Page 1 of 2
Posted on May 16 at 12:59 p.m.
That is a great idea. Now just convince the people who hire and fire that the education that a person gets from coursera is just as valuable as going to stanford to take it.
I would love a more horizontal structure to higher education. I just think it is going to take quite a while for the people who hire, the people who recruit, to accept this as a norm.
On Reinvest in Higher Education
Posted on May 16 at 9:25 a.m.
You want to pull Aristole into this? That is the 'natural law' you are discussing?
If you want to go down this path, that is fine, but may I suggest you take a class at SBCC or UCSB on philosophy or metaethics first. I have spent too many semesters in philosophy classes.
@foo"Netman, When you end up with Rosemary's baby, you do toss it out with the bath water. And then run like heck."
Best line in this thread! It is funny. But to be serious, again, we will argue what is Rosemary's baby and what is not.
You are on to something, but I do not think it is solely the reason. You are correct in that the downturn pushed more people to go and get degrees. You see more people in class that are not 18-22 anymore. However, if you fail to see how the reduction in money that the state has given the schools has had an impact on the cost going up, you are being disingenuous.
Posted on May 15 at 5:15 p.m.
@how "Utopian Ideas just cannot seem to accept Natural Law, even though it controls the Universe." That is just a dumb statement and makes no sense. Comparing human behaviour to the laws of physics makes no sense. One is a law, one is an opinion.
@fooOf course you set expectations. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is a concept that I think a lot of people who have similar beliefs to yours do not understand.
So let's try something . . .
You think teacher's unions are wrong, therefore you want to remove the union.You think public education is a failure, therefore you want to remove it.You think pensions are unsustainable, therefore you want to remove it.
In your 'utopian' world, what do you replace public education with? What do you replace pensions with?
Now to have some fun with you . . .
We have not won the war in Afghanistan. Let's get rid of the whole military. I mean, jeeze, they are a complete and utter failure.
"Continued employment devolving into ineffectual public make-work is not sufficient benefit for continued expenditure of public funds. Then it only becomes badly disguised welfare and we already have a system for that."
Yes, it is called the military.
Posted on May 15 at 5:14 p.m.
The interesting thing is that both @foo and @how have ignored a simple fact. The salaries of the service business is 50-55% of all the expenses. That for a service business is not bad at all.
Unless you went to college and graduated before 65, you were more than likely involved in some form of government sponsored loans.
Why do I mention that? Because let's look at the tuition price. Here - this may help - http://budget.ucop.edu/fees/documents...
Now when did it get expensive? If you look it nearly tripled from 05 to 14. Now lets see if you can look at that objectively and see what the cause was. Hmm, I wonder what happened around 08 timeframe :)
Now look at how they get funded and see the decrease in funding from the state and see if you can see a correlation. Where oh where is the student loan issue involved? Here is your clue . . .
Now if you want to take the position that student loans have shifted the education burden from the state and it's citizens to the student, I would completely agree.
Austrian economics - I am aware of in detail. I didn't state that everything goes up, I said a majority of things do. But let's just go to a simple Econ 101 class. Let's look at supply and demand. With the destruction of true VoTech schools, the push by people, much like yourself for degrees that 'matter' there has been a demand increase with a supply issue. That in itself has caused prices to increase, as well as requirements for those seats to increase.
I am very sorry if you actually believe that the electronics industry is loosely regulated. It is regulated. Of course it is not as regulated as energy and food.
The housing bubble occurred because of greed. You can choose who the greed was on, but it was nothing but greed with a big ole dose of fraud.
Posted on May 15 at 1:12 p.m.
" And walk away when what seemed like a good idea does not generate the expected results."
That statement right there is where everything you have stated is proven to be wrong. Yes, everything.
If people did that, we would never have, the internet, the car, the rifle, the tv, medicine, et al. There is an evolution in progression, it is not binary. We do not go from cavemen to inventing the wheel without making the first one square.
Posted on May 15 at 1:09 p.m.
The ignorance of the "everything was a nickel when I was a kid" crowd is amazing. Gas was .22 a gallon when I was younger, a coke was .25, a car was $2200, a house was 25,000, and the average age of death was in the 60s. So did government cause the gas, the coke, the car, the house and the average age of death to increase?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but only the electronics type business self obsolete and race to zero. Everything else tends to move up in price over time.
Now with howgreen joining the discussion, let's look at his 2800 for a private school. Want to tell me how the GOVERNMENT forced a PRIVATE school to raise their tuition? There was nothing that compelled them to do that by the government. Take off the tinfoil, it didn't happen.
Education at the k-12 and higher has always been highly subsidized by the population mass. That 62 year old's property taxes are going to pay for the elementary school that he sees no direct benefit from. But the reality is that he does. He sees a significant benefit, it raises his property values, it creates educated people who will help fund his SSI and Medicare benefits.
What has occurred though is that politicians have changed their priorities on education. Instead of funding it as they have, they have reduced the amount of funding it has received. Thus causing a revenue issue. How does the school generate the revenue it needs to survive? It raises tuition.
So for the 'get off my lawn' crowd, you are welcome. You were fortunate enough to have politicians who prioritized education over other things. You got a cheap, government subsidized education.
It is a shame that our own government does not want to take our money and invest it back into the citizens at levels as they did in the past.
Posted on May 14 at 10:16 p.m.
