patrick.net

Waitingtobuy says

Disdain?

I'm no fan of professors and employees getting lifetime seniority or tenure. However, the real issue to me is lack of funding, and we can point to employees. Freeze the salaries. Great. Still doesn't make up for the funding shortfall.

Disdain? No. Balance.
Civil Servants keep complaining about the revenue side of it. They are half-right. But the revenue is not An Entitlement, and they don't wanna talk about the other half of the problem.

At least, other Civil Servants outside of UC/CSU like K-12, public safety, etc. don't have the option to impose "tuition" to their Customers and send them to the arms of Student Loans to pay it. At least not yet.

We agree there. Revenue, and even a job, should not be an entitlement. But freezing and or even cutting salaries won't make up for the loss.

I deal with the K-12 budget a lot. I'm not an employee either. (I won't get into what I do). Budgets have been cut to the bone, and yet we still need people to run school districts. Until robots can teach, education is a people business. 85-90% of all school district budgets, well run and not well run districts, goes to salary and benefits. Same goes for private schools too.

Waiting, the reason you are paying 9K a year in property taxes, is because it was your choice to pay for (or borrow for) > 600K for your house. That is not your Senior Citizen neighbor's fault. S/he did not ask you to bid up the cost of living on his/her street.

What is sad is that, so many people made that choice, to overpay and get over-assessed and paying way too much property taxes that it created a positive feedback loop rising of assessments and revenues which allowed postponement of the reckoning of the whole system. That delay exacerbated all the problems with it and now in blue collar places at least, The Gig is Up.

At least from what it sounds like, you're in The Fortress where the values remain high, and thost who became residents during the recent years of high assessments are affluent enough to pay those bills. It's different over here where it's mostly lower wage folks.

Partially true. I did make that choice, and I've been fortunate enough to build up wealth over the years (and the value of my last home went up, which allowed me to trade up). I am paying my fair share to support services.

However, you can't ignore the fact that a law that allows you to enjoy the same benefits of living on the same street, receiving the same services, reaping increased property values, yet paying 25% of the property taxes I pay, is fair to me or anyone else. (How about giving him a police or fire dept response time that is 75% slower than mine?) And the ability to pass along the home to his kids or grandkids without a reassessment. Not to mention the extra insult of hiking other taxes to pay for his/their windfall.

Why not lower the property tax for EVERYONE to .8% of current residential and commercial values, as well as lower sales and income taxes to 7%? We might be able to attract new businesses, instead of driving them away, and still pay our bills. We have to try something, because the current formula is not working. By doing nothing, we are defending the status quo, and our long slide into mediocrity.

Waitingtobuy says

reaping increased property values,

Your Senior Citizen neighbor, if he lived there a long time, did not reap increased property values. That only happens when he sells, which he did not do. But you already said here that you reaped increased values to trade up. Did your Senior CItizen neighbor complain about that?

That's a canard that Howard Jarvis used. Most of the people involved in writing Prop 13 were apartment owners. There can be exemptions/means testing too. Your assuming he is a senior citizen. He's 57. An even so, he will make out like a bandit if he would ever need to sell the place.

Why should I subsidize him? Because he was born before me? Boo hoo. If he can't afford to pay the taxes to live here anymore, then sell the place, make $900K, and find a place to rent nearby.

I agree with you that locking in low rates for commercial property owners is not the same thing as protecting others from being evicted from their own homes.

But protecting Senior Citizens and others from getting evicted from their own homes because new neighbors overpaid is not a canard for sheltering The Rich from market assessments on their businesses. It is only a canard for the disingenuous who make that argument. There is no good reason why the tax laws cannot be changed.

When you overpaid for that Fortress House, you over committed for your property taxes. It was your choice. He did not, in your words, "reap" from increased property values if he did not sell. But unlike him, you did "reap" as you put it, from increased property values, to trade up. Then after that you made a sarcastic remark about "oh boo hoo". So you got yours, f'ck the rest of them.

Let's reap the benefit and boo hoo for the rest. Welcome to The Fortress. Welcome to The Bay Area. The Cool and Hip Bay Area.

I'm not in the Bay Area. Im in LA.

What does "overpaying" for my Fortress House have anything to do with this? I would be complaining about the 9% income and 9% sales taxes if my house cost $800K or $80K.

My issue isn't the property taxes, although I wouldnt mind them lower. It is that my neighbor and anyone else that has a sweetheart deal on property taxes has forced the rest of us to pay all kinds of higher taxes. It also means we get less services because they aren't carrying their share of the load.

My boo hoo comment is sarcastic. What you are saying is that I should be taking care of someone whose house value has gone up a lot, and could cash out if they wanted, or could take a part time job, etc. If we didn't have Prop 13 (it limits supply), we might have had lower prices to start, at which point the property taxes on the older owner would be assessed lower. (again, there could be means testing or exemptions for people beyond working age).

