2020 Elections

[marshwiggle]

On the other hand, education costs rising above the inflation rate is unsustainable. There is a real probelm, but something like "make all education free!" ignores all kinds of realities that need to be taken into account, as does making education all funded by tuition.

Is it really?  I am not sure that the costs are rising above inflation, but I could be wrong.  The majority of the costs of higher education flow to faculty. I have certainly not been getting raises above inflation, and I doubt that many of my coworkers are either. 

I will agree that the fee paid by STUDENTS HAS increased.  BUT that is because states, mine in particular, have changed their view of the benefits of education, and decided that IF the benefits flow directly to the student, then the tuition should flow from them (and less so from the state).

AS student loans have been more available, states have reduced their funding of higher education, thus the percentage of the 'cost' of education has been shifted to the students. 

However, I wonder IF the cost has truly increased above inflation?

(On the other hand, I can certainly see that while faculty salaries are not moving much, that some administration salaries just might be!!)

This all still supports my point. Simply making education "free" covers up the fact that much of the cost is not due to actual education per se, but due to all kinds of trappings that have been added. On the other hand, society and the economy have real needs for people with certain kinds of skills. So there could be value to more heavily subsidizing the cost of education in those specific areas.

TL;DR "All education should be free!" and "Students pay all the costs since they get all the benefits" are both extreme positions, and neither is in the best interests of society.

[Parasaurolophus]

You were the one who seemed to suggest that "moderate" was somehow synonymous with useless, so presumably only more "extreme" measures are the only ones that are effective. My point was that the farther measures go toward one extreme or the toher, the worse they get. A moderate position is one which ackowledges that both extremes overemphasize something and underemphasize something else.

I'm happy to support 'moderate' policies when they make significant progress towards the goals I deem desirable. Unfortunately, my experience of 'moderates'--especially of the American variety!--is that they fetishize means-testing and drop-in-the-bucket 'solutions' to the exclusion of actually achieving significant improvements. This is true of Kamala Harris's student debt plan, which I described above. It's true of Biden's floated debt relief plan, as well. It's true of Buttigieg's absolutely unworkable healthcare 'plan'; and it's true of the Biden team's climate plans so far.

Those all satisfy your criterion of nuance and wonkiness. But they're also a waste of everyone's time and energy.

The middle way is not always the best (or even good) way. And when you trip over yourself to be in the middle, it's very easy to lose sight of the fact that the 'middle' has been dragged further and further and further right over time, to the point where it doesn't actually reflect the desires and priorities of the actual 'middle' of the country. What the 'left wing' of the Democratic party is advocating for is not actually all that far left by most standards, and most of their agenda enjoys broad support in the population (as evidenced by the many progressive ballot measures just passed, even in states that voted Republican).

So in the example of student debt, simply forgiving all student debt would be finacially ruinous,

It wouldn't be, though. What's financially ruinous is the way student debt is structured in the US--and it's ruinous for borrowers, not for the state (which, incidentally, often never recoups the full cost of the loan anyway).

As for the supposed 'unfairness'... it's really not. And even if it were, it's not a good argument against relieving current suffering.

[marshwiggle]

So in the example of student debt, simply forgiving all student debt would be finacially ruinous,

It wouldn't be, though. What's financially ruinous is the way student debt is structured in the US--and it's ruinous for borrowers, not for the state (which, incidentally, often never recoups the full cost of the loan anyway).

As for the supposed 'unfairness'... it's really not. And even if it were, it's not a good argument against relieving current suffering.

So I suppose you were in favour of bailouts for banks during the financial crisis as well; they certainly suffered due to their decisions which they assumed would eventually pay off.

[Parasaurolophus]

So I suppose you were in favour of bailouts for banks during the financial crisis as well; they certainly suffered due to their decisions which they assumed would eventually pay off.

Banks can't suffer. They're inanimate entities.


As for the bailouts... I wasn't (and am not) against them in principle. What I was (and am) against is bailing out investment banks and doing nothing for ordinary people. Edit: similarly, I'm not against our own government currently offering pandemic rental relief for businesses. But I think it's terrible that they haven't offered pandemic rental relief for people, too.

[marshwiggle]

So I suppose you were in favour of bailouts for banks during the financial crisis as well; they certainly suffered due to their decisions which they assumed would eventually pay off.

Banks can't suffer. They're inanimate entities.


As for the bailouts... I wasn't (and am not) against them in principle. What I was (and am) against is bailing out investment banks and doing nothing for ordinary people. Edit: similarly, I'm not against our own government currently offering pandemic rental relief for businesses. But I think it's terrible that they haven't offered pandemic rental relief for people, too.

