• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

ChrisL68 said:
I want to clarify that I agree with jhmd that many people make poor financial decisions regarding ROI of certain college degrees. Not that this is a cause of the income inequality in the US.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think we all have anecdotes of people we know who made stupid educational/student loan decisions.
 
^agreed. Blaming it on the wrong degree is just blaming the struggling middle class for its struggles. It's cherry-picking statistics (pay attention millennials :thumbsup:) to retro-fit an argument or position. In this case, a staunch defense of supply-side/tricle-down Reaganomics small government some-such.

I agree, we need more engineers and hard-science experts. Our best and brightest go into finance, why wouldn't they? That's where the money is - seemingly since the 80s. They are smart, and that's there the trickle can be heard loud and clear. And let's face it that ain't really working, Sally. A few years at the start in the trenches and then its just counting money from there.
 
'Crats are always looking for ways to help their rich friends get a lot richer at the expense of 'Pub taxpayers:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-scores-again-1411944767

Elon Musk Scores Again
Cuomo bans fracking but gives the billionaire's company $750 million.
Fresh from his $1.3 billion subsidy score in Nevada, billionaire Elon Musk hit it big again last week. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced free public housing and $750 million in government assistance for Mr. Musk's unprofitable SolarCity.

New York will spend $750 million over two years to build a new plant and buy manufacturing equipment for SolarCity, which already benefits from a federal investment tax credit and state solar-panel rebates. SolarCity leases and installs rooftop solar panels and this summer it bought Bay Area startup Silevo which manufactures high-efficiency solar panels on a small scale. Last year Mr. Cuomo pledged $225 million to refurbish a former steel plant in South Buffalo for Silevo and now he's sweetened the bargain.


SolarCity will lease the state-owned plant and equipment for $1 per month for 10 years. This will let the company avoid property taxes, which are among the nation's highest. SolarCity won't have to pay sales tax on the equipment, and the Governor's tax reforms this year zeroed out the corporate tax for manufacturers. So SolarCity will effectively operate in New York tax free.

In return SolarCity has agreed to employ 1,460 jobs at the facility for five years, which breaks down to a subsidy of $103,000 a year per head. That's more than three times Buffalo's median household income. SolarCity has also promised to spend $5 billion in "combined capital, operational expenses and other costs in the State of New York" over 10 years, if its operation last that long.

SolarCity and Silevo have racked up losses. Silevo reported an "accumulated deficit" of $61.2 million as of Dec. 28, 2013, while SolarCity ran net losses of $151.8 million in 2013 and $113.7 million in 2012, notwithstanding abundant subsidies. SolarCity warns investors that "Silevo's Triex technology is novel and involves proprietary and complex manufacturing techniques, which may result in undetected errors or defects in the solar cells produced."

SolarCity also notes that "successfully achieving volume manufacturing of solar cells at our projected yield, efficiency and quality levels will be difficult, and we have little experience in high-volume manufacturing." Translation: We're flying by the seat of our pants.

So Mr. Cuomo continues to ban natural gas fracking, which requires no subsidies and would increase jobs and tax revenue, yet he ponies up cash for a green-energy company that makes no money even with subsidies. Thus do liberals help the rich get richer.
 
I don't know, Ill play - because fracking is fucking terrible for the underground place that we can't see and the taxpayers end up having to clean it up years later after the frackers are long gone? Because it is the crystal meth of the energy biz, a redneck quick-fix cheap high that tons of money can be made off of at the expense of, well, everything else???
 
I'm sure the author that tj is reading is equally incensed about the billions in tax cuts and subsidies that Rick Perry has been shovelling out to recruit private enterprises to Texas over the past several years, to the tune of about $19 billion/year. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/us/winners-and-losers-in-texas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What a silly card to play. Every state and every governor is competing to give away cash to any company that promises to create jobs, but without bothering to look it up I'd be willing to bet that the red states lead the pack (since Texas is putting a huge thumb on the scales).
 
WakeandBake said:
I don't know, Ill play - because fracking is fucking terrible for the underground place that we can't see and the taxpayers end up having to clean it up years later after the frackers are long gone? Because it is the crystal meth of the energy biz, a redneck quick-fix cheap high that tons of money can be made off of at the expense of, well, everything else???
Click to expand...

