Sen.Bernie Sanders introduces a bill to make college and 4-year universities free by taxing stock
93 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;47759796]Perhaps not lazy, but I'm sure we can all agree given the circumstances (being that it didn't really fix anything and served no other purpose besides providing a convenient outlet for people to splatter asphalt all over their vehicles as they drive over them) that it's incredibly half-assed and inefficient.[/QUOTE]
The splatter goes away after traffic compacts the patch enough. It comes off with a rag and some WD-40. But let me explain why they use cold mix for pothole patching.
Potholes form due to a few circumstances (old asphalt cracking, bad tie-in joints, water getting into cracks and freezint, etc.). What usually happens is a small portion of the wearing course cracks and gets flung out by traffic. Now, how can we fix this?
Option A) We use HMA to fix the deficient area. That means we need to bring a mill out to mill out the surrounding asphalt and give a decent tie-in. Mills usually have a cutting width of around 8-10'. Mills that have adjustable cutting widths and can mill out smaller areas are more expensive. You also have to prep the area with a coating of emulsion known as "tack". Once that's done, we have to place the asphalt, make a good tie-in, and compact it to density. This means you need rollers as well. HMA costs (the latest contract I have) $100 per ton (plants batch out 5 ton minimums). One ton of ashpalt, assuming 2" thickness, will produce 7.3 square foot of finished roadway (2,000 lbs, 110lbs per square foot per inch of thickness, 2.5" thick application to account for 25% fluff factor). HMA cannot achieve density once it cools to 180 degrees. So you have to use and compact all of that asphalt before it cools to 180, or throw it out. This is also not mentioning that it's not guaranteed to stick to the old asphalt. Expensive fix that has no guarantees of lasting.
Option B) Fix it with cold mix. It doesn't have temperature or preparation restrictions. I can load a truck with it and continue shoveling it out for weeks. It doesn't have to be compacted to a certain density, so traffic can compact it efficiently. It's cheap, and it gives a temporary fix until funding can be found to fix the roadway properly, which is usually a mill and overlay of the entire roadway. Cheap fix that has no guarantee of lasting, but is efficient use of money when the road does not necessitate an overhaul.
Is it a permanent fix? No. But it works until funding can be found to overhaul the road.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;47756333]that doesn't matter
Bernie Gimme'dat Sanders depends on the popularity in reddit-tier hugboxes to sustain himself
this policy isn't any more well thought-out than Herman Cain's 999 plan[/QUOTE]
"Gimme'dat?"
What the fuck are you talking about?
Imagine how much tax revenue could be generated by college grads in good jobs.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47760161]The splatter goes away after traffic compacts the patch enough. It comes off with a rag and some WD-40. But let me explain why they use cold mix for pothole patching.
Potholes form due to a few circumstances (old asphalt cracking, bad tie-in joints, water getting into cracks and freezint, etc.). What usually happens is a small portion of the wearing course cracks and gets flung out by traffic. Now, how can we fix this?
Option A) We use HMA to fix the deficient area. That means we need to bring a mill out to mill out the surrounding asphalt and give a decent tie-in. Mills usually have a cutting width of around 8-10'. Mills that have adjustable cutting widths and can mill out smaller areas are more expensive. You also have to prep the area with a coating of emulsion known as "tack". Once that's done, we have to place the asphalt, make a good tie-in, and compact it to density. This means you need rollers as well. HMA costs (the latest contract I have) $100 per ton (plants batch out 5 ton minimums). One ton of ashpalt, assuming 2" thickness, will produce 7.3 square foot of finished roadway (2,000 lbs, 110lbs per square foot per inch of thickness, 2.5" thick application to account for 25% fluff factor). HMA cannot achieve density once it cools to 180 degrees. So you have to use and compact all of that asphalt before it cools to 180, or throw it out. This is also not mentioning that it's not guaranteed to stick to the old asphalt. Expensive fix that has no guarantees of lasting.
Option B) Fix it with cold mix. It doesn't have temperature or preparation restrictions. I can load a truck with it and continue shoveling it out for weeks. It doesn't have to be compacted to a certain density, so traffic can compact it efficiently. It's cheap, and it gives a temporary fix until funding can be found to fix the roadway properly, which is usually a mill and overlay of the entire roadway. Cheap fix that has no guarantee of lasting, [b]but is efficient use of money when the road does not necessitate an overhaul. [/b]
Is it a permanent fix? No. But it works until funding can be found to overhaul the road.[/QUOTE]
The bolded part is the key part here. Damn-near EVERY road is in need of an over-haul.
