OT: Goodbye to the American Dream

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, 24 August 2015 11:48:49 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:13:44 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

I'd think a socialist man-of-the-people should be able to squeeze by on
$100k--twice the median household income--and save the other $75K/year.
That for 24 years = $1.8M saved, without even investing. So, he's an
extravagant #$%@ with his People's Salary.

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off independent
at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs (and saved 3/4 of his pay for
university)--is in no position to comment on minimum wage, working men, jobs,
or budgeting.

I suppose a free PhD ride on parents and public would've equipped me better to
comment on the working man, but we all have to make do.


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 2015 11:48:49 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:13:44 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

I'd think a socialist man-of-the-people should be able to squeeze by on
$100k--twice the median household income--and save the other $75K/year.
That for 24 years = $1.8M saved, without even investing. So, he's an
extravagant #$%@ with his People's Salary.

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off independent
at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs (and saved 3/4 of his pay for
university)--is in no position to comment on minimum wage, working men, jobs,
or budgeting.

I did exactly that. One job paid 85 cents per hour, and the other
evolved after a while to $400 per month. That got me an apartment and
an MG Midget and through college, and I saved a bit too. That sort of
thing probably isn't possible any more, what with a decent private
college costing $65K in tuition alone.

That explains why you don't understand the plight of the working man either.
If we'd had free PhD rides like Bill we'd empathize better.

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.

Funny how when we spent a fraction and Republicans ran California, students
could pay their own way. Now that we have federal loans and subsidies to
make it affordable, it isn't.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 10:18:25 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

It really is a vice. It is depending on others to provide for you.

500k in assets isn't destitute. He's certainly not depending on others to provide for himself.

Maybe you think $500k is not destitute, but it is mighty close. Sounds like he owns a house with a mortgage and that is all he has. Fortunately he will get a government pension. If the $500 k includes the value of his pension , then he is in deep trouble.

Getting rich is pretty simple. You work and earn money , and save and invest part of it. Worked for me.




Compared to Europe , the U.S. is young, yet it has managed to be much more economically successful than Europe. Not every thing has worked , but enough things did work.

Sure. America copied Europe's industrial revolution, and improved on it enough - and exploited it's huge internal market - to great effect.

Now Europe has created an even larger internal market, and built on the political innovations that got trialed - in a rather primitive beta version - in the US and it's now economically rather more successful that the US. The Germans aren't exporting quite as much as the US is at the moment, but they do have a positive balance of trade, and they are merely part of the European Union.

Well Germany may be doing almost as well as the U.S., but isn't Greek part of Europe? If you are talking about a even larger internal market , you can not pick one small country to show how sucessful Europe is.

Dan


> Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I did exactly that. One job paid 85 cents per hour, and the other
evolved after a while to $400 per month. That got me an apartment and
an MG Midget and through college, and I saved a bit too. That sort of
thing probably isn't possible any more, what with a decent private
college costing $65K in tuition alone.

There is a fair number of colleges that do not charge any tuition and other fees if the parents income is below something like $70,000 a year. Princeton , Harvard, Yale. Resonable decent private colleges. Of course you do have to get accepted.

Dan

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 2015 11:48:49 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:13:44 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

I'd think a socialist man-of-the-people should be able to squeeze by on
$100k--twice the median household income--and save the other $75K/year.
That for 24 years = $1.8M saved, without even investing. So, he's an
extravagant #$%@ with his People's Salary.

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off independent
at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs (and saved 3/4 of his pay for
university)--is in no position to comment on minimum wage, working men, jobs,
or budgeting.

I did exactly that. One job paid 85 cents per hour, and the other
evolved after a while to $400 per month. That got me an apartment and
an MG Midget and through college, and I saved a bit too. That sort of
thing probably isn't possible any more, what with a decent private
college costing $65K in tuition alone.

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:04:34 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 2015 11:48:49 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:13:44 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

I'd think a socialist man-of-the-people should be able to squeeze by on
$100k--twice the median household income--and save the other $75K/year.
That for 24 years = $1.8M saved, without even investing. So, he's an
extravagant #$%@ with his People's Salary.

