Occupy Wall Street
-
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:32 pm
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Oh
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
thats not really what those articles are relating to, but yes that is also an issue when you introduce wage laws.
-
- Posts: 595
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:14 pm
- Clans: {GSR}. Soul. rE. sG!. [][]SQ[][]
- Location: Chattanooga, TN
- Contact:
Re: Occupy Wall Street
I'm not going to read the past five pages of nancy-ing, but the fact is that our society has made it nearly impossible (notice I said nearly) to get a good paying job without a degree while at the same time price gouging the shit out of a demographic of naive kids. What Kirk is saying is right- pursuing an ideal that is rammed down our throats shouldn't lead to a lifetime of debt. College cost inflation over the past 20 years is **** sickening. And for what? Sports arenas. Publicity. Landscaping to lure more naive kids in. The system is broken, we don't need people to turn a cold shoulder and pull the " that's the way it is" bullshit. It flies in the face of everything so called "patriots" stand for, yet they are the ones dissenting the loudest because of some lame ass worries about tax increases. Stop listening to your TVs kiddies, it's lying to you.
-
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:31 am
- Clans: elephant shockwave infamy teamlol llama patrol
- Contact:
Re: Occupy Wall Street
You could always join the military and have your college payed for in full. Not to mention the ability to retire at 20 years if you decided to stay in. You can also take free college classes using Tuition Assistance while you are on active duty. I plan on getting out in a year and a half, but I've been getting technical computer certifications (A+, Network+, Security+, etc) for free via the Marine Corps. They also have more advanced certifications like CCNA available as well. They aren't college degrees, but they are highly respected certifications that represent real world experience in that subject area.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
`NG wrote:I'm not going to read the past five pages of nancy-ing, but the fact is that our society has made it nearly impossible (notice I said nearly) to get a good paying job without a degree while at the same time price gouging the shit out of a demographic of naive kids. What Kirk is saying is right- pursuing an ideal that is rammed down our throats shouldn't lead to a lifetime of debt. College cost inflation over the past 20 years is **** sickening. And for what? Sports arenas. Publicity. Landscaping to lure more naive kids in. The system is broken, we don't need people to turn a cold shoulder and pull the " that's the way it is" bullshit. It flies in the face of everything so called "patriots" stand for, yet they are the ones dissenting the loudest because of some lame ass worries about tax increases. Stop listening to your TVs kiddies, it's lying to you.
there are ways to fix these issues that dont involve tax increases, all ive been trying to say. the cost of education is artificially inflated, why not get rid of the reasons for the inflation and watch the costs drop naturally?
-
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:32 pm
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Except, as I've said, pursuing this ideal and having it rammed down our throats, is precisly what leads to spiraling costs and more (excess)competition for limited jobs(driving down salaries and giving companies the "pick of the litter"). You and Kirk are saying what "should be". By trying to force what "should be", you're creating the very problem in which you seek to avoid. What "should be" is the market will decide what majors can be funded and are needed. That way we don't end up with artfically created distortions that destroy people's lives for 50 years.pursuing an ideal that is rammed down our throats shouldn't lead to a lifetime of debt.
The more people that are "given" the opportunity to go to school, the higher the costs go. The more people that go to school, the lower starting salaries will be and the more feirce the competition will be. Do you see what has happened? They've convinced people you have to pay MORE AND MORE for something that continues to be worth LESS AND LESS. The tension between the dream and reality continues to build and build until it snaps, leading to the suffering of millions. It's a train wreck
See, now we've expanded all these schools, created online schools, made new campus, which has created excess need for maintenance jobs, IT, campus police, professors, books, apartments, coffee stores, you name it. It's exactly what happened in housing. As soon as people realize on their own, or have reality shoved in their face(not enough jobs for educated and costs are rising significantly faster than inflation), the education bubble will burst--if it hasn't already. It's nothing but an illusion.
I would say generally large college football programs are contributors from the athletic fund to the general fund. Of course the programs make profit, but it's transferred over and redistributed for the benefit of the campus at large. As far as landscaping and such, that's probably such an insignificant line item that it's not worth mentioning, but the reality is you have to have a campus look nice to COMPETE for the best and brightest-just like any business.And for what? Sports arenas. Publicity. Landscaping to lure more naive kids in.
