Wealth Redistribution

[zoony]

Does it?

How so?

Through an inadequate public education system? A failing healthcare system? Poor vocational training?

I guess we do have a lot of great self-help books.


Our culture of hopping effortlessly between classes might not be perfect, but it is far and above the best in the world.

Try being born to a white trash family in western europe and making something of yourself. The class system not only there but in places like Japan and China is brutal. For the most part, we frown on even the mention of elite bloodlines/etc. in this country.

'cept for the Kennedys. People love those worthless ****ers. I can't figure it out


*edit*
And I'd also say that Americans, for better or worse, don't require much education or vocational training to make it, or make it big. Just drive and guts and willingness.

You can't say that about any other country. Maybe canada.
.....

[helptheSKINS]

I get the feeling a lot of people in this thread support not keeping score in youth sports.

[zoony]

Just an anecdotal example:

My neighbor is German. She married an American Serviceman back in the 1980s and moved to this country shortly after, where she's been here since.

When she was in Germany she was identified at a younger age and put on an educational course to be an office manager. The training she received was excellent. Very thorough- and she was in school iirc until she was 21 or 22... all to learn to be an office manager.

Guess what? She KICKS ASS at being an office manager.

Guess what else? If she had stayed in Germany, THAT'S ALL SHE COULD EVER BE.

So there's your vocational training. Seems more like class warfare to me. But what do I know

.....

[helptheSKINS]

DJ I agree with the overall point you're making, and I promise I'm not cherry picking :)

But I do take exception with the above. I think most who have had real contact with the welfare culture in this country realize pretty quickly that folks DO want to stay on welfare indefinitely. It's a fairly ugly truth.

To me, that's not an argument for doing away with it though- not in the least.

To me- that tells me that we're not doing nearly enough to break thru to that culture of entitlement.

.....

You are right on Zoony. I know 3 people on unemployment. 2 of them have admitted that they prefer not to get a job because they make more not working. They both have had opportunities to get a job but they are better off without. The good news for them is our govt continues to extend unemployment without paying for it.

[Corcaigh]

What countries provide better opportunities? I'm sure you have some in mind since you disagree some adamantly with the point of the post. I'm seriously asking, because I don't know.

The "socialist" systems of Scandinavia and many other countries in Europe all provide better economic mobility for the poor than the USA. With, on average, better public education, healthcare and lower college costs this shouldn't be a surprise.

[zoony]

You are right on Zoony. I know 3 people on unemployment. 2 of them have admitted that they prefer not to get a job because they make more not working. They both have had opportunities to get a job but they are better off without. The good news for them is our govt continues to extend unemployment without paying for it.


I was talking to a consultant in town from Antwerp not long ago. (keep in mind, I haven't fact-checked this but he seemed credible)

In Belgium, unemployment benefits are unlimited. Candidates must show an effort once/year to get a job. So they go to a random interview and flop.

Work and pay 80% taxes, or just collect unemployment indefinitely. Doesn't take much of a look at that to see who the suckers are

[ABQCOWBOY]

[QUOTE]Half the people will always support the whole. This has been true in every country since the dawn of civilization, and this will continue to be true. In some societies, the top half was called "master" and the bottom half was called "slaves." In other societies, the top half were called "nobles" and the bottom half were called "peasants." In almost every society, the top half was called "men" and the bottom half was called "women and children." Our modern world may be a little more enlightened, but we still have a top half called "capital" and a bottom half called "labor."


I agree, to some extent here. This is why, no matter what system you are in, there will always be those who have and those who do not. However, by allowing Government to have more control, by default you narrow the possibility of ordinary people to overcome. The Class System structure, IMO, just becomes stronger. Today, we can build lives for ourselves that are good lives. The very large majority of people in this country are not starving.


Notice that in every one of those structures, the top "half" was actually much less than half the population. A small minority has always provided for the majority; but that minority has also reaped the greatest benefit. Our modern economic system is no different. The wealthiest will always be getting the greatest of society's benefits, and they will also be paying the most for the benefits of others. There is nothing wrong with that. That is the way the world works.

Very astute observation but I would add this. Contributing to the whole is not just about paying taxes. Their are other forms of contribution that are of value. What is of no value is an individual who contributes nothing, who adds nothing and who simply acts as a drain on the whole. Those individuals can not be allowed to become 50% of the whole or we are doomed as a society.



What makes our society better than previous ones is that it has become much easier to move from a lower class to an upper class, and the way to do that is through hard work. I don't know any families in America who believe differently.


I agree and I hope you are correct in this.


I think you are arguing against a welfare bogeyman that does not exist. Nobody wants to stay on welfare indefinitely (and we changed the laws in the mid-90's so that you can't do it, since benefits are cut off after 60 months.) There do not exist masses of people living off of your tax dollars. It is a small and temporary population, and the laws force those people to get off of welfare and into jobs as soon as possible.

No, I am arguing against a mindset that is becoming more and more prevalent in our country. It doesn't take 60 months to get a job and the actual number is no 90. You can actually be unemployed for 4 years. The actual time allowed is here nor there. The point is that people don't have to stay unemployed. There are jobs out there. They may not pay what you want but just having a job contributes to the greater good. Your not a total drain on the system. You are a contributing factor and eventually, your lot will improve. It's this whole idea that many people seem to have that says, I would rather just stay unemployed because I'm better off. That's just not a healthy thing for anybody IMO.


Many social programs help to provide that opportunity. Public education, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, welfare, social security ... these programs help people get back on their feet to take opportunities. Would you not be willing to help a family that is down on their luck to get back on your feet? If they are willing to work, but just need a helping hand, would you not extend it? The goal is not to create a permanent underclass dependent on the government; the welfare reform of the mid-90's sought to dismantle that system. We are neighbors trying to help neighbors that fall into bad circumstances, so that sometime in the future the favor might be returned.

I am willing and believe it or not, I am doing this even now. I am not fishing for humanitarian awards but suffice to say that I am doing what I can for others who are hurting, including carrying them on rent and even buying groceries. At any given day of the week, there are a couple of kids who are not mine, who are at my table. I know these children and I know their parents/parent. I know that they are not in a great financial situation and so I never turn anybody away. As a young boy, there were many times that I ate at the table of my relatives or close friends because we were not rich by any stretch. I am not better or worse then they are but that doesn't mean that we can afford to sustain this type of behavior. Their is a tipping point and while many say that it's the rich who should carry the burden, the reality is that the more you tax the rich, the more the price increases for the middle class. It's a trickle down effect. The key, at least IMO, is to have more contributing to the whole in a positive manner. Not fewer supporting a bad dependancy model.

[Prosperity]

Rome may have collapsed but it collapsed after 2 thousand years. They sustained because their system was built around citizens contributing to the greater good of Rome. Yeah, I'll take 2000 years in lue of redistribution.

Ancient Egypt lasted 3000 years. Again, what nanny state do you have that can come close to rivaling this?

I agree with you. The U.S. is obviously a poor example. We have only grown to be the most powerful, most advanced, most successful Nation in the History of this planet and redistribution of wealth was not a part of the reasoning why.
Wealth redistribution is a recent phenomenon, but so are anti-septics and the internet. We should focus on modern era societies.

Either way, those states aren't around anymore, they lose by default.

[Destino]

You are right on Zoony. I know 3 people on unemployment. 2 of them have admitted that they prefer not to get a job because they make more not working.
That's a great example about the income levels of the bottom 90%. Welfare in this country doesn't give you a lot by any reasonable measure. If it's more than work that tells you how bad pay vs expenses of living here has become.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wealth redistribution is a recent phenomenon, but so are anti-septics and the internet. We should focus on modern era societies.

Either way, those states aren't around anymore, they lose by default.

Yes, we should forget what history has taught us and go around re-inventing the wheel.

Obviously, this is not the point you are trying to make but the point, I believe, is made. The problem with focusing on Modern Societies is that none of them have proven to be a model that can withstand. The idea, whatever the idea, must be able to sustain or it is of no use to us.

[Prosperity]

Yes, we should forget what history has taught us and go around re-inventing the wheel.

Obviously, this is not the point you are trying to make but the point, I believe, is made. The problem with focusing on Modern Societies is that none of them have proven to be a model that can withstand. The idea, whatever the idea, must be able to sustain or it is of no use to us.

yeah sure let's bring back slavery too. The Ancient Egyptians could teach us a thing or two about a thing or two.

you know there is a whole **** ton of history that connects Ancient Egypt to post world war America.

[Destino]

I was talking to a consultant in town from Antwerp not long ago. (keep in mind, I haven't fact-checked this but he seemed credible)

In Belgium, unemployment benefits are unlimited. Candidates must show an effort once/year to get a job. So they go to a random interview and flop.

Work and pay 80% taxes, or just collect unemployment indefinitely. Doesn't take much of a look at that to see who the suckers are

Yes the more socialist leaning economies in Europe have safety nets that are used more like hammocks than for safety. They catch you and lull you to sleep... why move when it's just so darn comfortable?

It's interesting though because in this debate there are two view points and we rarely speak about it in those terms. The business perspective and the individual perspective. I'll give you an example the US work ethic, work long and hard and don't miss too many work days is great for the company and frankly the most ridiculously stupid idea I can think of for the individual. You have one life and if you don't make the most out of it waiting for retirement to do the things you dream about, you're a damn fool. On the other hand if you want to make the most out of life and see/experience the world the company you work for is going to lose money so you're fired. lol

[helptheSKINS]

That's a great example about the income levels of the bottom 90%. Welfare in this country doesn't give you a lot by any reasonable measure. If it's more than work that tells you how bad pay vs expenses of living here has become.

