I can't load the study right now but I would assume college loan debt is included into college costs.
Yes, probably too busy calling out other posters for what they failed to conclude on your assumptions. #undefeated is hard work.
I can't load the study right now but I would assume college loan debt is included into college costs.
Thank you, Chris.
The range of earnings within each major is wide — about as wide as the spread we saw above in the charts comparing median earners in different majors. Put another way, a person at the 90th percentile for childhood education majors will quite handily outearn someone at the 10th percentile of computer engineering majors. In fact, at the 90th percentile, people with only a high school degree outearn any college majors at the 10th percentile.
Yes, probably too busy calling out other posters for what they failed to conclude on your assumptions. #undefeated is hard work.
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.
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.
I find it telling how wildly insecure you must be to constantly have to publicly affirm your own self-identified correctness.
jhmd, if you don't believe in a level playing field, why did you insist that people who major in "identity studies" (people who are more likely to be minorities) are better off not going to college in the first place?
The chart clearly shows that is a ridiculous notion because there isn't a level playing field. White people can get away with your plan but minorities can't.
I think we can conclude there are no useless degrees, only useless people like you who managed to get degrees.
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/major_decisions_what_graduates_earn_over_their_lifetimes/
Part 3 will go into detail about debt to show what threshold people need to meet in order to pay off student debt early in their careers.
jhmd, you are crowing about a small percentage of the small percentage of people at the bottom of the income distribution. Basically you're talking shit about preschool teachers who may have trouble paying off their loans.
jhmd, you keep posting articles that derail your own argument. When called out on it, you retreat to the margins of your own argument to try to find something you can stand on.
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).
Ph, I'm beginning to think that you are losing your bearing, my friend. So far you have deployed the arguments of a) "you are stupid", b) "you are useless" and c) "you hate preschool teachers."
I don't know that those are the fingerprints of a well-crafted argument.
It always comes down to arguments like these when you are forcing someone else's property away from them for the benefit of yourself and your buddies. They are in some way bad, so you take what they have.
jhmd, you keep posting articles that derail your own argument. When called out on it, you retreat to the margins of your own argument to try to find something you can stand on.
The first sentence is not supported by anything in the story you posted. The second sentence is quantifiably untrue in many ways. While overall government outlays have grown with entitlement programs, employment by government is at a historically low point and the government has substantially less control over the economy than during much of the 20th century (when the Feds controlled, for example, pricing on airfare, interstate trucking, and many commodities). Without the entitlement programs we have, it's a good bet that inequality would be substantially worse.The point was that many government attempts to take something from one person and give it to another increase the income disparity. We have a much bigger government now than some years ago when the income disparity was not as great. The WSJ editorial illustrates one possible mechanism through which government elites hand over the people's cash to themselves and their friends.