5 ms·

One quote really struck out to me: "College graduates are also healthier, happier, more likely to remain married, more likely to be engaged parents and more li

One quote really struck out to me: "College graduates are also healthier, happier, more likely to remain married, more likely to be engaged parents and more likely to vote, research has found." Much of discourse surrounding college has been the economics. Arguably, it is hard to justify the cost of $200k price tag + $200k opportunity cost for a top-tier university, and come out with a $40-60k/year job. But college isn't just about crafting yourself to a job market. You get to truly explore who you are with a diverse group of people (race, genders, sexualities, culture, political leanings, economic backgrounds, drug habits) near your age, all while having access to all the knowledge of the world (be it religion, history, art, economics, etc). Is the SJW culture of thought police hurting what makes college awesome? Yes. Is there a huge bloat of administrators that drives up the cost of college education? Yes. Are certain humanities departments misleading students into thinking that they can get a job with their degree? Yes. Do less-social students get less out of college? Yes. But is college completely worthless? Of course not.

stegosaurus 11y ago
Right. I don't think it's particularly off the wall to say that some things just don't have a price or a monetary reward. Capitalism is a fun game that we play that works in some areas and doesn't in others; it's not the meaning of life. Should I read Shakespeare in my free time or work on a side project? Should I paint or look out of the window at the wildlife or should I move further from work and spend that time commuting? Capitalism makes sense for producing widgets at low cost. For apportioning scarce luxury objects. Etc. But we don't win by trying to make everything profitable. We just make everything more competitive, more stressful, less... human.
- bmelton 11y ago
  > Capitalism makes sense for producing widgets at low cost. For apportioning scarce luxury objects. Etc. But we don't win by trying to make everything profitable. We just make everything more competitive, more stressful, less... human. But Capitalism also allows people a great degree more freedom to do the things they want. Are there constraints? Sure. Is it perfect? Clearly not. But there are many who justify themselves by the works they produce. I don't ordinarily think of myself as that, but when I was an electrician, I used to construct things, build things. I still get a sense of pride whenever I'm home and can look at the light poles that I jackhammered the foundations from, directed the concrete pouring of, wired to main, erected with a crane and bolted into place. There's an odd sense of pride that I have every time I see them. That's something I did. And yeah, it's pretty trivial, but I get value from it. In a capitalist system, not only can I prioritize how much I choose to work, but I also have the luxury of choosing what I do, where I can contribute the most value. I can't say that I've studied it very much, but compared to assigned work for whatever the normal amount of pay is, I very much prefer the freedom of working more for more money, or working less for less money, in a field of my choosing. I can then allocate that money to the items I prioritize most dearly to me. I never have as new a phone as my peers seem to, but in their stead, I have some very nice guitars that I gain great enjoyment from. I'm not yet convinced that there a non-capitalist system exists that affords me such choices. Without incentivizing at least some people to go out and get work done, it seems unlikely to me that there is wealth enough to sustain our collective frivolities. And sure, looking out the window doesn't cost a whole lot, but guitars do, and so do canvases and paints.
  - SapphireSun 11y ago
    Hmm, I don't think anyone seriously believes that a system where you can't choose your job would be superior to capitalism (after all, it wouldn't be very free). I think a more serious competitor is one where the underpinnings of capitalism remain in place, but some form of wealth distribution prevents all the gains from accumulating at the top (our current and probably dire within a few decades situation). For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. This decimated the concentrations of wealth at the upper reaches of society and excessive luxury spending plummeted (for instance, once basic needs are satisfied, rich people start trading around excessively expensive pieces of art or excessively large houses). It, amongst other policies, also broke the intergenerational passage of wealth. However, it didn't remove the temptation to still create wealth. Think of it like playing a game on hard mode, you only get 1/10th the points a n00b gets, but you can still increase your relative position compared to others (which is what I assume rich people really care about when it comes to personal finances). I'm not advocating a particular course of action, but it seems the current course is unsustainable and similar things have been done successfully before. The political rhetoric is out of control these days though. Also, for what it's worth, guitars and canvases don't really cost that much. ;) EDIT: Thinking about this, what if we explicitly posed tax rates as validations of people's success and allowed them to get "achievements" past a certain point? Then playing the game at a harder difficulty would be a badge of prestige. This sounds a little crazy here, but in, e.g. the netherlands has entirely public tax returns and it's been debated and enacted here at various times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14disclose.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14discl...
    - bmelton 11y ago
      > For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. No, but it also wasn't nearly as easy then to emigrate to another country. Considering that the rich can file a few forms and gain citizenship in a tax-friendlier haven, and that is all that is required to recoup some 50% of their earnings, it seems unlikely that wealth would continue to be concentrated in America. Though expatriation numbers are relatively low overall, the rate of expatriation is currently at record highs. So long as there are countries not charging 90% tax rates, it seems unlikely that tax revenues would climb significantly, especially considering that the effective tax revenues stays relatively constant, it seems unlikely to change all that much. As far as all that goes, if you're not talking about supplanting capitalism, then it seems like we can agree that capitalism isn't actually Satan incarnate. If the "fix" for Capitalism is more of what we have (since we do already have redistribution, in spades), then we aren't talking about changing the game at all, but perhaps just some of the rules. As for the unsustainability of the current course, what, in particular, indicates that the current course is doing so horribly? We had a giant bust, and a slowly recovering recession, but that doesn't necessarily put capitalism as the culprit. I look at Twitter, and I see #resistcapitalism trending, and it seems everybody's trying to blame capitalism for police brutality. Maybe I'm just missing the bigger picture, but I can't figure out how the two are linked, even just a little bit.
khuey 11y ago
All of those positive things are also correlated with higher socioeconomic status. Are these traits imparted by college, or are they already present in the set of people likely to go to college?
- interesting_att 11y ago
  The research cited controls for economic status.
xiaoma 11y ago
>"You get to truly explore who you are with a diverse group of people (race, genders, sexualities, culture, political leanings, economic backgrounds, drug habits) near your age" Why should diversity be about everything except age? Is regimenting young people by age really doing a service?