Most decent universities do not advertise AT ALL, let alone like some huckster. Sure garbage schools have some hot girl singing and snapping about how great college is. LET ME PICK WHICH COLLEGE IS GREAT FOR ME AND MAKE A HIGHER SALARY!!!! Yeah....I'm not investing a dime in THAT.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Weren't you a big Ron Paul supporter I 2008 Kirk? Most of you guys would fit in real nice in San francisco
-
- Posts: 2436
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:46 pm
- Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
- Contact:
Re: Occupy Wall Street
No, it's not how things work. You can't just throw me anything you want and tell me to come up with a counter point. You are to provide unbiased information. I come from the world of empiricism, and you are not doing it correctly.unpro wrote:read the articles and come up with a counter point? thats kind of how these things work. i voice my opinion and show why i think how i do, and you show evidence to support your opinions.
Give me studies, give me unbiased information, give me numbers and graphs and objective measurements. Surely your article cites some of that stuff, so just click on the citations and post them up here.
I was a big fan of his foreign policy regarding the wars as he was the most outspoken candidate against those wars. I was a fan for about two weeks. Then I abruptly came back to reality.stile wrote:Weren't you a big Ron Paul supporter I 2008 Kirk? Most of you guys would fit in real nice in San francisco
Strong memory, Asian man.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
What immediate changes would you make to government to create a more suitable society?
Re: Occupy Wall Street
oh thats lovely, i show you something to read or look at and you call it biased. you link me something and i watch it, im still not swayed in the least bit, but i read or watched what you linked. except that essay.
i love how you think a different view on economics is somehow biased. im not going to find shit that favors your opinion to support my view points, nor would i expect you to link something from mises to support a viewpoint you have. why dont you read the articles, check the sources(i did what i could without buying a book when i read the articles), and then come up with a counter point?
having any sort of debate does not revolve around "you dont agree with me, your dumb. im ignoring everything you say or link regardless of potential for debate because you hold a different viewpoint than me".
here, ill give a point thats made. unemployment leading up to the stock market crash in the early 20th century was under 5% on average. it was as low as i believe 1.8%. since the minimum wage laws came into effect we have rarely dropped below 5% unemployment. the argument is we decreased jobs based on inflating the wage by intervention, and we enable employers to selectively hirer while favoring certain demographics. say an ex con tries to get a job at mc donalds, at the same time a 18 year old with no criminal record and no prior work experience also applies. the con has 5 years exp working in management at a fast food restaurant. 9 times out of 10, the kid with no experience will get hired over the con. without minimum wage laws, that ex con could say "well ill take this lower wage" and get the job by directly competing with his labor, not his past. or the employer could offer a lower wage to the con so he could "prove" himself a valuable employee, and hire both of the applicants. thereby increasing employment overall, while enabling a person who would otherwise be **** in our current system to actually get a job.
it wouldnt effect most people in this country, since they already get paid over the minimum wage. it directly benefits the poorest of this country by providing more jobs.
i love how you think a different view on economics is somehow biased. im not going to find shit that favors your opinion to support my view points, nor would i expect you to link something from mises to support a viewpoint you have. why dont you read the articles, check the sources(i did what i could without buying a book when i read the articles), and then come up with a counter point?
having any sort of debate does not revolve around "you dont agree with me, your dumb. im ignoring everything you say or link regardless of potential for debate because you hold a different viewpoint than me".
here, ill give a point thats made. unemployment leading up to the stock market crash in the early 20th century was under 5% on average. it was as low as i believe 1.8%. since the minimum wage laws came into effect we have rarely dropped below 5% unemployment. the argument is we decreased jobs based on inflating the wage by intervention, and we enable employers to selectively hirer while favoring certain demographics. say an ex con tries to get a job at mc donalds, at the same time a 18 year old with no criminal record and no prior work experience also applies. the con has 5 years exp working in management at a fast food restaurant. 9 times out of 10, the kid with no experience will get hired over the con. without minimum wage laws, that ex con could say "well ill take this lower wage" and get the job by directly competing with his labor, not his past. or the employer could offer a lower wage to the con so he could "prove" himself a valuable employee, and hire both of the applicants. thereby increasing employment overall, while enabling a person who would otherwise be **** in our current system to actually get a job.
it wouldnt effect most people in this country, since they already get paid over the minimum wage. it directly benefits the poorest of this country by providing more jobs.