That makes absolutely no sense. Instead of taking a job, they prefer to make their 80% and not have to work. They are basically on paid vacation and that vacation keeps getting extended.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Des,

I do agree that a large portion of this country has a slightly different mentality than most other countries. We have so many people married to their job, on their blackberries, checking their e-mail, postponing vacations, etc.

I'm not a world traveler, but if TV and movies and the occasional news broadcast have taught me anything, it's not like that throughout Europe. I guess Japan is similar (maybe worse).

[zoony]

I'm not a world traveler, but if TV and movies and the occasional news broadcast have taught me anything, it's not like that throughout Europe. I guess Japan is similar (maybe worse).



I can remember my first business lunch in Antwerp. 2 hours long, wine (!!!) served, etc.

Everyone getting a good laugh at the American's questions 'is this normal'?


.....

[ABQCOWBOY]

yeah sure let's bring back slavery too. The Ancient Egyptians could teach us a thing or two about a thing or two.

you know there is a whole **** ton of history that connects Ancient Egypt to post world war America.


The singular point is that healthy societies who are able to withstand are societies in which the collective contributes to the success. I was asked to provide examples and so I did.

That single concept of citizens being productive and contributing to the whole is not outdated. It is as relevant today as it was 5000 years ago.

[DjTj]

DJ I agree with the overall point you're making, and I promise I'm not cherry picking :)

But I do take exception with the above. I think most who have had real contact with the welfare culture in this country realize pretty quickly that folks DO want to stay on welfare indefinitely. It's a fairly ugly truth.Well, I guess that depends on your definition of *want.* They probably *want* to be millionaire pop stars, but they stay on welfare because their available options are not that attractive. Their hierarchy of *want* probably looks something like this:

1. professional athlete
2. recording artist
3. stay on welfare
4. deal drugs
5. work at McDonald's

1 and 2 are not realistic options. And the government is paying people in 3 to avoid them going to 4. The trick is to get them to 5 without going to 4, and the welfare reform of the 90's did a lot in that respect.


To me- that tells me that we're not doing nearly enough to break thru to that culture of entitlement.I don't like to call it "entitlement" per se. More like a culture of dependency. I am not sure that government can really do much more on that front. Not penalizing welfare recipients for earning income, kicking them off welfare after 5 years, and keeping taxes very low for at the low brackets is the right solution as far as I can tell. Actually changing the culture will take time, and it will take a lot more influences from outside the government.

I think we are doing the right thing with welfare.
You are right on Zoony. I know 3 people on unemployment. 2 of them have admitted that they prefer not to get a job because they make more not working. They both have had opportunities to get a job but they are better off without. The good news for them is our govt continues to extend unemployment without paying for it.I think we are doing the wrong thing with extending unemployment benefits.
No, I am arguing against a mindset that is becoming more and more prevalent in our country. It doesn't take 60 months to get a job and the actual number is no 90. You can actually be unemployed for 4 years. The actual time allowed is here nor there. The point is that people don't have to stay unemployed. There are jobs out there. They may not pay what you want but just having a job contributes to the greater good. Your not a total drain on the system. You are a contributing factor and eventually, your lot will improve. It's this whole idea that many people seem to have that says, I would rather just stay unemployed because I'm better off. That's just not a healthy thing for anybody IMO.Unemployment should end after 6 months, and the people should go on welfare, where the program are in place to kick them off and get them back into the workforce. Extending unemployment the first time may have been reasonable, but we can't just keep doing it indefinitely ... I don't know when politicians will get the courage to cut those people off.

[Prosperity]

The singular point is that healthy societies who are able to withstand are societies in which the collective contributes to the success. I was asked to provide examples and so I did.

That single concept of citizens being productive and contributing to the whole is not outdated. It is as relevant today as it was 5000 years ago.

my point is that your evidence for that is non existent

you say wealth redistribution is ALWAYS counter productive

to support this you say successful ancient societies didn't have them (and ignore the fact that every SURVIVING society does). Those ancient societies also had slavery. Those are confounding variables. So, why where the ancient Egyptians successful? Was it because they had slavery? Was it because they didn't have electricity? Was it because they lived on one of the most fertile agricultural areas in the world?

either case your argument is barely coherent, and has no evidence. I have no reason to base policy judgment of our society based on what Egyptians did 5000 years ago, when I have more relevant information.

[Corcaigh]

I can remember my first business lunch in Antwerp. 2 hours long, wine (!!!) served, etc.

Everyone getting a good laugh at the American's questions 'is this normal'?


.....

There's no doubt that the higher standard of living enjoyed by some Americans is built on higher effort as much as higher productivity ... longer days, fewer vacations etc.

The question for those not in the top 10% in the USA ... given the longer hours, lack of vacation, variable quality public education, higher healthcare and college costs ... is the USA the best place for you to live?

[zoony]

Well, I guess that depends on your definition of *want.* They probably *want* to be millionaire pop stars, but they stay on welfare because their available options are not that attractive. Their hierarchy of *want* probably looks something like this:

1. professional athlete
2. recording artist
3. stay on welfare
4. deal drugs
5. work at McDonald's

1 and 2 are not realistic options. And the government is paying people in 3 to avoid them going to 4. The trick is to get them to 5 without going to 4, and the welfare reform of the 90's did a lot in that respect.



eh, I'm fine with that explanation. My only point is that there is a reason you see so much generational welfare in this country. That's what these kids are taught.

It's not like they're taking a welfare check just b/c they're in between jobs, or going to college or whatever else- that was my only point.



Actually changing the culture will take time, and it will take a lot more influences from outside the government.


It's easy for middle and upper class folks to say "why don't they get a job"... but we're talking about kids who don't have ANY frame of reference about what that even means. Responsibility? Accountability? Huh? That doesn't even enter into the decision making process

How do you break that cycle? That is the challenge so far as I'm concerned

[Destino]

That makes absolutely no sense. Instead of taking a job, they prefer to make their 80% and not have to work. They are basically on paid vacation and that vacation keeps getting extended.

Actually if you get right down to it what I said makes perfect sense. The wages at the bottom end of the spectrum are so low that they often times aren't worth taking. I don't know how you view the time value equation but mine is entirely self interested. If I have to work HARD to make garbage I'd much rather work less and make slightly less. Women with kids for instance often can't take a job because the job pays less than daycare costs. So they stay on welfare. Likewise if a job requires you to work for a doosh, pull long hours, and get paid next to nothing it makes more sense to do nothing and make less. The pay at the low end of the spectrum in the US is shamefully low, something only a teenager could look at and think it worth it.

And obviously there will simply be some lazy people. People that would rather make money doing nothing and endure the shame of taking the government hand out. They'll exist no matter what but frankly I think they are a small minority and I'm not interested in crafting laws around them. The welfare system in the US has come a long way and the complaints of life long hand outs are mostly just political boogeymen these days. I've seen no evidence that I need to get on board with changing it.

[zoony]

The question for those not in the top 10% in the USA ... given the longer hours, lack of vacation, variable quality public education, higher healthcare and college costs ... is the USA the best place for you to live?



But in America, by an large that's a choice the individual makes. (what class they belong to/how much money they make) - because it is largely a function of hard work. So yah, in my opinion, it is.


And I think you're over-stating the case a bit. We have a great standard of living here.

Sure, it's not 52 paid weeks of maternity leave- but that's not to be confused with bad.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I have a feeling you two are saying the same thing...

[GhostofSparta]

That's a great example about the income levels of the bottom 90%. Welfare in this country doesn't give you a lot by any reasonable measure. If it's more than work that tells you how bad pay vs expenses of living here has become.
But the problem is, how do we measure cost of living?

The bare essentials are food, clean water, and shelter. Sure, that's not cheap, but it's chump change compared to;

Food, shelter, clean water, cable TV, internet, a car (and insurance), electricity, appliances, furniture, 24/7 heating and cooling.

When I first graduated from college and moved away from home, until my first couple paychecks came in, I was living in an apartment where the rent was $315/month (Western PA is cheap, so don't forget to factor "cost of living" into your equation of the bare essentials), sleeping in a sleeping bag on the floor because I had no bed or couch, running the heat 2 hours a day in the middle of February because gas furnaces are expensive and sweatshirts/sweatpans/socks are much cheaper by comparison, never ate out. My 1 vice was that I wanted cable TV and internet so I cut out other things to pay for it. Once I got a few paycheck, I bought some cheap furniture from a second hand store. All this while making $8/hr as a delivery driver (I had paid off my car by this point, but had to put probably $500 into it for repair over the next year until it died and I could afford payments for a new car). And after a couple of months I got married and my wife moved in, and 2 paychecks are definately better than 1.

Look, I'm not gonna say everyone should follow my lead. You can't find an apartment in DC for under $500/month, and I get that, and some people can't afford to just up and move for whatever reason. And I never had a kid to take care of which helped, and whether that's because I'm a guy or because I never had sex until I got married because I knew that was a small but real possibility I'll let you guys debate about. But I did all this without taking welfare, unemployment, or anything else. And in case anybody asks, I paid for my first/last month rent and had a couple hundred in the bank just in case because I worked my ass off in college to have something when I started out.

My wife and I combined right now make just above $30k/year as a delivery driver and Wal-mart employee respectively. If we lived in Maryland (where I'm from) or Vermont (where she's from) we'd be pretty poor. Where we live now we crack into the middle class compared to the region. We're not rich, but we can afford all of the luxuries mentioned above (cable, internet, cell phones, a car each, etc.) and still put about $100 each month into savings.

