Do you think America is doomed, or that it hit a bump in it's progression as a nation? - General

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37407927]what I'm saying is that without government, private companies could force people to work against their will.[/QUOTE] Private companies cannot force people to do anything, that's not how the free-market works. People sell their labor resource to firms who in turn produce goods that people buy so depending on weather a product is worth producing or not, the firm uses profits to hires more labor resource to make more product. Now, unless you have government preventing people from setting the price of their labor, like China or medieval europe, people are allowed to make unions and refuse to work. The free market gives people access to two tools to make their lives better off, the ability to decide what firms produce by being allowed to purchase what they want and the ability to set the price of labor by refusing to work. Private companies cannot tell people to do anything, in reality it is people who buy goods and services and show up to work who tell private companies to do everything. By not showing up to work at the mines, South Africans brought an end of apartheid.

[quote]By not showing up to work at the mines, South Africans brought an end of apartheid. [/quote] And they didn't eat in the meantime. Employers own the means of life, as employees live off the selling of labor. That's why employer blacklisting and such, and an unemployed segment of the population are so effective at getting people to accept their employer's conditions. There's certainly some coercion in the 'free market'.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37458595]Private companies cannot force people to do anything, that's not how the free-market works.[/QUOTE] I know that. But without government, there is no one to enforce the free market. There is no one to stop companies from forcing workers to work for them. Without government, there is no one to stop slavery. [editline]29th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;37458828]And they didn't eat in the meantime. Employers own the means of life, as employees live off the selling of labor. That's why employer blacklisting and such, and an unemployed segment of the population are so effective at getting people to accept their employer's conditions. There's certainly some coercion in the 'free market'.[/QUOTE] They didn't eat because they decided it was worth it. When someone chooses to work in horrible conditions, it's because they have decided it's worth the money. And that is not coercion. Without employers, employees would die anyways. Therefore, the employer does not force people to work, he allows them to work.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37460603]I know that. But without government, there is no one to enforce the free market. There is no one to stop companies from forcing workers to work for them. Without government, there is no one to stop slavery.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, without government you have Somalia, the land of technical pickup trucks. Government is needed to ensure the rules of the game are fair- so that the solution to a competitor stealing market share isn't to burn down their building with a molotov. When you have too much government, that is to say government is dictating most production, loss of productivity happens due to the government's inability to know what people want produced and how to produce it. The government produces things people don't want because people buy it no matter how it turns out. Society is most productive when the free market is dictating production, when people are spending their own money instead of giving it to the government to pay back what old people loaned them + inflation or pay for old folk's expensive health insurance (90% of medical expenses happen within the last year of life medicare is a system where people get more than they paid in) or giving it to the government to piss away on jet planes. Do away completely with social security, medicare, and most of the military, give people 10-15% more money to spend, and we'll be on the right track for economic growth. The US's monetary policy is also an issue. It focuses on growth which is unhealthy because pouring all that money into banks can cause malinvestment. Low interest rates (0.25%!!) from The Fed's policy of price-level targeting encourage society to produce things that aren't wanted by lowering the risk of barrowing. I'm sure you've heard the theory that the fed caused the 2008 recession by setting the interest rate to 0 by now. If inflation wasn't so great, and people actually got money from retirement savings interest rates, we wouldn't really need social security and medicare.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37463001]Well, yeah, without government you have Somalia, the land of technical pickup trucks. Government is needed to ensure the rules of the game are fair- so that the solution to a competitor stealing market share isn't to burn down their building with a molotov. When you have too much government, that is to say government is dictating most production, loss of productivity happens due to the government's inability to know what people want produced and how to produce it.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Noble thinks that everyone will just play nice if their is no government.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37460603] They didn't eat because they decided it was worth it. When someone chooses to work in horrible conditions, it's because they have decided it's worth the money. [/quote] It's useless to point this out since 'whats worth it' is socially determined, at least in this case. Who cares if someone chooses to do something, if there's no alternative? This serves no function other than deflecting blame. [Quote]And that is not coercion. Without employers, employees would die anyways. Therefore, the employer does not force people to work, he allows them to work.[/QUOTE] Yes it is. If all the means of production are privately owned, that leaves no choice for laborers to be anything but a commodity. This is the essence of wage slavery. Employees would not die, because it's not as if in the absence of a capitalist they can't feed themselves and distribute labor. You don't actually think we didn't work before capitalism right? Work is a necessity for the individual and the society to survive. It would be done regardless of whether or not some twit owns the property and pays wages, because there is a community to sustain. True, capital 'allows' workers to work, but that means nothing except private property exist. Let's not pretend employment is some kind of fucking charity we should be grateful to our employers for.

