patrick.net

Bigsby says

So what? The choice of the course is up to the student. Just because you don't see value in a particular course doesn't mean that it has none. And your point is irrelevant anyway because you aren't arguing for the funding to be directed. You're arguing for it not to be introduced at all.

Think of it this way, the reason housing cost is so high right now is because of low interest rates. If the interest rates weren't as low as they are, people would not be able to pay as much for housing. So if the interest rates were not artificially set by the government the cost of housing would be lower.

lostand confused says

No. There are only so many college jobs

OK--Big's point is that if you want to limit college to only a certain % of the population, you should do it by merit, not by financial status.

indigenous says

Think of it this way, the reason housing cost is so high right now is because of low interest rates

Incorrect. It has been proven that interest rates are actually slightly positively correlated with nominal housing prices. Higher interest rates usually go with higher house prices.

indigenous says

Think of it this way, the reason housing cost is so high right now is because of low interest rates. If the interest rates weren't as low as they are, people would not be able to pay as much for housing. So if the interest rates were not artificially set by the government the cost of housing would be lower.

And that has what to do with the costs of your current higher education system (ignoring the fact interest rates aren't the only contributing factor to house prices)?

tatupu70 says

Incorrect. It has been proven that interest rates are actually slightly positively correlated with nominal housing prices. Higher interest rates usually go with higher house prices.

Though I imagine that has something to do with strong wage inflation also occurring, which is less likely these days (plus the fact that people are far more financially committed to housing than they used to be, so will be far more affected by rate rises).

Call it Crazy says

If you weren't so stupid, you would know that these people that you want to take away from and redistribute their money, FIRST had to work hard and EARN the money they used to invest for these PASSIVE returns... Somehow in your fucked up world, you think people sit back and pick $1000. bills off of the tree in their yard.

Which is why I said previously, get off of your ass, stop whining, and go form your own business and work 80+ hours a week. Then you can take those big bucks you made and invest them in something that gives you PASSIVE income!

They did? More likely their Great Grandfather did. Regardless, so what? They can enjoy the lower tax rate while the EARN the money. If they choose to stop EARNING the money, then they get hit with higher taxes.

This would likely lead to higher job growth as money got reinvested rather than hit with high taxes.

If they were working 80 hours a week, they'd get the lower tax rate. So, why are you arguing with me?

Bigsby says

Though I imagine that has something to do with strong wage inflation also occurring, which is less likely these days.

Agreed.

tatupu70 says

Yes, if there's one thing that's really putting the budget in the red, it's the Obamaphones.

If you had to pick between Obamaphones and a cheaper College education, which would you pick?

tatupu70 says

Incorrect. It has been proven that interest rates are actually slightly positively correlated with nominal housing prices. Higher interest rates usually go with higher house prices.

Check out what Logan has to say about that.Bigsby says

And that has what to do with the costs of your current higher education system (ignoring the fact interest rates aren't the only contributing factor to house prices)?

Making more money available. The VERY definition of inflation is an increase in the money supply.

zzyzzx says

If you had to pick between Obamaphones and a cheaper College education, which would you pick?

If you had to choose between10 new fighter jets and free college education, which would you pick?

tatupu70 says

If you had to choose between10 new fighter jets and free college education, which would you pick?

I'd pick neither.

Now answer my question.

indigenous says

Check out what Logan has to say about that

lol--Logan is a legend in his own mind.

indigenous says

Making more money available. The VERY definition of inflation is an increase in the money supply

Only to Austrians.

tatupu70 says

lol--Logan is a legend in his own mind.

He has street cred, you do not.

tatupu70 says

Only to Austrians.

Actually only to earthlings, which may be the reason you don't get it.

Call it Crazy says

bob2356 says

How does on "live" in washington dc on $15 and hour?

Is that even English?

It's called typing fast while working on multiple screens. Once you overcome your serious deficits in basic English grammar, spelling, and punctuation you may criticize, until then stifle.

indigenous says

Making more money available. The VERY definition of inflation is an increase in the money supply.

And making the proposed money available for tuition doesn't necessarily translate into higher college costs, does it? So what is your point?

If you truly desired a more educated society, why not improve on the existing systems for public education. The government already forces everyone into thirteen years of public education. Let's improve on that which we already have first, before dreaming up new ways to waste more money

Bigsby says

And making the proposed money available for tuition doesn't necessarily translate into higher college costs, does it?

WTF

errc says

If you truly desired a more educated society, why not improve on the existing systems for public education. The government already forces everyone into thirteen years of public education. Let's improve on that which we already have first, before dreaming up new ways to waste more money

That would require a lot more than 'improving' the education system.

w.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/wapo-tells-readers-that-hillary-clinton-wants-to-spend-really-big-number-on-making-college-affordable

Actually it's only $39 billion, not $350 billion.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

And making the proposed money available for tuition doesn't necessarily translate into higher college costs, does it?

WTF

The comment is straightforward to understand. Introducing this measure doesn't automatically translate into higher tuition fees for others.

Call it Crazy says

Another totally clueless statement.... Congratulations, you've made it to the top of the Patnet idiot list!!

We never knew working longer hours gets you into a lower tax bracket!!!

You should really speak for yourself because most of Pat.net understands far more than you. In my proposal, if someone is working, they get the earned income rate, if someone is sitting on their ass, they get the unearned rate. So someone working 80 hours a week gets the earned income rate.

Bigsby says

The comment is straightforward to understand. Introducing this measure doesn't automatically translate into higher tuition fees for others.

