followed tags: 43
followed domains: 1
badges given: 8 of 9
member for: 1561 days
Honestly, I don't think the college model is going to work much longer. And they've (and I've) been saying this for years. College is mostly a waste of time. You go to learn one skill set, then you have to learn a hugely diverse skill set to become a 'well-rounded' individual.
I get that, I hold two Master's, and around 300 credit hours in a classroom, with many of those hours going to nothing productive in particular. I'm round. But having done all that, which was an insane luxury for most, I don't recommend it. I took really hard (for me) math classes that expanded my mind a bit, but I also had to start from trig because math has never been my strong suit. So a lot of classes it took to get to Abstract Mathematics and Non-Linear Algebra before math really started blowing my mind.
But what do I use in my job? Mostly overall concepts of marketing segmentation, media channels, and experience from other jobs I've had. And a fine ability to bullshit. That's like 4 of the classes I took in college ever, a lifetime of not liking extra work, and luck.
So when I say that college is on its way out, I think what's going to take its place is certification. That cert used to be a degree, but lots of jobs in IT especially don't respect your degree. They want you to see you code (I've heard, I'm not a programmer). They want to see your Cisco certification, not your diploma.
So why is Marketing different? Because it didn't spring up quickly, and employ a group of fast moving people who walked into a job of unlimited growth, and who now run their companies' IT departments without a degree, thus spurring on a disregard for people with degrees but little practical experience. I dont' work in IT, but I do know a ton of people who work in IT, especially tech support for big companies, whose major skill is being able to look up the solution to a problem in forums and on google.
As soon as people can get hired with certs for marketing functions, people aren't going to go to school for Marketing anymore. Same with most jobs. I didn't go to school for education, I did it to waste time while I adjusted to being out of the military. Along the way I found something I liked doing, but that is a super inefficient college journey.
Math shows it's still a very solid investment to go to college.
Education Level - Median Weekly Income
High School/No College - 668
High School/Some College - 761
Bachelor's - 1101
Master's - 1386
So if you did rack up 100k in student debt to get a bachelor's degree, it would help you make (1101-668)=$433 more dollars per week over someone who went to high school only. $100,000/$433= approx 231 weeks of extra income's worth of loans. That's only 4.5 years, then for the rest of your life you're just making more than your investment.
Of course, you don't make the difference right away as it's the median income level for someone with that has that degree level, and I understand that it's part of the article to say that there's a wealth buffer, but even if you triple the repayment of the investment, it's still worth (in a 40 year career) ~800k in additional money. So you put in 100k, you get 800k. Anyone should make that investment.
Really, it's a wonder that college was every as cheap as it was to begin with. It's a huge return on investment, not only in percent, but in nominal dollars as well. Of course when you give people nearly unlimited access to capital, and shield lenders from any fear of losses through aggressive lending, you're going to spiral up the money supply in that market and get cost to the new maximum level that the market will bear. So now here we are.
As well, colleges have waaaaaay too many extravagant things to solely judge their costs on a repayment in education. There's probably a new market soon to emerge that would aim to be a bare bones educational experience. Go to class, no cafeteria, no sports, no av club etc.
That's awesome. I'm not voting for her, I don't want single payer, and moreover I don't live in Nevada CD4. But, I really really respect anyone who will put their money where their mouth is and run for office when they don't think the current person is doing a good job.
It's true that as a congressman in 1983, McCain voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday. He was on the losing end of a 338 to 90 vote in the House of Representatives.
McCain no longer stands by that vote. On April 4, 2008 — the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's death — McCain said the vote was wrong in a speech he gave in Memphis, the city where King died.
"We can be slow as well to give greatness its due, a mistake I myself made long ago when I voted against a federal holiday in memory of Dr. King. I was wrong," he said, to loud reaction from the crowd. "I was wrong, and eventually realized it in time to give full support — full support — for a state holiday in my home state of Arizona. I'd remind you that we can all be a little late sometimes in doing the right thing, and Dr. King understood this about his fellow Americans."