[QUOTE=Conscript;37471606]It's useless to point this out since 'whats worth it' is socially determined, at least in this case. Who cares if someone chooses to do something, if there's no alternative? This serves no function other than deflecting blame. Yes it is. If all the means of production are privately owned, that leaves no choice for laborers to be anything but a commodity. This is the essence of wage slavery. Employees would not die, because it's not as if in the absence of a capitalist they can't feed themselves and distribute labor. You don't actually think we didn't work before capitalism right? Work is a necessity for the individual and the society to survive. It would be done regardless of whether or not some twit owns the property and pays wages, because there is a community to sustain. True, capital 'allows' workers to work, but that means nothing except private property exist. Let's not pretend employment is some kind of fucking charity we should be grateful to our employers for.[/QUOTE] i'm not saying that employment is charity. I'm saying it's a choice. If you don't want to work for someone, go work for yourself. People do it all the time. [editline]30th August 2012[/editline] and without capitalists, there would be no one to supply the capital. No capital means no company, and no company means no jobs. Without capitalists, we would still be living in the stone age.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37473713]i'm not saying that employment is charity. I'm saying it's a choice. If you don't want to work for someone, go work for yourself. People do it all the time.[/QUOTE] Except that the desperately poor do not have the means to do that, and can be easily exploited by an employer (sans breaking minimum wage) if there is no viable alternative in that person's area.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37473713]i'm not saying that employment is charity. I'm saying it's a choice. If you don't want to work for someone, go work for yourself. People do it all the time.[/quote] Yes, it's called subsistence farming. It's been a dying trend since the 19th century. Working for yourself is no alternative. [quote]and without capitalists, there would be no one to supply the capital. No capital means no company, and no company means no jobs. Without capitalists, we would still be living in the stone age.[/QUOTE] This is a non-issue since labor precedes capital. If you were right, our society would have gotten nowhere from day 1 because, of course, we started off with no money. Labor creates wealth and its productivity is what makes expansion possible. Capital is only really necessary to facilitate the self-regulating of the market and its distribution of resources.

[QUOTE=Megafan;37473966]Except that the desperately poor do not have the means to do that, and can be easily exploited by an employer (sans breaking minimum wage) if there is no viable alternative in that person's area.[/QUOTE] I don't think that's true, the CVS down the street from me, if you work there they will train you for free to become a pharmacy technician. If you can't take out a student loan (which is perfectly fine if you major in something that isn't stupid and people will actually need) there are many parties who are willing to fund your training. There are always labor shortages occurring in a variety of fields all over the US. You could move to ND for a few years, get free rigwork training because there is a big oil worker shortage, and have a salary. You can study a huge variety of IT subjects and obtain certification to work simply by passing a multiple choice exam. You can join the army and get technical training. I think poor people are poor because they want to be, not that there is anything wrong with their decision. The only way, in America, I can see how someone didn't choose to work for minimum wage is their parents sucked and raised them to be an idiot. You're kinda right, it is harder for the poor because they don't have enough labor resource to be of big of an asset, but they can get training and even without training miner strikes in South Africa were one of the things that brought an end to apartheid. [editline]30th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;37474148]Yes, it's called subsistence farming. It's been a dying trend since the 19th century. Working for yourself is no alternative. [/quote] What people do is they grow their own vegetables, take money from banks and put it in credit unions, form cooperatives for employment, goods, and services, don't drive a car, don't show up to work, and don't go to the shops. Basically they take control of their own lives, not needing to rely on the government or the economy.

You know just as well as I do if opportunity was as widespread and easy as you say, these avenues would become saturated and less of value as people start performing them. Ultimately you make a living one of three ways: off the sale of your labor, off the sale of others' labor through capital, or a combination of the two as a petty capitalist. There is no 'taking control of your life' and not relying on the economy unless you go find some unclaimed land and live as a subsistence farmer. People are poor and unemployed because there is a systemic need for them to be that way, not because they 'choose to be'. That's a ridiculous idea and implies a significant chunk of our population act against their own nature. We're born to manage resources.

