“Listen… I know about college. I graduated from one and owned one. It was the best college. Best college. A lot of people say that. So I’m telling you that for us to win, we need to make college available for the working class folks instead of just the elites. It’s gonna be yuge…”
If more people aren’t going to college, it means you’d have to reject people whom would be going in a non free way.
While your statement is technically correct, it has no basis in reality.
100% agreed. But unfortunately it’s because people aren’t smart enough to comprehend something as socialist if it’s always been that way to them.
That’s why it’s so hard to socialize shit. Virtually every American genuinely fuckin loves socialism. I don’t see any of them voting to abolish the military, LEOs, and utility companies. But the branding power from the GOP is breathtaking.
1 Like
Not sure what you mean here? I meant to say if for example 1 percent more people graduated with a law degree, then it’s likely that we could have a glut in the field of law.[quote=“pfury, post:34, topic:255794”]
If you can’t quantify this amount (at least guesswork) there’s absolutely no way to debate it.
[/quote]
I was not saying I can currently quantify it. Someone maybe knows a source of information on this. It would be the type of evidence I would need to be on board with free 4 year university for all, or similar.
Oh I understood what you meant. Assuming the job market picks up zero from the free education, a 1% increase in law graduates (ignoring unemployment rates, career moves, etc) would AT MOST equal a 1% increase in the relative unemployment rate of that job.
It was moreso sarcasm. You wouldn’t be able to quantify this with any degree of accuracy. You’d be forced to estimate
- population adoption over time of free schooling
- job market changes/impacts as a result of free schooling
- global economy shifts due to above, including human movement and spending power/wants/needs
- Impact of free education on current weighting system of students.
And plenty more.
Eh then you won’t be. You’ve drawn the burden of information needed at such an extreme end that I’d question if you’ve thought through how impossible it would be to quantify.
Not over years of growth at 1 percent (it compounds).[quote=“pfury, post:45, topic:255794”]
Eh then you won’t be. You’ve drawn the burden of information needed at such an extreme end that I’d question if you’ve thought through how impossible it would be to quantify.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t be so sure. Economists model this type of stuff. They will not be exact, but should model it with a level of confidence to band the result. By looking at the corner conditions we could band the result easier.
Oh sure, over years it’ll be a problem in that hypothetical. But given the supply & demand aspect at work you really only have to worry about the first few years before that growth dies without job growth in the market.
Obviously this would also be weighted, but would heavily favor the lower skill jobs in what would probably be a slide down version of how students fall today.
I could see nurses taking a hit if we weren’t such a neverdie growing society. Maybe psychologists.
This isn’t a magic wand though. You’re talking about the type of economy modeling that hasn’t even been shown to be accurate on its own. Coupled with political action on both sides. Coupled with evolving job markets and AI. Coupled with benchmarking pay scales both now and in the future accounting for the add to the workforce.
Do you expect this type of information will be painstakingly obtained (even though nobody’s really asking) regardless of what the result is? You set it as your burden of proof after all
My two cents is that it’s not exactly free considering that it’s coming out of tax funded dollars. For us to truly have that then having a program of at least two years of mandatory military service (while at the same time getting on the job training) to pay for said “free” college would be a valid solution for not only solving that problem but also increasing the amount of care that our society has about our country and current events. Obviously, just as with k-12, there can be more elite private colleges as well that would require a tuition and look better on a resume though
If this ever happens, the congressional budget office will have to estimate the impact to the economy. Then we will debate the assumptions they took.
I like to think of myself as reasonable, so an analysis does not have to be perfect to look at and debate.
It’s not really free… but… the additional income taxes that they will pay in their life will more than cover it as a population. Plus… why not 2 years of compulsory military service for k-12? Why is college fundamentally different from a funding perspective than k-12?
1 Like
The mandatory service also helps with the k-12 but since we aren’t a 3rd world African country we obviously aren’t going to have child soldiers
The CBO report isn’t going to answer:
And even then, a CBO report would be a joke in this regard. It’s going to look at an overall impact to the economy as it exists today in a cost/benefit analysis. That means they’re going to keep unemployment and growth numbers fairly well trended, since it’s all assumption based anyways.
The analysis will show an overall impact to the economy. Maybe even by white collar/blue collar. But it’s never going to show you anything job centric or industry based.
I honestly just don’t think compulsory military service is a great idea. Plus… that’s even more money out of pocket by taxpayers. Military service isn’t a panacea.
1 Like
You are correct in that my demands are high. I do feel debating data is better than feelings, even if the data isn’t perfect.
Agree, military service would just cause more. I think good arguments can be made that the US should just use mercenaries as a cost savings, and keep a very small army that is mostly responsible for intelligence.
Your demands are high because its data isn’t coming to debate. The threshold to look at the impact to majors/jobs isn’t realistic. It’s both a multiple stage compounded assumption problem, but it’s also just not something anyone is looking into (for obvious reasons).
I am willing to soften my demands. Would leaving out profession be reasonable? Like what is the impact to current degree holders overall? I think this general of a thing has probably been looked at by some economist. I mean one could make all the assumptions to favor large impact, then make assumptions to favor the smallest impact. The actual impact will likely fall in the middle, unless they forget a major factor.
I do stand by my initial assertion that free tuition will devalue previous degrees. Basically if you take something that is very expensive and make it free, the people who paid the high cost will see a loss of value in their investment.
Then the question is, is society better off even though we have some losers? If I could be shown this, I may be altruistic and vote against my best interest. I’ve done it before.
Sure this would probably be reasonable to overall degrees. It would be a bigger picture item though. Even then due to shifting job types it’s not really going to be accurate, but it’ll probably get you a rough guesstimate.
It will change the average degree value downwards. Which means if you were above average before you’re even more above average now.
I’ll take my chances lol
The people who paid the high cost will have experience by the time the free schooling kicks in, and will have a permanent experience boost. But it’s also why virtually every mainstream free college initiative is coupled with large scale student loan forgiveness. At least every version of it in America that I’m aware of.
I agree with most of your post, but disagree about your conclusion here. I do understand these things are not zero sum situations, but if the average value of a degree shifts down, how does that make the previous degree holders further ahead? Seems like they would have a downside of it being harder to advance in their careers due to more competition.
It would make them further ahead if they’re above average individuals.
Quality scale 1-100 (not relative). Avg is 50. Suddenly you influx the market with people who couldn’t (or wouldn’t) get through without it being free. Avg quality is now 45.
If you were a 75 before, you’re a 75 now. Except now you’re more stds from the new mean.
I agree the lower quality individuals now have more competition. But again also assuming zero job growth.
I can buy your argument under the assumption that the total amount of people attending remains roughly the same.
I wonder how many understand that most colleges are pretty full, and the for profits have been closing at a pretty fast rate.
How would we determine who goes and who doesn’t if it is free?