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off independent
at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs (and saved 3/4 of his pay for
university)--is in no position to comment on minimum wage, working men, jobs,
or budgeting.

I did exactly that. One job paid 85 cents per hour, and the other
evolved after a while to $400 per month. That got me an apartment and
an MG Midget and through college, and I saved a bit too. That sort of
thing probably isn't possible any more, what with a decent private
college costing $65K in tuition alone.

That explains why you don't understand the plight of the working man either.
If we'd had free PhD rides like Bill we'd empathize better.

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.

Funny how when we spent a fraction and Republicans ran California, students
could pay their own way. Now that we have federal loans and subsidies to
make it affordable, it isn't.

Creat a problem and then raise taxes to fix it!

Cheers,
James Arthur

The UCs are taking increasing numbers of out-of-state (and Chinese)
undergrads, because they pay private college sorts of tuition. Less
room for California natives, too bad.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 05:26:34 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 10:18:25 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


It really is a vice. It is depending on others to provide for you.

500k in assets isn't destitute. He's certainly not depending on others to provide for himself.

Maybe you think $500k is not destitute, but it is mighty close. Sounds like he owns a house with a mortgage and that is all he has. Fortunately he will get a government pension. If the $500 k includes the value of his pension , then he is in deep trouble.

In Australia, if you have been an elected member of parliament for 24 years you get a fairly generous pension.

Getting rich is pretty simple. You work and earn money , and save and invest part of it. Worked for me.

Compared to Europe , the U.S. is young, yet it has managed to be much more economically successful than Europe. Not every thing has worked , but enough things did work.

Sure. America copied Europe's industrial revolution, and improved on it enough - and exploited it's huge internal market - to great effect.

Now Europe has created an even larger internal market, and built on the political innovations that got trialed - in a rather primitive beta version - in the US and it's now economically rather more successful that the US.. The Germans aren't exporting quite as much as the US is at the moment, but they do have a positive balance of trade, and they are merely part of the European Union.

Well Germany may be doing almost as well as the U.S., but isn't Greek part of Europe? If you are talking about a even larger internal market , you can not pick one small country to show how successful Europe is.

Germany, with 80 million people, isn't small.

Greece, with 11 million people, is.

The European Union, with a total population of 508 million people, is quite a lot larger than the US. Some of the new member states are economically more backward even than Greece, if less addicted to economic self-destruction (the Greeks outdo even the USA for that)

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 02:36:26 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 2015 11:48:49 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:13:44 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

I'd think a socialist man-of-the-people should be able to squeeze by on
$100k--twice the median household income--and save the other $75K/year.
That for 24 years = $1.8M saved, without even investing. So, he's an
extravagant #$%@ with his People's Salary.

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off independent
at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs (and saved 3/4 of his pay for
university)--is in no position to comment on minimum wage, working men, jobs,
or budgeting.

Nobody is stopping you commenting, but your point of view isn't exactly representative. Nobody goes to an Olympic athlete for advice on how to cope with difficulties in walking.

I suppose a free PhD ride on parents and public would've equipped me better to
comment on the working man, but we all have to make do.

If you'd had the education that came with the Ph.D., rather than burying your head in the business of making money, you might now be able to produce more useful comment.

Someone whose insights in economics come down to "Bastiac was right and Keynes was wrong" has to have skipped a few lectures somewhere along the way.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 03:04:39 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 2015 11:48:49 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:13:44 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

I'd think a socialist man-of-the-people should be able to squeeze by on
$100k--twice the median household income--and save the other $75K/year.
That for 24 years = $1.8M saved, without even investing. So, he's an
extravagant #$%@ with his People's Salary.

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off independent
at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs (and saved 3/4 of his pay for
university)--is in no position to comment on minimum wage, working men, jobs,
or budgeting.

I did exactly that. One job paid 85 cents per hour, and the other
evolved after a while to $400 per month. That got me an apartment and
an MG Midget and through college, and I saved a bit too. That sort of
thing probably isn't possible any more, what with a decent private
college costing $65K in tuition alone.

That explains why you don't understand the plight of the working man either.
If we'd had free PhD rides like Bill we'd empathize better.