The fuck it doesn't

indigenous says

The fuck it doesn't

Proof indeed.

Bigsby says

Proof indeed.

So college costs have not gone up? Yes some common sense required, as in the study of economics, is a scarce resource especially with you and Tat

indigenous says

So college costs have not gone up? Yes some common sense required, as in the study of economics, is a scarce resource especially with you and Tat

Eh? Who said college costs haven't gone up? You are arguing that this measure will increase that rate of increase, something which you have no evidence for.

Bigsby says

Eh? Who said college costs haven't gone up? You are arguing that this measure will increase that rate of increase, something which you have no evidence for.

Unless you are an idiot it is called extrapolating.

indigenous says

Unless you are an idiot it is called extrapolating.

Extrapolating based on what? You don't want government involvement because you claim it'll lead to increased university fees. You've had decades of massively increased fees where government has lacked involvement. What do you extrapolate from that?

Bigsby says

You've had decades of massively increased fees where government has lacked involvement

That is because the gubmnt makes students as slaves. You can borrow huge sums for a degree with no job prospects and then can never default on it. So colleges can charge any amount-if they were limited by the rules of say car companies , then the whole dynamic would be different. You don't see car prices going up massively?

lostand confused says

That is because the gubmnt makes students as slaves. You can borrow huge sums for a degree with no job prospects and then can never default on it. So colleges can charge any amount-if they were limited by the rules of say car companies , then the whole dynamic would be different. You don't see car prices going up massively?

And if the government stepped in and mandated fixed tuition fees or tuition rises having to be within the rate of inflation? What then? The UK has some of the best universities in the world. They used to be free, though not anymore. However, tuition fees are set by the government and it doesn't seem to have affected the rankings of those universities. Mind the recent rise has taken the fees to a pretty high level - though they are mostly uniform amongst all universities and courses and far lower than many universities in the US.

lostand confused says

That is because the gubmnt makes students as slaves. You can borrow huge sums for a degree with no job prospects and then can never default on it. So colleges can charge any amount-if they were limited by the rules of say car companies , then the whole dynamic would be different. You don't see car prices going up massively?

They couldn't if there was more competition. All the government does is increase demand by helping folks who weren't born into money have an opportunity to get a secondary education. If we have more supply, and more competition, then prices wouldn't be rising like they are.

That would require a lot more than 'improving' the education system.

Care to explain?

Call it Crazy says

Nice way to backtrack and try to climb out of the hole you created.

Ha, I think this thread shows us who the truly clueless one is here. Even when posters explain an economic concept to you, it still goes right over your head.

Backtrack?? wtf are you talking about? I've forgotten more about economics than you know. You barely understand the difference between earned and unearned income, for Christ's sake.

errc says

That would require a lot more than 'improving' the education system.

Care to explain?

Seriously? Education results aren't solely predicated on the quality of teaching that occurs in schools, are they? It's not difficult imagining some inner city schools being given the very best teachers and heavy funding and still getting relatively poor results. You can use your imagination to work out why.

Every time they subsidize something they end up making it very expensive, so this plan frightens me. College is already expensive due to government subsidies, just imagining 350Billion more expensive.

I know some of you think it's a great idea, but it never works out that way. Businesses always end up raising prices when subsidies kick in, to absorb all that additional income.

There are many ways of limiting the demand (and cost) of college. For example, make all public colleges free, but make the admission standards so high that choosing a private college is effectively a significant, known downgrade. Eliminate publicly funded student loans, as they would only be used for private colleges. All that would remain are private student loans.

If it took a 1500, minimum to get into the state uni - then the private colleges would become a bunch of half-wits who's daddies could cut a check, so the privates would offer the same free deal to top students to keep them coming.

No one would offer private student loans without the guarantee of collection. Make them dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Everyone else, 1-2 years post secondary voluntary trade school, publicly funded just like public high school. High graduation requirements - cut-throat, if you don't make grades you are out.

Take the $70B that is currently going to all colleges (in the form of Pell grants, etc) and send it to state colleges only. Take the $30B in student loan interest and also send that to state colleges only. That is $100B for state colleges only. 14MM state college students currently, translates into about $7100 per student, per year. By making a 1350 (lets say top 10%) requirement for admission - you limiting the student body to 1.4MM students. $71k per student - phew, what an education they would get!

Let the rich people figure out how to compete with that...

control point says

There are many ways of limiting the demand (and cost) of college

Is that really the goal? Limit the demand for education??

How about we raise the supply instead? So everyone can attend college for a reasonable sum

FortWayne says

Every time they subsidize something they end up making it very expensive, so this plan frightens me. College is already expensive due to government subsidies, just imagining 350Billion more expensive.

I know some of you think it's a great idea, but it never works out that way. Businesses always end up raising prices when subsidies kick in, to absorb all that additional income.

Fortwayne if you could bottle that absolute, and spike the Liberal Koolaide with it, you would be a great man.

The absolute best way to improve the school system would be to privatize it.

tatupu70 says

How about we raise the supply instead? So everyone can attend college for a reasonable sum

Because we already have too many college graduates, and subsidizing something that we already have too many of is just plain stupid.

Call it Crazy says

tatupu70 says

How about we raise the supply instead? So everyone can attend college for a reasonable sum

Wow--I guess we hit the limits of your understanding already. You've proven to be even dimmer than I expected.

Are you unable to imagine creating more supply of educational centers? Dan has written often on what the future of education should be. It's not that hard to figure out. Well, for most of us anyway.