Of course I'm not in favor of older people getting evicted, but I'm also not in favor of younger people being evicted because they can't afford to pay their mortgage or rent because of high sales, income, and property taxes, who send their kids to schools which don't have enough money to pay the bills, and who can't get to work on time because the roads blow.

So are you saying that the great majority of us should suffer to protect someone whose house is worth 20 times what they paid for it? If so, you won't get any sympathy from me. Or are you happy with the way things are in CA? If so, at ease...If you can't afford the property taxes, get a part time job as a crossing guard for 2 hrs/day, apply for an exemption, take out a reverse mortgage or HELOC, or sell and move to an apartment you can afford (and enjoy the $900K windfall on a trip to Tahiti). A revised set of property tax laws could be architected to avoid hurting the less fortunate, which is what is happening right now to a fair greater share of people.

zzyzzx says

This stuff is mostly due to colleges paying lavish benefits to employees (often unionized) and paying for bloated union labor on construction projects as well.

If the homeowner isn't insulted by your offer...you didn't bid low enough!!!

Yes, how dare the people who spend their days cleaning the toilets at colleges accross this country expect to earn enough to someday be able to send their own kids. Unions aren't the problem. It's all the extras, like fancy, foreign campuses, lavish dining halls and sports programs that routinely run overbudget. Some of the cost increases are justified, as technology forces schools to upgrade certain equiptment perpetually in order to keep their students up to snuff, but the US government writes a blank check in the form of loans so there's no incentive to economize. Tenured professors don't teach anymore; they research and publish, leaving teaching to UNDERPAID adjuncts. Priorities are out of whack because colleges lack fiscal discipline. Limit government backed student aid to a per pupil total, and prices would begin to normalize.

I've always thought that differences between the Bay Area and the LA Area were mostly all in the minds of Bay Area media types with Major Market Size Envy. Kind of like so many of the professors at the different colleges in the Bay Area who say that "I could've taught at Berkeley, but..."...

The "I cashed ("reaped") my market gain and got mine, but now that I did it, it's not fair" mantra sounds like another thing we have in common, here in the Cool and Hip Bay, with Cool and Hip L.A.

When they write that accepted (congratulations!) offer, buyers choose to buy and they set the price, "congratulations on your new purchase!". They elect to pay the property tax they wrote into their offer. It was a choice that they made, no coercion.

Older folks did not choose to have their reassessment price them out of their homes because younger wealthier people muscled their way in, with cash or their high incomes or loans or whatever. These are people prop-13 voters were fooled into protecting when they voted for it, but it seems like that was only a rider written in to gin up working class people to vote for something that was more about commercial properties. I didn't vote for it, I was a kid at the time, too young to vote.

B.A.C.A.H. says

The "I cashed ("reaped") my market gain and got mine, but now that I did it, it's not fair" mantra sounds like another thing we have in common, here in the Cool and Hip Bay, with Cool and Hip L.A.

I think you have this backwards. Im not suggesting "I got mine, Jack, so backoff". Quite the opposite. I think everyone should pay, no matter the value of the purchase price, including yours truly, that bought at a price I never thought I would pay. As you said, it was my choice. It is the older folks' choice to live in a property that is worth lots more than they paid.

I have voted for our school district bonds. In fact, I ran the campaign, because I believe in good schools. What Im not happy about is others don't feel the same by paying it forward.

This may be the first generation that doesn't feel obligated to provide for the same schools, roads, and public services that their predecessors did. What if, after WWII, the older folks back then said "why should I pay my fair share of taxes for someone else's kids?". These people would never have been educated or had the opportunities they had. Then, Howard Jarvis comes along and says, "you shouldn't pay the same as everyone else. You are special..."and people bought it. What kind of a message does this send to young people that there is a special class of people who don't pay their fair share of taxes?

It isn't my fault that prices have risen, and the fact that my paying $800K for a house benefits the person who was there a long time by an increase in their home value. I'm happy for them and am not jealous in any way. If no one paid what I paid, then they might be sitting on a home worth $80K instead of $800K. Just like it isnt the older folks fault either. The system has limited demand.

When prices rose at our old place, I was ecstatic. I cashed out and rented for 4 years, until we caught the downdraft of the new place we are in (which was worth $1.1M at the peak). Why couldn't someone else take the cash and rent if they can't afford the property taxes?

Again, you haven't answered my question about why it's OK for me and every other working stiff to subsidize someone that bought 30 years ago because that is exactly what we are doing. Just like I will be glad to pay my fair share of taxes if my place increases 10 fold to $8M. If taxes go up, so be it. I'm cashing out again and moving in to a place I can afford..with a wad of cash. Or Im paying my taxes because that's what good citizens do.

Dont complain about college debt.
If you have debt, change countries and the debt stays.
If you want to go to school look overseas, Swiss universities are $1500/year, and Most of Europe has free tuition for Foreign students. My country gives zero interest loans to students and has near zero unemployment.