If most people who are truly poor and use ammenties like cable, internet, cell phones, videogames, fast food, movies, whatever cut down to the bare minimum for even a couple months, it would make a huge difference. I know that's not always possible as some people don't have these things, but there are lot in the "Bottom 90%" that have these things that people have come to think of as essential that would be better off (financially at least) without them.

[Destino]

Des,

I do agree that a large portion of this country has a slightly different mentality than most other countries. We have so many people married to their job, on their blackberries, checking their e-mail, postponing vacations, etc.

I'm not a world traveler, but if TV and movies and the occasional news broadcast have taught me anything, it's not like that throughout Europe. I guess Japan is similar (maybe worse).

It's a crying shame and the world's greatest scam. It's almost like religion when you think about it. Deprive yourself of all these pleasures now in exchange for heaven (read: wealthy retirement). Unlike with religion though sins in this religion aren't meant to keep you out of trouble, just squeeze all the productivity out of you so someone else can enjoy life more.

No matter what you do or how much you make, take every damn day of available vacation and enjoy it. Find ways to take more trips and spend more time with the people you love. I think it's a safe bet that when you're lying on your death bed you won't think "man if only I had spent less time with my family".

[zoony]

^^^ looks like SOMEBODY'S not saving for retirement! :ols:


:silly:

[Corcaigh]

But in America, by an large that's a choice the individual makes. (what class they belong to/how much money they make) - because it is largely a function of hard work.



No doubt, given the opportunity, you can make more here and have a more lavish lifestyle. But for someone from the "wrong side of the tracks" I'd wager their chances of breaking out of poverty in a Western European country are higher than from a similar background here, as shown in the charts a few posts back.

[zoony]

No doubt, given the opportunity, you can make more here and have a more lavish lifestyle. But for someone from the "wrong side of the tracks" I'd wager their chances of breaking out of poverty in a Western European country are higher than from a similar background here, as shown in the charts a few posts back.

By and large it's still a choice though. The issue as I see it is that in the US our lowest classes don't have the capacity to make the right choice. The opportunity is there- the capacity to recognize it and take advantage of it isn't. Sort of the opposite of Europe in some respects. I'm not saying there aren't warts- there are plenty


not a loaded question Corcaigh, I'm genuinely curious your perspective as someone who is a foreign citizen with children in American school systems

Where do you want your kids to work / have a family / etc.?

[ABQCOWBOY]

my point is that your evidence for that is non existent

you say wealth redistribution is ALWAYS counter productive

to support this you say successful ancient societies didn't have them (and ignore the fact that every SURVIVING society does). Those ancient societies also had slavery. Those are confounding variables. So, why where the ancient Egyptians successful? Was it because they had slavery? Was it because they didn't have electricity? Was it because they lived on one of the most fertile agricultural areas in the world?

either case your argument is barely coherent, and has no evidence. I have no reason to base policy judgment of our society based on what Egyptians did 5000 years ago, when I have more relevant information.

Actually, both Rome and Egypt were not slave based societies. Each offered citizenship if you were willing to accept Roman or Egyptian Law. It was long believed that the Pyramids were built with slave labor but it's not the case.

I would also point out that I did not stipulate ancient societies. I simply used two ancient societies as examples. Two societies that stood the test of time.

I suppose it is lucky for us that you have no authority over policy so you will not need to concern yourself with basing judgment on it at all.

[Destino]

^^^ looks like SOMEBODY'S not saving for retirement! :ols:


:silly:

I am but for me it's a fail safe. If I have to fall back on it my life derailed badly. Save the retirement carrot for the donkey's because I'm not falling for it. I'll add value, I'll create wealth, and I'll enjoy life as much as possible. I'd rather die with less in the bank and more experiences under my belt than the other way around, though this mindset has allowed me to find ways to do both.

If things go well my retirement accounts will be a question of "what should we do with this" and not "we need this!" I won't sacrifice my life for it though. I'd rather live 40 (25-65) years to the fullest and have to cut back at the end than live 40 years for someone else hoping to fit in all the experiences at an end that may never come.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I am but for me it's a fail safe. If I have to fall back on it my life derailed badly. Save the retirement carrot for the donkey's because I'm not falling for it. I'll add value, I'll create wealth, and I'll enjoy life as much as possible. I'd rather die with less in the bank and more experiences under my belt than the other way around, though this mindset has allowed me to find ways to do both.

If things go well my retirement accounts will be a question of "what should we do with this" and not "we need this!" I won't sacrifice my life for it though. I'd rather live 40 (25-65) years to the fullest and have to cut back at the end than live 40 years for someone else hoping to fit in all the experiences at an end that may never come.

I'm also assuming you'd be willing to work longer than some people who hope to retire "early"...in their 50s or early 60s.

I'll be honest, it's an attractive mindset...very counter-intuitive to what I've had drilled into my head my whole life, but attractive nonetheless.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

How do you break that cycle? That is the challenge so far as I'm concerned

Here is where I stop being a bleeding heart and put on my cold, hard anthropological hat.

Societies sometimes have a surplus of people.

China is going to be a fascinating and terrifying case study in the next few decades, because it's one child policy and desire for male children has created a situation where tens of millions of young Chinese men have absolutely no chance of ever getting married.

Historically, when this kind of imbalance happens, countries go to war - which is the most efficient way to reduce the population of young males.

We don't do wars on that scale anymore. But, that doesn't mean that the issue goes away. You could make a cold, hard argument that in the US, we have made some kind of unconscious (subconscious?) decision that we have too many black young men. The US does not have enough demand for unskilled/low-skilled labor. And that work that does exist has been given to Hispanics who work cheaper (and in a lot of cases off the books).

The US prison population was 139 per 100,000 in 1980. It is 504 today. 10 percent of all black males between the age of 25 and 29 are in prison.

We are (quite literally) storing the percentage of our population that once would have been sent to The Philippines for war.

Anyway, that's the view from 50,000 feet of this issue.

Now, you could argue that we should take the money used in incarcerating this segment of society and put it into schools, job training, mentoring programs, etc.

But that's the argument a liberal ***** would make.

(You have to admit. I'm a lot of fun to have on these threads. Everyone else, "I work hard therefore I own an F-150. Poor people should work hard and buy their own trucks." I find that sort of anecdotal discussion trite. I'd much rather discuss how we have turned the US prison system into "Public Storage" for young black males).

[alexey]

It was long believed that the Pyramids were built with slave labor but it's not the case.
Yeah they were built by tax-and-spend Pharaohs ;)

[GhostofSparta]

Yeah they were built by tax-and-spend Pharaohs ;)
I thought they were built using anti-gravity magnets? :ols:

[alexey]

We don't do wars on that scale anymore. But, that doesn't mean that the issue goes away. You could make a cold, hard argument that in the US, we have made some kind of unconscious (subconscious?) decision that we have too many black young men. The US does not have enough demand for unskilled/low-skilled labor. And that work that does exist has been given to Hispanics who work cheaper (and in a lot of cases off the books).
Actually, economic development appears to be the most effective method of population control. Middle class families tend to avoid having too many kids.

As for the future - there's going to be some kind of a crap storm one way or another because the value of manual labor will continue to decrease.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

How do you break that cycle? That is the challenge so far as I'm concerned

I gave the view from 50,000 feet. How about the view from 5 feet.

How do you break any cycle, zoony?

If you knew someone who came from three generations of alcholics, what advice would you give them?

If you knew someone who was abused as a child because their father was abused as a child, how would you keep them from abusing their children?

The problem in the US is that we treat poverty almost as a moral problem. "You have a bad work ethic, therefore you are poor."

What if poverty were a psychological mindset? If you were raised by a single mother in a tenement in Newark and attended a crumbling school...do you think that young Zoony as a thirteen year old would say, "I need a plan to get me to Rutgers!" or would you follow the same path as literally everyone else in your life?

[GibbsFactor]

It's easy for middle and upper class folks to say "why don't they get a job"... but we're talking about kids who don't have ANY frame of reference about what that even means. Responsibility? Accountability? Huh? That doesn't even enter into the decision making process

How do you break that cycle? That is the challenge so far as I'm concerned

BINGO!

I think you are a libertarian at heart.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Actually, economic development appears to be the most effective method of population control. Middle class families tend to avoid having too many kids.

As for the future - there's going to be some kind of a crap storm one way or another because the value of manual labor will continue to decrease.

There are very real reasons for that. Large families are expensive unless everyone is working. Farm families in the 19th century were enormous because you needed cheap labor. It was cheaper to feed and clothe your kids than to have laborers. It's stupid to live in the suburbs and have eight kids. You will bankrupt yourself feeding them.

[alexey]

BINGO!

I think you are a libertarian at heart.
He is just stating the problem. He would be a libertarian if he actually gave an answer that sounded something like: "TOUGH TITTIES!!!" :)

[zoony]

What if poverty were a psychological mindset? If you were raised by a single mother in a tenement in Newark and attended a crumbling school...do you think that young Zoony as a thirteen year old would say, "I need a plan to get me to Rutgers!" or would you follow the same path as literally everyone else in your life?

umm, errr... I think we're agreeing here, exactly.

('cept about our prison system. I don't want any part of that :ols: )

[GibbsFactor]

He is just stating the problem. He would be a libertarian if he actually gave an answer that sounded something like: "TOUGH TITTIES!!!" :)

See, now there's where the common misconception lies. It isn't tough titties. It's our current system is flawed. Let's adopt one that works.

;) When we all know how to fish, we'll eat all the fish, starve and die.




:silly:

[zoony]

BINGO!

I think you are a libertarian at heart.


Them's fightin' words :redpunch:


My point is that we need social programs- but they need to be more comprehensive and radical than they are now. Not be done away with.