You are 100% correct. I completely agree with you about the tuition game. This is the biggest tightly kept secret. Schools are overcoming their budget shortfalls by denying acceptance to state students and taking foreign/out of state students. This is a serious issue and honestly, this is partly where I think politicians need to work at. Using UCSB as an example, there are ~21k students, of those 6k are foreign. I have no idea how many are out of state. But you are looking at a minimum of 1/3rd paying 3x tuition. The question is WHY? That is what needs to be solved.
If you think it is salaries, pfft. Their salaries, including support staff is generally around 50-55% of their expenses. For a service based business, that is very low.
My argument about free speech is not wrong. I just reiterated what the US Supreme Court stated.
And if you think the tuition has gone up the last 5 years because of salaries, wow . . . perhaps you should have taken an econ or finance class in the past. The schools get funding from a few sources, but the main source is from the state. When the state cuts the income to the school, what is the school to do? Close? Nope, they raise rates. But then again, this is something funny because this is the 'free market' at work. Isn't government getting it's hand out of this making the schools run like a business what you want?
And I am still laughing at Foo for arguing against the arts. Without the arts, the state of California would not have it's largest industry. You know . . . the MOVIES!
Posted on May 14 at 10:15 p.m.
@foo - let's start with correcting YOUR grammar. Why do you keep saying unsustainable? In my best Princess Bride, I do not think that word means what you think it does. The pension program has been working, albeit more costly than projected, but it IS working. If you are from the ilk that states it must be funded 100% upon creation, then you do not understand finance.
However, I suspect that your knowledge comes from Fox and WND talking points. You are trying to start down the path of SSI and Medicare. You know those programs that are supposedly UNSUSTAINABLE.
Just so you can research things, when SSI inflows are greater than outflows, Congress has been known to steal it from the fund, make it a breakeven and use the money for other things. When the outlow is greater than the inflow, it is issued an IOU, borrows to pay for it. Sounds like odd accounting to me! However, SSI has some incredible levers so that it will never ever be an UNSUSTAINABLE program. One thing that can be done is raise the cap from ~100k to another number. That will get it into a serious inflow > outflow.
But let's stay with education.#3 in pay. Woo hoo, I guess the teachers need to get enough money to actually afford a roof over their head. Are you trying to create a situation where teachers have to be homeless or even paid at MOST minimum wage? But let me put it this way . . . when was the last time you saw a teacher OWN a house in Montecito, drive a Mercedes? If you go to the teachers parking lot at the schools, you don't see new cars, you see older cars and generally the accord/camry level. So you can argue that they get paid 3rd, but the cost of living is 1st in the nation.
I am utterly confused how Unions can sit on both sides of the table. That makes no sense.
But again, you want to blame the unions. That is the fallacy. Blame the people that agreed to it. They failed in negotiating. If you want to keep drawing the line that the politician is in bed with the union, then why do we have politicians trying to break the union? Why don't you just say it is the politician YOU do not like.
I stated before that taxpayers do not want their money wasted. The argument is what you and I deem to be wasted. As I mentioned, there probably is some consensus, but I doubt we agree on all of it, or even near all of it.
Posted on May 14 at 2:24 p.m.
You are spraying and praying at this point. So let me address your multiple points.
1. When did you the taxpayer become we the taxpayers? If you believe a taxpayer is the same as taxpayers in their beliefs, we will never get anywhere. You may not like what he does, I may. Who is right? Of course, these are opinion based scenarios, not factual statements, like "It is HOT outside!" :)
I am safe to assume that your interest is in reducing what we pay teachers, what we spend on education? Because, as a taxpayer, that is not what I want.
If you want to work on mitigating wasteful spending, we can probably get a consensus on a lot of things. But I suspect the consensus will only be on the $720 hammer and not that desks that the kids sit in, nor the lights being on for them to see the material.
Now, I know this is going to blow your mind . . . Just like corporations are made up of people and we have been told by the supreme court that corporations can have free speech, unions are made up of people. They are entitled to free speech. If it is OK for GE to lobby for something, why is not OK for a union to lobby for something? Both are corporations, just one is registered as a tax exempt not for profit?
Abusive pensions - jeeze. Get over it. I already showed you the math on how they are underpaid. If you think that government has a monopoly on future pension issues, let me direct you to numerous corporations that are in the same boat. Now, I do agree that the pensions that were handed out in the past are handcuffing citizens today. But the costs are because of issues in the private world causing it. You know, the area that you are stating is better. Why is health care so expensive in these pensions? Because the private sector has made health care expensive!
And back to your pension liability issue - are you not aware that the Federal Government had to setup a solution to all the corporate pension issues? It is called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It has been around for about 40 years and is still needed.
If you can learn anything from this discussion, hopefully it is that the private sector and the public sector have both good and bad people running them. The private sector is not immune from dumb things (GM ignition switch?) just like the public sector is not immune from doing good things (clean water!)
To further this conversation . . . elaborate on why unions are bad. I would love to hear the argument. Please do not use WND as a research tool though. :)
Posted on May 14 at 1:36 p.m.
You are drawing out assumptions and calling them facts to support your belief.
The ups analogy is accurate. You have a company who is beholding, not to management, but to stakeholders. You know . . . the investors who OWN UPS. In the school scenario, you have politicians negotiating with the union. The politician is the representative of the people. He is their voice. If he does not produce, just like at UPS, the stakeholders (the public) will vote his butt out.
The only difference between the two is that one is driven by profit and the other is driven by the desire to stay in power.