And you can't argue that leaving water underneath the patches pretty much negates the point of the patch when the freezing temperatures in the evening will completely ruin it and just make a bigger hole, right?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;47760377]The bolded part is the key part here. Damn-near EVERY road is in need of an over-haul.
And you can't argue that leaving water underneath the patches pretty much negates the point of the patch when the freezing temperatures in the evening will completely ruin it and just make a bigger hole, right?[/QUOTE]
Yes, states DO use cold mix as a band aid. The only reason they have to do this is because they can't get the funding to fix the roads. If they had the funds to overhaul the roads, they would.
[QUOTE=Metalcastr;47760257]Imagine how much tax revenue could be generated by college grads in good jobs.[/QUOTE]
Considering one of the biggest problems for college grads is just finding a job in an extremely competitive job market, and considering that the average in-state public college tuition costs about $40k for a degree (let alone out-of-state public schools, let alone private schools), I really doubt the return over ten or even twenty years would eclipse the cost.
I did some rough calculations and found that if we took our entire defense budget, all of it, every penny, and put it towards college education (like some have suggested), we'd have about $30k per current college student. That's pretty nice, but not much higher than average yearly costs, especially if we're assuming the college population increases, and that's the entire defense budget. Say we keep a quarter of the defense budget, send 20% more students to school, pay for their education- well, we'd still undergo an economic recession from the loss of the sprawling defense industry, plenty of people would be out of work, [i]and[/i] we'd be adding more over-qualified under-employed candidates to the workforce.
I still have well into five digits of college debt left to pay off so believe me, the idea of the government subsidizing college education is appealing, but I think some people are seriously overestimating the return on investment and seriously underestimating the costs involved. Levying a new tax to help pay for college is a nice idea but fifty cents on every hundred dollars of stock trade is not going to put Americans through school for free.
[QUOTE=Metalcastr;47760257]Imagine how much tax revenue could be generated by college grads in good jobs.[/QUOTE]
A degree does not guarantee you a job, let alone a good one
[QUOTE=rilez;47760432]A degree does not guarantee you a job, let alone a good one[/QUOTE]
Indeed. I've experienced this, and my friends as well. Also employers have it as a requirement, creating the education floor needed to get into white-collar work. With the cost of university skyrocketing, the trades look better every year, though they never should've been looked down upon. Some great money to be made in the trades.
FUCK YEAH BERNIE SANDERS
[QUOTE=rilez;47760432]A degree does not guarantee you a job, let alone a good one[/QUOTE]
There are four types of jobs - skill-focused, degree-focused, major-focused, and bullshit.
Skill-focused jobs don't require a degree (programming being the big one right now). If you can do the work, you get paid, whether you were trained in a school or by yourself. Experience is key here.
Degree-focused jobs don't require a specific major, but a degree itself is practically required to get in the door - usually jobs where an education is important but the type of education is not (writing/editing, reception & basic desk jobs, teaching).
Major-focused jobs are those which require a specific degree - law, medicine, certain business careers (accounting & finance), etc. - and not having that degree will lock you out of the job.
Bullshit jobs don't care either way. You don't need a degree, and you don't really need the skill, you just need to be able to breathe.
So yes, a degree does not guarantee a job (can't begin to imagine how many idiots I know that are heading into law without realizing that the job market for lawyers is fucked right now) but not getting a degree at all is a good way to limit your job opportunities.
The average tuition for US higher education is $29,115 per year.
Just tuition, this doesn't even factor in living expenses, books, ect. The median annual individual income for someone with just a high school diploma is $26,505 with the median annual household income being $36,835. These figures are based on full time workers.
If you don't support this bill you're basically saying you're totally okay with repeating the 20's financial crash since massive debts and misuse of credit were a huge contributor. It's either that or you're actively advocating excluding the poor and less educated, and their children, from ever moving up the ladder.
[editline]20th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=rilez;47760432]A degree does not guarantee you a job, let alone a good one[/QUOTE]
Yeah but not having one makes it impossible to get a good one anyway. It may not guarantee one, but without it you can guarantee you'll probably never have one. The median annual individual income for someone with at least a bachelors degree is $49,303. This is nearly double the median annual individual income of someone with only a high school education.