Fair enough; however my concern is that bailouts for bad decisions encourage more bad decisions. The bad loans that led to the crisis made no long-term financial sense. Neither do decisions by students to go into 10's (or more) thousands in debt to get degrees which don't have particularly well-established employment prospects. (Especially if they think that paying a premium to get a Navelgazing degree from  Pomposity University is smart since just the name of the institution gives them a golden ticket.)

[Kron3007]

So I suppose you were in favour of bailouts for banks during the financial crisis as well; they certainly suffered due to their decisions which they assumed would eventually pay off.

Banks can't suffer. They're inanimate entities.


As for the bailouts... I wasn't (and am not) against them in principle. What I was (and am) against is bailing out investment banks and doing nothing for ordinary people. Edit: similarly, I'm not against our own government currently offering pandemic rental relief for businesses. But I think it's terrible that they haven't offered pandemic rental relief for people, too.

Fair enough; however my concern is that bailouts for bad decisions encourage more bad decisions. The bad loans that led to the crisis made no long-term financial sense. Neither do decisions by students to go into 10's (or more) thousands in debt to get degrees which don't have particularly well-established employment prospects. (Especially if they think that paying a premium to get a Navelgazing degree from  Pomposity University is smart since just the name of the institution gives them a golden ticket.)

From what I have read, humanities majors' long term earnings are comparable to professional fields, so I don't know how you deem a discipline worthless.  Of course their earnings may not be a result of the degree per se, but hardly seems like a death sentence or that it is any worse than many 'good' degrees.  If you are talking about graduate school, I tend to agree more.

I don't know if I buy into completely free university, but it should be affordable and lack of money should not prevent people from accessing it. 

[marshwiggle]

Fair enough; however my concern is that bailouts for bad decisions encourage more bad decisions. The bad loans that led to the crisis made no long-term financial sense. Neither do decisions by students to go into 10's (or more) thousands in debt to get degrees which don't have particularly well-established employment prospects. (Especially if they think that paying a premium to get a Navelgazing degree from  Pomposity University is smart since just the name of the institution gives them a golden ticket.)

From what I have read, humanities majors' long term earnings are comparable to professional fields, so I don't know how you deem a discipline worthless.  Of course their earnings may not be a result of the degree per se, but hardly seems like a death sentence or that it is any worse than many 'good' degrees.  If you are talking about graduate school, I tend to agree more.

There are lots of disciplines that I wouldn't deem "worthless", but whose graduates complain about their emplyment prospects. In fact, these kinds of discussions would never happen if all graduates were happy with their employment. The issue isn't primarily money; if graduates were happy working for non-profits in fulfilling roles it wouldn't matter much that soem others working for big corporations were better off financially.

I don't know if I buy into completely free university, but it should be affordable and lack of money should not prevent people from accessing it.

The question  is how much money should be poured anto making education "affordable" for people who wind up disillusioned at the end of it because it hasn't materially improved their lives? (And in certain disciplines, even encouraged placing blame on others for any of their own disappointments.)

[Kron3007]

Fair enough; however my concern is that bailouts for bad decisions encourage more bad decisions. The bad loans that led to the crisis made no long-term financial sense. Neither do decisions by students to go into 10's (or more) thousands in debt to get degrees which don't have particularly well-established employment prospects. (Especially if they think that paying a premium to get a Navelgazing degree from  Pomposity University is smart since just the name of the institution gives them a golden ticket.)

From what I have read, humanities majors' long term earnings are comparable to professional fields, so I don't know how you deem a discipline worthless.  Of course their earnings may not be a result of the degree per se, but hardly seems like a death sentence or that it is any worse than many 'good' degrees.  If you are talking about graduate school, I tend to agree more.

There are lots of disciplines that I wouldn't deem "worthless", but whose graduates complain about their emplyment prospects. In fact, these kinds of discussions would never happen if all graduates were happy with their employment. The issue isn't primarily money; if graduates were happy working for non-profits in fulfilling roles it wouldn't matter much that soem others working for big corporations were better off financially.

I don't know if I buy into completely free university, but it should be affordable and lack of money should not prevent people from accessing it.

The question  is how much money should be poured anto making education "affordable" for people who wind up disillusioned at the end of it because it hasn't materially improved their lives? (And in certain disciplines, even encouraged placing blame on others for any of their own disappointments.)

Yes, but I think people would be much less disillusioned if they were not strapped with huge debt.  It definitely is a question of priorities as a society.  I personally used to be quite conservative (libertarian would be the better description, have always been socially liberal), and voted as such.  My tune really changed when I moved to the deep south in the US and saw how many of these policies play out.  So, I get why people dont support a lot of social programs and once agreed, but I now feel these things are for the greater societal good.     

