Free College in USA Proposal


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 530 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obama proposes free college for 2 years for students maintaining a 2.5 GPA.

Hopefully he will also propose the idea to forgive the first two years of student loan debt to everyone currently carrying a loan burden.


My concern is the law of supply and demand.

Simply put, the more common something is, the less value it has, and the more likely it moves from luxury to necessity. For example, fifty years ago, it was possible to be successful even if you didn't graduate high school; harder, but possible. Now, with more and more people having college degrees, it is becoming necessary to have a degree to even get an entry level position in more and more places. I remember applying to work at a car rental facility and they wouldn't even give me an application because I didn't have a Bachelor's degree.

To answer phones at the front counter.

The more that college is subsidized, the more it will turn from people going there to learn because they want to advance themselves and their careers to what high school has become - rooms full of seat warmers who are only there because the other choice was flipping burgers part time.


And how does(n't) he plan on paying for this?

Quote:
the proposal could benefit 9 million students each year and save students an average of $3,800 in tuition

What's another $34 billion a year?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay.

Easily said when you are not having to come up with the $34 billion. Sorry, the US Government needs to cut spending, not come up with ways to keep spending it.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:

And how does(n't) he plan on paying for this?

Quote:
the proposal could benefit 9 million students each year and save students an average of $3,800 in tuition
What's another $34 billion a year?

Literally nothing.

The U.S. spent 6 Trillion dollars on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq with absolutely nothing to show for it. The sum of all federal student loans still outstanding is 1 Trillion.

If instead of pissing away life and treasure in the Middle East we had canceled all student debt then we could have taken the rest and funded this proposal for 134 years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:

My concern is the law of supply and demand.

Simply put, the more common something is, the less value it has, and the more likely it moves from luxury to necessity. For example, fifty years ago, it was possible to be successful even if you didn't graduate high school; harder, but possible. Now, with more and more people having college degrees, it is becoming necessary to have a degree to even get an entry level position in more and more places. I remember applying to work at a car rental facility and they wouldn't even give me an application because I didn't have a Bachelor's degree.

To answer phones at the front counter.

The more that college is subsidized, the more it will turn from people going there to learn because they want to advance themselves and their careers to what high school has become - rooms full of seat warmers who are only there because the other choice was flipping burgers part time.

That's an interesting perspective.

I should think that a university education becoming so widespread would have fantastic outcomes for a society.

What if bachelors degrees were as common as high school diplomas? It might lower the value of a bachelors, but then you're living in a society where even those entry-level jobs are filled by people who had an opportunity for higher education.

I'm not really a fan of the status quo, in that regard. I'd rather people forgo a college degree because of choice, not because they simply can't afford it.

If we were talking about raising the employment standards without also making the education free and available, I would back your point 100%. But that's virtually what's happening anyway, so how can granting access to the education possibly be a bad thing?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm all for this so long as something similar is worked out for trade schools. Because yikes, we need trades. Badly.

Liberty's Edge

I'm for this as well. They could even tie it to a "you must work for us for 2 years at X salary" and it would work out well. People get guaranteed jobs after graduation and government gets cheap, skilled labor.


ShadowcatX wrote:
I'm for this as well. They could even tie it to a "you must work for us for 2 years at X salary" and it would work out well.

great idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a fantastic idea. But I guarantee it will be instantly shot down as Socialism. Total non-starter if it requires Congressional action.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, the details of the proposal include 2-year professional certificates. So the student isn't limited to a AA or pursuing a bachelor. They could become a journeyman, lineman, welder, auto tech, or whatever trade skill you local Community College has a program for.

I can't get passed how amazing this opportunity could be. Particularly if you live in an area with dual credit in high school. students could graduate from high school with a professional certificate or just a semester away.

We could actually fill the ranks of the trades again. I also think that trade programs should include a course on how to run your own business. Particularly stuff like getting a Dun and Bradstreet number. using a professional employer organization, and how to establish an LLC.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
This is a fantastic idea. But I guarantee it will be instantly shot down as Socialism. Total non-starter if it requires Congressional action.

