169 replies to this topic

[Kaddict]

What's wrong with that?

In my country people try to leave college asap, even when it's free. Some of them work and go to college. I know you're a smart user, but I think your comment was pointless.

What is wrong with that is that if the workforce decreases because people are spending their life in school, there will be a decrease in jobs needed to keep society moving, a subsequent decrease in the country's GDP, a subsequent a decrease in tax dollars to keep the country moving and thus the free college program bankrupting. 

Edited by Kaddict, 01 February 2016 - 04:25 PM.

[HiMyNameIsNick]

What is wrong with that is that if the workforce decreases because people are spending their life in school, there will be a decrease in jobs needed to keep society moving, a subsequent decrease in the countries GDP, a subsequent a decrease in tax dollars to keep the country moving and thus the free college program bankrupting. 

 

 

They won't be spending their life in school, they eventually would have a monetary need.

As I said, in my country, people do work and go to college at the same time.

[Kaddict]

 

They won't be spending their life in school, they eventually would have a monetary need.

As I said, in my country, people do work and go to college at the same time.

 

Not their whole life, but it does encourage a longer graduation time, thus leading to all those things mentioned. And what country are you from?

[Kaddict]

Not their whole life, but it does encourage a longer graduation time, thus leading to all those things mentioned.

 

Lol starting off a long chain of cause and effect with a faulty premise is not good People don't spend their lives in school, eventually they will join the work force, whether it be straight out of high school or after grad school or anywhere in between, regardless if higher education is more subsidized or not.

 

Read above statement

[HiMyNameIsNick]

Not their whole life, but it does encourage a longer graduation time, thus leading to all those things mentioned. And what country are you from?

 

 

Argentina. Nah, nobody wants to be forever in college. 

[Kaddict]

Let's assume the government makes 4 year colleges free. The most it would postpone people from joining the work force is 4 years. If everyone enters the work force 4 years later (not likely, some will go straight into the work force from high school), then essentially there won't be a drop in the job market, except for the 4 years transitioning into the free college program. 

you realize a 4 year push in jobs is 10% of a person's working life? 10% is a huge number.

[Kaddict]

With the trend in people retiring later and later, somehow I don't think this will be a big problem.

It may not be as big a problem in other countries, but in the USA where social security is already bankrupting, by delaying work by 4 years, it will bankrupt it faster. That plus the higher tax burden people will bear, they will be adding a lot of years onto how much they need to work. 

[Kaddict]

Isn't the U.S. job market oversaturated? So wouldn't delaying entering the work force relieve some of the pressures?

In the same way unemployment relieves pressures. The solution to the over-saturation (which is really just a problem in people being overqualified/educated for jobs) is more private sector job creation. Not delaying age of entry into the workforce.

[DregsandDregs]

It may not be as big a problem in other countries, but in the USA where social security is already bankrupting, by delaying work by 4 years, it will bankrupt it faster. That plus the higher tax burden people will bear, they will be adding a lot of years onto how much they need to work. 

 

*laughs at you.  Laughs long and hard*

 

*starts crying for the country*

 

http://www.forbes.co...t/#4bbbaeb17f85

[Kaddict]

*laughs at you.  Laughs long and hard*

 

*starts crying for the country*

 

http://www.forbes.co...t/#4bbbaeb17f85

http://www.newsmax.c...7/31/id/664828/

All things can be skewed one way or another. But social security is going under. I think starting with Clinton and moving forward the social security fund has been dipped into by all the presidents to pay for things that wasn't retirement benefits. The age of social security benefit reception should really be increased...

[NapisaurusRex]

*laughs at you.  Laughs long and hard*

 

*starts crying for the country*

 

http://www.forbes.co...t/#4bbbaeb17f85

Bankrupting is the wrong word, but he is almost right. The ratio of births to deaths has a consistently larger gap and it's not feasible to be able to rely on social security as a source of retirement income. There will either be a fall in quality of life as a retired person (either by a decrease in social security or by a raise in the minimum age you can file for it) or an increase of taxes on the younger person, which with low minimum wage and student loan debt, would be a fall in quality of life for them.

 

You're also right though, kind of. The average death age is consistently falling in the US and chances are that by the time the above happens, no one will be around long enough to take from social security, so it'll be there perpetually.