What we have now is not working, that much is clear

[GibbsFactor]

What if poverty were a psychological mindset? If you were raised by a single mother in a tenement in Newark and attended a crumbling school...do you think that young Zoony as a thirteen year old would say, "I need a plan to get me to Rutgers!" or would you follow the same path as literally everyone else in your life?

There is no "what if". There is a psychological mindset. The poor do stupid things because they don't have guidance. Imagine peer pressure that is reversed in where when you have a plan and are trying to get to rutgers you are an outcast. That is reality. If your not robbing, cheating and stealing, you are suspect and will be likely beat up and robbed and shot.

It's reality. There is no guidance because the mother never had anything to give up. These kids HAVE to take matter into their own hands with no bearing on what the "matter" even is. They worry about the present. Where's the party? How can I score some weed? Do I have enough for a 6 pack? Give me some of that meth. This world sucks f everyone. I ain't working some bull**** job that's beneath me.

[DCBnG21]

The welfare system in the US has come a long way and the complaints of life long hand outs are mostly just political boogeymen these days. I've seen no evidence that I need to get on board with changing it.

You're joking about the end of life-long handouts, right? Go spend some time in an OBGYN in an underprivileged area, host a couple of foster children and observe their parents or spend some time working for someone on permanent, lifetime government disability because they injured themselves on a $15,000 motorcycle that they never had a prayer of making the payments on.

Watch them buy ATVs with welfare checks. See them go to school (compliments of the government) and get all those books you worked 40 hours a week to pay for for free (thanks to your taxes) and hear them laugh about failing all their classes. Observe the government continue to pay for their classes. Notice that many, many of their family & friends follow the same behavior. Let's not leave out the lady that's on her 8th baby who immediately signs them over to DCF so she doesn't have to, "pay to raise them." Heck, she gets to see them pretty much as much as she wants to.

The only way that you can possibly think that the era of lifelong handouts is over is if all you do is speak & wonder about these things and huddle in suburbia. Go out and start working and volunteering in these areas, and you will see first-hand that it's very alive and well.

Now, don't get me wrong, my intent is not to paint a stereotype. There are plenty of underprivileged people that just need someone to give them a shot. Someone to lend a hand, or maybe even a little - dare I say it - government assistance. But to say that we don't have a problem with people living life long on government assistance...that's a joke.

[LaxBuddy21]

The issue really is not that the top 10% make so much more, its really that the lower 90% make so much less. How do we change that? I flat out do not agree with taking it from the top 10%. What we need to do is provide more opportunities and direction for the bottom 90%. Free college education is a big thing I support. The federal government should pay for education. We also need to find a way to break up the good ol boys network so people get jobs based on merit rather than who they know.

I dont care who you are, you have the opportunity to be as successful as you want in life. Everyone can make a million dollars. Some people have to work a lot harder at it but the path is always there. The choices you make throughout your life either narrow or widen that path for you. Take the McDonalds worker. You really dont think he could have tried harder in school and gotten an education? At this point, he cannot attend night school to try to get an education? You think he couldnt have thought more before he popped out those 3 kids he cannot afford to raise? He cant work hard at McDonalds and work his way up to management? Just doing that provides him a whole new window of opportunity. It sucks when all thats around you is drugs, poverty and violence. It makes it tougher to break free. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our lives though no matter what environment we are in. Stop worrying about what everyone else has and start worrying about yourself, your life and what you can do to change the things you dont like. If you are not willing to do that, I do not feel sorry for you.

But as a nation, we can work to try and widen those paths as much as we can. We need programs to help people see the opportunities available. We need people to help mentor kids. We need good teachers in the school system. We need ways to stop crime. All of that is important but what you dont need is to go take someone elses hard earned money and give it to others for free. That is just a joke IMO.

[GhostofSparta]

There is no "what if". There is a psychological mindset. The poor do stupid things because they don't have guidance. Imagine peer pressure that is reversed in where when you have a plan and are trying to get to rutgers you are an outcast. That is reality. If your not robbing, cheating and stealing, you are suspect and will be likely beat up and robbed and shot.
My older cousin is a social worker with St. Mary's county, and he does a lot of work in Lextington Park. The way he described it is similar to what you're talking it. He called it a "Sphere of Ignorance" in that these kids aren't necessarily bad or stupid, but they didn't have anybody that could teach them any better. He told us one time about how many kids looked at him in shock when he told them to dress up and wear a tie for court hearings instead of a hoody and baggy pants or a sleeveless shirt with shorts. Nobody ever really explained to these kids why what they were doing was wrong or even stupid.

He recently transferred to Calvert County and is working with the juvenile delinquents from the richer families. He says he hates working with those kids because they're harder to reach since they know what they did was wrong and stupid, but keep doing it anyway. I mean, why would you sell drugs when your family owns a 3-story house ON the Chesapeake Bay waterfront? But you know, he's the bleeding-heart lib in our family, so we know he's full of crap anyway. :pfft:

[Destino]

I'm also assuming you'd be willing to work longer than some people who hope to retire "early"...in their 50s or early 60s.

I'll be honest, it's an attractive mindset...very counter-intuitive to what I've had drilled into my head my whole life, but attractive nonetheless.

All depends on the structure and the payoff. For example I work all the time on creation of new business. My wife turns on the TV and I'll pull out my lap top and go over the numbers and the value proposition. If it means accepting a 9-8 position with 1-2 weeks of vacation? No thanks.

I've always had good ideas, a great sales instinct, and a great ability to make connections. I've always dreaded the mundane side of running a business or working a position. So I've decided to work towards my strengths. I spend my time looking for new sources of business, partner up with some capital or a specialist in the field, and try to make it happen.

[alexey]

But as a nation, we can work to try and widen those paths as much as we can. We need programs to help people see the opportunities available. We need people to help mentor kids. We need good teachers in the school system. We need ways to stop crime. All of that is important but what you dont need is to go take someone elses hard earned money and give it to others for free. That is just a joke IMO.
Absolutely agree, but the line is not that clear.

These things cost money, money comes from taxes, and taxes come from someone else.

And on the political side you seem to have Democrats who are all too willing to spend and Republicans who are all too willing to paint all taxes as evil and all social programs as wasteful.

Just look at some of the opposition to Obama. He seems to properly stress personal responsibility, breaking the cycle, improving education, giving people opportunities. Has he done anything that would even remotely justify painting him as some kind of Robin Hood? How can we devise and implement effective programs if we cannot even agree on some basic facts about reality?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

All depends on the structure and the payoff. For example I work all the time on creation of new business. My wife turns on the TV and I'll pull out my lap top and go over the numbers and the value proposition. If it means accepting a 9-8 position with 1-2 weeks of vacation? No thanks.

I've always had good ideas, a great sales instinct, and a great ability to make connections. I've always dreaded the mundane side of running a business or working a position. So I've decided to work towards my strengths. I spend my time looking for new sources of business, partner up with some capital or a specialist in the field, and try to make it happen.

Right...I guess I meant that you might continue doing what you're doing longer than some who would traditionally retire (and sit in rocking chairs presumably) by the age of 60-65? If your job already has built-in flexibility and you enjoy a traveling lifestyle, there's no reason to stop working at an arbitrary age if you're still able to do the work.

[Destino]

Right...I guess I meant that you might continue doing what you're doing longer than some who would traditionally retire (and sit in rocking chairs presumably) by the age of 60-65? If your job already has built-in flexibility and you enjoy a traveling lifestyle, there's no reason to stop working at an arbitrary age if you're still able to do the work.
Yeah. I'm not really sure what I'd do with myself at 60 with nothing to do. lol

[LaxBuddy21]

Absolutely agree, but the line is not that clear.

These things cost money, money comes from taxes, and taxes come from someone else.

And on the political side you seem to have Democrats who are all too willing to spend and Republicans who are all too willing to paint all taxes as evil and all social programs as wasteful.

Just look at some of the opposition to Obama. He seems to properly stress personal responsibility, breaking the cycle, improving education, giving people opportunities. Has he done anything that would even remotely justify painting him as some kind of Robin Hood? How can we devise and implement effective programs if we cannot even agree on some basic facts about reality?

Well I am Republican (mostly) and I have a problem with social welfare programs as they are designed not social welfare programs in general. Social welfare programs should be in place to help people get on the right path or help them get back on track during hard times not support them for life. I have no problem helping people who are willing to help themselves. I do have a problem when people are not willing to help themselves. If we took the money we are wasting supporting people who do not want to help themselves, we get a lot of money right there for these kinds of programs. Welfare should require education or job training to receive it. You should be constantly working to better yourself or you do not get anything from the government in my opinion. Take some of the money we are wasting on all these ridiculous projects and pay teachers more. Make the competition to educate the future generations of this country more intense. You want the best teachers? The job has to be competitive. Someone needs to audit the government and make them more fiscally responsible. I dont know how we could do this though without revamping the entire political system and the people who would make the decision to do that do not want it done because the current system benefits them. It would take a massive movement in this country to get it done but most people are too caught up blaming the other side for their problems that it will never happen. The country will collapse first.

[helptheSKINS]

The issue really is not that the top 10% make so much more, its really that the lower 90% make so much less. How do we change that? I flat out do not agree with taking it from the top 10%. What we need to do is provide more opportunities and direction for the bottom 90%. Free college education is a big thing I support. The federal government should pay for education. We also need to find a way to break up the good ol boys network so people get jobs based on merit rather than who they know.

