The Morality of Wealth

[LeSellers]

I already established on this thread earlier that even most college degrees are worthless.

It depends on where one expects their value to lie.

Most people going to college assume they are receiving hire, not higher, education. From this PoV, you are absolutely right. It is really counterproductive to go to college expecting to become rich because of the degree. Most people owe so much in loans that it will take them about two weeks longer than forever to pay off the loan and then catch up with where they'd be had they simply gone out and started working.

However, if the degree was about "education", and they learned how to think, rather than what and when to think, they can apply the skill to any position, and even can make their own positions as needed.

A famous lecturer received a request from a famous university to "speak to the leaders of the next century." The stipend was something like $20,000, for a one-hour talk. When the president of the university introduced him, he repeated the words of the invitation: "Our speaker will be addressing the leaders of the next century." The distinguished man rose, and asked for a show of hands: "Who, here, thinks you will make an impact on the world?" About a dozen people indicated they would. He then invited them down to the stage, and while they were coming down (only half of those who said they would, made the trek), he took a few chairs and made a circle of them, inviting, as they arrived, those who'd accepted his challenge to sit.

He spoke to these students in a low voice, completely ignoring the thousands of others in the bleachers, not least of which was the president and the other faculty. When, after five minutes, the president got up and asked him what he was doing, he said, "I wish you'd stop bothering me. I'm doing what you asked me to do: speaking to the leaders of the next century."

Many are called, but few are chosen.

It's nothing more than a screening process for companies. It doesn't make people more productive workers. It's still a win/lose situation.

Indeed. My father, an eighth grade drop out, was among the most accomplished men I have known. He was self-taught in mathematics, and learned a lot of what he knew in company class rooms. The job he held when he retired in 1981 was open to hew hires only with a college degree. It's what I call "educational inflation". And, like monetary inflation, it means the value of the degree (or bank note) has diminished to the point of insignificance.

Lehi

[Deborah]

Deborah, I'm astonished that you would see Book of Mormon scriptures trumping the direct teachings of the savior as outlined in the New Testament, especially considering Mosiah and Ether were written long before Christ's ministry.

CFR where Christ taught that it is right for the state to tax its citizens income or productivity. Render unto Ceasar doesn't meet that criteria given the context of that quote.

Taxing one's income is an American past time that is entirely constitutional and just

From hx of income tax

The Constitutionality has been challenged and there are groups who continue to argue that. And just because it was implemented doesn't make it just. And the BOM defined taxes of one fifth tax as a heavy burden when we today pay many times that. I wish all I paid was one fifth.

You might say tithing is voluntary, but it is actually a commandment enforced by ecclesiastical authority the same way taxes are enforced by the IRS.

Nonsense. If I don't pay tithing I'm not put in jail and I don't have my property taken. Yes there may be eternal consequences but nevertheless the choice is voluntary and the consequences of one's own choosing.

Extremely low tax rates is one of the reasons we have such an outrageous deficit. Our nation simply couldn't function without the income tax.

Not true but to say anything further is getting political.

[mbh26]

It is really counterproductive to go to college expecting to become rich because of the degree.

I didn't even expect to get rich. I just wanted a lower middle class job, but they don't exist anymore. You either become a doctor or a lawyer or you're at the bottom of the food chain. Optometry school was about being able to memorize vast quantities of information. There wasn't much teaching how to think going on. I never brought into the english teacher view of this skill as translating into dollars. I was so sick at times I couldn't think my way through a wet paper bag? So how did I do it? Performance enhancing drugs, damage to my overall health, and whatever I had to do to make it happen. But there was no way I was going to do that to keep a teaching job and it wouldn't have worked either, not for me and not for the kids and the truth is that nothing was going to please the parents or the administration.

I used to think teachers did nothing. Most of my high school teachers seemed to be doing nothing from my perspective and I thought it'd be an easy gig. Boy was I wrong. I was fired and I was working pretty hard 10 and more often 12 hour days. Eight hours of babysitting and being the police officer, 3 hours of grading copied and cheated papers that can never keep them busy. Then another 2 hours each night trying to plan their entertainment the next day. And that's all it was. Teachers who made it teaching high school physics were doing nothing more than paper machete and origami. I still find the entire Jaime Escalante story hard to believe and would like to have seen him try it in inner city Jacksonville.

Do you think the parents wouldn't have copmlained about Jaime Escalante? If the parents are complaining, you're going to get fired. It doesn't matter if what the parents are saying has any merit. It just matters that it interrupted the principal's golf game and the mentor couldn't leave early because he was ordered to come get on my case and feed me a line of BS to leave me further confused at what I was supposed to do to control these huligans. They don't really teach teachers how to handle classroom situations in the classes you have to take to become a teacher in college. It's all a political line of BS written by the left based on an imaginary world that doesn't exist. Most teachers that made it admitted to me that it was BS and you had to figure out your own system of rules that would work. But that's kind of hard to do when society is always bending and changing it's rules to serve the vocal minority. I didn't understand anything about who had a leg up on who and who was really pulling the strings. I was stupid enough to go in and do it how they told me to. The line that principals give that they care about the kids is total bogus. They care about their lifestyle and have a salary worth protecting. So how do they keep their jobs? Because it's politics. It's not real capitalism.