[Waser Lave]

What about them? They don't make shitloads of money like a doctor or an engineer. 

 

In the UK plumbers, electricians, mechanics etc can make a hell of a lot of money, comparable to many doctors. You could also make the argument that those kinds of trades are just as important as doctors too so why shouldn't they get subsidised while others get free college worth many thousands of dollars?

[Frizzle]

Yeah most tradesmen I know are on about £40-70k a year when they're fully qualified and have experience. I know I've used a plumber/sparky more times in the last 10 years than a doctor.

Governments should do more to push people towards manual labour instead of university.

[Coops]

Yeah most tradesmen I know are on about £40-70k a year when they're fully qualified and have experience. I know I've used a plumber/sparky more times in the last 10 years than a doctor.

Governments should do more to push people towards manual labour instead of university.

This. So much of this.

We should be subsidizing these types of careers, because they tend to be the backbone of production and are a vital component of a healthy economy. In Alaska and Virginia, underwater welding is huge. The trade school can be expensive and exhaustive. It's an incredibly demanding and dangerous type of career. But these are absolutely necessary for growing oceanic industries. Similarly, machine building / engineering (my FIL and BIL engineer/machine parts for aircraft). Those people are not less valuable when compared to doctors, or lawyers.

We should be subsidizing all types of vocational, trade-skill and university type educations. There is value in everything, even music and art. It's just we can't all be artists, doctors or lawyers. We need everything. It all serves some function. And yeah, there are more objectively valuable skills or jobs (medics, doctors, plumbers, electricians, etc). But everyone has varying interests, abilities and knowledge. That's why it's important to subsidize different types of education for career/job preparation.

[DregsandDregs]

http://www.newsmax.c...7/31/id/664828/

All things can be skewed one way or another. But social security is going under. I think starting with Clinton and moving forward the social security fund has been dipped into by all the presidents to pay for things that wasn't retirement benefits. The age of social security benefit reception should really be increased...

 

I quoted Forbes.  Forbes.  Do you know what Forbes is?

 

You quoted Newsmax.  I never heard of Newsmax until you brought them up, but you wanna know what?  I did some research.   Back in early 2010 the Nielsens found that they were the most Conservative site on the web

 

Raise the retirement age?  How about you stop abusing the honest, hard working, blue collar workers of America, huh?  Raising the retirement age will disproportionally hurt people in blue collar jobs.  Why?  Think about it.  Think about how your body is going to feel after working construction, or Plumbing or Trucking for decades versus someone who's been in a desk job for the same amount of time.

 

Instead, how about we do something about non-citizens* collecting and people who don't need it because of stock options and the like collecting.

 

*I am not talking about illegal immigrants.  People who work in America pay into SS, and so they get checks for it later in life.  Unless that loophole changed since my cousin's dad's time.

 

Bankrupting is the wrong word, but he is almost right. The ratio of births to deaths has a consistently larger gap and it's not feasible to be able to rely on social security as a source of retirement income. There will either be a fall in quality of life as a retired person (either by a decrease in social security or by a raise in the minimum age you can file for it) or an increase of taxes on the younger person, which with low minimum wage and student loan debt, would be a fall in quality of life for them.

 

You're also right though, kind of. The average death age is consistently falling in the US and chances are that by the time the above happens, no one will be around long enough to take from social security, so it'll be there perpetually.

 

Ah, so you're suggesting some sort of Japan problem, then?  Kaddict's argument is people dipping into it.

 

I'm a bit eh on that.  We have a very different culture from Japan, strong immigration, better food production, etc.  Considering Japan's recent economic move it sounds like the old people aren't spending money fast enough, amongst other things.

 

I do agree Social Security needs an overhaul, 80 year old asses making bank off their stock options still shouldn't be getting it/should be getting a heavily reduced amount.

 

I suspect that if a study was conducted, excluding the upper statistical outliers, you'd find that Social Security was much like Food Stamps: an economic stimulus, or at least generating a large ratio good ratio towards every dollar spent.

Edited by DregsandDregs, 02 February 2016 - 01:03 PM.

[NapisaurusRex]

Brb googling Japanese economics

[Frizzle]

It's not really economics. Japan has an increasingly ageing population (most centurions in the world) and a society that doesn't produce many babies.