[QUOTE=Conscript;37475100]You know just as well as I do if opportunity was as widespread and easy as you say, these avenues would become saturated and less of value as people start performing them. Ultimately you make a living one of three ways: off the sale of your labor, off the sale of others' labor through capital, or a combination of the two as a petty capitalist. There is no 'taking control of your life' and not relying on the economy unless you go find some unclaimed land and live as a subsistence farmer.[/QUOTE] It isn't easy at all, getting a salary. Whether you were born with the money to go to college or have to barrow it, in order to earn a salary you have to put forth lot of work for nothing in return, that is why those jobs are expensive. Opportunity totally is as widespread as I say is, thing is though that you can't just pull an education out of your ass, you have to work for it. Also there is 'taking control of your life', when a cause is important enough people are willing to go communist to make it happen, and I don't mean that shitty government tells you what to do or else you get shot communism, it's the kind of communism that happens when people are actually willing to cooperate and are motivated to work for their cause, the kind that can never be mandated by government. Cooperation through the free market's consumer sovereignty. Consumer sovereignty is a word economists use to refer to people's ability to dictate the production of goods. When things get bad enough, people form purchasing parties, voting blocs, credit unions, people cooperate, but that only happens when there is no cold beer. Take a look at history, this is how people carry out peaceful revolutions, by being independent of the economy and the state by sacrificial and cooperative means. This is also how unions negotiate wages. The end of apartheid is probably the best and most shining example of consumer sovereignty bringing about change. South African miners crippled the South African economy by refusing to show up to work. [editline]30th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;37475100]People are poor and unemployed because there is a systemic need for them to be that way, not because they 'choose to be'. That's a ridiculous idea and implies a significant chunk of our population act against their own nature. We're born to manage resources.[/QUOTE] There are as many unskilled workers as the economy needs, the price of unskilled labor is set according to how many people think it is worth it to go to college. Less unskilled workers, higher wages, more unskilled workers, lower wages. Markets are usually at equilibrium, this includes the unskilled labor market. There are as many unskilled workers as there is people who would rather subside off minimum wage because of price of unskilled labor is set by the amount of people willing and able to do it.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37470773]Exactly. Noble thinks that everyone will just play nice if their is no government.[/QUOTE] I don't recall making this claim.

[QUOTE=Megafan;37473966]Except that the desperately poor do not have the means to do that, and can be easily exploited by an employer (sans breaking minimum wage) if there is no viable alternative in that person's area.[/QUOTE] true, that is a problem. But working for a minimum wage job with long hours is better than not working at all. I believe that with hard work, individuals can move up and out of poverty. Even if they don't, they can still help their children get out. [editline]30th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;37474148]Yes, it's called subsistence farming. It's been a dying trend since the 19th century. Working for yourself is no alternative. This is a non-issue since labor precedes capital. If you were right, our society would have gotten nowhere from day 1 because, of course, we started off with no money. Labor creates wealth and its productivity is what makes expansion possible. Capital is only really necessary to facilitate the self-regulating of the market and its distribution of resources.[/QUOTE] working for yourself is no alternative? substinence farming is the only a other option? what world do you live in? and capital is necessary. Without capital, how will someone afford to start a business? Our civilization started before tools, before industrialization. In a modern economy, capital is needed. Without it, every company would have to reinvent the wheel. Seriously, do you plan to build a screwdriver with only your hands? [editline]30th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;37475100]You know just as well as I do if opportunity was as widespread and easy as you say, these avenues would become saturated and less of value as people start performing them. Ultimately you make a living one of three ways: off the sale of your labor, off the sale of others' labor through capital, or a combination of the two as a petty capitalist. There is no 'taking control of your life' and not relying on the economy unless you go find some unclaimed land and live as a subsistence farmer. People are poor and unemployed because there is a systemic need for them to be that way, not because they 'choose to be'. That's a ridiculous idea and implies a significant chunk of our population act against their own nature. We're born to manage resources.[/QUOTE] "taking control of your own life" does not mean leaving the economy. Do you want people to leave the economy and live in isolation? why? I never said that people are poor or unemployed because they "choose to be that way". At the same time, there is no systematic "need" for that. How does unemployment help the economy? and while hiring poor people might help companies save money, it hurts the economy as a whole because they are not consumers. I'm not saying that poverty is a good thing. I'm saying that the solution is not handouts or artificially high wages. The solution is to create more value in the economy. We need a growing economy, especially in skilled areas. The less unskilled labor, the less low payed labor. I'm not saying that poverty will ever be eliminated, but it can be significantly reduced.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37477830]true, that is a problem. But working for a minimum wage job with long hours is better than not working at all. I believe that with hard work, individuals can move up and out of poverty. Even if they don't, they can still help their children get out.[/QUOTE] You can barely support yourself and a kid in a 2 bedroom apartment on minimum wage, what on earth makes you think that: a. it is any kind of reasonable living standard or b. that a poor kid will be able to reasonably get out of that situation? Especially when college tuition is high, and when the job market is so tough, it's preposterous to say that working minimum wage is "better than nothing" and that you can crawl out of it. The first essentially means nothing, of course receiving [I]some amount of money[/I] for [I]some work[/I] is preferable to homelessness, but as I said it's by no means a reasonable standard of living to be on minimum wage.