It's what I call "educational inflation". And, like monetary inflation, it means the value of the degree (or bank note) has diminished to the point of insignificance.

You got that right. I still think that every parent who complains about the school should have to go down there and do the job, but sadly it's just not possible and the really bad parents already know what they're doing anyway. The fact is that they're just unreasonably selfish people with a skewed view of personal responsibility, and under the current socialistic system they've been given the power to implement that selfishness by force.

One parent rails, "Get these girls some clothes on." Guess what the other parent says to the male teacher who sends a girl to the office to call home and get some clothes! Guess what happens when the teacher tries to break up a fight and one boy gets his lip busted. It doesn't matter that the teacher got a black eye too because, "They were just kids." Thankfully I wasn't that teacher but my coworker was. He got punched in the face and the boy got nothing more than 10 days forced vacation, just to let him cool off before he came back to school to have the teacher spend extra time and one on one attention in the class of 35 to catch him up, if the boy even cared to do so. The teacher can work a little overtime, it's his calling in life they reasoned.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

The implication is very real. College has always created an elite class in history.

Weight lifting has also produced a physically stronger class of humans. But if all humans can lift the same amount, then a "stronger class" no longer exists. Why is this so hard for you to grasp the concept of equality?

Your dichotomy is false. You presume that college for all is wrong economically. Then you segway into the question of equality. It is you not I that believe that college should only be for a few. This creates an elitist class, as has been shown by history. Your example is ridiculous and reflects a lack of understanding.

Quote

Universities whether in Islamic based nations, Asian nations, or the west have almost always had that elitist class

That's nice. But it has nothing to do with what I said. I spoke of a hypothetical situation where everyone has an equal education.

It has a very real bearing on what you stated. You believe that college should not be available for all, you called it "economic reasons". I responded that as such it creates a class of elites, and I used historical examples to reflect my point. You seem lost on that.

Quote

It is because the educated tended to know more about organization and application of knowledge and facts synthesized and articulated into an outcome. It is ridiculous to overlook it.

It is even more ridiculous to try dragging me down this straw man bunny trail. You're trying to argue against something I never said, just for the sake of arguing it seems. Having fun?

Non sequitur answer. Again the example which bolsters why college and higher education created the elites through history is lost on you. If you don't understand, then please say so.

Quote

So when you say too much college or education for a society is a bad thing

That isn't what I said. I said, "it would be counterproductive to provide everyone a college education" and I clarified this to mean in terms of economic value to the individual. But nice try, putting words in my mouth to suit your straw man.

Chuckle.... I would be interested in knowing how being counter productive is a good thing.

Quote

You in turn, just like those dear old plantation owners, want to ensure a compliant lower class that can be manipulated and controlled.

Except I never said this. I mean there's always that.

Perhaps you don't understand the implication of your position?

Quote

As to your somewhat mixed up view of economics, having a college education does not mean you aren't willing to work for less (is this part of the "me" generation I am speaking with?)

I never said this either.

Just a suggestion here, but you should really try to review what people write, because it seems you have serious issues with basic comprehension. I never said having a college educations "means you aren't willing to work for less." Nothing even close to that really. Again, what I presented was just a basic economic axiom. When all workers are equal in every sense, the ones who will get hired are those willing to work for lower wages. This is a universal truth in a free society and it is our every day reality. Just look around you. This is why companies overlook the legal status of immigrants who are willing to work for less. They also overlook their language deficiency because their main objective is to pay a minimum for a job performed. There is nothing "mixed up" about this.

Then I will restate for your benefit

Who said anything about an "elite class"? I provided an elementary example of how supply-demand works in the job market, and this is hardly a moot point. I'm not sure I could simplify it further for your benefit, but what I said is true nonetheless. In a world where everyone has the highest education possible, wages would be substantially lower than they are now because tens of millions of equally qualified applicants will be vying for the same positions. Why would an employer hire Bobby over Jimmy if they are equally educated and both are fresh out of school with no experience? Because Bobby was willing to work for less. People will settle for lower wages just to have a job, the same way illegal immigrants drive down wages substantially. They are in no position to negotiate for higher wages. They are just grateful to be working.

Three points,

1- I presume you believe that all colleges degrees are the same. They aren't

2- Qualification involve more than college degrees as anyone who has had P/L responsibility will tell you. I think perhaps between the ad homs you simply don't have the wherewithal to speak of economics in any terms must less simple ones.