Japanese culture is ridiculous and they literally live to work. 90+ weeks, sleeping at your job, not being the first one to leave. It's silly.

[Kaddict]

Raise the retirement age?  How about you stop abusing the honest, hard working, blue collar workers of America, huh?  Raising the retirement age will disproportionally hurt people in blue collar jobs.  Why?  Think about it.  Think about how your body is going to feel after working construction, or Plumbing or Trucking for decades versus someone who's been in a desk job for the same amount of time.

 

Instead, how about we do something about non-citizens* collecting and people who don't need it because of stock options and the like collecting.

 

*I am not talking about illegal immigrants.  People who work in America pay into SS, and so they get checks for it later in life.  Unless that loophole changed since my cousin's dad's time.

Your Forbes article presented no actual data other than number of fish taken and given. I just clicked the first news article that had numbers and sources. Forbes is still a for profit company publishing article yo. 

Yes, increasing retirement age is incredibly necessary. Social security was enacted when life expectancy was 61, it is now almost 79. Something needs to change. With modern medicine, the life expectancy will continue to increase, which makes SS a much bigger burden on the working class, which will be compounded by the fact that people are spending more time in school rather than working and putting back into the system. 

I will agree with you that people that didn't put in shouldn't receive, but why should people who have been forced into a terrible retirement program be denied its benefits?

Also, it wasn't the most conservative site, it was the most popular conservative site. Read a little.

[Mishelle]

I think it should be free if you keep your GPA above a certain level. The work force is getting more technological and I think it's important that everyone learn how to code and do things that they don't teach you how to do in K-12. I think people should me more educated in general so I'm all for paying more taxes if that means a more educated country.

[DregsandDregs]

Brb googling Japanese economics

 

Negative interest rate to force people to spend

 

Stuff

 

Forbes caters to the wealthy and economists, people who already know their shit.

 

Their interest is in investments and people not losing money. If anything, more money would go to investment bankers, because people would be desperately saving if social security didn't exist.  It is not in the best interest of Forbes or it's main readers for social security to be stable.

 

This is like that time the study the anti vaxers funded came out and said, "No, vaccination doesn't cause autism."

 

Hell, there are legit arguments out there, backed up with data, that lowering the retirement age would save money.

 

But how?  Why?

 

Because most people get disabled like in the mid fifties.  They have to get their SSI, and are entitled to it.  Off the top of my head I don't remember if it's the full amount or not.

 

Anyways, they then have to fight the government for their social security money.  And the government has to fight back, which costs money.  This goes on for years.  The government spends more than it would have if they had just rubber stamped it because after the government looses the case they have to pay the back amount owed as if you were approved from the moment you filed your application. 

 

I personally know a guy who was on SSI because he is missing an eye and he's got a limp.  He got taken off of it because he went to prison (bar brawl and couldn't pay bail) so he was taken off it.  A year later he's still fighting to get back on.

 

And after he gets back on, because you KNOW he qualifies for it as he was on it previously?  Government is going to be short what they used to fight him, and short everything they would have paid.

 

Incidentally, I don't support lowering the retirement age, though I do support streamlining and easing the way to get onto assistance things, like SSI.  The hurdles are intended to keep liars out.  But the thing is, you're making disabled people jump hurdles, the liars aren't going to have nearly as many problems as the actually disabled people.  You're making things harder, disabled people have a multiplier effect on the difficulty.

 

Your site freely admits to being biased.  Mine is likely biased against me, and world renown business magazine.

Edited by DregsandDregs, 02 February 2016 - 04:21 PM.

[Bone]

Also, what about people who have societally important jobs which don't require a degree? Like mechanics, plumbers, nurses etc. Why should somebody be paid to spend 3-4 years at university doing something like English or Media Studies when those people are out working their way up and supporting themselves?

 

Because the alternative is for arts and humanities to be restricted to the wealthy.

[DregsandDregs]

Because the alternative is for arts and humanities to be restricted to the wealthy.

 

Oh.

 

This is an excellent point and great post, and one I didn't think of.  It's very profound.  Thank you

[Waser Lave]

Because the alternative is for arts and humanities to be restricted to the wealthy.

