescriptions.

Look at that list. Should we subsidize expensive Coastal (east and west) housing? Should we subsidize churches, or more relevantly, the Tea Party's political operations? Anybody who values freedom is better served if folks pay for their own expenses, without the government subsidy. Are the societal benefits of tax breaks worth writing them into the tax code and basically giving them eternal life? What happens to the lobbyists if the Code is simplified? I don't know of anyone who disputes the fact that some lobbyists are tasked with getting public funds for private entities.

[lineygoblue]

Finally, I'm half inclined to leave private schools to their own devices -- no student loans, no nothing.

Many religious schools have discontinued accepting government funded loans and grants, so that the government can't dictate what they must teach. Bob Jones University is one such school, given all the hub-bub from a few years back.