I dont care who you are, you have the opportunity to be as successful as you want in life. Everyone can make a million dollars. Some people have to work a lot harder at it but the path is always there. The choices you make throughout your life either narrow or widen that path for you. Take the McDonalds worker. You really dont think he could have tried harder in school and gotten an education? At this point, he cannot attend night school to try to get an education? You think he couldnt have thought more before he popped out those 3 kids he cannot afford to raise? He cant work hard at McDonalds and work his way up to management? Just doing that provides him a whole new window of opportunity. It sucks when all thats around you is drugs, poverty and violence. It makes it tougher to break free. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our lives though no matter what environment we are in. Stop worrying about what everyone else has and start worrying about yourself, your life and what you can do to change the things you dont like. If you are not willing to do that, I do not feel sorry for you.

But as a nation, we can work to try and widen those paths as much as we can. We need programs to help people see the opportunities available. We need people to help mentor kids. We need good teachers in the school system. We need ways to stop crime. All of that is important but what you dont need is to go take someone elses hard earned money and give it to others for free. That is just a joke IMO.

The problem LAX is on one hand you don't want to take from the top 10% and on the other hand you want the govt to pay for college education. You cannot have one without the other. I fall under the top 10% and I can tell you I will have enough trouble paying for part of my own kids college, much less paying additional taxes for someone else. Being in the top 10% hardly makes you rich, even more in this area.

If the govt wants to do something useful, they can spend some time looking into why even public universities enrollment costs are going through the roof making it harder for EVERYONE to go to college without leaving 10's of thousands in debt.

[alexey]

Well I am Republican (mostly) and I have a problem with social welfare programs as they are designed not social welfare programs in general. Social welfare programs should be in place to help people get on the right path or help them get back on track during hard times not support them for life. I have no problem helping people who are willing to help themselves. I do have a problem when people are not willing to help themselves. If we took the money we are wasting supporting people who do not want to help themselves, we get a lot of money right there for these kinds of programs. Welfare should require education or job training to receive it. You should be constantly working to better yourself or you do not get anything from the government in my opinion. Take some of the money we are wasting on all these ridiculous projects and pay teachers more. Make the competition to educate the future generations of this country more intense. You want the best teachers? The job has to be competitive. Someone needs to audit the government and make them more fiscally responsible. I dont know how we could do this though without revamping the entire political system and the people who would make the decision to do that do not want it done because the current system benefits them. It would take a massive movement in this country to get it done but most people are too caught up blaming the other side for their problems that it will never happen. The country will collapse first.
I am having a hard time seeing how good decisions can be made without an honest, open discussion about things between people of different political persuasion and the two parties.

And yes, I blame Republicans for lack of proper discussion between two parties. I think an impartial observer would arrive to the same conclusion, although I do not claim to be one. I also blame Democrats their inability to get things right without an external force (which is supposed to be the GOP, but unfortunately they are currently not focused on policy making).

[LaxBuddy21]

The problem LAX is on one hand you don't want to take from the top 10% and on the other hand you want the govt to pay for college education. You cannot have one without the other. I fall under the top 10% and I can tell you I will have enough trouble paying for part of my own kids college, much less paying additional taxes for someone else. Being in the top 10% hardly makes you rich, even more in this area.

If the govt wants to do something useful, they can spend some time looking into why even public universities enrollment costs are going through the roof making it harder for EVERYONE to go to college without leaving 10's of thousands in debt.

There are so many places the government could cut spending without taking another dime from tax payers. And I agree they should figure out why education costs are so much. For example, it does not cost almost $40,000 per student to run George Washington University. That is just insane. Think about it though. If more people are getting educated and producing more, thats more money the government can take in taxes. If you get people off of social welfare programs and out into society to be productive, they add to the budget rather than subtract from it.

[GibbsFactor]

Them's fightin' words :redpunch:


My point is that we need social programs- but they need to be more comprehensive and radical than they are now. Not be done away with.

What we have now is not working, that much is clear

Right. Libertarians agree with you. Exactly.

The difference is in who is doing the programs. Us or the government.

;)

[DjTj]

There are so many places the government could cut spending without taking another dime from tax payers. And I agree they should figure out why education costs are so much. For example, it does not cost almost $40,000 per student to run George Washington University. That is just insane. Think about it though. If more people are getting educated and producing more, thats more money the government can take in taxes. If you get people off of social welfare programs and out into society to be productive, they add to the budget rather than subtract from it.GWU is a private school. They charge $40k because their students are willing to pay it.

[LaxBuddy21]

I am having a hard time seeing how good decisions can be made without an honest, open discussion about things between people of different political persuasion and the two parties.

And yes, I blame Republicans for lack of proper discussion between two parties. I think an impartial observer would arrive to the same conclusion, although I do not claim to be one. I also blame Democrats their inability to get things right without an external force (which is supposed to be the GOP, but unfortunately they are currently not focused on policy making).

Both sides are equally to blame. They try to blame the other party for every screw up regardless of who's fault it really is. They want all the credit for success. Please tell me how that opens up discussion on either side. Imagine having a brother who liked to take all the credit and tried to pass all the blame on you. Why would you want to work with him? Wouldnt you question motives every time he tried to get you to do something with him? Either he is going to pin the failure on you or take credit for the success. Both sides need to grow up and realize they are there for the American people and the welfare of this nation not for their political party.

[LaxBuddy21]

GWU is a private school. They charge $40k because their students are willing to pay it.

Still a rip off...lol I paid that much for the name. I didnt get a better education than somewhere else. All college education should be public and free IMO.

[Destino]

Still a rip off...lol I paid that much for the name. I didnt get a better education than somewhere else. All college education should be public and free IMO.

I'd be down for something along these lines if the US had mandatory service. Doesn't have to be armed services but it has to be something. Give back to your country before you take advantage of what it offers.

[helptheSKINS]

There are so many places the government could cut spending without taking another dime from tax payers. And I agree they should figure out why education costs are so much. For example, it does not cost almost $40,000 per student to run George Washington University. That is just insane. Think about it though. If more people are getting educated and producing more, thats more money the government can take in taxes. If you get people off of social welfare programs and out into society to be productive, they add to the budget rather than subtract from it.

I don’t agree that college should be paid for. At some point, people need to become responsible for themselves. Tax dollars already pay for public k-12. As for cutting welfare, it won’t happen. Once a govt entitlement program starts, it doesn’t stop. More and more are becoming dependent and less and less are paying for them. Take a look at medicaid if you want another example.

Edit: Meant to write medicaid, not SS

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

('cept about our prison system. I don't want any part of that :ols: )

Wimp!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Well I am Republican (mostly) and I have a problem with social welfare programs as they are designed not social welfare programs in general. Social welfare programs should be in place to help people get on the right path or help them get back on track during hard times not support them for life. I have no problem helping people who are willing to help themselves. I do have a problem when people are not willing to help themselves. If we took the money we are wasting supporting people who do not want to help themselves, we get a lot of money right there for these kinds of programs. Welfare should require education or job training to receive it. You should be constantly working to better yourself or you do not get anything from the government in my opinion. Take some of the money we are wasting on all these ridiculous projects and pay teachers more. Make the competition to educate the future generations of this country more intense. You want the best teachers? The job has to be competitive. Someone needs to audit the government and make them more fiscally responsible. I dont know how we could do this though without revamping the entire political system and the people who would make the decision to do that do not want it done because the current system benefits them. It would take a massive movement in this country to get it done but most people are too caught up blaming the other side for their problems that it will never happen. The country will collapse first.

This is the part where I point out that over 50 percent of welfare is designated for children (who really can't do anything to better themselves).

Aside from throwing kids into the Foster System, how do you punish parents without punishing children?

[zoony]

This is the part where I point out that over 50 percent of welfare is designated for children (who really can't do anything to better themselves).

Aside from throwing kids into the Foster System, how do you punish parents without punishing children?



A friend of mine working a drug case was telling me about one of the players in the case. She had 8 children by 7 different fathers. multiple STD's, a coke problem...

...

and she was pregnant. More money for her. And we wonder why so many cops have anger management issues, lol.

I don't know what the answer is, but at some point we need to stop these *** holes from having babies.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Still a rip off...lol I paid that much for the name. I didnt get a better education than somewhere else. All college education should be public and free IMO.


To me, the biggest problem with this concept is that it devalues the degree. A degree is worth something because it has a certain value attached. It's a supply and demand thing. If everybody has one, then the education is not worth anything. IMO, College is something that should be worked for and earned. I don't agree with how much higher education costs or how they go about the payment of it but I do believe it should be something of value as opposed to just free.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don’t agree that college should be paid for. At some point, people need to become responsible for themselves. Tax dollars already pay for public k-12. As for cutting welfare, it won’t happen. Once a govt entitlement program starts, it doesn’t stop. More and more are becoming dependent and less and less are paying for them.

True State Welfare programs? False. The drops since the mid 90s were dramatic. People really need to stop speaking anecdotally.

I don't know what the numbers will look like after The Great Recession. But we will never see the numbers out of the 80s again.


Take a look at SS if you want another example.

Social Security? That is the ultimate welfare program, but we aren't allowed to talk about.

Seriously, any talk about benefits that does not start and end with Social Security is pointless.

[Ryman of the North]

I know it sounds harsh but given who suffers, I believe there should be liscencing for parents, it would keep some of these idiots from having children, a girl at work thinks im facist for thinking its a privilidge to have a kid not a right.

[Popeman38]

To me, the biggest problem with this concept is that it devalues the degree. A degree is worth something because it has a certain value attached. It's a supply and demand thing. If everybody has one, then the education is not worth anything. IMO, College is something that should be worked for and earned. I don't agree with how much higher education costs or how they go about the payment of it but I do believe it should be something of value as opposed to just free.DING DING DING

If everyone has a BS/BA, it is as valuable as a HS diploma/GED is today. There is nothing that distinguishes job candidates. That makes the graduate degree the new BS/BA. Govt won't pay for that, institutions will charge outlandish money, the citizenry bitches, we repeat the cycle. The world need a non-college educated workforce. Will the graduate from Yale with a BS in History be willing to clean an office building?

