4 ms·

>> It's hard earned money taken by force from ordinary Americans. It's not government money, it's your money. The money in your hand only has the value it has

>> It's hard earned money taken by force from ordinary Americans. It's not government money, it's your money. The money in your hand only has the value it has because we collectively instill a value in it. This is true, isn't it? I mean it really is just numbers and ink on pieces of paper and electrons over a bunch of wires. But if it were just the ink and and numbers and electrons then I could write a few zeros on a piece of fancy paper and become rich overnight. But then there is the printing presses, which are guarded and the vaults that are guarded and the software systems that are guarded and the counterfeiting laws none of which you created. So "your money" (see? I can do quotes too) is really society's money. Moreover we collectively agree that the government allocates a portion of all of our earnings and recognize that this happens nowadays in a mainly un-coerced fashion. Sorry it inconveniences you. Maybe we can argue about waste without bringing your pet ideology into it.

jimmyk 16y ago
The form of the money is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is that resources are being allocated to one sector of the economy that does less to raise the standard of living than other sectors would likely be able to do with those same resources. Therefore the government, in this instance, is preventing the standard of living from increasing as much as it would have otherwise, which happens to hurt real people. Ensuring that the resources they take from the private sector are used better than they otherwise would have been should be one of the primary concerns any government has when it decides to meddle in an economy because the consequences can negatively impact a lot of people.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
I'm not bringing ideology into it. I'm focusing on the human cost of spending money, that's all. So lets put it another way, since you want to get into arguments over the value of green pieces of paper. $40k worth of subsidies for education are about 2500 hours of labor from a median laborer. Are you willing to force 25 median Americans to work 100 hours each, just so that their waiter can party for 4 years and maybe quote Beowulf? The output of those 2500 hours of labor are what makes the green pieces of paper worth something. But then there is the printing presses, which are guarded and the vaults that are guarded and the software systems that are guarded and the counterfeiting laws none of which you created. I have, however, paid far more than my fair share for this service, which probably amounts to only a few dollars per person per year. It's also dishonest for you to bring public goods into this. We are discussing redistribution of wealth in the form of private goods, not public goods (such as anti-counterfeiting, police and fire protection). Now, you might argue there are public benefits to education (e.g., a well educated labor force is more productive). But that is irrelevant for this discussion - we are discussing workers who are choosing not to make a productive use of our investment in them.
- timwiseman 16y ago
  I agree with every statement you have made highly, except for one small but significant nitpick. Many of those people are not choosing not to make productive use of it, but failing to find a good way to do it. I have an acquantaince with an MA in English literature who was unable to find any job related to it, my own wife failed to find any reasonable job with a BA in History and is pursuing her MA so she can teach at the community college, hopefully. You could say that they deliberately chose degrees that are hard to market and I would agree, but once they had those degrees neither of them chose not to use it deliberately. Also, I know that is anecodatal, but I strongly suspect a fair number of those PHDed waiters failed to find employment in their field rather than chose not to.
- abeppu 16y ago
  Ok, twice now, you've boiled the benefit of higher education which doesn't result in placement at jobs requiring higher education as partying for 4 years, and a weak lingering familiarity with literature. I don't think that's fair. No one here is arguing for higher education for apathetic, disengaged students, or for low standards in higher education. Also, this is twice that you've pulled out this 40k figure. Is that from some other article? I didn't think most degrees are subsidized that heavily, or that most college students have access to funding at that level, although if you have sources you'd like to cite, I'd be interested to see them. [W]e are discussing workers who are choosing not to make a productive use of our investment in them. Three points: (a) it's not always obvious whether a person's education is being put to productive use. Taking a job which directly requires that education is only one way a person might put their education to productive use. (b) among people who aren't putting their education to productive use, are these really all about choice? All of the friends I have that graduated in the past couple years who haven't ended up in jobs which specifically required their education haven't chosen to not make productive use of their education. The job market for a lot of areas is tough right now, and a new graduate attempting to put his or her education to good use has to compete with more experienced applicants even for low level positions. (c) even if they haven't found jobs where they can put their education to good use yet, doesn't mean they won't when the job market changes. I think a lot of the people you'd like to paint as being deliberately bad investments are actually victims of poor economic circumstance.
kelnos 16y ago
That's correct, but incredibly irrelevant. Yes, money is only "money" because we as a society decide it is. But we as a society (in theory) also decide what our government should spend money on. It is our money, no matter how you look at it. The government does take some of it from us as the price of having a civilized society, but we still get to (collectively) decide what that money is used for. And if we don't like paying for a 4-year college education for someone who is going to end up being a parking attendant, we have the right to try to find a way to fix that. Maybe we'll fail, but we have the right to try to change things.