Countries fight over young hardworking and educated people. Try Australia where you can get a job paying very well without a formal education. Even wages in China are higher than the USA now. Any young person could quickly get wealthy in Asia, its full of high paying jobs and comfortable living with great healthcare.

TylerDurden1 says

Even wages in China are higher than the USA now

No they're not.

Clara says

some money. Paid off my loan in 5 months after graduation easily.
I now am a senior manager of a big SW company. One guy under me was from MIT, another from UCB. Both with huge loans. The way I see it, expensive college are overrated

This describes me too....I have a BS from a California State University. I lived at home and commuted to school. Not the best school by any means. But it cost around $1800/yr at the time plus books and parking. And its a passable school.

I work at the same job as people who went to much more expensive and prestigious schools. I make the same as them and may make more. The head of my division went to a Cal State University also and is over people who went to very expensive private schools.

People run into trouble, like others have said, when they do retarded stuff like spring for private school or to live at a UC AND major in a worthless program(in the future making money sort of way) AND take out loans to do.

If you are borrowing $10K+ a year to eventually make $30-60K/yr, you really are making a HUGE mistake. These people should either live with mom and dad and attend community college then a CSU, or they should work full time and attend a CSU at night.

TylerDurden1 says

even wages in China are higher than the USA now.

Not even close..not even remotely close. You can argue that the yuan hasn't had the same inflationary pressures as the dollar..that's fine. But to say that outright wages are higher would be foolish. Now if you mean Hong Kong then you would have a argument but there are HUGE differences between Hong Kong and the mainland.

The richest part of the mainland would be Shanghai and I've heard the median income would be about 8-10K. You'd be on welfare on those rates here..not even minimum wage part time would be that low.Waitingtobuy says

What about the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s when the government subsidized education?

Huh? The student loan market right now IS from the federal government. Obama took out the middleman (I'm not complaining). The federal student loan market didn't stop in the 90's.

When you subsidize demand it is like giving out half price coupons at walmart on black friday. The place will get swamped and will get sold out. There'd be no incentive for walmart to lower prices but they would increase staffing.

When you subsidize supply it is the opposite. It is like going to Costco and seeing massive amounts of say paper towels sold for 5 cents each in bulk.Waitingtobuy says

College has become an elite country club, something it wasn't intended ever to be. You have to apply, get recommendations, pay exorbitant membership dues, and hopefully you leave a better informed person, with huge debt, unless you have saved ahead of time.

Elite country club? ok..time out.

If EVERYONE goes to college and gets a degree then what exactly would be the value of it? It wasn't that long ago that simply graduating high school was enough to find work (50's and 60s). Public school systems vary dramatically in class structure and what someone can learn. When I attended we had three foreign languages someone could take (French, Spanish and Latin). A friend of mine at a school with a higher population and some more funding had those and German, Russian and Chinese.

Since there are less colleges and universities than public schools it means more to have a degree. Also is that since the student has to pay something to attend it flushes out anyone that just kinda "has to" go. Colleges/universities have a declaration of major where people specialize in subjects. One could argue maybe we should do the same with high school but that might be a tad odd.

What gets people into college is being able to afford it and having the grades. I know someone that had a hard time in his undergrad and inquired about going to graduate level. The standard is a 2.8 GPA, he has about a 2.0. They just cannot bend it. A leap that low would put the standards in question.

On the same level I took a recent government test and didn't pass (came within 10%). The whole process of the test, background check, questioning has a pass rate of less than 3% (had I known that maybe I wouldn't have taken it)

Like it or not everything has standards. We have a standard here just by communicating in English. McDonalds offers picture menus..who doesn't know what a hamburger is in 2011?

One can argue that in Europe tuition for higher education is free. OK but it still leaves out those that don't qualify academically.

Ok so what can be done in lieu of it. There are subjects that allow certificate programs. Some skills are just learned gradually. A vocational school near me has night classes on a wide range of subjects (welding, reupholstery etc) There's a school to become a chef. There are schools to learn mechanical work and of course carpentry, electrical etc.

Of course the market makes the value of anything go up or down. Where I am plumbing is valued higher and can make a better living then down south. Electrical I think has gone down with the market.

I have a degree from UC Davis and fortunately only had a small 10k loan that was repaid years ago. Back in 1989, tuition at UC was dirt cheap compared to now. College is way over rated and I could have done better by spending 4 years in the Air Force with paid experience and college paid for by the military. Anyways, I work with some folks with PhDs and I make more than they do. I know one guy working on his MBA at Wharton which costs 180k for 2 years! Not worth it!

Waitingtobuy says

Again, you haven't answered my question about why it's OK for me and every other working stiff

Million dollar home in The Fortress? Cash-out tax free, trade-up and have the income to make it all work with today's property taxes at market assessment in The Fortress? Income to qualify for the loan on it? Working stiff? Puh-leez.