[QUOTE=Megafan;37478421]You can barely support yourself and a kid in a 2 bedroom apartment on minimum wage, what on earth makes you think that: a. it is any kind of reasonable living standard or b. that a poor kid will be able to reasonably get out of that situation? Especially when college tuition is high, and when the job market is so tough, it's preposterous to say that working minimum wage is "better than nothing" and that you can crawl out of it. The first essentially means nothing, of course receiving [I]some amount of money[/I] for [I]some work[/I] is preferable to homelessness, but as I said it's by no means a reasonable standard of living to be on minimum wage.[/QUOTE] It's not a reasonable living standard, but people aren't on minimum wage because they companies are evil and force them, it's because that's what their labor is worth. And there are many ways that child can get out of that situation. First off, there are many ways to get scholarships. Even if they can't get into or afford a four year school, they can always get an education at a community college, going part time if they need to. Also, a high school education is many times the only thing needed to keep kids out of poverty. [QUOTE]One of our arguments, based in part on a Brookings analysis of Census Bureau data, is that young people can virtually assure that they and their families will avoid poverty if they follow three elementary rules for success – complete at least a high school education, work full time, and wait until age 21 and get married before having a baby. Based on an analysis of Census data, people who followed all three of these rules had only a 2 percent chance of being in poverty and a 72 percent chance of joining the middle class (defined as above $55,000 in 2010). These numbers were almost precisely reversed for people who violated all three rules, elevating their chance of being poor to 77 percent and reducing their chance of making the middle class to 4 percent. [25] Individual effort and good decisions about the big events in life are more important than government programs. Call it blaming the victim if you like, but decisions made by individuals are paramount in the fight to reduce poverty and increase opportunity in America. The nation’s struggle to expand opportunity will continue to be an uphill battle if young people do not learn to make better decisions about their future. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/06/05-poverty-families-haskins"]http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/06/05-poverty-families-haskins[/URL]

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37478667]It's not a reasonable living standard, but people aren't on minimum wage because they companies are evil and force them, it's because that's what their labor is worth. And there are many ways that child can get out of that situation. First off, there are many ways to get scholarships. Even if they can't get into or afford a four year school, they can always get an education at a community college, going part time if they need to. Also, a high school education is many times the only thing needed to keep kids out of poverty.[/QUOTE] Do tell how someone barely sustaining themselves on minimum wage can load up on scholarships to attend college and go after they finish what is most likely an 8-hour working day?