Secondly, if college is free there is no difference in the education from an Ivy league school vs a CC-transfer to 4 yr school. Also, by the end of the decade after the govt funds the education, there will be SOLs to graduate college, because everyone that goes and "tries" deserves to pass. You can't fail outta college, so college will begin testin to the lowest common denominator (what an SOL is in real world speak).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't know what the answer is, but at some point we need to stop these *** holes from having babies.

So, advocate forced sterilization of the poor.

(And my teatise on the prison system was too controversial for you? You jump in with both feet when it comes to controversial ideas.

It's also possible that I just put a ton of words in your mouth).

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

[Popeman38]

I know it sounds harsh but given who suffers, I believe there should be licensing for parents, it would keep some of these idiots from having children, a girl at work thinks im facist for thinking its a privilidge to have a kid not a right.Technically she is right. The govt is not allowed to tell you what you can do with your body, so haw can it prevent you from breeding. Plus, there is the whole Separation issue. Some religions don't allow birth control.

[wilsonian]

GWU is a private school. They charge $40k because their students are willing to pay it.

It seems to me that students are only able to pay that much (and thus bid up the price of tuitions) because of government guaranteed loans. If the government didn't guarantee student loans, banks either a) wouldn't lend to students because it would be too risky or b) rates would be so high that students couldn't afford to take out loans in the first place.

In many ways, it's similar to how the government guaranteed mortgage loans, and consequently, housing prices skyrocketed.

[zoony]

It seems to me that students are only able to pay that much (and thus bid up the price of tuitions) because of government guaranteed loans. If the government didn't guarantee student loans, banks either a) wouldn't lend to students because it would be too risky or b) rates would be so high that students couldn't afford to take out loans in the first place.

In many ways, it's similar to how the government guaranteed mortgage loans, and consequently, housing prices skyrocketed.


That is a very interesting point of view.

Anyone want to take this one on?

[zoony]

So, advocate forced sterilization of the poor.

I think we had a thread on this a few years ago- some politician in Louisiana or MS proposed offering $500 to the poor for sterilizations. I thought it was a great idea actually :ols:

I was told I was a heartless bastard. Guess it's better to have another generation of sociopaths grow up to blend into society. Yay.




(And my teatise on the prison system was too controversial for you? You jump in with both feet when it comes to controversial ideas.

It's also possible that I just put a ton of words in your mouth).


meh- most of my views are pretty boring. At least I think

[ABQCOWBOY]

That is a very interesting point of view.

Anyone want to take this one on?

No. For the most part, I agree. Education is a racket IMO. The target group is not really the youth thou they are taken advantage of with things like CCs etc. The target group are the parents who are a better risk and can afford the higher costs associated. Unfortunate but true IMO.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

meh- most of my views are pretty boring. At least I think

I'm really disappointed that no one has bit on my prison=storage discussion.

I'm overdue for posting some completely obvious yet terribly controversial observation.

[zoony]

I'm really disappointed that no one has bit on my prison=storage discussion.

I'm overdue for posting some completely obvious yet terribly controversial observation.

okay damnit, I'll play


So your thesis is that the powers that be decided we have a surplus of black males in this country, so they decided to store them in prison?

[DjTj]

It seems to me that students are only able to pay that much (and thus bid up the price of tuitions) because of government guaranteed loans. If the government didn't guarantee student loans, banks either a) wouldn't lend to students because it would be too risky or b) rates would be so high that students couldn't afford to take out loans in the first place.This is completely right, although I think you overstate this effect. Plenty of banks are still making private loans to students, so the market would certainly still exist without the government, but not at quite the same level.


In many ways, it's similar to how the government guaranteed mortgage loans, and consequently, housing prices skyrocketed.The government does not guarantee mortgage loans ... well, not explicitly. At the end of the day, Fannie, Freddie, and AIG got bailed out, but that wasn't written into the loans themselves.


That is a very interesting point of view.

Anyone want to take this one on?In both education and housing, government intervention has increased prices, and it has also increased access. We have more college graduates and more homeowners, and all of those things are more expensive ... so everything got more expensive, but also more affordable to more Americans. Does that make sense?

[haithman]

It seems to me that students are only able to pay that much (and thus bid up the price of tuitions) because of government guaranteed loans. If the government didn't guarantee student loans, banks either a) wouldn't lend to students because it would be too risky or b) rates would be so high that students couldn't afford to take out loans in the first place.

In many ways, it's similar to how the government guaranteed mortgage loans, and consequently, housing prices skyrocketed.

Not necessarily. There is a limit to how much a student can take out in govt loans. I believe it is not up to about $4,700. I will agree that getting student loans is **** easy and most companies don't care whether you are taking out 70k to get an EE degree from Princeton or 70k to get an Art History degree from some no name private university. Demand for enrollment within private universities is high and credit is relatively easy. Win-Win for College Administrators to jack up prices.

[LaxBuddy21]

DING DING DING

If everyone has a BS/BA, it is as valuable as a HS diploma/GED is today. There is nothing that distinguishes job candidates. That makes the graduate degree the new BS/BA. Govt won't pay for that, institutions will charge outlandish money, the citizenry bitches, we repeat the cycle. The world need a non-college educated workforce. Will the graduate from Yale with a BS in History be willing to clean an office building?

Secondly, if college is free there is no difference in the education from an Ivy league school vs a CC-transfer to 4 yr school. Also, by the end of the decade after the govt funds the education, there will be SOLs to graduate college, because everyone that goes and "tries" deserves to pass. You can't fail outta college, so college will begin testin to the lowest common denominator (what an SOL is in real world speak).

I dont agree. Yes it would devalue certain degrees but dont college athletics devalue those degrees anyway by letting guys who can hardly put together a complete sentence graduate with certain degrees? College still requires a commitment above and beyond high school. High school is required but college is not. All this does is allow people who could not go to college for financial reasons the ability to go.

And the degrees from different schools would not be the same. The schools would still maintain their academic standards for entry. You have certain schools for different people just like you do now. You think that the cost kept me from going to Princeton or Harvard? Um no. I didnt have everything they were looking for even with my good grades and athletics. Schools would still be as exclusive as they are now. You could even make what money schools get dependent on graduation rate and other academic standards so that the better your school is in those areas, the more money you get.

[DCSaints_fan]

That is a very interesting point of view.

Anyone want to take this one on?

I have no doubt that Wilsonian right., but doing away with Federal student loans would only make it worse. What happens in the case of those private schools is essentially they try to get as much money from you and your parents as possible, then make up the difference with school contributions and other loans. For places like Harvard, MIT, Princton, Stanford, etc. if you are accepted you aren't going to be denied admission due to lack of ability to pay. Although as of late I have heard of exceptions with some of the smaller schools like Reed, when their endowment tanked... they basically had to take the ability to pay into consideration Only the rich end up paying the full $40K or whatever

The benefit of the Ivy's and their peers (Stanford, MIT, etc.) over the state schools isn't really in the calibre of undergraduate instruction. In most cases the same material is taught and the same textbooks get used, except possibly for the upper level courses. The major difference however, is in the connections and networking, since thats where rich, well connected parents send their kids.

[LaxBuddy21]

It seems to me that students are only able to pay that much (and thus bid up the price of tuitions) because of government guaranteed loans. If the government didn't guarantee student loans, banks either a) wouldn't lend to students because it would be too risky or b) rates would be so high that students couldn't afford to take out loans in the first place.

In many ways, it's similar to how the government guaranteed mortgage loans, and consequently, housing prices skyrocketed.

Agreed 100%. I would not have gone to any of the schools I did if I did not have government backed loans especially grad school at GW since there are no scholarships available for masters programs. Its either loans or out of pocket. And when you are paying in government loans, you tend to not think about how much it costs which makes people willing to pay more.

[haithman]

I dont agree. Yes it would devalue certain degrees but dont college athletics devalue those degrees anyway by letting guys who can hardly put together a complete sentence graduate with certain degrees? College still requires a commitment above and beyond high school. High school is required but college is not. All this does is allow people who could not go to college for financial reasons the ability to go.

And the degrees from different schools would not be the same. The schools would still maintain their academic standards for entry. You have certain schools for different people just like you do now. You think that the cost kept me from going to Princeton or Harvard? Um no. I didnt have everything they were looking for even with my good grades and athletics. Schools would still be as exclusive as they are now. You could even make what money schools get dependent on graduation rate and other academic standards so that the better your school is in those areas, the more money you get.

The problem with your argument regarding athletes is that they represent such a MINUSCULE sample compared to the rest of the college population. Letting in some athletes really doesn't diminish the value of the total stock of college degrees in the market. I actually believe that it has become increasingly less difficult (hmm) for a majority of people to go to college. I think that too many people graduate from college nowadays and unless you went to a notable school or graduated with a rigorous degree the value of a college education has already been diminished. Letting everyone go to college is madness.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I dont agree. Yes it would devalue certain degrees but dont college athletics devalue those degrees anyway by letting guys who can hardly put together a complete sentence graduate with certain degrees? College still requires a commitment above and beyond high school. High school is required but college is not. All this does is allow people who could not go to college for financial reasons the ability to go.

And the degrees from different schools would not be the same. The schools would still maintain their academic standards for entry. You have certain schools for different people just like you do now. You think that the cost kept me from going to Princeton or Harvard? Um no. I didnt have everything they were looking for even with my good grades and athletics. Schools would still be as exclusive as they are now. You could even make what money schools get dependent on graduation rate and other academic standards so that the better your school is in those areas, the more money you get.