Your neighbor did not "cash-in" for a tax-exempt gain of asset appreciation on the sale of personal residence. But if he sold a different appreciated asset, taxable. It's not fair to him, not getting that whopper exemption, he subsidized your windfall. It's not fair to him, he does not get your whopper MID and property tax deduction. It's not fair to him, subsidizing your ongoing payments for your choice. You use the government services same like him, why should he subsidize your choice to buy a Fortress Residence at those over priced prices? Does he resent you and say, "boo hoo to you" for it?

mdovell says

If EVERYONE goes to college and gets a degree then what exactly would be the value of it?

The value is that EVERYONE is educated. There is tremendous value in having an educated society.

tatupu70 says

mdovell says

If EVERYONE goes to college and gets a degree then what exactly would be the value of it?

The value is that EVERYONE is educated. There is tremendous value in having an educated society.

No doubt there is value in people being more educated in general, but is it worth the cost? A person is much better suited to be educated or trained in something they can use. A person getting a bachelor's in history and a $100,000 student loan debt does not serve the person or society. Either the person or the taxpayer is going to eat it, and for what?

People hold on to the outdated belief that a college degree is the path to success. Any degree. That is not even close to the truth anymore. Kind of like the people who believed in the realtor BS that it is always a good time to buy.

tatupu70 says

The value is that EVERYONE is educated. There is tremendous value in having an educated society.

Yep.

You can learn a lot from independent reading, at the public library, etc.

tatupu70 says

If EVERYONE goes to college and gets a degree then what exactly would be the value of it?

The value is that EVERYONE is educated. There is tremendous value in having an educated society.

What does "educated" even mean, according to what you are talking about? Example: My wife has a Bachelor's Degree. Last night, we were watching T.V., and a trivia question came up asking about the 4th Marx Brother. We never watch it, and I've never heard her mention it. Yet, she got the correct answer. I asked her "how did you know that?". She said, "I took a History of Modern Film class in college." She chuckled and said "I'm 'well-rounded', didn't you know that?". Is THAT the type of "educated" you are talking about?

Just Reality says

She said, "I took a History of Modern Film class in college." She chuckled and said "I'm 'well-rounded', didn't you know that?". Is THAT the type of "educated" you are talking about?

Yep--you got it. I think society would be much better off if everyone knew about the 4th Marx Brother. Do you disagree?

After all, I'm sure that's the ONLY thing she learned at college.

Waitingtobuy says

You may not realize it, but painting Jews as college-educated elitists while many people are struggling (including Jews) pits one group against another. (and BTW, Fox News using the term "Hollywood" is code for Jews).

If you want to go through life playing "AdLib" with peoples words, then why stop there. You should invent some internal enemies and the three of you can debate the finer points of deceit and distention.

Waitingtobuy says

You have to be very careful about saying "some of my best friends are Jewish".

I do? Why? I live in South Florida for God sakes, everyone has Jewish friends, and well sit down for this one...

A few Cuban Friends as well.

Bellingham Bill says

I don't begrudge people making a living in education, or health care for that matter.

We'd have a superior society if more people made decent livings in these fields.

They are already making lavish salaries and benefits.

mdovell says

When you subsidize demand it is like giving out half price coupons at walmart on black friday. The place will get swamped and will get sold out. There'd be no incentive for walmart to lower prices but they would increase staffing.

When you subsidize supply it is the opposite. It is like going to Costco and seeing massive amounts of say paper towels sold for 5 cents each in bulk

I love your analogies.

zzyzzx says

They are already making lavish salaries and benefits.

you're just sore because voting for Republicans is inversely correlated with education.

i"m cuban and jewish, and i have no friends.

vince13 says

i"m cuban and jewish, and i have no friends.

Well you have plenty now Vince.

Bellingham Bill says

you're just sore because voting for Republicans is inversely correlated with education.

That's just proof, the more oppressively expensive educated you are the more Gullible you are.

my broski told me to not get a graduate degree 'unless I was certain it'd increase my salary.'

well, I didn't follow his advice, so in the end I incurred more debt, suffered the wrath of more schooling, and didn't receive any direct monetary compensation for it. Oops.

I feel that some of the college debt students are saddled with is due to their own personal hubris.

20 years ago, the BA became the HS Diploma. Today, it's the Master's Degree. Seems everybody under 40 has one or is working on one. That or Law School, which is why I've decided to do neither. It probably won't have much of an ROI, so I'm working on getting out of the employee game entirely. That, and I hate the arbitrary aesthetics of the MLA, you know, our opinion is a fact, so don't single space after periods, it's wrong because this panel of tenured English professors doesn't like the look of it.