The Ph.D. wasn't free. If I'd gone out to work as soon as I'd have got my undergraduate degree, I'd have earned twice as much as I got as a graduate student grant - this point was actually enshrined in Australian economic thinking of the period, where the greatest cost of higher education was seen as deferred income.

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.

Funny how when we spent a fraction and Republicans ran California, students
could pay their own way. Now that we have federal loans and subsidies to
make it affordable, it isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

Since about 1980 - when Reagan came to power - the US income distribution has been shifting income from everybody except the rich (about 90% of the population)to the rich (the remaining 10%, and more of it is going to the top 1%).

It's not surprising that most people can't afford college any more.

James Arthur remembers this time as when Republicans held power - but back then they weren't his make the rich-even-richer Tea Party Republicans.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 9:02:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 02:36:26 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off independent
at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs (and saved 3/4 of his pay for
university)--is in no position to comment on minimum wage, working men, jobs,
or budgeting.

Nobody is stopping you commenting, but your point of view isn't exactly representative. Nobody goes to an Olympic athlete for advice on how to cope with difficulties in walking.

I suppose a free PhD ride on parents and public would've equipped me better to
comment on the working man, but we all have to make do.

If you'd had the education that came with the Ph.D., rather than burying your head in the business of making money, you might now be able to produce more useful comment.

Someone whose insights in economics come down to "Bastiac was right and Keynes was wrong" has to have skipped a few lectures somewhere along the way.

Bastiat.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 14:47:03 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 9:02:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 02:36:26 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off independent
at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs (and saved 3/4 of his pay for
university)--is in no position to comment on minimum wage, working men, jobs,
or budgeting.

Nobody is stopping you commenting, but your point of view isn't exactly representative. Nobody goes to an Olympic athlete for advice on how to cope with difficulties in walking.

I suppose a free PhD ride on parents and public would've equipped me better to
comment on the working man, but we all have to make do.

If you'd had the education that came with the Ph.D., rather than burying your head in the business of making money, you might now be able to produce more useful comment.

Someone whose insights in economics come down to "Bastiac was right and Keynes was wrong" has to have skipped a few lectures somewhere along the way.

Bastiat.

As if it mattered.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 9:13:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 03:04:39 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off independent
at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs (and saved 3/4 of his pay for
university)--is in no position to comment on minimum wage, working men, jobs,
or budgeting.

I did exactly that. One job paid 85 cents per hour, and the other
evolved after a while to $400 per month. That got me an apartment and
an MG Midget and through college, and I saved a bit too. That sort of
thing probably isn't possible any more, what with a decent private
college costing $65K in tuition alone.

That explains why you don't understand the plight of the working man either.
If we'd had free PhD rides like Bill we'd empathize better.

The Ph.D. wasn't free. If I'd gone out to work as soon as I'd have got my undergraduate degree, I'd have earned twice as much as I got as a graduate student grant - this point was actually enshrined in Australian economic thinking of the period, where the greatest cost of higher education was seen as deferred income.

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.

Funny how when we spent a fraction and Republicans ran California, students
could pay their own way. Now that we have federal loans and subsidies to
make it affordable, it isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

That gets rave reviews:
o Charles Moore in The Daily Telegraph declared it to be "more a socialist tract than an objective analysis of poverty".
o Gerry Hassan in The Scotsman said that Wilkinson and Pickett's claim that "more equal societies almost always do better" was "a universal, sweeping statement - which cannot be substantiated by most of their data."

Inequality is good. Some people work harder. Some better, faster, or more..
Rewarding unequal efforts equally is the definition of injustice.

> Since about 1980 - when Reagan came to power - the US income distribution has been shifting income from everybody except the rich (about 90% of the population)to the rich (the remaining 10%, and more of it is going to the top 1%).

Obama's effected that rather nicely. The quantitative easing needed to finance
his boondoggles pumps the stock market up, benefiting investors. Meanwhile
it stymies honest organic growth (that would benefit the poor).

On several fronts he's burning jobs and boosting fatcats (like Elon Musk, &
Buffett). He can't help himself. Which is pretty funny, him being a Marxist
redistribution guy and all.

> It's not surprising that most people can't afford college any more.

