4 ms·

> Thus, we should tax colleges and education in order to discourage people from attending, as well as construct cheaper screening mechanisms and encourage their

by dkrich 14y ago

> Thus, we should tax colleges and education in order to discourage people from attending, as well as construct cheaper screening mechanisms and encourage their use. For example, we could scrap subsidies for education (e.g., state colleges) and replace them with standardized testing centers. I do not consider myself a republican or tea partier, but I really despise these types of plans aimed at controlling behavior. It works in some cases, but this is not something the government should be mucking with. They've done enough damage to higher education as it is. The last thing the US should be doing is making it even harder for kids to go to college. If anything they should be giving more money to the schools to make it affordable. The problem with college is not what you do or don't learn. Every form of school will involve wasted time. The real problem is the cost to attend.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
I don't know what republicans and the tea party have to do with this. I'm making a simple economic argument. Based on your reasoning, attending college has social costs and no social benefits. I.e., if you go to college and I don't, you get the job and I don't. If neither of us went to college, one of us would still get the job. So your college attendance merely redistributes jobs from others to you, and destroys the wealth it took to educate you. This is a classic example of a market failure and a classic use case for pigouvian taxes. While helping a few kids go to college would benefit them, the benefit would only come at the expense of others (the guy you won't hire because he lacks a pointless degree). So why do you want to do this?
- dkrich 14y ago
  Republicans and tea-partiers tend to favor less government. When people hear somebody say something that coincides with that point of view they often assume the person is a republican. >Based on your reasoning, attending college has social costs and no social benefits. I.e., if you go to college and I don't, you get the job and I don't. If neither of us went to college, one of us would still get the job. Not at all. I think people who have a degree appear more favorable if all other things are equal. Many jobs have a degree listed as prerequisite. If neither of us has one then neither of us will be getting the job. There are just a whole lot of assumptions present in your argument: that a college degree is worthless and that having obtained a college degree is all that differentiates two applicants. Clearly the degree is not pointless if the best jobs are given to those who have them. There is no market failure. If the market for non-college graduates were hotter than the market for college graduates, then college would be free and most would have to close.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Many jobs have a degree listed as prerequisite. If neither of us has one then neither of us will be getting the job. Many jobs have wearing a suit as a prerequisite. Would employers simply not hire anyone and close their doors if everyone refused to wear a suit? Clearly the degree is not pointless if the best jobs are given to those who have them. Clearly a suit is not pointless if the best jobs are given to those who have them. You are completely missing the point. The issue is that the degree is socially harmful while being individually beneficial, according to your own arguments in favor of receiving one.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      > Many jobs have wearing a suit as a prerequisite. Would employers simply not hire anyone and close their doors if everyone refused to wear a suit? You assume that bosses are rational agents. Years of idiotic decisions by idiotic bosses[1] shows otherwise. [1] see Dilbert (1989), 'The Office', 'Office Space' (1999), etc etc.
    - dkrich 14y ago
      > Many jobs have wearing a suit as a prerequisite. Would employers simply not hire anyone and close their doors if everyone refused to wear a suit? That's my point. In a market that has many buyers and few sellers, the buyers do not get to set the price. So there would never be a scenario in which everyone would refuse to wear a suit. Creating hypotheticals in which every job applicant acts in tandem is a pointless endeavor. If the employer states that you have to show up at 8, wear a suit, have a degree, accept a certain rate of pay, and never leave before 6pm, you will do those things. If you don't, that's okay, somebody else will. Just like I can't set the price of the iPhone just because I don't like paying the full price. The day Apple has trouble selling iPhones then I might be able to negotiate. > The issue is that the degree is socially harmful while being individually beneficial, according to your own arguments in favor of receiving one. These are inferences that you are making. I do not think that formal education is harmful to society. The U.S. has the greatest higher education system in the world by a long, long, shot. I do not think it is wise for us to try to tear down from within one of our greatest competitive advantages. There is a reason that people from all over the world are fighting to get into our schools. BTW, I find it kinda curious that you are railing so hard against higher ed. Was it before or after your third degree that you decided education is such a poor investment?

by dkrich 14y ago

yummyfajitas 14y ago

I don't know what republicans and the tea party have to do with this. I'm making a simple economic argument. Based on your reasoning, attending college has social costs and no social benefits. I.e., if you go to college and I don't, you get the job and I don't. If neither of us went to college, one of us would still get the job. So your college attendance merely redistributes jobs from others to you, and destroys the wealth it took to educate you. This is a classic example of a market failure and a classic use case for pigouvian taxes. While helping a few kids go to college would benefit them, the benefit would only come at the expense of others (the guy you won't hire because he lacks a pointless degree). So why do you want to do this?

dkrich 14y ago
Republicans and tea-partiers tend to favor less government. When people hear somebody say something that coincides with that point of view they often assume the person is a republican. >Based on your reasoning, attending college has social costs and no social benefits. I.e., if you go to college and I don't, you get the job and I don't. If neither of us went to college, one of us would still get the job. Not at all. I think people who have a degree appear more favorable if all other things are equal. Many jobs have a degree listed as prerequisite. If neither of us has one then neither of us will be getting the job. There are just a whole lot of assumptions present in your argument: that a college degree is worthless and that having obtained a college degree is all that differentiates two applicants. Clearly the degree is not pointless if the best jobs are given to those who have them. There is no market failure. If the market for non-college graduates were hotter than the market for college graduates, then college would be free and most would have to close.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Many jobs have a degree listed as prerequisite. If neither of us has one then neither of us will be getting the job. Many jobs have wearing a suit as a prerequisite. Would employers simply not hire anyone and close their doors if everyone refused to wear a suit? Clearly the degree is not pointless if the best jobs are given to those who have them. Clearly a suit is not pointless if the best jobs are given to those who have them. You are completely missing the point. The issue is that the degree is socially harmful while being individually beneficial, according to your own arguments in favor of receiving one.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    > Many jobs have wearing a suit as a prerequisite. Would employers simply not hire anyone and close their doors if everyone refused to wear a suit? You assume that bosses are rational agents. Years of idiotic decisions by idiotic bosses[1] shows otherwise. [1] see Dilbert (1989), 'The Office', 'Office Space' (1999), etc etc.
  - dkrich 14y ago
    > Many jobs have wearing a suit as a prerequisite. Would employers simply not hire anyone and close their doors if everyone refused to wear a suit? That's my point. In a market that has many buyers and few sellers, the buyers do not get to set the price. So there would never be a scenario in which everyone would refuse to wear a suit. Creating hypotheticals in which every job applicant acts in tandem is a pointless endeavor. If the employer states that you have to show up at 8, wear a suit, have a degree, accept a certain rate of pay, and never leave before 6pm, you will do those things. If you don't, that's okay, somebody else will. Just like I can't set the price of the iPhone just because I don't like paying the full price. The day Apple has trouble selling iPhones then I might be able to negotiate. > The issue is that the degree is socially harmful while being individually beneficial, according to your own arguments in favor of receiving one. These are inferences that you are making. I do not think that formal education is harmful to society. The U.S. has the greatest higher education system in the world by a long, long, shot. I do not think it is wise for us to try to tear down from within one of our greatest competitive advantages. There is a reason that people from all over the world are fighting to get into our schools. BTW, I find it kinda curious that you are railing so hard against higher ed. Was it before or after your third degree that you decided education is such a poor investment?