[QUOTE=Megafan;37478733]Do tell how someone barely sustaining themselves on minimum wage can load up on scholarships to attend college and go after they finish what is most likely an 8-hour working day?[/QUOTE] There are a shitload of certifications that can easily be self-thought, a shitload. Community college credits are like half the price of university. There are many parties willing to subsidize your education, employers, philanthropists, the government. Where I live the community college is free as long as you are in highschool, it is very possible that someone could graduate highschool with an AA degree they got for free, it is not easy at all though. If I were having a kid and was expecting to raise it on minimum wage, I'd buy some books, work eight hours, study eight hours, sleep eight hours, take the certification exam, and be wait on the responses back as the baby is being born. Also poor people in America have a great standard of living, Americans have no idea what poverty is like. Poor people in America own washers, dryers, refrigerators, TWO televisions, etc. I think what job someone ends up with is the result of someone's desire to pursue higher learning. My 21 year old asshole brother has all his college already paid for through the 529 program but he probably isn't going to use them.. It's weird to me that he doesn't want to go, because I find college quite thrilling. I learn more in a week of class than I do in a year on my own, I feel intellectually elevated. I think people don't choose to be unskilled when their parents suck. Statistically kids who gather at the dinner table to eat with their parents every night at a regular time will be better off, kids whose parents will read to them at night. I wouldn't want college to be free, I think one of the reasons why American highschools are a mess is because people are more entitled to highschool education than they used to be. Everything is the teacher's fault.

[QUOTE=Megafan;37478733]Do tell how someone barely sustaining themselves on minimum wage can load up on scholarships to attend college and go after they finish what is most likely an 8-hour working day?[/QUOTE] Four year college is mostly out of reach (unless they get a full ride), but many people go to community college while also working. And as I showed before, a college education is not required to stay out of poverty. People born into poor families can still move up into the middle class.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37484719]Four year college is mostly out of reach (unless they get a full ride), but many people go to community college while also working. And as I showed before, a college education is not required to stay out of poverty. People born into poor families can still move up into the middle class.[/QUOTE] What job can a poor person with no formal education past high school get that will bring them out of poverty? [editline]31st August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Fenderson;37481656]If I were having a kid and was expecting to raise it on minimum wage, I'd buy some books, work eight hours, study eight hours, sleep eight hours, take the certification exam, and be wait on the responses back as the baby is being born.[/quote] So where does the whole 'living' part come in? Most minimum wage jobs will either be working the night shift or from 8 to 5/9 to 6, so you're telling me that the advice you would give poor people is that they should work for 8 hours, go to college for 8 hours, and then sleep for 8 hours (how you would do this with traveling in-between, I don't know) every day until they get their AA degree? That to you sounds reasonable? [QUOTE=Fenderson;37481656]Also poor people in America have a great standard of living, Americans have no idea what poverty is like. Poor people in America own washers, dryers, refrigerators, TWO televisions, etc. I think what job someone ends up with is the result of someone's desire to pursue higher learning.[/quote] Poverty is relative no matter what country you're in. Don't act like the only reason people end up poor or with a low-paying job is because they don't work hard enough. [QUOTE=Fenderson;37481656]I wouldn't want college to be free, I think one of the reasons why American highschools are a mess is because people are more entitled to highschool education than they used to be. Everything is the teacher's fault.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's objectively wrong and there are bad teachers, believe it or not. We live in what is supposed to be a developed country (as some would say, the "best in the world"), why on earth wouldn't we as people be entitled to education, if a degree from that education is what we need to get a job that can actually sustain a life?

[QUOTE=Megafan;37488911]What job can a poor person with no formal education past high school get that will bring them out of poverty?[/QUOTE] care repairman, for one thing. [URL="http://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation-maintenance-and-repair/automotive-service-technicians-and-mechanics.htm"]http://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation-maintenance-and-repair/automotive-service-technicians-and-mechanics.htm[/URL]

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37489099]care repairman, for one thing. [URL="http://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation-maintenance-and-repair/automotive-service-technicians-and-mechanics.htm"]http://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation-maintenance-and-repair/automotive-service-technicians-and-mechanics.htm[/URL][/QUOTE] And if for some reason you can't do that? I can't imagine there's only one possible job if this is really a viable option.