I believe those charts that compare the earnings of various educational levels are too simplistic. What I would like to see is "How much will I make with 0 years experience and a Master's Degree vs. 15 years experience and a Bachelor's" type charts. I betcha the 15 year experience Bachelor holder makes more money; and might make even more with a Master's. Whereas the newly minted Master's Degree might have to wait a loooooooong time to see the promised wage differences.

In other words, "Average" is just that. It doesn't mean your master's degree will get you a few thousand bucks instantly for the rest of your career the moment you get it.

I believe the worst offender is law school, as I've heard most of the charts showing the benefits of a law degree strip out those who are not in the practice of law, thus only people employed as lawyers are counted. I just don't see law becoming a growth industry, even if every boomer lawyer retires.

I would also like to see public jobs eliminated from consideration when comparing average wages to education level, since many cops, teachers, and other gov't employees get guaranteed wage increases upon obtaining higher levels of education, but I'm not aware of any private employer that gives similar treatment.

Something that would probably drastically reduce the cost of college is if parents would stop automatically believing that they HAVE to pay for their kid's colleges. Its only been in more recent times that this notion became more mainstream. Hardly anyone in my family paid for their educations. I paid for most of mine. Its sort of like the same notion that if you have kids or get married then you HAVE to buy a house. That sort of blind belief is what causes people to spend way more than is practical. If students had to pay then suddenly prices would have to go lower to accommodate their incomes.

Good point, Edvard.

Given the increasing bifurcation in the economy, spending $25,000 to spend a decade as a Waiter at various restaurants, and then twenty years as an office worker doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately, businesses have been so spoiled by large numbers of college graduates, they demand bachelor's degrees for entry level clerk jobs and even jobs like Nightshift Supervisor at a McDonalds that pay in the low teens.

So getting a degree may be necessary just to get a shitty white or 'pink' collar job.

thunderlips11 says

20 years ago, the BA became the HS Diploma. Today, it's the Master's Degree. Seems everybody under 40 has one or is working on one. That or Law School, which is why I've decided to do neither.

Yes, I'm sure that's why the unemployment rate is so disparate for non-college grads vs. college grads and why it's so disparate for high school grads vs. non-high school grads: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

Would you get into a good school? If not, it seems silly to get some of these degrees for the sake of getting one.

The reality is that the motivated, smart, ambitious people will generally do well, regardless of what degree they have. Many of the people who aren't motivated, smart, and ambitious will have trouble even with an advanced degree.

thunderlips11 says

What I would like to see is "How much will I make with 0 years experience and a Master's Degree vs. 15 years experience and a Bachelor's"

In what universe does it take 15 years to get a master's? This would be a useless chart. How many people do you know in this scenario?

thunderlips11 says

That, and I hate the arbitrary aesthetics of the MLA, you know, our opinion is a fact, so don't single space after periods, it's wrong because this panel of tenured English professors doesn't like the look of it.

You don't want to get an advanced degree because of the MLA? What does that have to do with anything? Hating the MLA is a stupid reason to do anything other than not work for the MLA.

thunderlips11 says

In other words, "Average" is just that. It doesn't mean your master's degree will get you a few thousand bucks instantly for the rest of your career the moment you get it.

Well, there's your problem. If you go to a shitty school, your masters might not be worth the paper it's printed on. Same thing for going to a shitty law school or a shitty business school or other shitty schools. What you should be railing against is not advanced degrees per se, but rather useless advanced degrees.

thunderlips11 says

Unfortunately, businesses have been so spoiled by large numbers of college graduates, they demand bachelor's degrees for entry level clerk jobs and even jobs like Nightshift Supervisor at a McDonalds that pay in the low teens.

No, they don't. McD's does not require a college degree for shift managers. It's quite trivial to do a 5 second Google search to see that some shift managers are 19 year olds. Unclear on pay, although it sounds like it could be lower than $13/hr.

edvard2 says

Something that would probably drastically reduce the cost of college is if parents would stop automatically believing that they HAVE to pay for their kid's colleges. Its only been in more recent times that this notion became more mainstream.

It's mainstream among upper middle class and higher to pay, and for many middle class families to pay for college, but it's not clear that every family is paying for college. I think many families would like to pay for college, but realize they can't pay some or all of the tuition due to financial circumstance. This is probably not as universal as you suggested, although it is probably seen as an ideal that people should try to live up to.

thunderlips11 says

I would also like to see public jobs eliminated from consideration when comparing average wages to education level, since many cops, teachers, and other gov't employees get guaranteed wage increases upon obtaining higher levels of education, but I'm not aware of any private employer that gives similar treatment.

A private school is a private employer and some private schools also do this. There are also some employers who will re-hire you at a much higher salary after you get an MBA and will often foot the bill for the MBA to boot. There are certainly jobs where there might be certain levels beyond which it would be extremely difficult to be promoted without some sort of advanced degree.

Note that my argument is not "College is a complete sham", nor was it even "You shouldn't get a master's degree". My argument was that the charts that show differences in pay between bachelor degree holders and masters degree holders are flawed because averages, especially across a range of disciplines, can be very deceiving.