[marshwiggle]

The question  is how much money should be poured anto making education "affordable" for people who wind up disillusioned at the end of it because it hasn't materially improved their lives? (And in certain disciplines, even encouraged placing blame on others for any of their own disappointments.)

Yes, but I think people would be much less disillusioned if they were not strapped with huge debt.

If their disillusionment were that, despite having employment they find meangful, their debt is hard to manage, then I'd agree with you. But if they can't find meaningful employment, even with no debt, something is still wrong.


Being unsatisfied with something that cost more of someone else's money and less of their own is hardly a great leap forward.

[financeguy]

Is the only concern here "what someone wants to do" with their education? If I'm putting my money into the mix, perhaps to the extent that this education is free, are my wants and needs at 0%? Is it crazy for me to say that when we are importing nurses from Africa and Engineers from India while every barista at Starbucks has a Sociology or English lit degree, perhaps the monetary incentives of education in those fields should not be the same.

In short, you can study whatever you want, but if society is putting their money on the line, society should get some say about the desired outcomes. If society values waiting less time in an ER after being shot than they do having a service worker whose subpar attitude is coupled with a knowledge of Foucault, that seems like a reasonable decision that someone footing the bill should have an input on. What I find from almost every Joe Public is that they value education in fields they consider to be "real" and discount fields they consider to be of little value to society.

[marshwiggle]

Is the only concern here "what someone wants to do" with their education? If I'm putting my money into the mix, perhaps to the extent that this education is free, are my wants and needs at 0%? Is it crazy for me to say that when we are importing nurses from Africa and Engineers from India while every barista at Starbucks has a Sociology or English lit degree, perhaps the monetary incentives of education in those fields should not be the same.

In short, you can study whatever you want, but if society is putting their money on the line, society should get some say about the desired outcomes. If society values waiting less time in an ER after being shot than they do having a service worker whose subpar attitude is coupled with a knowledge of Foucault, that seems like a reasonable decision that someone footing the bill should have an input on. What I find from almost every Joe Public is that they value education in fields they consider to be "real" and discount fields they consider to be of little value to society.

My understanding, (but I stand to be corrected), is that the system in Germany works somewhat like this. Education is free, but the number of spaces in a discipline is based on the number needed to fit the economy. So if you get into a program, you're pretty likely to be employed in that field soon after graduation.

Seems like a smart system to me.

[mahagonny]

Is the only concern here "what someone wants to do" with their education? If I'm putting my money into the mix, perhaps to the extent that this education is free, are my wants and needs at 0%? Is it crazy for me to say that when we are importing nurses from Africa and Engineers from India while every barista at Starbucks has a Sociology or English lit degree, perhaps the monetary incentives of education in those fields should not be the same.

In short, you can study whatever you want, but if society is putting their money on the line, society should get some say about the desired outcomes. If society values waiting less time in an ER after being shot than they do having a service worker whose subpar attitude is coupled with a knowledge of Foucault, that seems like a reasonable decision that someone footing the bill should have an input on. What I find from almost every Joe Public is that they value education in fields they consider to be "real" and discount fields they consider to be of little value to society.

If everybody were educated enough to appreciate art, we wouldn't need a National Endowment for the Arts. Money saved.

[financeguy]

No need to even go down that path. We don't need one now.

[Economizer]

There is an interesting, to me at least, late finishing Senatorial contest in a state in which I might vote. The policy aspects and positions do receive an ample amount of attention as to the vague and assumed candidate stands on the issues[?]. However, before I complete my hypothesizing as to whom I would vote for, I would like the Democrat to model himself in an Elvis wig and the Republican contender to appear with a "Mullet" cut.To be practical, an artist's rendering of the Republican's "do" would surfice.

Why, you ask.

[mahagonny]

No need to even go down that path. We don't need one now.

Do you mean we would leave the evolution of public taste to the free market? That sounds disastrous. That's how we ended up with Paul Whiteman, George Gershwin, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Bing Crosby and those other no talents.

Is the only concern here "what someone wants to do" with their education? If I'm putting my money into the mix, perhaps to the extent that this education is free, are my wants and needs at 0%? Is it crazy for me to say that when we are importing nurses from Africa and Engineers from India while every barista at Starbucks has a Sociology or English lit degree, perhaps the monetary incentives of education in those fields should not be the same.

In short, you can study whatever you want, but if society is putting their money on the line, society should get some say about the desired outcomes. If society values waiting less time in an ER after being shot than they do having a service worker whose subpar attitude is coupled with a knowledge of Foucault, that seems like a reasonable decision that someone footing the bill should have an input on. What I find from almost every Joe Public is that they value education in fields they consider to be "real" and discount fields they consider to be of little value to society.

If everybody were educated enough to appreciate art, we wouldn't need a National Endowment for the Arts. Money saved.