[QUOTE=Megafan;37488911]Yeah, that's objectively wrong and there are bad teachers, believe it or not. We live in what is supposed to be a developed country (as some would say, the "best in the world"), why on earth wouldn't we as people be entitled to education, if a degree from that education is what we need to get a job that can actually sustain a life?[/QUOTE] Colleges are competitive, that's why they aren't free. If a service is competitive, it will be cheaper than if it were provided by government. Free government services aren't free, they are paid for by taxes. If you get an education through free college government mandate you would be paying more in taxes than you would with student loans because competition lowers costs and there is no such thing as a free lunch. After you go to college, you pay for it with taxes. When college is quote unquote "free" it is more expensive because it is not competitive. Student loan + interest is cheaper for you, the thing is though you have to get a degree in something that actually matters instead of women's studies or african american literature and be actually committed to getting an education. The community college down the street has half price per credit hour than university, what do you think would happen to their attendance if it were suddenly not more viable for people to get the first 2 years of education there?

[QUOTE=Megafan;37489831]And if for some reason you can't do that? I can't imagine there's only one possible job if this is really a viable option.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bls.gov/ooh/occupation-finder.htm"]http://www.bls.gov/ooh/occupation-finder.htm[/URL] Find some yourself. Set Entry-Level Education to "High School diploma or equivalent" or "Less than High School", and set 2010 Median Pay to anything other than "Less than $25,000". You can even set it higher, if you don't consider $25,000 to be out of poverty. [editline]31st August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Fenderson;37489885]Colleges are competitive, that's why they aren't free. If a service is competitive, it will be cheaper than if it were provided by government. Free government services aren't free, they are paid for by taxes. If you get an education through free college government mandate you would be paying more in taxes than you would with student loans because competition lowers costs and there is no such thing as a free lunch. After you go to college, you pay for it with taxes. When college is quote unquote "free" it is more expensive because it is not competitive. Student loan + interest is cheaper for you, the thing is though you have to get a degree in something that actually matters instead of [B]women's studies or african american literature[/B] and be actually committed to getting an education. The community college down the street has half price per credit hour than university, what do you think would happen to their attendance if it were suddenly not more viable for people to get the first 2 years of education there?[/QUOTE] I think this part really needs to be emphasized. If the government helps fund education, it needs to only fund usable degrees like engineering or other sciences. If someone wants a degree in English or Communications, they can pay for it with their own money.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37490333]I think this part really needs to be emphasized. If the government helps fund education, it needs to only fund usable degrees like engineering or other sciences. If someone wants a degree in English or Communications, they can pay for it with their own money.[/QUOTE] What even constitutes a 'usable' major? Just subjects that you think are worthwhile or job-worthy? [editline]31st August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Fenderson;37489885]If a service is competitive, it will be cheaper than if it were provided by government.[/quote] As if ~$14,000 per year (University of California as an example) is cheaper than the government could cover it. I'll need a citation to support the claim that 'it will be cheaper than if the government provided it'. [QUOTE=Fenderson;37489885]Free government services aren't free, they are paid for by taxes. If you get an education through free college government mandate you would be paying more in taxes than you would with student loans because competition lowers costs and there is no such thing as a free lunch.[/quote] Again stating 'competition lowers cost' as fact, and no one is saying that college should be free, just that it should be guaranteed to everyone. [QUOTE=Fenderson;37489885]After you go to college, you pay for it with taxes. When college is quote unquote "free" it is more expensive because it is not competitive.[/quote] Another uncited 'competition lowers cost' claim. [QUOTE=Fenderson;37489885]Student loan + interest is cheaper for you, the thing is though you have to get a degree in something that actually matters instead of women's studies or african american literature and be actually committed to getting an education. The community college down the street has half price per credit hour than university, what do you think would happen to their attendance if it were suddenly not more viable for people to get the first 2 years of education there?[/QUOTE] Yet again, needs a citation to substantiate the claim that 'student loans + interest is cheaper than the taxes you would need to pay for university per person'. As for the second part, who are you to say what majors do and don't matter? I go to university to learn and better my mind, not just to prepare for a job.