3- Education broadens, it does not limit your options in the work force.

4- Talented people with degrees are in a position to negotiate for higher wages because not everyone graduates with the same level of talent either.

I trust this has clarified the statement for you?

My point was so simple, even my 14 year old understood it. My point that if everyone has an equal education, wages will go down substantially because all the negotiating power will be in the hands of the employers, and not the employees. It is a simple matter of supply/demand which seems to fly right over your head. It is the same principle that regulates prices in a market economy.

Do you think someone with a degree from Harvard is equal in education to someone with a degree from your local four year community college? Or perhaps you believe that someone who is a genius in physics or talented in it is the equivalent of someone who merely sloughted through it for four years?

Finally, yes I did answer analytics question and your lack of knowledge of the subject. My quesiton specifically brought out civilian and military, and analytics chose to ignore one aspect of the question. You seem so caught up in people ignoring your points you should go back and review or whatever it is you do.

[Analytics]

Finally, yes I did answer analytics question and your lack of knowledge of the subject. My quesiton specifically brought out civilian and military, and analytics chose to ignore one aspect of the question. You seem so caught up in people ignoring your points you should go back and review or whatever it is you do.

Physician, heal thyself!

I never disputed that multiple government and non-government options exist to help pay for college. All I said was that the GI bill isn

[Jeff K.]

OK then lets go back to your assertion that subsidized loans drive up costs.

I disagree.

But before we go into it I would like to make sure we are comparing apples and oranges here.

For instance.

1-How do you define costs?

2-Are we speaking of public or private colleges?

Keep in mind also that as demand increases more colleges will open, and as more colleges open, more effective ways of teaching will come into play. We may see a reduction in inefficiencies such as tenure. Already online classes are cutting costs substantially.

If demand were kept small through a lack of multiple levels of subsidy by colleges, what would happen with the inefficiencies that seem to make colleges "unique" in this economic climate, especially with things like tenure"?

Anyway answer those questions and then I will know better how to respond.

[Analytics]

OK then lets go back to your assertion that subsidized loans drive up costs.

I disagree.

But before we go into it I would like to make sure we are comparing apples and oranges here.

For instance.

1-How do you define costs?

2-Are we speaking of public or private colleges?

1- I define "cost" as the total price paid for college. This is the total amount paid by the student, his family, scholarships, etc. Is that a good-enough definition for now?

2- I'm talking about both public and private colleges; I'm talking about any educational endeavor that can be financed through subsidized student loans.

Keep in mind also that as demand increases more colleges will open, and as more colleges open, more effective ways of teaching will come into play. We may see a reduction in inefficiencies such as tenure. Already online classes are cutting costs substantially....

We may see lots of things. My thoughts on this aren't that sophisticated--I'll lay out my argument.

There is a demand for higher education. That demand can be thought of as a demand curve. For every price P (e.g. the price of a credit of education), a certain number of students will choose to purchase it. For example, if a credit costs $20, 50 people might choose to purchase it; if the cost is $25, perhaps only 45 people would purchase it; if the price were $30, maybe only 35 people would find it worthwhile to purchase it, etc. If you were to graph the number of people who would choose to purchase a unit of college for every price, you'd get a demand curve.

Likewise, there is a supply for college. The supply can be thought of as a supply curve. For every price P, the "industry" of higher education will provide a certain number of credits. If the price is low (e.g. $10 per-credit), they would only be willing to offer a few credits--say 10. But for higher and higher prices, the industry would be willing to provide more and more credits. Again, if you graph the number of units offered for every price, you get the supply curve.

If you graphed the supply curve and the demand curve, they would intersect--giving an equilibrium price and supply where the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied. To the extent prices are different than that equlibrium, there will market preasure to move the price and the quantity demanded and supplied to that equlibrium.

So, what happens when the government introduces subsidized student loans? I suggest this causes an increase in demand, which can be thought of as a shift in the demand curve. For example, if only 35 people would choose to purchase education at $30 per-unit without subsidization, perhaps 50 would choose to purchase it with subsidization. The whole demand curve shifts this way.

According to the supply and demand model outlined above, if the demand curve shifts up, then there is pressure for prices to rise until quantity demanded and quantity supplied are again in equlibrium.

As you've told me about 95 times in the last week, I know literally nothing about economics, so the way people who know a little about it might see things differently. Above is how I see it, for what it's worth.

Of course, the real world is more complex than models. Maybe things wouldn't work out the way this simple model predicts. It's easy to make claims about what would hypothetically happen given any hypothetical change in the market. Be our ideas about hypotheticals what they may, the realty is that the quantity supplied, quantity demanded, and prices for college has gone up a lot as college loan subsidization has expanded. The simple model described here explains that observed reality.

[ttribe]

I don't doubt it--thanks for the statistics. But if there weren