Great comparison.
 
http://www.demos.org/blog/9/23/14/w...e-wealth-black-and-hispanic-college-graduates

Median.png
 
More than anything I think that just shows graphically that the concept that the playing field is level is complete hogwash. I think it's likely that white high school dropouts have more wealth not because they are getting paid that much more, but because their families generally have more capital in the first place (based on structural/historical power dynamics). I may be off on that though and maybe it's controlled for that or I'm misunderstanding/misinterpreting the data.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
More than anything I think that just shows graphically that the concept that the playing field is level is complete hogwash. I think it's likely that white high school dropouts have more wealth not because they are getting paid that much more, but because their families generally have more capital in the first place (based on structural/historical power dynamics). I may be off on that though and maybe it's controlled for that or I'm misunderstanding/misinterpreting the data.
Click to expand...

Who says that?
 
Do you not think that is an implicit assumption for those advocating for no affirmative action or some redistribution of capital/resources to help alleviate the problem? Or does everyone admit the playing field is not level and then some just argue that we shouldn't take race into account when trying to level the playing field? I'm legitimately curious how you can advocate for color blind policies if you believe that the playing field is inherently stacked against people of color. There's a stunning amount of dissonance there in my opinion.

Similarly, I would argue that anybody who claims that we are in a "post-racial America" is implicitly stating that the playing field is level. If we're "post race" then it necessarily follows that there are no vestiges of racism still existent right? Otherwise you're not in a post-racial America I would think.
 
We are not close to being in a post racial society and certainly not in a post racial economy.
 
jhmd2000 said:
You're either not reading very closely or very honestly. I've said no college with wise choices is better than a lazy default to college resulting in a useless degree. I'll say it again now. Of the sixth paths, I'm in favor of number seven.
Click to expand...

jhmd2000 said:
Serendipity.

Yesterday's WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ok-at-this-list-of-the-highest-paying-majors/
Click to expand...

You are so dumb.

From the article you linked but obviously didn't read. This is the title:

Want proof college is worth it? Look at this list of the highest-paying majors

New research shows that, for almost every major, lifetime earnings are higher for college grads. But some majors pay a lot better than others.


How can you think that an article titled "What Proof that College is Worth It?" makes your point that college isn't worth it for people with "useless majors?"

And to drive home the point even more.

But the report found that regardless of major, “median earnings of bachelor’s degree graduates are higher than median earnings of high school graduates for all 80 majors studied. This is true at career entry, mid-career and end of career,” the authors write.

“College degrees may not be a guarantee of higher income, but they come closer than just about any other investment one can make,” they add.

Early childhood education majors had the lowest median earnings, but still higher than the median earnings for people with only a high school degree. The researchers estimate that even when college costs are taken into account, the median early childhood education major still makes 10 percent to 15 percent more than the median American with just a high school degree.
 
Last edited:
If you are financing college the additional PV of the earnings have to be enough to offset the PV of the debt and interest payments.

Making 10% more probably wouldn't justify going 200K in debt for instance.
 
PhDeac said:
You are so dumb.

From the article you linked but obviously didn't read. This is the title:

Want proof college is worth it? Look at this list of the highest-paying majors

New research shows that, for almost every major, lifetime earnings are higher for college grads. But some majors pay a lot better than others.


How can you think that an article titled "What Proof that College is Worth It?" makes your point that college isn't worth it for people with "useless majors?"

And to drive home the point even more.

But the report found that regardless of major, “median earnings of bachelor’s degree graduates are higher than median earnings of high school graduates for all 80 majors studied. This is true at career entry, mid-career and end of career,” the authors write.

“College degrees may not be a guarantee of higher income, but they come closer than just about any other investment one can make,” they add.

Early childhood education majors had the lowest median earnings, but still higher than the median earnings for people with only a high school degree. The researchers estimate that even when college costs are taken into account, the median early childhood education major still makes 10 percent to 15 percent more than the median American with just a high school degree.
Click to expand...

I find it telling how wildly insecure you must be to constantly have to publicly affirm your own self-identified correctness. You must not even conceive it is possible that other posters would post a timely, credible article on a recently discussed topic that doesn't support every aspect of their position. I did under a heading no more presumptuous than "Serendipity". It shouldn't be newsworthy, but to you it a) is, and b) an excuse to once-again re-affirm your own self-identified correctness. That's pitiable, frankly.

THAT SAID, the chart shows the delta between no college and an ethnic studies degree is small compared to the delta between an identity studies degree and the hard sciences I was arguing (buttressed by the link, FWIW). were a far better return on your investment.
 
ChrisL68 said:
If you are financing college the additional PV of the earnings have to be enough to offset the PV of the debt and interest payments.

Making 10% more probably wouldn't justify going 200K in debt for instance.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Chris.
 
ChrisL68 said:
If you are financing college the additional PV of the earnings have to be enough to offset the PV of the debt and interest payments.

Making 10% more probably wouldn't justify going 200K in debt for instance.
Click to expand...

I can't load the study right now but I would assume college loan debt is included into college costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top