Of course it will. Something like this should have been muscled through when dems had the majority in congress, but he was too preoccupied with his health care bill and trying to work with the republicans. Maybe in 6 - 10 years. . .


For those worried about the effect on salaries: Even if we assume additional education does not result in additional productivity (a very questionable assumption), more education is the closest thing we have to a panacea for a number of otherwise intractable social problems. Quite simply, the more education people have attained, the better choices they make, both in the workplace and outside of it.

To be blunt: As someone who put myself through college, I don't mind a little extra competition in the job market if it helps more people climb off the $h!t heap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm ashamed it took 70 years for our government to figure out that the GI bill of post WWII era was a success, and that it should be more widely implemented.

I can't help but feel that while education is generally great, the US is bending over backwards to outsource every job or turn it into a McJob. Better education (and less student debt) are a great start, but it needs to be part of a bigger picture.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay.
Easily said when you are not having to come up with the $34 billion. Sorry, the US Government needs to cut spending, not come up with ways to keep spending it.

To put it in perspective, federal government spending is on the order of $3.9 T-for-trillion dollars per year, so this proposal would cost about 1% of the total federal budget, less if the cost is (as propose) split 50/50 with the various state budgets.

As to where that 1% comes from.... well, federal spending on the Bureau of Prisons is about $7 T-for-trillion per year. (This doesn't include state spending.) The incarceration rate among people with a college education is about 1/3 the rate of people without, so we could literally cut the federal prison population (and budget) in half and pay for the entire program (even not using state support and cost sharing) without noticeable consequences.

Well, except for the noticeable consequences of a better lifestyle for almost everyone, because of the well documented effects that "more education is the closest thing we have to a panacea for a number of otherwise intractable social problems" (thanks, bug).

(This, of course, doesn't include other cost savings from the Department of Justice,.... notably, the reduced costs for law enforcement. Fewer crimes means lower investigative costs as well. It's long been known that every dollar spent on education delivers far more than a dollar in cost savings elsewhere in the budget.)


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay.
Easily said when you are not having to come up with the $34 billion. Sorry, the US Government needs to cut spending, not come up with ways to keep spending it.

To put it in perspective, federal government spending is on the order of $3.9 T-for-trillion dollars per year, so this proposal would cost about 1% of the total federal budget, less if the cost is (as propose) split 50/50 with the various state budgets.

As to where that 1% comes from.... well, federal spending on the Bureau of Prisons is about $7 T-for-trillion per year. (This doesn't include state spending.) The incarceration rate among people with a college education is about 1/3 the rate of people without, so we could literally cut the federal prison population (and budget) in half and pay for the entire program (even not using state support and cost sharing) without noticeable consequences.

Well, except for the noticeable consequences of a better lifestyle for almost everyone, because of the well documented effects that "more education is the closest thing we have to a panacea for a number of otherwise intractable social problems" (thanks, bug).

1) Something seems wrong with your numbers. The federal government can't spend $7 trillion on prisons if the budget is only $3.9 trillion.

2) And more importantly, that may be true in the long run, but we will still have to keep spending on prisons while generations get their college education and become less likely to wind up in prison.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*gasp* you mean we will need to invest in our own future?

Perish the thought!


BigDTBone wrote:

*gasp* you mean we will need to invest in our own future?

Perish the thought!

FUGM. The future is someone else's problem. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
1) Something seems wrong with your numbers. The federal government can't spend $7 trillion on prisons if the budget is only $3.9 trillion.

Sorry, you're right of course. $7 B-for-billion for the BoP.

Quote:


2) And more importantly, that may be true in the long run, but we will still have to keep spending on prisons ....

Yeah. That's what governments are supposed to do, invest in infrastructure. It's not like there's a long timeframe for the payback of educational spending. People in college are generally not out on the street committing crimes.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
1) Something seems wrong with your numbers. The federal government can't spend $7 trillion on prisons if the budget is only $3.9 trillion.

Sorry, you're right of course. $7 B-for-billion for the BoP.

Quote:


2) And more importantly, that may be true in the long run, but we will still have to keep spending on prisons ....
Yeah. That's what governments are supposed to do, invest in infrastructure. It's not like there's a long timeframe for the payback of educational spending. People in college are generally not out on the street committing crimes.