The percentage of student athletes is very minimal so while it probably does have affect, it's probably so slight that it doesn't really change things much. However, if you made College free, that would skew the numbers to the point that it would have a definate effect on things. If you fund a College Education with Federal Dollars, I don't think you can pick and choose which Colleges would be elligible and which were not. In order for a Harvard or Yale to be exclusive, I think that they would have to disallow federally funded educations. I don't know that these universities would do that or not. Either way, the percentage of Ivy league degrees would be relatively small. While those might still carry more weight, the huge majority of graduates would still suffer because the percentage of elite universities, assuming they would refuse federal funding, would just be too small.

[haithman]

Agreed 100%. I would not have gone to any of the schools I did if I did not have government backed loans especially grad school at GW since there are no scholarships available for masters programs. Its either loans or out of pocket. And when you are paying in government loans, you tend to not think about how much it costs which makes people willing to pay more.

Perhaps it is different for graduate school but I know that Stafford loans only put a minor debt in my total undergraduate school obligations.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I have no doubt that Wilsonian right., but doing away with Federal student loans would only make it worse. What happens in the case of those private schools is essentially they try to get as much money from you and your parents as possible, then make up the difference with school contributions and other loans. For places like Harvard, MIT, Princton, Stanford, etc. if you are accepted you aren't going to be denied admission due to lack of ability to pay. Although as of late I have heard of exceptions with some of the smaller schools like Reed, when their endowment tanked... they basically had to take the ability to pay into consideration Only the rich end up paying the full $40K or whatever.

Students at Princeton and Harvard no longer receive federal loans. All financial aid is in the form of aid from the school.

When this came into play after I graduated, I nearly had an aneurysm.

[haithman]

Students at Princeton and Harvard no longer receive federal loans. All financial aid is in the form of aid from the school.

When this came into play after I graduated, I nearly had an aneurysm.

I believe that there are no longer loans in the financial aid package however there is typically a gap between the total bill and the aid known as the "expected family contribution." If you can't afford that then taking a federal loan is an option. Works the same way here at Penn

[LaxBuddy21]

The percentage of student athletes is very minimal so while it probably does have affect, it's probably so slight that it doesn't really change things much. However, if you made College free, that would skew the numbers to the point that it would have a definate effect on things. If you fund a College Education with Federal Dollars, I don't think you can pick and choose which Colleges would be elligible and which were not. In order for a Harvard or Yale to be exclusive, I think that they would have to disallow federally funded educations. I don't know that these universities would do that or not. Either way, the percentage of Ivy league degrees would be relatively small. While those might still carry more weight, the huge majority of graduates would still suffer because the percentage of elite universities, assuming they would refuse federal funding, would just be too small.

How many more people do you think would really go to school and graduate? They still have to meet academic standards to get in. All this does is remove the financial burden from a degree that is required for so many jobs in this country now. Instead, we all go into thousands and thousands of dollars of debt just to be competitive in the job market. Its not like we are going above and beyond. I dont think your ability to get an education and be successful should hinge on your financial situation before you ever get to start working! Now, you have to commit all this money to get a degree that doesnt guarantee anything. All it does is provide you with tools to be successful. I still think graduate school should be private but a bachelors is almost required these days.

[LaxBuddy21]

Perhaps it is different for graduate school but I know that Stafford loans only put a minor debt in my total undergraduate school obligations.

It is different for grad school. I had a lot of undergrad covered by scholarships and grants but they dont have those for most masters degrees. Now, if I went for my PhD, it would have all been paid for but I would have been required to go full time so I couldnt work and live off of $23,000 a year. Cant pay my bills off of that.

[ABQCOWBOY]

How many more people do you think would really go to school and graduate? They still have to meet academic standards to get in. All this does is remove the financial burden from a degree that is required for so many jobs in this country now. Instead, we all go into thousands and thousands of dollars of debt just to be competitive in the job market. Its not like we are going above and beyond. I dont think your ability to get an education and be successful should hinge on your financial situation before you ever get to start working! Now, you have to commit all this money to get a degree that doesnt guarantee anything. All it does is provide you with tools to be successful. I still think graduate school should be private but a bachelors is almost required these days.


This assumes standards stay as they are but in reality, we all know that education is really more about business then teaching. Eventually, the same thing that happens in public schools would happen in Universities. The standards for entry would be normalized and the Universities would focus on capturing federal dollars for enrollments. The product turned out would likely be a lessor education.

It really is supply and demand. Lets say we currently turn out 100 graduates a year. If we provide free education, then University becomes a place to kill time and collect money. A certain percentage would try to take advantage but a certain percentage would just go to collect benefits. At the end of the process, lets say we double the amount of graduates and now we have 200 available for the work force. The amount of slots available for those degrees will not increase. The result will be a number of graduates working at Micky Ds and a low wage for those who get hired because why would you increase a salary if you can leverage the graduate by hiring somebody who is desperate enough to accept the lower wage? All it can do is hurt IMO.

[zoony]

Students at Princeton and Harvard no longer receive federal loans. All financial aid is in the form of aid from the school.

When this came into play after I graduated, I nearly had an aneurysm.


shameless lkb, shameless :silly:

[Prosperity]

Actually, both Rome and Egypt were not slave based societies. Each offered citizenship if you were willing to accept Roman or Egyptian Law. It was long believed that the Pyramids were built with slave labor but it's not the case.

I would also point out that I did not stipulate ancient societies. I simply used two ancient societies as examples. Two societies that stood the test of time.

I suppose it is lucky for us that you have no authority over policy so you will not need to concern yourself with basing judgment on it at all.

done with you troll

[CurseReversed]

Unfortunately, when it comes to standards of living, a lot of the time life stinks. Historically it has stunk bad for a whole lot of people for a really long time.

Like it or not, rich or poor, it stinks less here then anywhere else.

There are LESS barriers between the poor getting rich here then anywhere else.

You have the best chance on becoming rich in America, graph or no graph.

Most importantly, while you can tweak capitalism to make it fair and function better, for the most part it does what it does and PEOPLE do what they do and people get what they get.

It is filled with injustices sure, but it is also filled with more justice then any other conceivable system. So if people are getting poorer, it is not necessarily because the system is fundamentally flawed.

You cannot force people to get richer.

And just because the rich are getting richer does not mean it is at the expense of the poor.

Chances are trying to force things to look better on a graph and in the middle class's wallet is going to do more harm then good, as it almost always has forever and ever.

There is just no other way.

[ABQCOWBOY]

done with you troll

:ols: OK

[GibbsFactor]

I know it sounds harsh but given who suffers, I believe there should be liscencing for parents, it would keep some of these idiots from having children, a girl at work thinks im facist for thinking its a privilidge to have a kid not a right.

Well, you are. But that's just playing with definitions. Sometimes being fascist is the "right" thing. There's a time and place for everything.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

shameless lkb, shameless :silly:

You should have seen me when I first graduated and was going to bars. I could get out the word "Princeton" between the "h" and the "i" in "hi."

[Elessar78]

Letting everyone go to college is madness.

;)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZeYVIWz99I

[TD_washingtonredskins]

How many more people do you think would really go to school and graduate? They still have to meet academic standards to get in. All this does is remove the financial burden from a degree that is required for so many jobs in this country now. Instead, we all go into thousands and thousands of dollars of debt just to be competitive in the job market. Its not like we are going above and beyond. I dont think your ability to get an education and be successful should hinge on your financial situation before you ever get to start working! Now, you have to commit all this money to get a degree that doesnt guarantee anything. All it does is provide you with tools to be successful. I still think graduate school should be private but a bachelors is almost required these days.

I agree completely with what you're saying. Just like everyone has free access to high school, those people are all over the spectrum (some drop out, some fail out, some barely pass, some pass easily, and some excel). The same would happen with college...just because a student now can afford college doesn't mean everyone would go to the same ones, do the same, or put the same effort into it.

[zoony]

You should have seen me when I first graduated and was going to bars. I could get out the word "Princeton" between the "h" and the "i" in "hi."


hey, if I'd have gone to an Ivy League school, I'd have it tatooed on my forehead

[GibbsFactor]

hey, if I'd have gone to an Ivy League school, I'd have it tatooed on my forehead

Trust me, I work with plenty. Overrated.

:silly:

[DjTj]

Trust me, I work with plenty. Overrated.

:silly::rotflmao:

I do like how Lkb snuck Princeton into a "Princeton and Harvard" phrasing though. He clearly has experience at this.

A lot of the Ivies and other private schools moved towards "no-loan" policies in the last few years as they made big money in their endowments. Notice that Lkb didn't say "Pomona and Harvard students don't get loans anymore."

More than seventy schools have begun offering no-loans packages. Some of the colleges eliminating loans from the financial aid packages of all needy undergraduate students included: Princeton University, Davidson College, Amherst College, Harvard University, Pomona College, Swarthmore College, Haverford College, University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, Bowdoin College, Stanford University, Wellesley College, Columbia University, Claremont McKenna College and Vanderbilt University.

http://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2010/02/22/falling-endowments-to-eliminate-no-loan-aid-packages/

A few schools are starting to cut back on those programs though, like Dartmouth and Williams recently. With the economy hurting, college tuition is probably only going to get more expensive.

[helptheSKINS]

Trust me, I work with plenty. Overrated.

:silly:

Look no further than:

Andrew Bernad
Cornell University
The office

[mcsluggo]

....

