U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

CEOs get paid a heck of a lot more than $40/hr. Plus they have to, you know, think, unlike most volunteer jobs.

CEOs should only get paid that much for thinking if that thinking achieves results - cost/performance basis.

[seireikhaan]

Well, I'll admit that selfishly, I would really like an extra 4k per year; I'm planning on at least 5 years in college anyways, and I'm mostly going to be paying most all of my college expenses back on my own.

CR, have you ever done 100 hours of service in a year, especially when you've got homework, extra cirriculars, work, tests, and hopefully a social life of some kind? I had to do 20 per year when I was in high school; doing 5 times that while having much harder class work, working a job to pay for the rest of school, extra cirriculars, etc... I would hardly classify that as 'light work'. And I'm going to a state university; I can't imagine what a private would be like.

[CountArach]

There's no guarantee that the kids going into college will get anything out of it, especially if they know that they're not paying anything. I know as a taxpayer I wouldn't want to shell out even more money so some snotnose brat can essentially live Animal House for real.

But on average a person with some college education will earn more than someone from high School, and then someone with a Bachelor's degree will earn far more again:

These higher incomes mean more taxation revenue for the government and hence more benefits for you and everyone else in society. This in turns mean that you may end up paying less in taxes in the long term.

[Crazed Rabbit]

On average, yes.

But that's because, right now, people going to college have to pay - so they have an incentive to spend their time wisely. They have to invest in their future.

If you remove all the cost of going to college and leave only the benefits - like partying, then you'll have more people going to college who would not if they had to spend their own money, not somebody elses'.

CR, have you ever done 100 hours of service in a year, especially when you've got homework, extra cirriculars, work, tests, and hopefully a social life of some kind?

No. What makes volunteering have any meaning is that you're not getting paid or reimbursed for your effort. Obama wants to give an easy $40/hr job to unskilled youth on the taxpayer's dime.

CR

[CountArach]

On average, yes.

But that's because, right now, people going to college have to pay - so they have an incentive to spend their time wisely. They have to invest in their future.

Yes because Europe's free education programs are such a failure.

[Geoffrey S]

Yes because Europe's free education programs are such a failure.

Well... high freshman dropout rates, plenty take longer than they should.

[CountArach]

Well... high freshman dropout rates, plenty take longer than they should.

But will you deny that society has benefited?

[Geoffrey S]

That has more to do with demand from society than what is supplied. But I agree with you in the sense that I'd rather see too much investment in education than too little, but the way I see it going now from university benches is a serious case of quantity (though not even that when it comes to lecturers...) over quality.

Has society benefited? Got an over-educated, largely apathetic population here in the Netherlands. Works better at sustaining the current system for its own sake than keeping up with the pack, methinks.

[PanzerJaeger]

But on average a person with some college education will earn more than someone from high School, and then someone with a Bachelor's degree will earn far more again:

[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Education_Income.jpg[IMG]

These higher incomes mean more taxation revenue for the government and hence more benefits for you and everyone else in society. This in turns mean that you may end up paying less in taxes in the long term.

The problem with that argument is that wealth is finite resource. Yes, right now a Masters sets you apart from the pack, which leads to a better job. However, if everyone has a Masters, there is not enough wealth in the economy to pay everyone $90,000, nor would employers see a Masters level education as being worth such an investment, as people at that level would be plentiful. As Geoffrey said, its about supply and demand.

We're already seeing this trend in America. 10 years ago a bachelor's degree in Business Administration would have landed you a great job. These days, with increased college admission, there are plenty of 4 year graduates in the job pool and wages and opportunities have fallen. Those who can, including myself, are going for an MBA - but even that level doesn't offer the wage guarantees it once did.

Essentially, your argument that people who go to college make more money is based on the fact that a lot of people do not go to college. The more graduates there are in the job pool, the less that education will be worth to employers.

(That’s not to say that there aren’t inherent benefits to a better educated society, I just don’t think those benefits are economic.)

[Ironside]

The problem with that argument is that wealth is finite resource. Yes, right now a Masters sets you apart from the pack, which leads to a better job. However, if everyone has a Masters, there is not enough wealth in the economy to pay everyone $90,000, nor would employers see a Masters level education as being worth such an investment, as people at that level would be plentiful. As Geoffrey said, its about supply and demand.

We're already seeing this trend in America. 10 years ago a bachelor's degree in Business Administration would have landed you a great job. These days, with increased college admission, there are plenty of 4 year graduates in the job pool and wages and opportunities have fallen. Those who can, including myself, are going for an MBA - but even that level doesn't offer the wage guarantees it once did.

Essentially, your argument that people who go to college make more money is based on the fact that a lot of people do not go to college. The more graduates there are in the job pool, the less that education will be worth to employers.

(That’s not to say that there aren’t inherent benefits to a better educated society, I just don’t think those benefits are economic.)

Two points.