1) Makes more sense, but if it's only $7 billion, it won't cover the $34 billion for the program.

2) True. The benefits will start to be seen quickly, but the drop in costs won't be complete for years to come.

Not that I'm against it, mind you. Investing in infrastructure, including education, is vitally important. Just that the money does actually have to come from somewhere. It won't magically appear from savings elsewhere in the current budget.

Liberty's Edge

Meh, cut back military spending to 10%, and just threaten to nuke the first country to picks a fight. Easily covers education.


Then we end up having to nuke the first country that picks a fight, though.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Meh, cut back military spending to 10%, and just threaten to nuke the first country to picks a fight. Easily covers education.

Well yeah. There are certainly plenty of places the money can come from. It's a matter of politics to get it done.

Just borrowing more money for would be worth it, for all the howls of the deficit hawks. Pays for itself in the long run, which is exactly what you should borrow money for. Especially when you can do it at ridiculously low interest rates, like you can today.

There are also things that we should be spending less on, like the military, but that's a separate question in many ways.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Fergurg wrote:

My concern is the law of supply and demand.

Simply put, the more common something is, the less value it has, and the more likely it moves from luxury to necessity. For example, fifty years ago, it was possible to be successful even if you didn't graduate high school; harder, but possible. Now, with more and more people having college degrees, it is becoming necessary to have a degree to even get an entry level position in more and more places. I remember applying to work at a car rental facility and they wouldn't even give me an application because I didn't have a Bachelor's degree.

To answer phones at the front counter. For $8 and hour.

The more that college is subsidized, the more it will turn from people going there to learn because they want to advance themselves and their careers to what high school has become - rooms full of seat warmers who are only there because the other choice was flipping burgers part time.

That's an interesting perspective.

I should think that a university education becoming so widespread would have fantastic outcomes for a society.

What if bachelors degrees were as common as high school diplomas? It might lower the value of a bachelors, but then you're living in a society where even those entry-level jobs are filled by people who had an opportunity for higher education.

Which brings the problem I mentioned - people who are simply not cut out for college are going to be relegated to even lower status in society, as even the most basic entry-level positions are going to be demanding bachelor's degrees.

It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

Quote:
I'm not really a fan of the status quo, in that regard. I'd rather people forgo a college degree because of choice, not because they simply can't afford it.

I forgot that I cut out my other point: the issue of priorities.

People will find a way to pay for what is important to them. For example, research and life has shown that when sports are cut in high schools, the parents will pay for the kids to play, with no variation for the income of the parents involved.


Coriat wrote:
Then we end up having to nuke the first country that picks a fight, though.

Sounds like a feature, not a bug.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

That makes no sense. I don't think any real world examples would back up that claim.

EDIT: They figured this stuff out 100 years ago. When you give working people more money it stimulates the economy. Trickle down economics has proven to be a farce for decades now.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

This is demonstrably false.


Fergie wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

That makes no sense. I don't think any real world examples would back up that claim.

EDIT: They figured this stuff out 100 years ago. When you give working people more money it stimulates the economy. Trickle down economics has proven to be a farce for decades now.

What happens is that minimum wage goes up. The people making minimum wage have more money. The business paying them has more expense but is not getting more for that extra expense. The business then raises its prices to cover the expense. Everybody then has to pay more for what they were getting, including those who did not get a raise from the minimum wage going up.

Inflation continues. That extra money that the people getting the government-enforced raise got gets put toward the increased expenses. Those who didn't get a raise see that the money they have buys less.

But the government makes more money, because income taxes only care about how much money you made, not how much money you made compared to how much things cost.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I guess that is why Ford went out of business when he paid the workers making the Model T more money. Shame how that affected the country...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Free post secondary Ed is all well and good, but my concern has always been how the western world keeps pushing back the age at which it's possible to get a decent job.

It seems to me that a better solution would be to make the TWELVE YEARS that kids already spend in school more meaningful. Somewhere in the range of grade 8-10 you've already learned the math/language skills you'll actually be making use of the rest of your life. Current education past that point serves no purpose other than to prepare you for more education.