It really is supply and demand. Lets say we currently turn out 100 graduates a year. If we provide free education, then University becomes a place to kill time and collect money. A certain percentage would try to take advantage but a certain percentage would just go to collect benefits. At the end of the process, lets say we double the amount of graduates and now we have 200 available for the work force. The amount of slots available for those degrees will not increase. The result will be a number of graduates working at Micky Ds and a low wage for those who get hired because why would you increase a salary if you can leverage the graduate by hiring somebody who is desperate enough to accept the lower wage? All it can do is hurt IMO.

you have an interesting view of economics...

First... at any give time there are X jobs appropriate for college grads? really? and where does X come from? was it handed down from god? or did the US have to apply to the "UN high command on white collar employment" for our allotment of "good jobs"? because I have to tell you... it seems like the US has been stealing from the X-endowments of Haiti and Indonesia... those countries must be PISSED.


Second, Schools would still have competitive enrollment, wouldn't they? High Schools are required to educate everyone in their district... colleges, on the other hand, are allowed to establish their standards, as a way of building their "brand". As long as those brands are valuable to the school, there will incentive to maintain thee standards. THere will still be competion.

[ABQCOWBOY]

you have an interesting view of economics...

First... at any give time there are X jobs appropriate for college grads? really? and where does X come from? was it handed down from god? or did the US have to apply to the "UN high command on white collar employment" for our allotment of "good jobs"? because I have to tell you... it seems like the US has been stealing from the X-endowments of Haiti and Indonesia... those countries must be PISSED.


Second, Schools would still have competitive enrollment, wouldn't they? High Schools are required to educate everyone in their district... colleges, on the other hand, are allowed to establish their standards, as a way of building their "brand". As long as those brands are valuable to the school, there will incentive to maintain thee standards. THere will still be competion.


I don't account for the number of jobs. The variable X is set by industry. However, the rules of supply and demand do apply. If you double the number of College Grads, lets say, available in the job market, the supply is obviously increased. The larger the pool available from which to hire, the more leverage any given company has. This same principle applies to Day Laborers as well. It doesn't have to be College Grads. If I'm looking for people to work and I have 20 guys out front, I can afford to offer minimum because 3 or 4 of those guys will take it. However, If I have 2 guys show up and I need 4, I'm going to hire at a decent wage and ask if they know anybody else who is interested in a job. That's how it works.

As for University Standards and competition, well, no. Standards and competition are directly related to profits and enrollments. If the Government starts paying for education, then they are also going to have a large say in what standards are set and how high. The goal will not be to maintain a certain standard. The goal for the Government will be to make the standards as fair for the least qualified individuals as possible and the goals for the Universities will be to capture as much enrollment as possible. If the goal were other, these schools would not accept Federal Funding and just maintain their standards and acceptance levels. However, that means that enrollement likely suffers unless they are, in fact, Harvard or Yale, etc. I don't see it happening. Even today, money drives higher education, not the deep seated desire to mold young minds.

[mcsluggo]

for what it is worth... I am actually against the idea of the USG just directly paying for college (so we agree). But I disagree with your logic.

on the s&d for college grads... in the short run if you double the number of electrical engineeers in dulles airport corridor, the wage for newly minted EE grads will drop. IN the long run very different dynamics will take over, as more firms focus on those skills, and attract investment that focuses on those skillls... and the DC-dulles corridor becomes an electrical engineering hub... bla bla bla...

you seem to be taking the position that the piece of paper (the degree) is what the workers are bringing to the table... in which case if you double the amout, then YES the "value" is cut in half (just like firing up the printing press for greenbacks).

However, if we assume that there is acutal VALUE behind the degrees, then the knowledge is a complimentary good. There are far fewer elecrical engineers (per capita) in Ghana than in the US, and yet Ghanain engineers flock to the US, and not vice-versa. (Or less cartoonish.. there are far more EEs in the SF bay area than in Indiana, but EEs move from Indiana to the bay area much more than the other way).

As far as standards go.... In the UK, where they have TRIED the experiment of paying for everyone's college degrees... it would appear that STANDARDS isn't the problem (nobody would claim that Oxford and Cambridge and LSE etc... aren't prestigious). In the case of the UK I see two (related) problems. First there isn't enough SUPPLY of college degrees (not enough people end up getting degrees there) and the the people that DO are heavily skewed towards the upper and upper middle classes. Since the country pays for college... this means that the whole population (including the poor) largely end up subsidizing the rich to go to school. Scholarships that are more limited could be targeted better than that, I believe.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

:rotflmao:

I do like how Lkb snuck Princeton into a "Princeton and Harvard" phrasing though. He clearly has experience at this.

A lot of the Ivies and other private schools moved towards "no-loan" policies in the last few years as they made big money in their endowments. Notice that Lkb didn't say "Pomona and Harvard students don't get loans anymore."

More than seventy schools have begun offering no-loans packages. Some of the colleges eliminating loans from the financial aid packages of all needy undergraduate students included: Princeton University, Davidson College, Amherst College, Harvard University, Pomona College, Swarthmore College, Haverford College, University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, Bowdoin College, Stanford University, Wellesley College, Columbia University, Claremont McKenna College and Vanderbilt University.

http://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2010/02/22/falling-endowments-to-eliminate-no-loan-aid-packages/

A few schools are starting to cut back on those programs though, like Dartmouth and Williams recently. With the economy hurting, college tuition is probably only going to get more expensive.

Princeton's endowment is embarrassingly large - or at least it was when I last got an alumni magazine discussing it. It's a pretty small college, and it has an endowment larger than the GDP of some mid-sized nations.

I did hear something cool at the last alumni event but have been unable to verify it. They apparently built a new science building using the funds from a patent that the school partially owns with a professor.

[Prosperity]

Wait, is Princeton like a nickname for Rutgers or something? never heard of it before

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

for what it is worth... I am actually against the idea of the USG just directly paying for college (so we agree). But I disagree with your logic.

When the US gives out that $15 Trillion stimulus package that whats-his-name advocated, maybe they can also forgive all student loans.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Wait, is Princeton like a nickname for Rutgers or something? never heard of it before

Don't act like you don't know about our College Basketball Invitational-invited basketball team.

Oh, JTIII. Why did thou forsake me?

[Prosperity]

Don't act like you don't know about our College Basketball Invitational-invited basketball team.

Oh, JTIII. Why did thou forsake me?

so is that the NIT or NCAA tournament, or is it something that local Jersey schools do?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

so is that the NIT or NCAA tournament, or is it something that local Jersey schools do?

It's the Poor Man's NIT. It's a tournament for teams not good enough to get an NIT invite.

Hey. We beat UCLA in the tourney my senior year.

[Prosperity]

I'll watch them play VCU, if they make it that far


:D

[ABQCOWBOY]

for what it is worth... I am actually against the idea of the USG just directly paying for college (so we agree). But I disagree with your logic.

on the s&d for college grads... in the short run if you double the number of electrical engineeers in dulles airport corridor, the wage for newly minted EE grads will drop. IN the long run very different dynamics will take over, as more firms focus on those skills, and attract investment that focuses on those skillls... and the DC-dulles corridor becomes an electrical engineering hub... bla bla bla...

you seem to be taking the position that the piece of paper (the degree) is what the workers are bringing to the table... in which case if you double the amout, then YES the "value" is cut in half (just like firing up the printing press for greenbacks).

However, if we assume that there is acutal VALUE behind the degrees, then the knowledge is a complimentary good. There are far fewer elecrical engineers (per capita) in Ghana than in the US, and yet Ghanain engineers flock to the US, and not vice-versa. (Or less cartoonish.. there are far more EEs in the SF bay area than in Indiana, but EEs move from Indiana to the bay area much more than the other way).

As far as standards go.... In the UK, where they have TRIED the experiment of paying for everyone's college degrees... it would appear that STANDARDS isn't the problem (nobody would claim that Oxford and Cambridge and LSE etc... aren't prestigious). In the case of the UK I see two (related) problems. First there isn't enough SUPPLY of college degrees (not enough people end up getting degrees there) and the the people that DO are heavily skewed towards the upper and upper middle classes. Since the country pays for college... this means that the whole population (including the poor) largely end up subsidizing the rich to go to school. Scholarships that are more limited could be targeted better than that, I believe.

I view this in much the same way I view my own life experiences. People value what they pay for. If it's free, a reciprocal value is attached. You example of "Electrical Engineering" IMO, is not A-typical of how it might work. In the case of a degree, such as Engineering, the work that must be put into that degree is not neglligable. To gain a degree such as that, you have to put in the work and so, regardless of where you get that skill, it will not devalue. However, all degrees are not as highly specialized or valued. In fact, I would say that most are not ( a point that was made earlier). In areas less demanding, I see supply and demand principles taking precedents. I mean, for things such as Engineering or Medical etc., those people are going to get their education regardless because the ability necessary to accomplish those educational endeavors are already present. Those are probably not the typical example of who would be taking advantage of the educational assistance. Certainly some would but as a whole, I would expect that the trend would be in other areas. For lessor degrees, I think it only serves to create more problems.

As far as what I believe graduates would bring to the table, well, I guess your correct in your assumption. It really gets back to how Government does things. I would expect Government to create an environment where it's more paper then value. The standards would not be held so the education would not be as good IMO. Really, this is probably where you and I kind of part ways because it seems as if you feel opposite in this regard. I just think that Higher Education is "Higher" because not everybody can attain it. Everybody has the opportunity but not everybody can do it.

I see no reason to make it so difficult that those who are not able to afford it have no means by which to attain it but I also don't see any reason to provide it to every individual just because they are breathing. All that creates, IMO, is a black hole from which taxpayer money can disappear. If a person wants education, then they should work for it. Higher Ed, IMO, is something that should be attained and their should be a price associated. That, to me, is how the "Higher" part of Higher Education is maintained.