I think we debated before about the rising bar of gumption, getting a Master's Degree while working full time was the pinnacle of gumption in earlier times. Now it's "Meh." Unfortunately human nature is still the same, but the demands and expenses are far greater. Gotta build the system to the customer, not the customer to the system. Anyways...

My point is that charts showing that mere possession of a degree translates into higher wages, are misleading. They don't take into account experience, industry, or any trade-offs.

* An aerospace engineer who worked on various secret stealth plane projects for 15 years adds a Masters on top of his Bachelors.
* A cop with 10 years experience finishes the last two years of college he put off and gains "steps" on the salary ladder instantly thanks to his union contract.

* Marcy is sick of working for $8.50/hr P/T at Lower Sandusky Community Aid Center. Despite having a bachelor's degree, she knows she needs an MS in Social Work to get any kind of decent job in her field.

Versus:
* An English major who tires of her 7 years as a Warehouse Manager at Mid State Office Supply goes to get a Master's in Education, in the hopes of getting a first full time teaching job.
* A business degree holder could only afford a Public School since his state provided grants to top grade scoring Community College students, allowing them to transfer. He decides he's stuck in his current role as a buyer for a retail chain and goes for an MBA. Because of family and work commitments, he takes internet classes, from a Private Company School. Will he get an instant pay increase like Officer Friendly did above? Highly unlikely. Costs subsidized? Unlikely, a token amount at best. A promotion? Maybe. Will his MBA from Generic School help in a job switch? Maybe, maybe not.

Obviously the first three are going to make a lot more money by getting a Masters. The Second, probably not much, although the Teacher will probably get decent benefits and better working conditions.

corntrollio says

No, they don't. McD's does not require a college degree for shift managers. It's quite trivial to do a 5 second Google search to see that some shift managers are 19 year olds. Unclear on pay, although it sounds like it could be lower than $13/hr.

A little rhetorical flourish on my part. I think you'd be surprised at how many shitty service industry jobs "Prefer" college degrees. With the U6 in the double digits, this generally means "must have". I can find you many, many bachelor degree holders working these kinds of jobs. This was true before the Great Recession.

I googled "Fast Food Assistant Manager Jobs" and came up with this right away:
Arturo's Fast Food wants an associate's degree for an Assistant Manager jobs. http://www.jobhost.org/jobs/viewjob/assistant-manager-fast-food-restaurant-miami-international-malldoral-4cfdb4ba36ecdf29?source=indeed&medium=sponsored
I don't know how old you are, but if you were around in the 60s or 70s, were Assistant Managers at Fast Food joints required to have ANY college? Do Assistant Managers of Fast food places require knowledge of PhP, Java, Shakespeare, or anything beyond 6th grade math to function at their job? Actually, with POS and logistics systems, the job should actually be easier and involve less mental activity than before, since reordering coke syrup, etc. is all handled by IT, the employee's checks are done in the main office (or outsourced to ADP), The growth of debit/credit cards reduces the amount of cash to count, etc. etc.

Here's a few others I found searching, but I had to refine my search, since the first 100 hits were all "Come to Acme College and build your future" but no actual jobs.

"Mountain Buddies" Supervisor - $12/hr. Bachelor's Degree Req'd
http://www.hospitalityjobsite.com/job.asp?id=38462008&aff=AC44BA2E-E3EB-4DBC-8BDB-9FCE01C58B09

Front Desk Receptionist at a Dentist's Office, Lafayette, Louisiana "-Bachelor's Degree required, Experience Preferred; "
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?IPath=JRKV0F&ff=21&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3G1Q77621SWZSJNLNB

corntrollio says

Yes, I'm sure that's why the unemployment rate is so disparate for non-college grads vs. college grads and why it's so disparate for high school grads vs. non-high school grads: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

Let's get a little longer term view.

Unemployment rate, 1996-2011, HS Dropouts

College Grads

HS Grads

Looking at this, unemployment rates more than doubled for the educated and uneducated - although those with bachelor's degrees were operating at a lower unemployment rate to start with. I think this is one of the reasons people keep saying that this the first equal opportunity post-war recession. Previously, there were layoffs of industrial and service workers, but the jobs of the educated were fairly safe. I don't remember a time in my almost 40 years of life where teachers were actually laid off en masse and nationwide, for example.

We also don't know what the quality of the jobs are, only the educational status of those that hold them.

People who can finish college are more likely to get a job than no job at all, I think that's logical. They also frequently have more bills to pay. Billy Jo Smith can hang out in his girlfriend's trailer if he gets laid off from his welding job and wait till the unemployment runs out. William Joseph Smith, an Accounts Manager at a bank, will get divorced if he doesn't get a job, any job, and keep the mortgage paid.

corntrollio says

In what universe does it take 15 years to get a master's? This would be a useless chart. How many people do you know in this scenario?