So I'm no crypto-currency whiz, but the gist of this is that a hacker basically stole a page from the Road Runner and at the last minute swapped the road sign that pointed the ICO buyers where to send their money right?
The equivalent would be me going to Wal-Mart and standing in front of the cashier and telling the customer how much they owed me.
You know why I get tired of it? Because it's not my job to prosecute him for the things that would 'otherwise end an administration.' And if it's not my job, and no one else is going to do it, then why get all spun up about it? Especially with this Russia thing. If there's something to be found, it's the job of the many people investigating it to find it. And when I say something, I mean impeachment level somethings. Even these DT Jr. e-mails don't prove that Trump ever knew about any of the meetings. Just that his son met with a Russian government official and they still don't even prove that despite their worst intentions that they were able to profit from this meeting.
Not watching the news makes me happier. I listen to the NPR news once in the morning on the way to work, and once on the way back, and hardly ever do I miss anything that has a shelf life of more than a day.
So I like Caplan's argument that social welfare programs make unemployment more palatable. But his justification of supply and demand ignores social pressures which encourage employment over jobless welfare use. I don't that's an insignificant impact. In fact, I think it's probably one of the main factors in the decision.
And if you have a floor amount of money where it is 'worth it' to take a job and dedicate your time to employment, then Wal-Mart benefits from that floor being otherwise occupied by government programs. You can prove this the same way he 'proves' his theorem, which is to ask 'If I was in charge of Wal-Mart, would I encourage a social pressure to take employment even when the pay is not at the level which produces a meaningful wage?' Of course I would, because then I can pay less as the worker gets an less tangible, but very valid, value of respect and participation in the employed labor force.
Another example on another end of the employee would be a retiree who takes Social Security. It's available to workers and non-workers, but Wal-Mart wouldn't have access to a group of workers that they prefer to hire in that position (nice old people) if those old people were still working in the job that they otherwise were able to retire from with the aid of social security.
The EITC is our greatest hope of a UBI in the near future. And was actually the idea of the EITC in the original Friedman plan, which he called a 'guaranteed income.' There's better sources than that, but his book (which is like Gospel to me) is harder to link.
That's a really interesting point.
Most people know I'm a Libertarian and that includes the support of the free market economy in most places, which of course includes wage transactions between adults. Moreover, where government subsidizes, the free market is interfered with. Wal-Mart is a good example of government making their low prices possible by offering social welfare programs for their workers, which allows their workers to be paid less and still maintain a sustainable lifestyle. I'm not saying it's a life of luxury, but they would likely have the basic necessities at that point.
However, where I think I depart from most L-Party is that I don't know how, in the age of automation of soon to be everything, that it will be possible for the free market to function. At a certain point, no matter how much innovation and development creates new jobs, there will not be enough jobs to sustain the population. Transitioning to the age of plenty will be damn near impossible to do well and especially knowing when that begins in earnest, and when we're still subject to the Luddite fallacy.
I'm also concerned that we may try to transition to early, and slow development of society otherwise. For all the ills heaped on capitalism, life is better than it ever has been for more people than ever. There's more food, there's cleaner water, there's less disease. These developments did not come from the USSR. Of course, you could also argue that altruist heroes like Jonas Salk who literally just gave away the polio vaccine (see below for an interesting side note) have done some good, the development of most vaccines does not come from similar places and instead comes out of the same labs that make boner pills.
It's going to be a really interesting thing to watch that transition from old to new as we go through the next 50 years.
SIDE NOTE: As pointed out by Robert Cook-Deegan at Duke University, “When Jonas Salk asked rhetorically “Would you patent the sun?” during his famous television interview with Edward R. Murrow, he did not mention that the lawyers from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis had looked into patenting the Salk Vaccine and concluded that it could not be patented because of prior art – that it would not be considered a patentable invention by standards of the day. Salk implied that the decision was a moral one, but Jane Smith, in her history of the Salk Vaccine, Patenting the Sun, notes that whether or not Salk himself believed what he said to Murrow, the idea of patenting the vaccine had been directly analyzed and the decision was made not to apply for a patent mainly because it would not result in one.
You guys getting a 404 on this?