There seems to be a bit of confusion about the concept of “capitalism” and “fair”.
The capitalist system works well for two reasons:
Your labor and property are your own to do with as you see fit. People work to improve their standard of living and collectively, this creates a benefit to all. The so-called Adam Smith “Invisible Hand”.
It does not care about you (“you” being anyone). You are not a special little snowflake. If you run a company and I run a company and my company is profitable while yours isn’t, you will eventually go out of business. Your employees will be forced to look for or invent new work that people will pay them for while your assets are sold to others who may used them more efficiently.
It can also sometimes not work well for the same two reasons. If you have no skills and no assets, you have nothing to trade except the ability to perform mundane work that anyone can do but no one wants to. People with assets tend to be able to use them to aquire more assets. Earning a million is a lot easier when you start with two.
But lets be honest, we don’t want what’s fair. We want what benefits “us”.
Well, perhaps the fallacy is in your understanding of the phrase “free market.” It is not my understanding the phrase “free market” refers to the freedom in deciding to labor at all or starve to death as a result of choosing not to work. The phrase “free market” is in reference to the market itself and what transpires inside the market, and not whether some individual freely chooses to enter the market to avoid death by starvation.
I am not sure that a film school student, and someone you think is practically guaranteed a job when he graduates, are good examples of how unfair the system is.
I looked into UMaine, the state college in the state I used to live in… Even for Maine residents, who get an extra bonus, tuition is still estimated at around $10,000 per year. For a 4-year degree, that’s $40,000 that you either have to borrow or have stashed away somewhere. And a degree from UMaine is better than no degree; the school certainly isn’t bad… But it’s not really a “noteworthy” school. It’s not something that jumps out at you on a resume. So… Yeah.
They’re just examples. Again; they’re both going to be saddled with between 10.000 and 200.000 dollars of debt by the time they finish. Even if the first guy didn’t study film, but rather something like Computer Science, the situation is still more or less the same. If the second guy wasn’t a fucking super-genius, he’d be pretty screwed. Either way, they will be deep in debt and may or may not be able to get jobs. This is not the exception by any means; haven’t you seen how many of these “99%” posters deal heavily with how deep into debt these people are because of their schooling?
I think this is the fundamental issue. Because millionaires are just as much an “us” as any other group and they want what benefits millionaires - it would be foolish to assume that for some reason they’re exceptions to the rule of self-interest. So the rest of society can ask the question - are millionaires the winners in a game in which everyone was competing equally or are they the group that has succeeded in rigging the game in their favor?
Since when is debate snark? What you posted earlier is snark. What you posted below is actually debate.
Here’s another cite. Amazingly, it is much the same. If you have some issue with their methodology, it is right there for you to pick apart.
So, why do we have such a mediocre (at best) K-12 system. Same country, same riches. That argument doesn’t cut it.
Well, you see, was that so hard? You did exactly what I asked, which was to offer a coherent argument in favor of the proposal. It’s a pretty good argument, at least for a start.
The problems I see are several:
Offering education as a benefit for military service, to a group of highly trained, very disciplined individuals is not quite the same as offering said benefit to Wayne and Garth. Said benefit is, in fact, already available to everyone in the US. All they have to do is sign up and do their stint. (And if our government had listened to people like you and me, we wouldn’t be sending them over to some hell hole in Iraq, and we’d have exited Afghanistan long ago.)
Veterans represent a small fraction of college students, and so any effect on the system is not going to be of the same order as we would see if that benefit were offered to everyone in the US. One obvious downside would be upward pressure on tuition and other fees since you flood the system with money. So, to the extent that the cost of education outpacing inflation is seen as a problem today, your proposal would probably make that worse.
If we want to ignore point #1, and just say that’s the cost of having the government fund something, that’s not so objectionable.
But to point #2, we should ask what the cost will be, what the effect on tuition will be, and do we really want the government to encourage every Tom, Dick and Harry to go to college as opposed to going into the workforce?