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying, if you already have 15 years experience in a field with a bachelor's, how does that match to somebody with no experience and a masters (new grad/career change)? Is it worth it to take the time to get a Master's, how long are you from retirement, are you getting promotions and raises without it, etc.?

I apparently wasn't articulate, as I was worried about.
corntrollio says

A private school is a private employer and some private schools also do this. There are also some employers who will re-hire you at a much higher salary after you get an MBA and will often foot the bill for the MBA to boot. There are certainly jobs where there might be certain levels beyond which it would be extremely difficult to be promoted without some sort of advanced degree.

Private Schools are fine, but I doubt they're big enough employers to turn the numbers around. What about IBM, Walmart, Apple, Target, TGIF, Larry's Tax and Bookkeeping, and Sally's Sporting Goods? Maybe Silicon Valley and the WebVan/Pets.com paid most or all of the degree costs back in the day, but definitely not now and never in most industries. I worked for one of the biggest R/E Companies in Boston in the 90s, and they offered a few hundred bucks for each course, a token amount of what they cost, and they only took 9 per year.

I think about 3/4 of Americans work in private industry, and the vast majority won't be getting an auto pay raise or promotion by virtue of a degree.

But definitely, if you have experience in a field and are approaching that "Education Glass Ceiling", then of course you should get a degree.

EDIT: Added HS Grads for show the change in unemployment for all. And edited for brevity (somewhat)

corntrollio says

You don't want to get an advanced degree because of the MLA? What does that have to do with anything? Hating the MLA is a stupid reason to do anything other than not work for the MLA.

Easy buddy, this is humor by exaggeration.

Don't seem right, but you can joke about it. I believe you can joke about anything.
It all depends on how you construct the joke. What the exaggeration is. What the exaggeration is.
Because every joke needs one exaggeration. Every joke needs one thing to be way out of proportion.
Give you an example. Did you ever see a news story like this in the paper?
Every now and then you run into a story, says, "some guy broke into a house, stole a lot of things, and while he was in there, he raped an 81 year old woman."
And I'm thinking to myself, "WHY??? What the fuck kind of a social life does this guy have?"
I want to say, "why did you do that?" "Well she was coming on to me. We were dancing and I got horney.
Hey, she was asking for it, she had on a tight bathrobe." I'll say, "Jesus Christ, be a little fucking selective next time will you?"

Read more: http://artists.letssingit.com/george-carlin-lyrics-rape-can-be-funny-7j9zp7k#ixzz1fF3eQmSb
LetsSingIt - Your favorite Music Community

And after the crash, Thiel insisted there hadn’t really been a crash: He argued the equity bubble had simply shifted onto the housing market. Thiel was so convinced of this thesis that until recently, he refused to buy property, despite his soaring personal net worth. And, again, he was right....
Instead, for Thiel, the bubble that has taken the place of housing is the higher education bubble. “A true bubble is when something is overvalued and intensely believed,” he says. “Education may be the only thing people still believe in in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It’s like telling the world there’s no Santa Claus.”
See techcrunch for the whole article.

thunderlips11 says

What about IBM, Walmart, Apple, Target, TGIF, Larry's Tax and Bookkeeping, and Sally's Sporting Goods? Maybe Silicon Valley and the WebVan/Pets.com paid most or all of the degree costs back in the day, but definitely not now and never in most industries.

I seriously doubt any of the pretender dotcoms in the dotcom boom era ever paid for degrees. There are certainly companies in Silicon Valley that do. IBM probably does in very limited circumstances. Consultant firms sometimes do. There are some firms that do care about career development enough to do it, but sure, it's not everybody. Not every public sector job pays you more for an advanced degree either.

thunderlips11 says

My argument was that the charts that show differences in pay between bachelor degree holders and masters degree holders are flawed because averages, especially across a range of disciplines, can be very deceiving.

Then your argument is that some charts suck, not advanced degrees suck. There are better charts that give a better picture on this. For example, I've seen detailed data on salaries from a single highly-ranked university before that gave detailed survey results on CS graduates for BS vs. MS vs. PhD. You could see quite clearly what the salary results were. Other good charts might tell you salary at entry-level vs. salary at mid-career, which is far more helpful and which I've also seen.

As for the rest, it's not like I disagree with you completely on some of this, as I've already mentioned.

corntrollio says

The reality is that the motivated, smart, ambitious people will generally do well, regardless of what degree they have. Many of the people who aren't motivated, smart, and ambitious will have trouble even with an advanced degree.

Well, there's your problem. If you go to a shitty school, your masters might not be worth the paper it's printed on. Same thing for going to a shitty law school or a shitty business school or other shitty schools. What you should be railing against is not advanced degrees per se, but rather useless advanced degrees.