My proposal is that somewhere around grade 10 a branching path is offered, the current model for those that want to pursue traditional education and 2 year trades type programs for those that don't.

That way we get 18 year old grads leaving high school already certified for high demand jobs.

Obviously I'm no expert but it really feels to me like we get very little for the 12 years invested in the average high school grad.

- Torger


Fergie wrote:

Yeah, I guess that is why Ford went out of business when he paid the workers making the Model T more money. Shame how that affected the country...

Ford was an anomaly, who intentionally paid more than his competitors, and was promoting his product as a high-ticket item. It used its higher than average wages to get the best workers to his company, leaving the less desired ones to work for its competitors - which was the intention.

If every business had been legally required to pay what Ford was paying its workers, it would have had a very drastic and terrible effect on the economy.

Liberty's Edge

Torger Miltenberger wrote:

Free post secondary Ed is all well and good, but my concern has always been how the western world keeps pushing back the age at which it's possible to get a decent job.

It seems to me that a better solution would be to make the TWELVE YEARS that kids already spend in school more meaningful. Somewhere in the range of grade 8-10 you've already learned the math/language skills you'll actually be making use of the rest of your life. Current education past that point serves no purpose other than to prepare you for more education.

My proposal is that somewhere around grade 10 a branching path is offered, the current model for those that want to pursue traditional education and 2 year trades type programs for those that don't.

That way we get 18 year old grads leaving high school already certified for high demand jobs.

Obviously I'm no expert but it really feels to me like we get very little for the 12 years invested in the average high school grad.

- Torger

I agree with a lot of this, education in this country could be restructured from the ground up with a lot of benefits, but really I think that is beyond the scope of this thread. And talk about something not getting through congress. . .


To put your thesis another way:
"If every worker had been able to afford a decent standard of living, it would have had a very drastic and terrible effect on the economy."
History has proven your ideas to be false.


Fergurg wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

That makes no sense. I don't think any real world examples would back up that claim.

EDIT: They figured this stuff out 100 years ago. When you give working people more money it stimulates the economy. Trickle down economics has proven to be a farce for decades now.

What happens is that minimum wage goes up. The people making minimum wage have more money. The business paying them has more expense but is not getting more for that extra expense. The business then raises its prices to cover the expense. Everybody then has to pay more for what they were getting, including those who did not get a raise from the minimum wage going up.

Inflation continues. That extra money that the people getting the government-enforced raise got gets put toward the increased expenses. Those who didn't get a raise see that the money they have buys less.

But the government makes more money, because income taxes only care about how much money you made, not how much money you made compared to how much things cost.

That's all very logical. Except we don't actually see it when the minimum wage goes up.

I suspect, partly because the cost of wages paid to minimum wage workers is a small fraction of the cost of any purchases so that inflation due to such increases is only a small fraction of the amount wages increased by. Also, any increase in money flowing to the working poor is immediately spent, partly on any increased prices and more on increased consumption. Losses are thus made up in volume as the economy grows.

At the very worst, despite your basic analysis here, the effects of minimum wage increases on the economy are unproven. Isolating single causes for economic effects is extremely hard, but if it was as drastic as opponents claim, it should be readily apparent. They might not be as beneficial as I think, but it's certainly out of line to say as a hard fact that they're completely balanced out by inflation.

As for taxes, people making minimum wage pay very little in income tax, because they're too poor. If the government is making more money after minimum wage increases, there's some other factor at work.


thejeff wrote:

That's all very logical. Except we don't actually see it when the minimum wage goes up.

I suspect, partly because the cost of wages paid to minimum wage workers is a small fraction of the cost of any purchases so that inflation due to such increases is only a small fraction of the amount wages increased by.

I think so as well. A lot of prices businesses face are linked to American minimum wages modestly or indirectly at best.


Fergurg wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

That makes no sense. I don't think any real world examples would back up that claim.

EDIT: They figured this stuff out 100 years ago. When you give working people more money it stimulates the economy. Trickle down economics has proven to be a farce for decades now.