stegosaurus 11y ago

Right. I don't think it's particularly off the wall to say that some things just don't have a price or a monetary reward. Capitalism is a fun game that we play that works in some areas and doesn't in others; it's not the meaning of life. Should I read Shakespeare in my free time or work on a side project? Should I paint or look out of the window at the wildlife or should I move further from work and spend that time commuting? Capitalism makes sense for producing widgets at low cost. For apportioning scarce luxury objects. Etc. But we don't win by trying to make everything profitable. We just make everything more competitive, more stressful, less... human.

bmelton 11y ago
> Capitalism makes sense for producing widgets at low cost. For apportioning scarce luxury objects. Etc. But we don't win by trying to make everything profitable. We just make everything more competitive, more stressful, less... human. But Capitalism also allows people a great degree more freedom to do the things they want. Are there constraints? Sure. Is it perfect? Clearly not. But there are many who justify themselves by the works they produce. I don't ordinarily think of myself as that, but when I was an electrician, I used to construct things, build things. I still get a sense of pride whenever I'm home and can look at the light poles that I jackhammered the foundations from, directed the concrete pouring of, wired to main, erected with a crane and bolted into place. There's an odd sense of pride that I have every time I see them. That's something I did. And yeah, it's pretty trivial, but I get value from it. In a capitalist system, not only can I prioritize how much I choose to work, but I also have the luxury of choosing what I do, where I can contribute the most value. I can't say that I've studied it very much, but compared to assigned work for whatever the normal amount of pay is, I very much prefer the freedom of working more for more money, or working less for less money, in a field of my choosing. I can then allocate that money to the items I prioritize most dearly to me. I never have as new a phone as my peers seem to, but in their stead, I have some very nice guitars that I gain great enjoyment from. I'm not yet convinced that there a non-capitalist system exists that affords me such choices. Without incentivizing at least some people to go out and get work done, it seems unlikely to me that there is wealth enough to sustain our collective frivolities. And sure, looking out the window doesn't cost a whole lot, but guitars do, and so do canvases and paints.
- SapphireSun 11y ago
  Hmm, I don't think anyone seriously believes that a system where you can't choose your job would be superior to capitalism (after all, it wouldn't be very free). I think a more serious competitor is one where the underpinnings of capitalism remain in place, but some form of wealth distribution prevents all the gains from accumulating at the top (our current and probably dire within a few decades situation). For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. This decimated the concentrations of wealth at the upper reaches of society and excessive luxury spending plummeted (for instance, once basic needs are satisfied, rich people start trading around excessively expensive pieces of art or excessively large houses). It, amongst other policies, also broke the intergenerational passage of wealth. However, it didn't remove the temptation to still create wealth. Think of it like playing a game on hard mode, you only get 1/10th the points a n00b gets, but you can still increase your relative position compared to others (which is what I assume rich people really care about when it comes to personal finances). I'm not advocating a particular course of action, but it seems the current course is unsustainable and similar things have been done successfully before. The political rhetoric is out of control these days though. Also, for what it's worth, guitars and canvases don't really cost that much. ;) EDIT: Thinking about this, what if we explicitly posed tax rates as validations of people's success and allowed them to get "achievements" past a certain point? Then playing the game at a harder difficulty would be a badge of prestige. This sounds a little crazy here, but in, e.g. the netherlands has entirely public tax returns and it's been debated and enacted here at various times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14disclose.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14discl...
  - bmelton 11y ago
    > For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. No, but it also wasn't nearly as easy then to emigrate to another country. Considering that the rich can file a few forms and gain citizenship in a tax-friendlier haven, and that is all that is required to recoup some 50% of their earnings, it seems unlikely that wealth would continue to be concentrated in America. Though expatriation numbers are relatively low overall, the rate of expatriation is currently at record highs. So long as there are countries not charging 90% tax rates, it seems unlikely that tax revenues would climb significantly, especially considering that the effective tax revenues stays relatively constant, it seems unlikely to change all that much. As far as all that goes, if you're not talking about supplanting capitalism, then it seems like we can agree that capitalism isn't actually Satan incarnate. If the "fix" for Capitalism is more of what we have (since we do already have redistribution, in spades), then we aren't talking about changing the game at all, but perhaps just some of the rules. As for the unsustainability of the current course, what, in particular, indicates that the current course is doing so horribly? We had a giant bust, and a slowly recovering recession, but that doesn't necessarily put capitalism as the culprit. I look at Twitter, and I see #resistcapitalism trending, and it seems everybody's trying to blame capitalism for police brutality. Maybe I'm just missing the bigger picture, but I can't figure out how the two are linked, even just a little bit.

khuey 11y ago

All of those positive things are also correlated with higher socioeconomic status. Are these traits imparted by college, or are they already present in the set of people likely to go to college?

interesting_att 11y ago
The research cited controls for economic status.

xiaoma 11y ago

>"You get to truly explore who you are with a diverse group of people (race, genders, sexualities, culture, political leanings, economic backgrounds, drug habits) near your age" Why should diversity be about everything except age? Is regimenting young people by age really doing a service?