Personally, I think education is one the best uses of public money there is. If we decide to offer “free” college to everyone, I would:
Rather see it done on the state level than at the federal level. Let 50 flowers bloom and see which system works the best.
Have some kind of minimum (but not trivial) achievement requirement to receive the aid.
Keep the feds out of the business of directing people into certain majors over other majors.
Fund it by reductions in military spending. We are, indeed, the richest country in the world, but that doesn’t mean we need to spend more on the military then every other industrialized country combined.
Well, you presume the opportunity differences are “sufficiently large” and they are larger than they were 40 years ago. Yet, you have not provided any evidence or a reasoned argument to accept this presumption as true. What makes this assumption true?
Not at all. In my ideal society, everybody gets a basic education, a room to live in, food, basic cable and internet, basic clothing, basic health care, and electricity just for being a member of that society. Not a big room, not great food, unless you are a great cook, not great anything. You want more, go out and earn it. You want to sit in your room and paint paintings that no one but you likes, do it, just don’t expect more than the basics. You want a nice car, nice clothes, premium cable, a gamer’s computer, well go out and earn it. You’d just as soon flip burgers, fine. You want to try to make society better in some respect, do it, make money at it if possible.
it sounds VERY much like your idea of a perfect society, except of course I’m not holding the starvation/freezing/illness gun to anybody’s head to get them to work. So I would stipulate that YOU are the one who would force others to work, often for little or nothing I might add, and with no health insurance. YOU’RE the one who wants to make everyone dance to his tune, and a nasty, vicious tune it is.
Well but any market, whether capitalist or not, can support only so many people with X skill. Once more people with X skill enter the market, they become unemployed or find themselves working a job which is not primarily based on or because of their X skill. We see this already in many fields. For example, nation wide, and especially true in Indiana, we have too many teachers. State schools, colleges, and universities are graduating more people with teaching degrees than the market demands, and consequently, a significant number find themselves doing something other than teaching. The same is true of Sociology degrees, Philosophy, Psychology, etcetera.
The federal government’s involvement in the disbursement of student aid has facilitated in this excess as a large number of students enroll in colleges and universities and obtain X skill, a skill already over saturating the market. As a result of the inundation of X skill in the market place, some with X skill eventually learn another skill, either by going back to school and obtaining a specialization in their field or learning an entirely different skill. Some people with a teacher’s degree, Sociology, History, or Philosophy degree, find employment at a mortgage firm, as a manager or associate manager at a retail store like A and F, or Coach, or a manager at a restaurant. They learn how to sell mortgages, negotiate them, learns the law in the area, etcetera, or they learn how to manage workes, hours, run a business, etcetera.
Essentially, John I think is saying the market fixes the excesses in a certain skill in which this excess is in part facilitated by the federal government’s use of loans. The fact is, in any market, someone will inevitably have to flip burgers, change tires and oil for a living, manage a McDonalds, clean toilets at the mall, because the market cannot support everyones’ desire or wish to have X skill. You can criticize Wall Street for this inevitable correction in the assignment of people to certain jobs in the market place but this type of market allocation of peoples’ skills is inevitable and occurs in all markets, whether they are the command economies of the Soviet Union, or Socialist economies. What we do know, however, is capitalist economies, and free market economies, more efficiently allocate skills in the market place than other economies, like the command economy of the Soviet Union.
So, what exactly does Wall Street have to do with the fact the market place is saturated with too many Sociologists and as a result, some have to flip burgers because they chose a skill which is already over represented in the market?
Yes, we get better results by wasting it. Money spent on something no one wants is money not available to spend on things that people do want.
Now, does that hurt the particular individual Sociology major? Yes. But it’s better for society. If we need to help him out in terms of surviving and getting new skills, that’s one thing. But wasting money on skills not in demand is not the way to go.