jimmyk 16y ago

The form of the money is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is that resources are being allocated to one sector of the economy that does less to raise the standard of living than other sectors would likely be able to do with those same resources. Therefore the government, in this instance, is preventing the standard of living from increasing as much as it would have otherwise, which happens to hurt real people. Ensuring that the resources they take from the private sector are used better than they otherwise would have been should be one of the primary concerns any government has when it decides to meddle in an economy because the consequences can negatively impact a lot of people.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I'm not bringing ideology into it. I'm focusing on the human cost of spending money, that's all. So lets put it another way, since you want to get into arguments over the value of green pieces of paper. $40k worth of subsidies for education are about 2500 hours of labor from a median laborer. Are you willing to force 25 median Americans to work 100 hours each, just so that their waiter can party for 4 years and maybe quote Beowulf? The output of those 2500 hours of labor are what makes the green pieces of paper worth something. But then there is the printing presses, which are guarded and the vaults that are guarded and the software systems that are guarded and the counterfeiting laws none of which you created. I have, however, paid far more than my fair share for this service, which probably amounts to only a few dollars per person per year. It's also dishonest for you to bring public goods into this. We are discussing redistribution of wealth in the form of private goods, not public goods (such as anti-counterfeiting, police and fire protection). Now, you might argue there are public benefits to education (e.g., a well educated labor force is more productive). But that is irrelevant for this discussion - we are discussing workers who are choosing not to make a productive use of our investment in them.

timwiseman 16y ago
I agree with every statement you have made highly, except for one small but significant nitpick. Many of those people are not choosing not to make productive use of it, but failing to find a good way to do it. I have an acquantaince with an MA in English literature who was unable to find any job related to it, my own wife failed to find any reasonable job with a BA in History and is pursuing her MA so she can teach at the community college, hopefully. You could say that they deliberately chose degrees that are hard to market and I would agree, but once they had those degrees neither of them chose not to use it deliberately. Also, I know that is anecodatal, but I strongly suspect a fair number of those PHDed waiters failed to find employment in their field rather than chose not to.
abeppu 16y ago
Ok, twice now, you've boiled the benefit of higher education which doesn't result in placement at jobs requiring higher education as partying for 4 years, and a weak lingering familiarity with literature. I don't think that's fair. No one here is arguing for higher education for apathetic, disengaged students, or for low standards in higher education. Also, this is twice that you've pulled out this 40k figure. Is that from some other article? I didn't think most degrees are subsidized that heavily, or that most college students have access to funding at that level, although if you have sources you'd like to cite, I'd be interested to see them. [W]e are discussing workers who are choosing not to make a productive use of our investment in them. Three points: (a) it's not always obvious whether a person's education is being put to productive use. Taking a job which directly requires that education is only one way a person might put their education to productive use. (b) among people who aren't putting their education to productive use, are these really all about choice? All of the friends I have that graduated in the past couple years who haven't ended up in jobs which specifically required their education haven't chosen to not make productive use of their education. The job market for a lot of areas is tough right now, and a new graduate attempting to put his or her education to good use has to compete with more experienced applicants even for low level positions. (c) even if they haven't found jobs where they can put their education to good use yet, doesn't mean they won't when the job market changes. I think a lot of the people you'd like to paint as being deliberately bad investments are actually victims of poor economic circumstance.

kelnos 16y ago

That's correct, but incredibly irrelevant. Yes, money is only "money" because we as a society decide it is. But we as a society (in theory) also decide what our government should spend money on. It is our money, no matter how you look at it. The government does take some of it from us as the price of having a civilized society, but we still get to (collectively) decide what that money is used for. And if we don't like paying for a 4-year college education for someone who is going to end up being a parking attendant, we have the right to try to find a way to fix that. Maybe we'll fail, but we have the right to try to change things.