 

No, the alternative is to also fund vocational training if you're going to make college free. Given that it's usually not the wealthy who go into vocational trades surely that would achieve as much, if not more, than free college for social mobility.

[Coops]

Negative interest rate to force people to spend

 

 

Forbes caters to the wealthy and economists, people who already know their shit.

 

Their interest is in investments and people not losing money. If anything, more money would go to investment bankers, because people would be desperately saving if social security didn't exist.  It is not in the best interest of Forbes or it's main readers for social security to be stable.

 

This is like that time the study the anti vaxers funded came out and said, "No, vaccination doesn't cause autism."

 

Hell, there are legit arguments out there, backed up with data, that lowering the retirement age would save money.

 

But how?  Why?

 

Because most people get disabled like in the mid fifties.  They have to get their SSI, and are entitled to it.  Off the top of my head I don't remember if it's the full amount or not.

 

Anyways, they then have to fight the government for their social security money.  And the government has to fight back, which costs money.  This goes on for years.  The government spends more than it would have if they had just rubber stamped it because after the government looses the case they have to pay the back amount owed as if you were approved from the moment you filed your application. 

 

I personally know a guy who was on SSI because he is missing an eye and he's got a limp.  He got taken off of it because he went to prison (bar brawl and couldn't pay bail) so he was taken off it.  A year later he's still fighting to get back on.

 

And after he gets back on, because you KNOW he qualifies for it as he was on it previously?  Government is going to be short what they used to fight him, and short everything they would have paid.

 

Incidentally, I don't support lowering the retirement age, though I do support streamlining and easing the way to get onto assistance things, like SSI.  The hurdles are intended to keep liars out.  But the thing is, you're making disabled people jump hurdles, the liars aren't going to have nearly as many problems as the actually disabled people.  You're making things harder, disabled people have a multiplier effect on the difficulty.

 

Your site freely admits to being biased.  Mine is likely biased against me, and world renown business magazine.

SSI is fucking ridiculous. I'm in like four support groups for Chiari malformation and Ehlers-Danlos and the number of disabled people who are unable to get financial assistance is disgustingly high. It takes years and years for people in wheelchairs to prove their disability. Most have to apply four or five times before they are finally approved. These same people are denied life-altering pain management because drugs are evil and the DEA has to make their money somehow. If they had pain management, they would be less disabled and more able to function, work, go to school and be productive. The US is a really shitty place to live if you're disabled (no or shitty healthcare, no pain management or if you do manage to find a good doctor, you're forced to go through humiliating and costly tests to prove you're not abusing said pain management with the risk of being pulled off at any time, minimal financial assistance that is nearly impossible to get, etc).

[DregsandDregs]

No, the alternative is to also fund vocational training if you're going to make college free. Given that it's usually not the wealthy who go into vocational trades surely that would achieve as much, if not more, than free college for social mobility.

You suggested that 4 year colleges not be free. Bone said why it was a bad idea.

You now respond that you should also fund vocational training?
 

SSI is fucking ridiculous. I'm in like four support groups for Chiari malformation and Ehlers-Danlos and the number of disabled people who are unable to get financial assistance is disgustingly high. It takes years and years for people in wheelchairs to prove their disability. Most have to apply four or five times before they are finally approved. These same people are denied life-altering pain management because drugs are evil and the DEA has to make their money somehow. If they had pain management, they would be less disabled and more able to function, work, go to school and be productive. The US is a really shitty place to live if you're disabled (no or shitty healthcare, no pain management or if you do manage to find a good doctor, you're forced to go through humiliating and costly tests to prove you're not abusing said pain management with the risk of being pulled off at any time, minimal financial assistance that is nearly impossible to get, etc).

 
Praise!

And you're not allowed to save up more than 2000 dollar at a time or something.  Because if you do you obviously don't need all the money they're giving you. Though I think Obama made special protected bank accounts and a few tax shelters for that so now you can.

 

For all people are trying to raise the minimum wage, they have to be reminded that SSI for people who are utterly incapable of working is less than minimum wage.

 

Is there a problem with people abusing Oxycotin and the like drugs?  Yes, especially down in Florida where they usually get them through pain management centers.  Just for the love of god stop attacking people who are in goddamn agony.