A. Our entire system is based on that wealth can grow and how to grow it.
B. What is the main niche of the western world on the job market? Cheap consumer goods made by menial labour?
How many years did you need in school 50 years ago?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There is no such thing as "free."

Taxpayer funded, near-universal college education has demonstrated positive results in a number of European countries -- for example, it was the high education level of Ireland's massively under-employed population that served as one of the key components in Ireland's economic growth over the last 10-15 years.

Most education at the college level in the USA is also heavily funded by the taxpayer. In the USA, a typical state-school education costs approx. $13,600/year whereas a private college will typically cost you $26-29k with some high-end schools charging $40k/year. The practical costs of facilities and faculty are not vastly different on a per student basis -- the rest of the needed tuition comes from government revenues.

It can be argued that private schools provide a higher quality of education, on average, than their publicly underwritten counterparts, but none of the employment/success statistics suggest that the education is of double the value, so those paying for private schooling in addition to getting taxed for public education are losing out on the deal.

The vital difference in the USA is that not all students are guaranteed this opportunity.

In general, the Democrat party has thought fondly of the idea of universal college education, but has made little effort to bring it to fruition, instead concentrating their efforts on greater federal funding and influence/control of the basic education system (ages 5-18).

The GOP has made little effort to establish any policy on this matter, though it may be presumed that the more Constitutionalist elements/hard-core conservatives would prefer to see Government involvement in all education minimized or eliminated. This view is a minority view even within the GOP.


Obama can't fail to have this measure passed if elected. However, in practice, there will be far too many efforts to "scam" the system using college-based "public service" jobs etc. I'm not sure it will generate the "service" people would hope.

On the whole, however, I'd have to suggest that there are far worse, and more expensive, mis-allocations of taxpayer money out there than this program would be.

[Spino]

The problem with that argument is that wealth is finite resource. Yes, right now a Masters sets you apart from the pack, which leads to a better job. However, if everyone has a Masters, there is not enough wealth in the economy to pay everyone $90,000, nor would employers see a Masters level education as being worth such an investment, as people at that level would be plentiful. As Geoffrey said, its about supply and demand.

We're already seeing this trend in America. 10 years ago a bachelor's degree in Business Administration would have landed you a great job. These days, with increased college admission, there are plenty of 4 year graduates in the job pool and wages and opportunities have fallen. Those who can, including myself, are going for an MBA - but even that level doesn't offer the wage guarantees it once did.

Essentially, your argument that people who go to college make more money is based on the fact that a lot of people do not go to college. The more graduates there are in the job pool, the less that education will be worth to employers.

(That’s not to say that there aren’t inherent benefits to a better educated society, I just don’t think those benefits are economic.)

True. But the real root of the problem is that most Americans are steering clear of the types of degrees that their country's industries are starving for. Most of the jobs in high demand are steeped in mathematics and the sciences which, as we all know, have become the penultimate 'uncool because they're too hard & boring' subjects.

There are simply too many Americans getting graduate & post-graduate degrees in liberal arts subjects of dubious distinction (i.e. Filmmaking & the big one... Communications) or as you said, getting degrees in fields that require a certain amount of smarts but are saturated with too many people vying for the same job. America is producing too many lawyers, journalists and film school graduates and not nearly enough doctors, nurses, medical technicians, engineers, accountants, programmers, etc. to meet the demands of those fields. We're simply not producing these people in meaningful quantities anymore.

[discovery1]

But the real root of the problem is that most Americans are steering clear of the types of degrees that their country's industries are starving for. Most of the jobs in high demand are steeped in mathematics and the sciences which, as we all know, have become the penultimate 'uncool because they're too hard & boring' subjects.

I love being an engineering student. Even as the economy tanks my job prospects are getting better.

Who was it that was talking about how hard it is to do 100 hrs of service and a job?
Anyway, if they are being paid for said service, will they take the job?

[woad&fangs]

I'd personally prefer to see that money being awarded to people majoring in engineering or the health sciences but it isn't anything to get outraged over.

As long as the community service is meaningfull it's a good program.

[seireikhaan]

I love being an engineering student. Even as the economy tanks my job prospects are getting better.

Who was it that was talking about how hard it is to do 100 hrs of service and a job?
Anyway, if they are being paid for said service, will they take the job?

That would be moi. And even if you're getting paid for that, 4k still doesn't come nearly close enough for many people. Implying that they won't need a job because they're getting paid for service is, for the majority of students, laughable. I'm not saying its the hardest thing you'll ever do in life; I AM saying, however, that its not as though they simply do a little 'light work', snap their fingers, and get paid, like others were implying. Assuming, of course, that there is some method in place to stop fraud...

But back to Spino's quote: guess I won't have as much competition then, being an accounting student?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'd personally prefer to see that money being awarded to people majoring in engineering or the health sciences but it isn't anything to get outraged over.

As long as the community service is meaningfull it's a good program.

Darn straight. Liberal arts majors deserve no scholarships.

Also, Jesse Jackson: Bitter? We report, you decide.