Source: [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20060907174557/http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p16.html[/url]
It's a bit dated but even more powerful as a statistic since the buying power of the 2014 dollar is actually worse than the 1995 dollar anyway (the study is between 1993 and 2003), so this study is actually leaning in favour of what would be my argument's opposition.
[QUOTE=draugur;47761680]The average tuition for US higher education is $29,115 per year.
Just tuition, this doesn't even factor in living expenses, books, ect. The median annual individual income for someone with just a high school diploma is $26,505 with the median annual household income being $36,835. These figures are based on full time workers.
If you don't support this bill you're basically saying you're totally okay with repeating the 20's financial crash since massive debts and misuse of credit were a huge contributor. It's either that or you're actively advocating excluding the poor and less educated, and their children, from ever moving up the ladder.
[editline]20th May 2015[/editline]
Yeah but not having one makes it impossible to get a good one anyway. It may not guarantee one, but without it you can guarantee you'll probably never have one. The median annual individual income for someone with at least a bachelors degree is $49,303. This is nearly double the median annual individual income of someone with only a high school education.
Source: [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20060907174557/http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p16.html[/url]
It's a bit dated but even more powerful as a statistic since the buying power of the 2014 dollar is actually worse than the 1995 dollar anyway (the study is between 1993 and 2003), so this study is actually leaning in favour of what would be my argument's opposition.[/QUOTE]
I think guarantee is definitely a strong word. There are definitely fields that pay above that median and do not require a degree, some of the ones in the "skill-focused jobs" category snowmew posted fit here.
[QUOTE]Yeah but not having one makes it impossible to get a good one anyway. It may not guarantee one, but without it you can guarantee you'll probably never have one. The median annual individual income for someone with at least a bachelors degree is $49,303. This is nearly double the median annual individual income of someone with only a high school education.[/QUOTE]
Well paid trade jobs exist. Their takeaway is higher too, because they have no loans or other debts to pay off. A four year headstart gives them time to move up or invest.
The idea that you need a degree to survive in the job market is a myth. It will get you a higher paid job, but its not a requirement for life
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47760215]"Gimme'dat?"
What the fuck are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
he panders to people who need welfare by making wild promises that have no chance of success or even ideas for realistic implementation
4-year public college will never be free in america because the whole point of them being public is that they cost a fraction of private school already
fuck bernie sanders
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;47763049]he panders to people who need welfare by making wild promises that have no chance of success or even ideas for realistic implementation
4-year public college will never be free in america because the whole point of them being public is that they cost a fraction of private school already
fuck bernie sanders[/QUOTE]
As opposed to the politicians who give in to lobbyists so the companies they work for can remove regulations in order to have their profits increased even further since the 2008 recession (even better than it was before 2008 in some cases) while effectively shitting on everyone else?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;47763322]As opposed to the politicians who give in to lobbyists so the companies they work for can remove regulations in order to have their profits increased even further since the 2008 recession (even better than it was before 2008 in some cases) while effectively shitting on everyone else?[/QUOTE]
"well this is all total fucking bullshit and we're all falling for it but at least its not THIS bad!"
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;47763604]"well this is all total fucking bullshit and we're all falling for it but at least its not THIS bad!"[/QUOTE]
So in a choice between two "evils", we should choose the greater evil?
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47761381]There are four types of jobs - skill-focused, degree-focused, major-focused, and bullshit.
Skill-focused jobs don't require a degree (programming being the big one right now). If you can do the work, you get paid, whether you were trained in a school or by yourself. Experience is key here.
Degree-focused jobs don't require a specific major, but a degree itself is practically required to get in the door - usually jobs where an education is important but the type of education is not (writing/editing, reception & basic desk jobs, teaching).
Major-focused jobs are those which require a specific degree - law, medicine, certain business careers (accounting & finance), etc. - and not having that degree will lock you out of the job.
Bullshit jobs don't care either way. You don't need a degree, and you don't really need the skill, you just need to be able to breathe.
So yes, a degree does not guarantee a job (can't begin to imagine how many idiots I know that are heading into law without realizing that the job market for lawyers is fucked right now) but not getting a degree at all is a good way to limit your job opportunities.[/QUOTE]
That's why apart from studying Economics I will study Bakery'n'stuff next year.
Skill focused jobs and Degree Focused jobs fuck yeah.
Germany will love me. I will set up an economic consulting agency...that offers the BEST cakes for customers in town. How couldn't you love that?