Thank-you! I’m blushing…
Wall Street is not “the market”. It’s one part of the market. We’ve seen planned economies and we’ve seen free economies. Free economies win hands down. They have proven themselves over and over to be better at allocating resources and providing a better standard of living.
You do not serve the general interests by subsidizing mistakes in ways that encourage more people to make the same mistake. And that goes for banks, so don’t throw that one back at me.
Heard on NPR in passing, show recently about college educations, its costs and benefits. Guy said that roughly 25% of college kids these days are studying in business schools, going for an MBA or its equivalent. The White Studies program, if you will.
These kids aren’t expecting a job when they graduate, they expect a damn good job, they are investing the best years of their lives and God alone knows how much borrowed money. They expect a ticket straight to the upper middle, that’s how they plan to pay for it.
So, riffing on the theme of pursuing “useful” education, just how many MBA’s can we afford? Is it reasonable to expect such a huge number of people will go straight into 100K a year jobs?
You’re conflating two things I said. I didn’t claim that things today in the real world were “sufficiently large”, I asked if other people could imagine a situation in which they were sufficiently large that the situation would be bad/unacceptable/unfair/unbalanced. In other words, we clearly have some level of it’s-harder-for-poor-kids-to-succeed-than-rich-kids in the US today. We’ve always had some level. It’s hard to imagine a society without some of it other than an illusory Marxist utopia. But it’s also clear that even within basically capitalistic societies, there could be more or less of it. And my question is, do you agree that if the level of it is sufficiently high, that is a bad thing, something that society as a whole ought to be using its resources to fight against?
My other claim, which I agree is so-far unsupported, is that there is less social mobility now than there was 40 years ago, in other words, it’s harder for a poor kid now to succeed, compared to how hard it is for a rich or middle class kid to succeed, than it was 40 years ago. I’m trying to find data to support or disprove this, so far I haven’t found anything that really addresses that precise claim one way or the other.
This article, for instance, has some interesting data, but it’s talking about much more recent, short term, trends (ie, changes between 1997-98 and 2003-2004).
Or we might find this paper, whose thesis is “Using historical census data and survey data, Ferrie and Long (forthcoming) found a significant decline in social mobility in the United States from 1880 to 1973. We present three critiques of the Ferrie-Long study”. Again, kind of related, but not really what I’m looking for.
So if anyone else can dig up a useful cite, I’m eager to see it.
Well, I certainly agree that democracy in general makes things BETTER, but I think you’re still saying things that are somewhat tangential to my question… That is, is it the case that as long as there is basically democracy and basically capitalism, then things are by definition fair. So if I say to you “hey, look at society X… 98% of its population works in minimum wage jobs, and thus their children have to start working right after high school at crappy jobs to help support the family, and thus can’t attend trade schools or colleges to learn skills to better themselves, so it’s incredibly rare for their kids to end up making more than their parents and improving themselves” is your response “that’s f***ed up man” or is “well, do they have free elections and free markets? because if they do, then it’s a fair and just society, end of story.”?
Who claimed you were? Taking out a loan is a risk. Student loans are no different.
In capitalism, if you take a risk and it pays off, you are rewarded. If it doesn’t, you are penalized. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature.
If you take out a large loan and major in film studies or sociology (or comp sci) and find out when you graduate that you can’t get a job in your major, sux to be you. Your risk didn’t pay off. If the government steps in and pays off your loans, then there is that much less motivation to major in something that people will pay you to do instead of something fun. Like film studies.
An MBA is a graduate program, so I think you may be confusing things. But according to this article ( year old, but probably still correct) business degrees are the 2nd most popular for undergrads: Link.
Second only to Biology and Biotech. (I would never have guessed that!)
These guys aren’t MBAs. The link I posted above says salaries start at about $57K. A business degree is a very general degree and can lead you into any number of fields, not the least of which is starting your own business.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that kids expect $100K right out of college. If they do, they need a lesson that the market will be more than happy to teach them, post haste.