What happens is that minimum wage goes up. The people making minimum wage have more money. The business paying them has more expense but is not getting more for that extra expense. The business then raises its prices to cover the expense. Everybody then has to pay more for what they were getting, including those who did not get a raise from the minimum wage going up.

Inflation continues. That extra money that the people getting the government-enforced raise got gets put toward the increased expenses. Those who didn't get a raise see that the money they have buys less.

But the government makes more money, because income taxes only care about how much money you made, not how much money you made compared to how much things cost.

This is demonstrably false. You are simply incorrect on this matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

That makes no sense. I don't think any real world examples would back up that claim.

EDIT: They figured this stuff out 100 years ago. When you give working people more money it stimulates the economy. Trickle down economics has proven to be a farce for decades now.

What happens is that minimum wage goes up. The people making minimum wage have more money. The business paying them has more expense but is not getting more for that extra expense. The business then raises its prices to cover the expense. Everybody then has to pay more for what they were getting, including those who did not get a raise from the minimum wage going up.

Inflation continues. That extra money that the people getting the government-enforced raise got gets put toward the increased expenses. Those who didn't get a raise see that the money they have buys less.

But the government makes more money, because income taxes only care about how much money you made, not how much money you made compared to how much things cost.

Increasing the minimum wage does not increase inflation. There's a simple way to look at it to know this is true.

Inflation has happened at a faster rate than the minimum wage has gone up, and it's done regardless of increases (or lack of increases) to the minimum wage.

There isn't even a correlation between inflation and minimum wage, let alone causation.

Second, if you want to continue to live in the richest country in the world, we need to have a workforce that dominates the best paying jobs in the world. If all the high-end technology workers start coming out of India and China, we will be left behind in the dust.

If you're a patriot, you'd support free college education for US citizens. If you don't, you hate America and want to see it fail.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Stuff about education
but really I think that is beyond the scope of this thread.

Unlike all this minimum wage talk ^_-

- Torger


Fergurg wrote:
My concern is the law of supply and demand.

It is already a matter of supply and demand. Those jobs that paid a livable wage and were available with only a high school education were almost entirely in the manufacturing field. The manufacturing sector has shrunk dramatically over the last 50 years. Therefore there are not nearly enough (supply) good jobs for high school graduates who would seek them (demand).

Due to a changing world and the decline of industry in the U.S., college has already changed from being a luxury to a necessity for getting a decent job, this is simply an acknowledgement of reality.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
If you're a patriot, you'd support free college education for US citizens. If you don't, you hate America and want to see it fail.

It's this form of political rhetoric that keeps American government from reaching compromises and getting anything done ever.

- Torger


BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

That makes no sense. I don't think any real world examples would back up that claim.

EDIT: They figured this stuff out 100 years ago. When you give working people more money it stimulates the economy. Trickle down economics has proven to be a farce for decades now.

What happens is that minimum wage goes up. The people making minimum wage have more money. The business paying them has more expense but is not getting more for that extra expense. The business then raises its prices to cover the expense. Everybody then has to pay more for what they were getting, including those who did not get a raise from the minimum wage going up.

Inflation continues. That extra money that the people getting the government-enforced raise got gets put toward the increased expenses. Those who didn't get a raise see that the money they have buys less.

But the government makes more money, because income taxes only care about how much money you made, not how much money you made compared to how much things cost.

This is demonstrably false. You are simply incorrect on this matter.

I've been living it in Washington state. Every year, the minimum wage goes up, and every year, prices go up at about the same rate.

Perhaps it's not happening nationally, but it happens here.


Scythia wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
My concern is the law of supply and demand.

It is already a matter of supply and demand. Those jobs that paid a livable wage and were available with only a high school education were almost entirely in the manufacturing field. The manufacturing sector has shrunk dramatically over the last 50 years. Therefore there are not nearly enough (supply) good jobs for high school graduates who would seek them (demand).

Due to a changing world and the decline of industry in the U.S., college has already changed from being a luxury to a necessity for getting a decent job, this is simply an acknowledgement of reality.

It's partly a matter of supply and demand.

Increasing access to education, regardless of matters of qualification and requirements for jobs, gives more people the tools to actually make new discoveries and actually create new real wealth. Not just make money, but new technology, new understanding, new ways of doing things.