The subsidies, like in health care, make it cost more.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/federal-student-loans-increase-tuition-not-enrollment/
"We find that each additional Pell Grant dollar to an institution leads to a roughly 55 cent increase in sticker price tuition," the report says. "For subsidized loans, we find a somewhat larger passthrough effect of about 70 percent."

That's why it's unaffordable.

James Arthur remembers this time as when Republicans held power - but back then they weren't his make the rich-even-richer Tea Party Republicans.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[rickman]

On 8/24/2015 3:52 PM, John Larkin wrote:

The UCs are taking increasing numbers of out-of-state (and Chinese)
undergrads, because they pay private college sorts of tuition. Less
room for California natives, too bad.

There is an interesting fallacy. You assume out of state students are
being accepted in larger numbers because they pay higher tuition and
then conclude this displaces in state students as if it were a zero sum
game. Has it occurred to you that without the higher tuition payments
of the out of state students there would be fewer seats for in state
students?

--

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 8/24/2015 1:04 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.

Funny how when we spent a fraction and Republicans ran California, students
could pay their own way. Now that we have federal loans and subsidies to
make it affordable, it isn't.

Yes, clearly this is a political issue. We see the same results in
Maryland and... wait, we had *all* Democratic in the years when college
was inexpensive and *more* Republican in more recent years when college
is very expensive.

--

Rick

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 15:26:25 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 9:13:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 03:04:39 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off
independent at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs
(and saved 3/4 of his pay for university)--is in no position to
minimum wage, working men, jobs,
comment on or budgeting.

I did exactly that. One job paid 85 cents per hour, and the other
evolved after a while to $400 per month. That got me an apartment and
an MG Midget and through college, and I saved a bit too. That sort of
thing probably isn't possible any more, what with a decent private
college costing $65K in tuition alone.

That explains why you don't understand the plight of the working man
If we'd had free PhD rides like Bill we'd empathize better.
either.

The Ph.D. wasn't free. If I'd gone out to work as soon as I'd have got my undergraduate degree, I'd have earned twice as much as I got as a graduate student grant - this point was actually enshrined in Australian economic thinking of the period, where the greatest cost of higher education was seen as deferred income.

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.

Funny how when we spent a fraction and Republicans ran California,
students could pay their own way. Now that we have federal loans and
subsidies to make it affordable, it isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

That gets rave reviews:

It has. You don't seem to have found any of them, and have had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find anything that's less than enthusiastic.

> o Charles Moore in The Daily Telegraph declared it to be "more a socialist tract than an objective analysis of poverty".

As if the Daily Telegraph would print any other kind of reaction. It's more right-wing than any other English newspaper that I know.

> o Gerry Hassan in The Scotsman said that Wilkinson and Pickett's claim that "more equal societies almost always do better" was "a universal, sweeping statement - which cannot be substantiated by most of their data."

Wilkinson and Pickett are medical epidemiologists by training. Gerry Hassan is a research fellow in the school of creative and cultural industries of the university of the West of Scotland. His opinion on what can be substantiated by the extensive statistics marshalled in the book is - no doubt - comforting to people who don't like the book, but it's hard for anybody without an axe to grind to take him seriously.

http://www.uws.ac.uk/staff-profiles/cci/gerry-hassan/

Inequality is good. Some people work harder. Some better, faster, or more.
Rewarding unequal efforts equally is the definition of injustice.

At the moment, senior executives in US firms are rewarded for their efforts at several hundred times the rate paid to the average employee. Comparable work in non-US companies is less generously rewarded, and nobody who has looked at this in detail thinks that there's any relationship between the remuneration and the value to the organisation of the work being paid for.

Some inequality is good. The level of inequality within the USA at the moment is obviously excessive, and decidedly counter-productive.

Since about 1980 - when Reagan came to power - the US income distribution has been shifting income from everybody except the rich (about 90% of the population)to the rich (the remaining 10%, and more of it is going to the top 1%).

Obama's effected that rather nicely.

It's been going on since Reagan was first elected. Obama doesn't like it. but is powerless to do anything about it.

The quantitative easing needed to finance
his boondoggles pumps the stock market up, benefiting investors. Meanwhile
it stymies honest organic growth (that would benefit the poor).