CR

[seireikhaan]

Also, Jesse Jackson: Bitter? We report, you decide.

Well, Obama being elected would pretty much undercut Jackson's whole, "all us blacks are victims of racism from the white men so we can do or say whatever we want" thing, now wouldn't it?

[CountArach]

Darn straight. Liberal arts majors deserve no scholarships.

Surely most teachers have some sort of degrees along these lines? At least, they do down here.

[Xiahou]

Well, Obama being elected would pretty much undercut Jackson's whole, "all us blacks are victims of racism from the white men so we can do or say whatever we want" thing, now wouldn't it?

Not a problem. Remember, Obama doesn't have slave blood.

[discovery1]

Surely most teachers have some sort of degrees along these lines? At least, they do down here.

I was under the impression there is already a program for people who become teachers straight out of college that forgives their debt or something. Teach for America I think, not that I found anything on their web page that talks about that.

[CountArach]

I was under the impression there is already a program for people who become teachers straight out of college that forgives their debt or something. Teach for America I think, not that I found anything on their web page that talks about that.

That just looks like a volunteer site to me.

[discovery1]

That just looks like a volunteer site to me.

Then I got the name wrong, since I know there is such a program. I've seen ads for it pasted around campus.

http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebA...p?tab=repaying
There's a little bit, not as sweeping as I was imagining though.

[Marshal Murat]

I'm so Sorry

So what jumped out at me was how quickly Obama regretted his decision. And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often. (Googling "Obama" and "regrets" yields more than a million hits.)

perhaps this sort of intense self-scrutiny and navel-gazing will translate into electoral victory.

[Lemur]

You know what's sad about that editorial, Marshal Murat? Somebody got paid to write it. We can only hope it wasn't much, 'cause that is one of the sloppiest pieces I've read in ages. He even included the old-person-fumbling-with-Google moment: "Googling 'Obama' and 'regrets' yields more than a million hits." Wow! Gosh! Really? That must be significant.

What a maroon. Not only does he not understand how search engines work, but he doesn't pay enough attention to his own hackery to give us the number of hits in The Googling. Here, I'll finish this idiot's work for him:

Obama + regrets: 1,130,000 hits
McCain + regrets: 902,000 hits

Obama + president: 65,300,000 hits
McCain + president: 5,940,000 hits

So by this hack's logic, Obama will be president, 'cause The Google told us so. Idjit.

Obama + wombat: 93,400 hits
McCain + wombat: 58,800 hits

Why does Obama enjoy an almost 2-1 advantage in wombats over McCain? Quick, write an essay about it and sell it to AJC.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What a maroon.

this idiot

this hack

Idjit.

Ah, at last!

I knew that sooner or later you'd lose your temper over Obama, and have been saving this dramatic video just for the occasion!

[Redleg]

Ah, at last!

I knew that sooner or later you'd lose your temper over Obama, and have been saving this dramatic video just for the occasion!

LOL - I actually giggled like a girl when I saw the Lemur....

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, Obama being elected would pretty much undercut Jackson's whole, "all us blacks are victims of racism from the white men so we can do or say whatever we want" thing, now wouldn't it?

A good article on why Jackson is staring at irrelevancy and so angry about it:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,725595.column

CR

[Lemur]

It's about damn time somebody made us choose between lemurs and Obama. What took them so long? Excellent find, Louis.

And for the record, my anger was more of a professional thing with the hack who wrote that editorial. There are plenty of legitimate ways to attack Obama, so there's no call for the kind of amateurish pseudo-essay that Luke Boggs put out. I mean, if you're going to attack a Presidential candidate, stay awake at the frickin' keyboard while you do it.

Seriously, read the piece Murat linked to. It's a textbook example of amateurish, lazy writing.

[Marshal Murat]

Don't blame me, blame Matt Drudge.



Okay, blame me, but let it be a warning to all who link sloppy editorials.

[Xiahou]

You know what's sad about that editorial, Marshal Murat? Somebody got paid to write it. We can only hope it wasn't much, 'cause that is one of the sloppiest pieces I've read in ages. He even included the old-person-fumbling-with-Google moment: "Googling 'Obama' and 'regrets' yields more than a million hits." Wow! Gosh! Really? That must be significant.

What a maroon. Not only does he not understand how search engines work, but he doesn't pay enough attention to his own hackery to give us the number of hits in The Googling. Here, I'll finish this idiot's work for him:

Obama + regrets: 1,130,000 hits
McCain + regrets: 902,000 hits

Obama + president: 65,300,000 hits
McCain + president: 5,940,000 hits

So by this hack's logic, Obama will be president, 'cause The Google told us so. Idjit.

Obama + wombat: 93,400 hits
McCain + wombat: 58,800 hits

Why does Obama enjoy an almost 2-1 advantage in wombats over McCain? Quick, write an essay about it and sell it to AJC.

I think you're making a bit much of what was only a parenthetical reference to Google.