[QUOTE=Megafan;37491608]What even constitutes a 'usable' major? Just subjects that you think are worthwhile or job-worthy?[/QUOTE] well, a usable major is one that is actually necessary for getting a job. You need an M.D. to be a doctor, you don't need a degree in journalism to be a journalist. But to be get government scholarships, a degree should be more than just usable. It should be in a field that has less people entering than are needed, something that the economy benefits from. We need engineers and scientists, they spur innovation. Psychologists? They're a luxury. J.D.s are an obvious no, we have many more people going to law school than we need. [editline]31st August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;37491608]no one is saying that college should be free, just that it should be guaranteed to everyone.[/QUOTE] I think that accessible to everyone would be a better goal. Sending a straight C student to college is not worth tax-payers money, but if a student works hard and proves themselves, I would be much more will to help them through college.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37491786]well, a usable major is one that is actually necessary for getting a job. You need an M.D. to be a doctor, you don't need a degree in journalism to be a journalist. But to be get government scholarships, a degree should be more than just usable. It should be in a field that has less people entering than are needed, something that the economy benefits from. We need engineers and scientists, they spur innovation. Psychologists? They're a luxury. J.D.s are an obvious no, we have many more people going to law school than we need.[/quote] And you base this on what exactly? Law and psych degrees are now worthless enough that, if the government funded university education, they shouldn't be supported? Whatever happened to learning for the sake of knowledge or something you're passionate about? Or are poor people just not allowed to do that? [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37491786]I think that accessible to everyone would be a better goal. Sending a straight C student to college is not worth tax-payers money, but if a student works hard and proves themselves, I would be much more will to help them through college.[/QUOTE] Again, what is this based on?

[QUOTE=Megafan;37491922]And you base this on what exactly? Law and psych degrees are now worthless enough that, if the government funded university education, they shouldn't be supported? Whatever happened to learning for the sake of knowledge or something you're passionate about? Or are poor people just not allowed to do that?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that if the government gives out scholarships (Pell Grants) they should only be to certain degrees, and not everything. I also think they should be given out based on merit, not on need (actually, a mix of both would probably be the best). And there's nothing wrong with learning for the sake of knowledge. I just don't think taxpayers should have to fund it. Giving an engineering education to a needy but hard-working student helps the economy, by training someone for very useful career. Training poets and philosophers does not help the economy. [QUOTE]Again, what is this based on?[/QUOTE] Common sense? why should tax-payers have to provide for someone not even getting the full worth of their education? why should I pay for someone to go to frat parties? If I have to pay for someone's degree, I want it to be someone who truly deserves, who will truly benefit, not the class clown who's majoring in art.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37492025]I'm saying that if the government gives out scholarships (Pell Grants) they should only be to certain degrees, and not everything. I also think they should be given out based on merit, not on need (actually, a mix of both would probably be the best). And there's nothing wrong with learning for the sake of knowledge. I just don't think taxpayers should have to fund it. Giving an engineering education to a needy but hard-working student helps the economy, by training someone for very useful career. Training poets and philosophers does not help the economy.[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware we only decided things based on whether it does or does not directly benefit the economy. Why can we not do like France, or any number of other European nations, and make university available to all, whether you want to study philosophy or engineering? That as a good thing for a civilized society to do seems to me a much more compelling reason to do something than 'philosophers are useless to the economy'. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37492025]Common sense? why should tax-payers have to provide for someone not even getting the full worth of their education? why should I pay for someone to go to frat parties? If I have to pay for someone's degree, I want it to be someone who truly deserves, who will truly benefit, not the class clown who's majoring in art.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, the argument of 'common sense', which generally when argued is taken to mean whatever the arguer wants it to mean. You said "a straight C student", which now somehow implies that not only do they not care about education but that they will fritter away that education on frat parties.

[QUOTE=Megafan;37492123]I wasn't aware we only decided things based on whether it does or does not directly benefit the economy. Why can we not do like France, or any number of other European nations, and make university available to all, whether you want to study philosophy or engineering? That as a good thing for a civilized society to do seems to me a much more compelling reason to do something than 'philosophers are useless to the economy'. Ah yes, the argument of 'common sense', which generally when argued is taken to mean whatever the arguer wants it to mean. You said "a straight C student", which now somehow implies that not only do they not care about education but that they will fritter away that education on frat parties.[/QUOTE] I do things based on how the affect the economy. The reason we don't do things like France is because we don't want to waste taxpayer dollars. Sending everyone to college, no matter the benefit they or the people receive, is a waste of money. and how does "straight C student" not mean someone who doesn't care about their education? A's aren't that hard to get, and B's are pretty easy. C's shows someone who just isn't trying. I see no reason to spend government money on people who won't even pay attention in class.