Quantitative easing finances what you see as his boondoggles strictly to the extent that they've kept the US economy running fairly close to full capacity.

If your lunatic ideas had been put into practice, you'd have had a re-run of the Great Depression, with a 25% contraction of the economy, and your government would be forced into beggar-my-neighbour economies.

On several fronts he's burning jobs and boosting fatcats (like Elon Musk, &
Buffett). He can't help himself. Which is pretty funny, him being a Marxist
redistribution guy and all.

He's scarcely a Marxist redistribution guy. You may not have noticed, but that school of economic thought died out shortly after Bastiat.

In so far as Obama has any control of the US economy, he's strictly business as usual. This doesn't suit you because you wanted somebody to apply your idiot theories, which would have crashed it in flames.

It's not surprising that most people can't afford college any more.

The subsidies, like in health care, make it cost more.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/federal-student-loans-increase-tuition-not-enrollment/
"We find that each additional Pell Grant dollar to an institution leads to a roughly 55 cent increase in sticker price tuition," the report says. "For subsidized loans, we find a somewhat larger passthrough effect of about 70 percent."

That's why it's unaffordable.

It's unaffordable because the middle-class families who used to pay for it now don't have the disposable income to do so. Student loans are supposed to make up the difference, but - as you say - the educational institutions have worked out that raising their prices just forces the students to borrow unreasonable amounts of money in a loan environment where they are allowed to.

Sub-prime mortgage crisis anybody? If the rich keep on screwing down middle class incomes, the education that used to be necessary to let you access a middle class income is soon going to be worthless. Not because it has lost it's intrinsic value, but because nobody will pay you enough extra to make it worthwhile to acquire the education in the first place.

> > James Arthur remembers this time as when Republicans held power - but back then they weren't his make the rich-even-richer Tea Party Republicans.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:34:32 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us:

On 8/24/2015 1:04 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.

Funny how when we spent a fraction and Republicans ran California, students
could pay their own way. Now that we have federal loans and subsidies to
make it affordable, it isn't.

Yes, clearly this is a political issue. We see the same results in
Maryland and... wait, we had *all* Democratic in the years when college
was inexpensive and *more* Republican in more recent years when college
is very expensive.

Essentially, regardless of the political spectrum, college just got
too goddamned expensive because the administrators, not the instructors,
got too goddamned greedy.

 

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 1:34:41 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:

On 8/24/2015 1:04 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.

Funny how when we spent a fraction and Republicans ran California, students
could pay their own way. Now that we have federal loans and subsidies to
make it affordable, it isn't.

Yes, clearly this is a political issue. We see the same results in
Maryland and... wait, we had *all* Democratic in the years when college
was inexpensive and *more* Republican in more recent years when college
is very expensive.

Now, with Obamacare's student loan takeover you have the best of both worlds!

http://freebeacon.com/issues/federal-student-loans-increase-tuition-not-enrollment/
"We find that each additional Pell Grant dollar to an institution leads to a roughly 55 cent increase in sticker price tuition," the report says. "For subsidized loans, we find a somewhat larger passthrough effect of about 70 percent."

Giving people loans to buy things they can't afford and don't expect a
return from drives up the price of just about anything. We've just
tried health care, houses, and yes, college too. Over, and over, and
over. See a pattern? No, of course not!

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 2:54:52 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:34:32 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us:

On 8/24/2015 1:04 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the
state schools are ravenous for money.

Funny how when we spent a fraction and Republicans ran California, students
could pay their own way. Now that we have federal loans and subsidies to
make it affordable, it isn't.

Yes, clearly this is a political issue. We see the same results in
Maryland and... wait, we had *all* Democratic in the years when college
was inexpensive and *more* Republican in more recent years when college
is very expensive.

Essentially, regardless of the political spectrum, college just got
too goddamned expensive because the administrators, not the instructors,
got too goddamned greedy.

I don't know about greedy, but the federal interference has interrupted
ordinary price-signalling: feedback. Normally if you charge more than
people think your product is worth, or more than they can afford, your
sales drop off. It's self-limiting.

And students wouldn't be willing to pay X, unless they estimate a high
chance of earning n * X from their investment.