Torger Miltenberger wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Stuff about education
but really I think that is beyond the scope of this thread.

Unlike all this minimum wage talk ^_-

- Torger

Shhhh! You're interrupting the derailing.

Out of all seriousness, I think someone should start a thread on minimum wage; I just mentioned it as an aside and wasn't expecting that to become the hot topic. Forgot this is the Paizo boards.


Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

That makes no sense. I don't think any real world examples would back up that claim.

EDIT: They figured this stuff out 100 years ago. When you give working people more money it stimulates the economy. Trickle down economics has proven to be a farce for decades now.

What happens is that minimum wage goes up. The people making minimum wage have more money. The business paying them has more expense but is not getting more for that extra expense. The business then raises its prices to cover the expense. Everybody then has to pay more for what they were getting, including those who did not get a raise from the minimum wage going up.

Inflation continues. That extra money that the people getting the government-enforced raise got gets put toward the increased expenses. Those who didn't get a raise see that the money they have buys less.

But the government makes more money, because income taxes only care about how much money you made, not how much money you made compared to how much things cost.

This is demonstrably false. You are simply incorrect on this matter.

I've been living it in Washington state. Every year, the minimum wage goes up, and every year, prices go up at about the same rate.

Perhaps it's not happening nationally, but it happens here.

a fair point. believe it or not, I agree.

There is the very real factor of individual states to consider here. Some are far more petty/tight fisted/easily disrupted financially(take your pick) than others.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

That makes no sense. I don't think any real world examples would back up that claim.

EDIT: They figured this stuff out 100 years ago. When you give working people more money it stimulates the economy. Trickle down economics has proven to be a farce for decades now.

What happens is that minimum wage goes up. The people making minimum wage have more money. The business paying them has more expense but is not getting more for that extra expense. The business then raises its prices to cover the expense. Everybody then has to pay more for what they were getting, including those who did not get a raise from the minimum wage going up.

Inflation continues. That extra money that the people getting the government-enforced raise got gets put toward the increased expenses. Those who didn't get a raise see that the money they have buys less.

But the government makes more money, because income taxes only care about how much money you made, not how much money you made compared to how much things cost.

This is demonstrably false. You are simply incorrect on this matter.

I've been living it in Washington state. Every year, the minimum wage goes up, and every year, prices go up at about the same rate.

Perhaps it's not happening nationally, but it happens here.

That's because Washington state raises it's minimum wage based on cost of living increases. You've got cause and effect backwards.

Meanwhile in the rest of the country, the minimum wage doesn't go up and prices go up anyway.


Did not know that.

Any other states up to hinky business?


thejeff wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
My concern is the law of supply and demand.

It is already a matter of supply and demand. Those jobs that paid a livable wage and were available with only a high school education were almost entirely in the manufacturing field. The manufacturing sector has shrunk dramatically over the last 50 years. Therefore there are not nearly enough (supply) good jobs for high school graduates who would seek them (demand).

Due to a changing world and the decline of industry in the U.S., college has already changed from being a luxury to a necessity for getting a decent job, this is simply an acknowledgement of reality.

It's partly a matter of supply and demand.

Increasing access to education, regardless of matters of qualification and requirements for jobs, gives more people the tools to actually make new discoveries and actually create new real wealth. Not just make money, but new technology, new understanding, new ways of doing things.

And that I could get behind. Creating new technologies and entire new industries (seriously, when I was growing up, the idea of reading books on your phone would have earned lots of laughs), sure, we have a vested interest in that. I don't think that we should consider a blanket "everyone goes to college for free!".

But then again, I also recognize that it wouldn't be free; it would just be that the people going to college aren't the ones paying for it.


Freehold DM wrote:

Did not know that.

Any other states up to hinky business?

Not hinky business. A good idea. Assuming that minimum wage increases cause any disruption, more frequent, smaller increases that keep pace with inflation are better than leaving it up to the whims of politics to make big jumps whenever it's fallen far enough behind to build up public pressure.

It's easier for businesses to adjust to small, planned wage increases than large jumps.

1 to 50 of 530 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Free College in USA Proposal All Messageboards