In both of your examples (the teacher and the business person), they both go to shitty colleges to get an advanced degree. It's probably not going to help them, especially since they got themselves boxed into a particular career in the first place. It's unlikely they will suddenly become motivated and ambitious.

thunderlips11 says

I googled "Fast Food Assistant Manager Jobs" and came up with this right away:
Arturo's Fast Food wants an associate's degree for an Assistant Manager jobs. http://www.jobhost.org/jobs/viewjob/assistant-manager-fast-food-restaurant-miami-international-malldoral-4cfdb4ba36ecdf29?source=indeed&medium=sponsored

I'm sure you can cherry-pick all kinds of random jobs. That doesn't change the general trend -- the vast majority of fast food jobs wouldn't require one. You are also changing your story (although maybe it's a "rhetorical flourish"), but first you said shift manager, and now you're saying assistant manager. In any case, my understanding is that Arturo's is different from the typical fast food place. Whereas the typical fast food place is franchised, Arturo's is Venezuelan and has an owned & operated system, so you're actually an assistant manager within the corporation and have the ability to be promoted within the organization. That's far different from being a shift manager at a McDonald's as you first stated.

thunderlips11 says

"Mountain Buddies" Supervisor - $12/hr. Bachelor's Degree Req'd
http://www.hospitalityjobsite.com/job.asp?id=38462008&aff=AC44BA2E-E3EB-4DBC-8BDB-9FCE01C58B09

Even on the ski-job you gave, while the job is extremely low paying, the qualification makes slightly more sense in context. They are expecting someone as an entry-level job at that salary who is looking for seasonal work at a ski resort, which is why they ask for the degree. They don't want some pot-smoking snowboarder for this particular job, even if they expect that the person might partially want free skiing as part of the job. You expect a degree of professionalism since people are paying big money for services at a ski resort, and that person will likely move on to bigger and better things in the future because this is not a career position and isn't even a full year job. In contrast, someone who had no degree, but had years of experience for that particular job wouldn't take it at that salary and would likely be someone who has no plans to move on to something bigger and better, so they're likely to look for a career position in the field and one that runs the full year.

thunderlips11 says

When unemployment is low, the opposite happens - just like it did in the late 90s. Employers, for the first time in that decade, began accepting HS grads and even dropouts for positions they had reserved for "Bachelor's" or "Some College". Positions they wanted to fill with experienced Master's Degree holders went to experienced Bachelor Degree Holders and so forth down the line. Didn't last long, but for the first time since the 70s we had a brief period of all the boats rising with the same tide!
So yes, having a college degree is like insurance against being unemployed. What form that employment takes may not be conducive to middle class wages, though.

Sure, in good times, more unqualified people are able to get jobs, and in bad times, qualified people sometimes have to get worse jobs than they hoped. That's always been true. However, when times are good again, people leave those low paying crappy jobs for something better. That's how economic cycles work. If you graduated at the wrong time, sometimes it sucks, just like if you're underqualified at the wrong time, it sucks. I'm not really sure what that tells us about whether getting an advanced degree is useful or not.

thunderlips11 says

Easy buddy, this is humor.

Oh, I guess you forgot the humor then. :p

EBGuy says

And after the crash, Thiel insisted there hadn’t really been a crash: He argued the equity bubble had simply shifted onto the housing market. Thiel was so convinced of this thesis that until recently, he refused to buy property, despite his soaring personal net worth. And, again, he was right....
Instead, for Thiel, the bubble that has taken the place of housing is the higher education bubble. “A true bubble is when something is overvalued and intensely believed,” he says. “Education may be the only thing people still believe in in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It’s like telling the world there’s no Santa Claus.”
See techcrunch for the whole article.

Except that Thiel did lose money on his house in SF if I remember correctly.

If you read the article, it doesn't actually contradict what I said:

Thiel’s solution to opening the minds of those who can’t easily go to Harvard? Poke a small but solid hole in this Ivy League bubble by convincing some of the most talented kids to stop out of school and try another path. The idea of the successful drop out has been well documented in technology entrepreneurship circles. But Thiel and Founders Fund managing partner Luke Nosek wanted to fund something less one-off, so they came up with the idea of the “20 Under 20″ program last September, announcing it just days later at San Francisco Disrupt. The idea was simple: Pick the best twenty kids he could find under 20 years of age and pay them $100,000 over two years to leave school and start a company instead.

Two weeks ago, Thiel quietly invited 45 finalists to San Francisco for interviews. Everyone who was invited attended– no hysterical parents in sight. Thiel and crew have started to winnow the finalists down to the final 20. They’ll be announced in the next few weeks.

Basically, his goal is to find smart, motivated, ambitious kids. Of course they'll do well. I've said this in other threads too.

corntrollio says

Then your argument is that some charts suck, not advanced degrees suck

That was my argument from the beginning. thunderlips11 says

I believe those charts that compare the earnings of various educational levels are too simplistic.