[QUOTE] A degree does not guarantee you a job, let alone a good one [/QUOTE]
Depends on the country, and I'm not so sure on the term "guarantee"...more like..."opens a position".
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;47763604]"well this is all total fucking bullshit and we're all falling for it but at least its not THIS bad!"[/QUOTE]
You know that's pretty much what the richest man in Congress said when he told interviewers that our poor were the envy of the world and at least we're not as bad as India/other third-world countries, right?
[QUOTE=rilez;47760432]A degree does not guarantee you a job, let alone a good one[/QUOTE]
Which makes it ever harder to pay off the $25k in student debt that you've have to accrue just to get that degree.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47753637]This is also a great way to get HFT folks to take their 50% of US market volume overseas. HFT trades are run on margins way lower than 0.5%. It will be impossible to make a profit.
I don't understand why it can't be an increase in the capital gains tax. This just makes me pay for both gaining and losing money.
I also don't like how HFT is immediately and blindly classified as risky. Sanders has a lot of good ideas but his reasoning behind them is often dumbed down - he argues that Wall Street is bad, but that's the end of it. There is a lot more to consider beyond "HFT might have caused the flash crash, therefore it's evil and we need to stop it". If you even look at its Wikipedia page, you'll see that there are pretty serious benefits to HFT that he simply ignores.[/QUOTE]
Capital Gains Tax has been done. This is New! and Trendy! and Has A Name That Plays Well In The 18-40 Demographic!
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47757479]Key word here is competent. Our government can't give us proper services for our current taxes. More taxes will do nothing but give them more money to use inefficiently.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to stop ya'll talking about efficency and competence and point out that Federal and State jobs have been almost halved in the last 20 years. That means social workers are getting double the load they're being paid for.
Working a government job sucks because you're usually picking up way more slack because there aren't nearly enough employees because we don't have the funding to hire more people.
Stop this lie that the government is inefficient for inefficency's sake.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47753637]This is also a great way to get HFT folks to take their 50% of US market volume overseas. HFT trades are run on margins way lower than 0.5%. It will be impossible to make a profit.
I don't understand why it can't be an increase in the capital gains tax. This just makes me pay for both gaining and losing money.
I also don't like how HFT is immediately and blindly classified as risky. Sanders has a lot of good ideas but his reasoning behind them is often dumbed down - he argues that Wall Street is bad, but that's the end of it. There is a lot more to consider beyond "HFT might have caused the flash crash, therefore it's evil and we need to stop it". If you even look at its Wikipedia page, you'll see that there are pretty serious benefits to HFT that he simply ignores.[/QUOTE]
HFT is still inherantly unstable and while it may not be the next big crash, ethically using computers to manipulate milisecond changes in stock prices on volumes that clog up the actual trading floor is wrong
[QUOTE=Swilly;47780693]I'm going to stop ya'll talking about efficency and competence and point out that Federal and State jobs have been almost halved in the last 20 years. That means social workers are getting double the load they're being paid for.
Working a government job sucks because you're usually picking up way more slack because there aren't nearly enough employees because we don't have the funding to hire more people.
Stop this lie that the government is inefficient for inefficency's sake.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know this, I have a state government job. I've seen all of this first hand.
However, that doesn't change the fact that what congress isn't spending our tax money wisely.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47780932]Yeah, I know this, I have a state government job. I've seen all of this first hand.
However, that doesn't change the fact that what congress isn't spending our tax money wisely.[/QUOTE]
There's room for definite improvements but whenever I hear someone say, "We need to cut" I usually assume and correctly do so assume that they want to cut a program they don't use without thinking ahead.
At this point, the only thing that will change the political climate is a national revolt. That will never happen because most people are blind of their own power. We are no better than the Proles in "1984"
Thing im enjoying about Bernie Sanders is mostly because even though if he wins or doesn't win, his presidential campaign and ideals could possibly get a movement started.
[QUOTE=adamsz;47800184]At this point, the only thing that will change the political climate is a national revolt. That will never happen because most people are blind of their own power. We are no better than the Proles in "1984"[/QUOTE]
The fact that you can say this proves it wrong
The idea of the government laying down a Robin Hood tax is hilariously ironic.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47780803]HFT is still inherantly unstable and while it may not be the next big crash, ethically using computers to manipulate milisecond changes in stock prices on volumes that clog up the actual trading floor is wrong[/QUOTE]
It provides, arguably, a net benefit to the markets, which have been generally automated for years. Arbitrage trading wouldn't really be possible without it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.