We've killed that on both sides. Government removed the governor.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[amdx]

On 8/25/2015 2:03 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Inequality is good. Some people work harder. Some better, faster, or more.
Rewarding unequal efforts equally is the definition of injustice.

At the moment, senior executives in US firms are rewarded for their efforts at several hundred times the rate paid to the average employee. Comparable work in non-US companies is less generously rewarded, and nobody who has looked at this in detail thinks that there's any relationship between the remuneration and the value to the organisation of the work being paid for.

Some inequality is good. The level of inequality within the USA at the moment is obviously excessive, and decidedly counter-productive.

Since about 1980 - when Reagan came to power - the US income distribution has been shifting income from everybody except the rich (about 90% of the population)to the rich (the remaining 10%, and more of it is going to the top 1%).

Obama's effected that rather nicely.

> It's been going on since Reagan was first elected. Obama doesn't like it. but is powerless to do anything about it.

hmm, the president is powerless to reduce income redistribution?

How about building the Keystone pipeline, that would provide jobs and
put money in lower and middle income pockets.
How about easing up on the EPA's devastation of the coal industry,
that would would provide jobs and put money in lower and middle income
pockets.
How about restricting illegal* immigrants and fine companies that hire
illegals, that would would provide jobs and put money in lower and
middle income pockets.
How about building a boarder fence, that would would provide jobs and
put money in lower and middle income pockets.
There, I gave the president some power.

* oh but who will pick our crops? Let the prices rise until Americans
will do it.
With the Labor Force Participation Rate at 62.6%, some Americans need
jobs.

Mikek







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 22:31:18 UTC+10, amdx wrote:

On 8/25/2015 2:03 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Inequality is good. Some people work harder. Some better, faster, or more.
Rewarding unequal efforts equally is the definition of injustice.

At the moment, senior executives in US firms are rewarded for their efforts at several hundred times the rate paid to the average employee. Comparable work in non-US companies is less generously rewarded, and nobody who has looked at this in detail thinks that there's any relationship between the remuneration and the value to the organisation of the work being paid for..

Some inequality is good. The level of inequality within the USA at the moment is obviously excessive, and decidedly counter-productive.

Since about 1980 - when Reagan came to power - the US income distribution has been shifting income from everybody except the rich (about 90% of the population)to the rich (the remaining 10%, and more of it is going to the top 1%).

Obama's effected that rather nicely.

It's been going on since Reagan was first elected. Obama doesn't like it. but is powerless to do anything about it.

hmm, the president is powerless to reduce income redistribution?

Seems to be. The obvious way of doing it would be to increase the marginal income tax rate on higher incomes. At the moment it peaks at 39.6% on income over about $400,000 per year. Many countries push it up to 60% - historically it has been as high as 99%, but that was a waste of time, because people on high incomes devised tax-avoiding ways of making them look lower.

There's also the point that "executive incomes" in the US are unreasonably high, and there's probably room for legislative intervention to dismantle the interlocking rings of "executive remuneration committees" who all award one another unreasonably high salaries.

Neither is going to get through a Republican-dominated Congress.

How about building the Keystone pipeline, that would provide jobs and
put money in lower and middle income pockets.
How about easing up on the EPA's devastation of the coal industry,
that would would provide jobs and put money in lower and middle income
pockets.

Both of which would put more CO2 into the atmosphere, screwing up the climate even faster than it is being screwed up now, and wrecking the economy with progressively more "unpredictable" extreme weather events.

How about restricting illegal* immigrants and fine companies that hire
illegals, that would would provide jobs and put money in lower and
middle income pockets.

The legislation is there. How come nobody enforces it effectively? Note that the companies that hire illegals do seem to have quite a bit of money available for lobbying and bribing politicians.

How about building a boarder fence, that would would provide jobs and
put money in lower and middle income pockets.
There, I gave the president some power.

You would have done, it you had the power to do it. In the US, the people who own the country run the country - a phrase used by the founding tax evaders.

* oh but who will pick our crops? Let the prices rise until Americans
will do it.
With the Labor Force Participation Rate at 62.6%, some Americans need
jobs.

But not the ones with political influence.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney