Economy Stock Market Has Worst Week Since 2008

[Madmick]

I’ve had a hard time wrapping my head around what exactly it is you’re arguing. You call my reply vapid yet you did not substantively address any of the supported claims in it. I made a case for how making college tuition free would improve the economy and society in a few very distinct ways, but you disagree.

As far as I can tell, and it’s very hard to decipher, you’re arguing the following (correct me if I’m wrong):

1. More people are having college degrees, but that hadn’t stopped inequality of wealth between the middle class and the top
2. College degrees are worth less than they used to be (implying they are not worth getting)
3. Teachers will leave if college becomes tuition free (you don’t explain why that is)
4. Rising costs of tuition are to be blamed on faculty salaries and benefits
5. Education outcomes are getting worse
6. We should do nothing and let me market correct itself

Yeah, I'm not surprised to see you incapable of unpacking that.

"Your Atlantic article cite for the 400% increase in college tuition outlines some important factors for that increase, which are less college graduates, more colleges and an increase in for-profit colleges. At least two of those three supports the argument for tuition free college."



I cited material reviewing several different timelines. It's charts a basic supply/demand shift that exploded tuition which is now naturally self-correcting. These reinforce the opposite strategy to lower tuition from implementing tuition-free college. How will that correct demand? The demand for college is lowering, resulting in less matriculation, and that will naturally depress supply. Supply (of colleges) will have to compete by one of two means: (1) lowering rates, or (2) lowering supply. This will occur once the American people accept that "education"-- most importantly irrespective of the utility of major-- doesn't inherently increase a person's skill-value in the market. We cannot continue this fool's errand of believing in artificial correlation values.

This fed into my additional points that the real problem with higher education from around the onset of the 90's through 2012 was a swell in humanity degrees. Since 2012 that has been reversing as people realize how little value there is in those degrees in the American marketplace. They don't pay. An observable effect I cited is that the average American college graduate today, or high school student, is far less educated by objective standardized testing than the average American college graduate or secondary student of respective achievement 50 years ago.

In other words, we need to worry about quality more than quantity. Broad correlations are meaningless without context. I was hoping this would occur to you once I pointed out that our rate of college graduates has increased at the same time tuition has been exploding, the value of a college diplomas has been cratering, and the wealth gap has been broadening. You continue to cite high school econ 101 correlations (like the correlation of higher education to higher pay or lower unemployment) while ignoring that simply increasing the ratio of college graduates is simultaneously broadly correlated to these unfavorable factors in the USA.

You post charts demonstrating these broad correlations corresponding to unemployment, but don't even appear to notice that respective rates of unemployment mirror each other within the wider market, which is subject to more powerful market forces. The only takeaway from charts like that is that you're a more desirable employee if you have a college education-- NOT that the rate of college graduates has any impact on unemployment figures. Derp.

Your solution is to just pump out more and more of these less valuable, diminishing-and-less-educated group of "educated" people. Mine is to address the root failure of education to maintain standards and to produce students who fill the needs of the market they are serving. That isn't remotely addressed by waving a wand and making all college "tuition-free"; in fact that just creates a insular bubble where this correction never has to be addressed.
http://time.com/money/4777074/college-grad-pay-2017-average-salary/

As you’d imagine, jobs in the STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) fields have starting salaries that are well above average. The job in Korn Ferry’s study with the highest average pay for new grads is software developer ($65,232), followed by engineer ($63,036) and actuary ($59,212). Down at the low end of the study’s pay spectrum are customer service representatives ($35,848) and assistants ($35,592).

Per median values and changes over time:

But are 2017’s salaries for new grads really at an all-time high? Maybe not. The study appears to only include 10 years’ worth of data, and the Wall Street Journal’s coverage stated only that pay is at its “highest at least in a decade.”

Somewhat surprisingly, the “overall adjusted average salary hit its lowest point in 1995,” NACE found, when the average new grad earned only $29,276, or $45,202 after adjusting for inflation. By contrast, in 1969, the adjusted average salary for new grads was measured at $59,169.

That’s significantly higher than the 2017 new grad numbers cited by Korn Ferry, of course. Research from NACE indicates that new grad salaries hovered around $53,000, after adjusting for inflation, from 2008 to 2011, before dipping down into the $45Ks in 2012 and 2013, and then rebounding to $50,219 in 2015 and an estimated $50,556 in 2016.

2012 is when we saw that drop-off in humanities degrees with 10% fewer in 2017 produced than in that year. Look at the median value of a college education during this period-- it rises! Meanwhile, the value of a college education was highest over half a century ago when the education was of a higher quality, and when our government was far less saturated in socialist enterprise.

You can see the STEM degrees are the degrees that are actually valuable, and that address the increasingly demanding marketplace for higher-skilled jobs. Meanwhile, even though it was the period where diplomas had their lowest value, value calculations (i.e. the inflation-adjusted salaries versus inflation-adjusted tuition) were superior in the 90's than they are today, with a lower ratio of graduates, and far more than around 2012 when humanities degrees were peaking.

Meanwhile, what helps the lower-classes get work, and higher paying work, who aren't college educated? Is it the massive influx of cheap immigrant illegal/Visa labor that will work for pennies? Of course not. If you want that group's employment and payscale to improve you have to end the capitalist Ponzi scheme. I wouldn't expect a Swede to understand this. Your culture is a neophyte, here, but you will get your education in due time, now. I will be interested to see how long your authorities legally occlude stat-keeping for crime corresponding to ethnicity and immigration status as that crime surges [#2]. I will be even more interested to see if you willfully sustain comparable per capita levels of immigration from an unskilled ethnic group who has a powerful value-based identity in stark contrast to your own cultural identity year after year the way we Americans have. I suspect this will correct your ignorance of the unique stress this factor can have on a society which complicates these wider macroeconomic considerations (i.e. crime is expensive, and throwing money at people who don't share your values doesn't magically convince them to change their values).

Wanna make a bet? I bet you guys clamp down severely on African, Near Eastern, & Middle Eastern immigration in less than a decade.

I only mention all this because you went on a bizarre tangent earlier about economic mobility and ethnic groups. I don't care about that nonsense. It's a race-blind problem for me. Trust me, you don't want to bring race into it because, in fact, the students whose performances are worst respective to their already inferior college admission entry scores (GPA & SAT) demonstrate Native American, Black, and Latino minority students to be the worst investment. They are the worst investment in a blind. The prism of race isn't a healthy one if assessing these problems from objective, numeric-based scoring. Affirmative action in higher education has been, from that point of view, a disaster. We have an entire thread devoted to this:
http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/118435197/

Government interference has only compounded the problem of tuition costs-- which is exactly why we're having to forgive an uncontrollable amount of student loan debt right now (which is just another way of saying that the American taxpayer won't be paid back, and financed these "loan-free" educations effectively, anyway). Take for example the UC system, the crowning jewel of our public education sector, and one subsidized heavily by government; acutely among public education universities (who share base federal funding) by our most famously liberal state; just as your "tuition-free" strategy for lowering costs would:
https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2017/10/a-brief-history-of-uc-tuition

1988
Tuition for the academic school year rises to $840 for both resident and nonresident undergraduate students, with a $594 student services fee.

1998
Resident undergraduates now pay $2,896 per school year, while nonresidents get a $3,086 bill. The student services fee has climbed to $713.

2002
Resident tuition stands at $3,121, which is still 26 percent lower than the average cost of in-state tuition among the top 300 ranked national universities by U.S. News & World Report that year.

2007
Resident tuition zips up to $5,790, while nonresident tuition stands at $6,342, student services fee amount to $786.

2008
The financial crisis of 2007-2008, the worst recession since the Great Depression, hits the United States. The State General Fund for higher education drops from $12.8 million to $9.4 million, more than 26 percent, over the next five years.

California nearly slashes part of its support to the UC, but Gov. Brown decides against it, in exchange for a six-year tuition freeze, according to the Los Angeles Times.

2009
California higher education funding is cut by $715.5 million UC-wide, a total of $19,582 per enrolled student.

2011
With tuition at $11,160 — a number that is 16.3 percent higher than the previous school year, and 411 percent higher than a decade before — students pay more for the cost of their own education than the state funds itself for the first time in the history of the UC.

2012
Resident tuition stays still at $11,160, though it’s now nearly 20 percent higher than the average cost of in state tuition within U.S. News’ top 300 ranked national universities of the year.

Nov. 2014
Tuition remains the same from 2011, though it has more than doubled in the ten years before. On Nov. 20, UC Board of Regents authorizes a plan to increase tuition by 5 percent over the next five years.

UC President Janet Napolitano argues that a tuition freeze is no longer sustainable if the UC is to meet its financial obligation to its employees and increase the number of California undergraduates at UC campuses, the LA Times reports.

But Gov. Jerry Brown states his opposition to tuition hikes and threatens not to release additional state funds to the UC unless the hikes are canceled, according to SFGate. He also places a new two-year freeze in May 2015.

Nov. 2015
Hundreds of UCSB students join the Million Student March, a protest against the rising tuition costs and student fees, in a time of rampant student debt among college students. Over 100 campuses countrywide, and all nine UC campuses, participate in the march, which originates from presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ call for “a million young people” to “march on Washington.”

April 2016
In a second installment of the Million Student March, a crowd of 300 UCSB community members demands free tuition, greater financial aid, and a $15 minimum wage on campuses.

Nov. 2016
With the two-year freeze nearing its end in Fall 2017, UCSB student activists stage a walk-out of classes.

Jan. 2017
A group named Reclaim Higher Public Education launches a website advocating the $48 Fix, a proposed 12 percent income tax surcharge that would cost the median family only $48 to return to the Master Plan and eliminate tuition entirely in California public higher education.

Two days later, the UC Board of Regents approves a 2.5 percent tuition increase. Now, California residents face $14,409 in tuition and student fees for in-state residents, and nonresidents face tuition and student fees of $42,423 for the 2017-2018 school year.

Remember that "nearly 400%" figure for increased cost of tuition across the entire higher education sector for the past 30 years from The Atlantic / WSJ article? That wasn't adjusted for inflation. Tell me, can you calculate the percentile increase from $840 to $14,409?

That's the effect of government subsidy. No need to amplify it.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

So Dirty Donald's tax cut...

Lets see now.

1. New account.
2. Using old posting tactics like "dirty Donald" to get responses.
3. Only starting anti-Trump threads.

Clearly not an account of a recent leftist that was banned.

 

[Problem Child]

Democrats= higher taxes, lower interest rates. Money floods stock market, seeking higher rates of return.

Republicans=lower taxes, interest rates go up. Money leaves market, gets tighter, dollar improves (historically).

They both suck.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

Yeah, I'm not surprised to see you incapable of unpacking that.

"Your Atlantic article cite for the 400% increase in college tuition outlines some important factors for that increase, which are less college graduates, more colleges and an increase in for-profit colleges. At least two of those three supports the argument for tuition free college."



I cited material reviewing several different timelines. It's charts a basic supply/demand shift that exploded tuition which is now naturally self-correcting. These reinforce the opposite strategy to lower tuition from implementing tuition-free college. How will that correct demand? The demand for college is lowering, resulting in less matriculation, and that will naturally depress supply. Supply (of colleges) will have to compete by one of two means: (1) lowering rates, or (2) lowering supply. This will occur once the American people accept that "education"-- most importantly irrespective of the utility of major-- doesn't inherently increase a person's skill-value in the market. We cannot continue this fool's errand of believing in artificial correlation values.

This fed into my additional points that the real problem with higher education from around the onset of the 90's through 2012 was a swell in humanity degrees. Since 2012 that has been reversing as people realize how little value there is in those degrees in the American marketplace. They don't pay. An observable effect I cited is that the average American college graduate today, or high school student, is far less educated by objective standardized testing than the average American college graduate or secondary student of respective achievement 50 years ago.

In other words, we need to worry about quality more than quantity. Broad correlations are meaningless without context. I was hoping this would occur to you once I pointed out that our rate of college graduates has increased at the same time tuition has been exploding, the value of a college diplomas has been cratering, and the wealth gap has been broadening. You continue to cite high school econ 101 correlations (like the correlation of higher education to higher pay or lower unemployment) while ignoring that simply increasing the ratio of college graduates is simultaneously broadly correlated to these unfavorable factors in the USA.

You post charts demonstrating these broad correlations corresponding to unemployment, but don't even appear to notice that respective rates of unemployment mirror each other within the wider market, which is subject to more powerful market forces. The only takeaway from charts like that is that you're a more desirable employee if you have a college education-- NOT that the rate of college graduates has any impact on unemployment figures. Derp.

Your solution is to just pump out more and more of these less valuable, diminishing-and-less-educated group of "educated" people. Mine is to address the root failure of education to maintain standards and to produce students who fill the needs of the market they are serving. That isn't remotely addressed by waving a wand and making all college "tuition-free"; in fact that just creates a insular bubble where this correction never has to be addressed.
http://time.com/money/4777074/college-grad-pay-2017-average-salary/

Per median values and changes over time:

2012 is when we saw that drop-off in humanities degrees with 10% fewer in 2017 produced than in that year. Look at the median value of a college education during this period-- it rises! Meanwhile, the value of a college education was highest over half a century ago when the education was of a higher quality, and when our government was far less saturated in socialist enterprise.

You can see the STEM degrees are the degrees that are actually valuable, and that address the increasingly demanding marketplace for higher-skilled jobs. Meanwhile, even though it was the period where diplomas had their lowest value, value calculations (i.e. the inflation-adjusted salaries versus inflation-adjusted tuition) were superior in the 90's than they are today, with a lower ratio of graduates, and far more than around 2012 when humanities degrees were peaking.

Meanwhile, what helps the lower-classes get work, and higher paying work, who aren't college educated? Is it the massive influx of cheap immigrant illegal/Visa labor that will work for pennies? Of course not. If you want that group's employment and payscale to improve you have to end the capitalist Ponzi scheme. I wouldn't expect a Swede to understand this. Your culture is a neophyte, here, but you will get your education in due time, now. I will be interested to see how long your authorities legally occlude stat-keeping for crime corresponding to ethnicity and immigration status as that crime surges [#2]. I will be even more interested to see if you willfully sustain comparable per capita levels of immigration from an unskilled ethnic group who has a powerful value-based identity in stark contrast to your own cultural identity year after year the way we Americans have. I suspect this will correct your ignorance of the unique stress this factor can have on a society which complicates these wider macroeconomic considerations (i.e. crime is expensive, and throwing money at people who don't share your values doesn't magically convince them to change their values).

Wanna make a bet? I bet you guys clamp down severely on African, Near Eastern, & Middle Eastern immigration in less than a decade.

I only mention all this because you went on a bizarre tangent earlier about economic mobility and ethnic groups. I don't care about that nonsense. It's a race-blind problem for me. Trust me, you don't want to bring race into it because, in fact, the students whose performances are worst respective to their already inferior college admission entry scores (GPA & SAT) demonstrate Native American, Black, and Latino minority students to be the worst investment. They are the worst investment in a blind. The prism of race isn't a healthy one if assessing these problems from objective, numeric-based scoring. Affirmative action in higher education has been, from that point of view, a disaster. We have an entire thread devoted to this:
http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/118435197/

Government interference has only compounded the problem of tuition costs-- which is exactly why we're having to forgive an uncontrollable amount of student loan debt right now (which is just another way of saying that the American taxpayer won't be paid back, and financed these "loan-free" educations effectively, anyway). Take for example the UC system, the crowning jewel of our public education sector, and one subsidized heavily by government; acutely among public education universities (who share base federal funding) by our most famously liberal state; just as your "tuition-free" strategy for lowering costs would:
https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2017/10/a-brief-history-of-uc-tuition

Remember that "nearly 400%" figure for increased cost of tuition across the entire higher education sector for the past 30 years from The Atlantic / WSJ article? That wasn't adjusted for inflation. Tell me, can you calculate the percentile increase from $840 to $14,409?

That's the effect of government subsidy. No need to amplify it.

@Madmick for Pres 2020.
Wow, what a post.

 

[Sano]

Yeah, I'm not surprised to see you incapable of unpacking that.

"Your Atlantic article cite for the 400% increase in college tuition outlines some important factors for that increase, which are less college graduates, more colleges and an increase in for-profit colleges. At least two of those three supports the argument for tuition free college."



I cited material reviewing several different timelines. It's charts a basic supply/demand shift that exploded tuition which is now naturally self-correcting. These reinforce the opposite strategy to lower tuition from implementing tuition-free college. How will that correct demand? The demand for college is lowering, resulting in less matriculation, and that will naturally depress supply. Supply (of colleges) will have to compete by one of two means: (1) lowering rates, or (2) lowering supply. This will occur once the American people accept that "education"-- most importantly irrespective of the utility of major-- doesn't inherently increase a person's skill-value in the market. We cannot continue this fool's errand of believing in artificial correlation values.

This fed into my additional points that the real problem with higher education from around the onset of the 90's through 2012 was a swell in humanity degrees. Since 2012 that has been reversing as people realize how little value there is in those degrees in the American marketplace. They don't pay. An observable effect I cited is that the average American college graduate today, or high school student, is far less educated by objective standardized testing than the average American college graduate or secondary student of respective achievement 50 years ago.

In other words, we need to worry about quality more than quantity. Broad correlations are meaningless without context. I was hoping this would occur to you once I pointed out that our rate of college graduates has increased at the same time tuition has been exploding, the value of a college diplomas has been cratering, and the wealth gap has been broadening. You continue to cite high school econ 101 correlations (like the correlation of higher education to higher pay or lower unemployment) while ignoring that simply increasing the ratio of college graduates is simultaneously broadly correlated to these unfavorable factors in the USA.

You post charts demonstrating these broad correlations corresponding to unemployment, but don't even appear to notice that respective rates of unemployment mirror each other within the wider market, which is subject to more powerful market forces. The only takeaway from charts like that is that you're a more desirable employee if you have a college education-- NOT that the rate of college graduates has any impact on unemployment figures. Derp.

Your solution is to just pump out more and more of these less valuable, diminishing-and-less-educated group of "educated" people. Mine is to address the root failure of education to maintain standards and to produce students who fill the needs of the market they are serving. That isn't remotely addressed by waving a wand and making all college "tuition-free"; in fact that just creates a insular bubble where this correction never has to be addressed.
http://time.com/money/4777074/college-grad-pay-2017-average-salary/

Per median values and changes over time:

2012 is when we saw that drop-off in humanities degrees with 10% fewer in 2017 produced than in that year. Look at the median value of a college education during this period-- it rises! Meanwhile, the value of a college education was highest over half a century ago when the education was of a higher quality, and when our government was far less saturated in socialist enterprise.

You can see the STEM degrees are the degrees that are actually valuable, and that address the increasingly demanding marketplace for higher-skilled jobs. Meanwhile, even though it was the period where diplomas had their lowest value, value calculations (i.e. the inflation-adjusted salaries versus inflation-adjusted tuition) were superior in the 90's than they are today, with a lower ratio of graduates, and far more than around 2012 when humanities degrees were peaking.

Meanwhile, what helps the lower-classes get work, and higher paying work, who aren't college educated? Is it the massive influx of cheap immigrant illegal/Visa labor that will work for pennies? Of course not. If you want that group's employment and payscale to improve you have to end the capitalist Ponzi scheme. I wouldn't expect a Swede to understand this. Your culture is a neophyte, here, but you will get your education in due time, now. I will be interested to see how long your authorities legally occlude stat-keeping for crime corresponding to ethnicity and immigration status as that crime surges [#2]. I will be even more interested to see if you willfully sustain comparable per capita levels of immigration from an unskilled ethnic group who has a powerful value-based identity in stark contrast to your own cultural identity year after year the way we Americans have. I suspect this will correct your ignorance of the unique stress this factor can have on a society which complicates these wider macroeconomic considerations (i.e. crime is expensive, and throwing money at people who don't share your values doesn't magically convince them to change their values).

Wanna make a bet? I bet you guys clamp down severely on African, Near Eastern, & Middle Eastern immigration in less than a decade.

I only mention all this because you went on a bizarre tangent earlier about economic mobility and ethnic groups. I don't care about that nonsense. It's a race-blind problem for me. Trust me, you don't want to bring race into it because, in fact, the students whose performances are worst respective to their already inferior college admission entry scores (GPA & SAT) demonstrate Native American, Black, and Latino minority students to be the worst investment. They are the worst investment in a blind. The prism of race isn't a healthy one if assessing these problems from objective, numeric-based scoring. Affirmative action in higher education has been, from that point of view, a disaster. We have an entire thread devoted to this:
http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/118435197/

Government interference has only compounded the problem of tuition costs-- which is exactly why we're having to forgive an uncontrollable amount of student loan debt right now (which is just another way of saying that the American taxpayer won't be paid back, and financed these "loan-free" educations effectively, anyway). Take for example the UC system, the crowning jewel of our public education sector, and one subsidized heavily by government; acutely among public education universities (who share base federal funding) by our most famously liberal state; just as your "tuition-free" strategy for lowering costs would:
https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2017/10/a-brief-history-of-uc-tuition

Remember that "nearly 400%" figure for increased cost of tuition across the entire higher education sector for the past 30 years from The Atlantic / WSJ article? That wasn't adjusted for inflation. Tell me, can you calculate the percentile increase from $840 to $14,409?

That's the effect of government subsidy. No need to amplify it.

Education might not inherently increase a person’s skill-value in the market as an absolute, but to say that it doesn’t increase a person skill value on average is disingenuous. Of course, it does. What is your profession? Your supply demand analysis is also way too simplified. I’d like to know the actual numbers of graduation and enrollment rates from 2012 and on per capita. Furthermore, examining the underlying reason for dissatisfaction is critical. Yes, it is true that polling shows an increasing number of youth that feel like college is not worth it or is less important, but that’s based on a variety of factors. If you look at barriers for entry across a wide array of research it all points to costs/debt, socioeconomic inheritance, grades, level of sociability, confusion about the process and college readiness. Fact of the matter is that status and cost is a major barrier of entry for most students who opt out, unless they are wealthy or have other opportunities straight out of high school.
https://www.imagine-america.org/inside-imagine-america-newsletterspring-2007featured/
https://www.league.org/innovation-s...neration-college-students-and-college-success
https://www.prb.org/us-college-attainment/
https://theithacan.org/news/low-income-students-face-systemic-barriers-to-college-access/

Seeing as you call this disillusion with higher education a self-corrective and present it as a positive, how are you going to reconcile that with the fact that higher education will be increasingly important in the future economy? As the Georgetown report highlighted, 65% of the workforce will require higher education in 2020 (I already posted it). How will you solve this if you want to dissuade young people from taking a higher education and not improve barriers of entry?

Obviously, education is not perfect and some of it is not directly applicable to the market place. A lot of things could be improved but that’s a discussion about the changing societal norms and job markets.

Moving on, you make two unsubstantiated claims. The first is that humanities don’t pay, and you try to tie this in with what you claim is a drop in humanities of 10% in the period from 2012-2017 (need a source) and point to a narrow increase in the median wage in that time. You cocksurely extrapolating this to a truth about causal relationships that is incredibly reductionist and honestly inane. Even with this, you are making some errors. First of all, the median increase you presented is an increase in first year graduates. I mean, there’s no doubt that some STEM fields pay way more than humanities, long and short term, and that STEM will be even more important in the future. But if you look at long term pay humanities surpasses both nursing and business majors. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems did a report on this.

“While they may not earn as much as professional and pre-professional majors like nurses and business majors when they first get out of school, by the time they are 56-60 years old, considered their peak earning years, they make an average of $66,000, which is $2,000 a year more than those with professional degrees. They still don’t do as well as engineers and those who trained in math and the physical and natural sciences, who earn as much as $32,000 more on average.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susana...ng-in-the-humanities-does-pay-off-just-later/

You're also not considering that 1969 was the highest median wage recorded for new grads and the percentage of humanities graduates were way higher at that time, nor the fluctuations in the median new grad wage. There is a lot of moving parts here.

The second claim is you attempting to attribute students being “far less educated by objective standardized testing” to an increase in humanities directly. You point back to 50 years ago as a supposedly better time for student learning. However, if we look at the percentages of humanities studies over time, it looks like this:

50 years ago would be in 1967. Humanities were a FAR higher percentage at that time, in fact, it was at the all time high. So by your reasoning they should have been terrible students with worse outcomes. Another caveat to this, you say that college graduates do worse now, but you haven’t shown any data for this. You’ve shown 6-12th grade which is high school. It would be interesting to see more. As well as the outcomes for bachelors, masters and PhDs who all mostly necessitate a college degree.

You keep saying that the correlations are “artificial”, yet you’ve provided no evidence for that claim. Fact, higher education correlates with higher lifetime earnings, less crime, better health outcomes and less unemployment.

I’ve done science research as well as actually managed studies, so I am well aware of the correlation/causation and context issue. I even pointed this out, but I guess you missed it. You’re claiming that higher graduation rates broadly correlate to unfavorable factors like stagnant pay and more inequality, but I already addressed this. It’s almost like you did not read my post. You are then trying to equate your correlation with mine as a means to say “well, we can’t use any of them then!”. The problem is that the my confounders are thoroughly examined in the literature and supports the positive socioeconomic correlation, that’s a part of my argument. That is not the case with your 'spur of the moment' association. I also NEVER claimed that graduation rates have an impact on the absolute unemployment rate, which the graph I presented didn’t claim either. It did however, as you yourself pointed out, explain that you’re more desirable if you have a post college degree. That trend will continue. I don’t see how higher education meaning more job opportunities, higher wages and less relative unemployment can be supported any stronger than that.

I NEVER said anything about ethnicity nor race. You’re the one obsessed with it. I only mentioned low incomes families and social mobility. Also, you calling me a Swede again and going off with some irrelevant fluff you know nothing about tells me 100% that you didn’t read my post. I AM NOT SWEDISH, DENMARK IS NOT SWEDEN. I already spelled this out. We have different immigration policies and a much more right leaning government. Yet, surprisingly, we still offer tuition free college and have better outcomes than you do. Btw, speaking of Sweden, did you know that they ranked 2 on Forbes list of countries to do business with this year? Talk about a healthy market. Do you want to know what the US ranked? 17… Sweden also have far better outcomes on almost all metrics in regards to crime, health, education, and the list goes on. https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall

Again, getting sidetracked.

You claim that government interference only compounds the problem of tuition cost, but you show absolutely no evidence of this. In fact, government subsidies have fallen while tuition costs have gone up, so there again we have an inverse relationship. Also, your main exhibit is this link, https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2017/10/a-brief-history-of-uc-tuition, where the events suggests that government removing subsidizing actually had a NEGATIVE impact on tuition costs. Look at these:

“2008 - The financial crisis of 2007-2008, the worst recession since the Great Depression, hits the United States. The State General Fund for higher education drops from $12.8 million to $9.4 million, more than 26 percent, over the next five years. California nearly slashes part of its support to the UC, but Gov. Brown decides against it, in exchange for a six-year tuition freeze, according to the Los Angeles Times.

2009 - California higher education funding is cut by $715.5 million UC-wide, a total of $19,582 per enrolled student.

2011 - With tuition at $11,160 — a number that is 16.3 percent higher than the previous school year, and 411 percent higher than a decade before — students pay more for the cost of their own education than the state funds itself for the first time in the history of the UC."

So here, the recession and subsequently cutting state funds attributed to the largest spike of tutition in that timeline. That doesn’t exactly support your argument. This is completely in line with research on the subject that shows that cuts in state grands and funding have participated in the rise of costs for students. UC also did not have tuition free college so it’s a complete non-sequiter, even with you cherry picking them.

With that said, making college tuition free doesn’t magically lower the cost of tuition in and off itself and I never made that argument. It will however remove crippling debt from the students. I’ve also already went over, twice now, what the plans in place would cost and how it’s easily affordable and could have been paid for 22 times over by the tax cuts.

Phew, that was hard to get through. Every single one of your arguments are off base, which is surprising. You’re the master of gish gallop as well. It's really hard to stay on topic when you keep going off on tangents instead of sticking to the point. You’re obviously not reading my posts nor addressing anything I’m saying other than attempts to “gotcha” and the use of tired ideological zealousness.

 

[Madmick]

Education might not inherently increase a person’s skill-value in the market as an absolute, but to say that it doesn’t increase a person skill value on average is disingenuous. Of course, it does. What is your profession? Your supply demand analysis is also way too simplified. I’d like to know the actual numbers of graduation and enrollment rates from 2012 and on per capita. Furthermore, examining the underlying reason for dissatisfaction is critical. Yes, it is true that polling shows an increasing number of youth that feel like college is not worth it or is less important, but that’s based on a variety of factors. If you look at barriers for entry across a wide array of research it all points to costs/debt, socioeconomic inheritance, grades, level of sociability, confusion about the process and college readiness. Fact of the matter is that status and cost is a major barrier of entry for most students who opt out, unless they are wealthy or have other opportunities straight out of high school.
https://www.imagine-america.org/inside-imagine-america-newsletterspring-2007featured/
https://www.league.org/innovation-s...neration-college-students-and-college-success
https://www.prb.org/us-college-attainment/
https://theithacan.org/news/low-income-students-face-systemic-barriers-to-college-access/

Seeing as you call this disillusion with higher education a self-corrective and present it as a positive, how are you going to reconcile that with the fact that higher education will be increasingly important in the future economy? As the Georgetown report highlighted, 65% of the workforce will require higher education in 2020 (I already posted it). How will you solve this if you want to dissuade young people from taking a higher education and not improve barriers of entry?

Obviously, education is not perfect and some of it is not directly applicable to the market place. A lot of things could be improved but that’s a discussion about the changing societal norms and job markets.

Moving on, you make two unsubstantiated claims. The first is that humanities don’t pay, and you try to tie this in with what you claim is a drop in humanities of 10% in the period from 2012-2017 (need a source) and point to a narrow increase in the median wage in that time. You cocksurely extrapolating this to a truth about causal relationships that is incredibly reductionist and honestly inane. Even with this, you are making some errors. First of all, the median increase you presented is an increase in first year graduates. I mean, there’s no doubt that some STEM fields pay way more than humanities, long and short term, and that STEM will be even more important in the future. But if you look at long term pay humanities surpasses both nursing and business majors. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems did a report on this.

“While they may not earn as much as professional and pre-professional majors like nurses and business majors when they first get out of school, by the time they are 56-60 years old, considered their peak earning years, they make an average of $66,000, which is $2,000 a year more than those with professional degrees. They still don’t do as well as engineers and those who trained in math and the physical and natural sciences, who earn as much as $32,000 more on average.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susana...ng-in-the-humanities-does-pay-off-just-later/

You're also not considering that 1969 was the highest median wage recorded for new grads and the percentage of humanities graduates were way higher at that time, nor the fluctuations in the median new grad wage. There is a lot of moving parts here.

The second claim is you attempting to attribute students being “far less educated by objective standardized testing” to an increase in humanities directly. You point back to 50 years ago as a supposedly better time for student learning. However, if we look at the percentages of humanities studies over time, it looks like this:

50 years ago would be in 1967. Humanities were a FAR higher percentage at that time, in fact, it was at the all time high. So by your reasoning they should have been terrible students with worse outcomes. Another caveat to this, you say that college graduates do worse now, but you haven’t shown any data for this. You’ve shown 6-12th grade which is high school. It would be interesting to see more. As well as the outcomes for bachelors, masters and PhDs who all mostly necessitate a college degree.

You keep saying that the correlations are “artificial”, yet you’ve provided no evidence for that claim. Fact, higher education correlates with higher lifetime earnings, less crime, better health outcomes and less unemployment.

I’ve done science research as well as actually managed studies, so I am well aware of the correlation/causation and context issue. I even pointed this out, but I guess you missed it. You’re claiming that higher graduation rates broadly correlate to unfavorable factors like stagnant pay and more inequality, but I already addressed this. It’s almost like you did not read my post. You are then trying to equate your correlation with mine as a means to say “well, we can’t use any of them then!”. The problem is that the my confounders are thoroughly examined in the literature and supports the positive socioeconomic correlation, that’s a part of my argument. That is not the case with your 'spur of the moment' association. I also NEVER claimed that graduation rates have an impact on the absolute unemployment rate, which the graph I presented didn’t claim either. It did however, as you yourself pointed out, explain that you’re more desirable if you have a post college degree. That trend will continue. I don’t see how higher education meaning more job opportunities, higher wages and less relative unemployment can be supported any stronger than that.

I NEVER said anything about ethnicity nor race. You’re the one obsessed with it. I only mentioned low incomes families and social mobility. Also, you calling me a Swede again and going off with some irrelevant fluff you know nothing about tells me 100% that you didn’t read my post. I AM NOT SWEDISH, DENMARK IS NOT SWEDEN. I already spelled this out. We have different immigration policies and a much more right leaning government. Yet, surprisingly, we still offer tuition free college and have better outcomes than you do. Btw, speaking of Sweden, did you know that they ranked 2 on Forbes list of countries to do business with this year? Talk about a healthy market. Do you want to know what the US ranked? 17… Sweden also have far better outcomes on almost all metrics in regards to crime, health, education, and the list goes on. https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall

Again, getting sidetracked.

You claim that government interference only compounds the problem of tuition cost, but you show absolutely no evidence of this. In fact, government subsidies have fallen while tuition costs have gone up, so there again we have an inverse relationship. Also, your main exhibit is this link, https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2017/10/a-brief-history-of-uc-tuition, where the events suggests that government removing subsidizing actually had a NEGATIVE impact on tuition costs. Look at these:

“2008 - The financial crisis of 2007-2008, the worst recession since the Great Depression, hits the United States. The State General Fund for higher education drops from $12.8 million to $9.4 million, more than 26 percent, over the next five years. California nearly slashes part of its support to the UC, but Gov. Brown decides against it, in exchange for a six-year tuition freeze, according to the Los Angeles Times.

2009 - California higher education funding is cut by $715.5 million UC-wide, a total of $19,582 per enrolled student.

2011 - With tuition at $11,160 — a number that is 16.3 percent higher than the previous school year, and 411 percent higher than a decade before — students pay more for the cost of their own education than the state funds itself for the first time in the history of the UC."

So here, the recession and subsequently cutting state funds attributed to the largest spike of tutition in that timeline. That doesn’t exactly support your argument. This is completely in line with research on the subject that shows that cuts in state grands and funding have participated in the rise of costs for students. UC also did not have tuition free college so it’s a complete non-sequiter, even with you cherry picking them.

With that said, making college tuition free doesn’t magically lower the cost of tuition in and off itself and I never made that argument. It will however remove crippling debt from the students. I’ve also already went over, twice now, what the plans in place would cost and how it’s easily affordable and could have been paid for 22 times over by the tax cuts.

Phew, that was hard to get through. Every single one of your arguments are off base, which is surprising. You’re the master of gish gallop as well. It's really hard to stay on topic when you keep going off on tangents instead of sticking to the point. You’re obviously not reading my posts nor addressing anything I’m saying other than attempts to “gotcha” and the use of tired ideological zealousness.

First, you asserted that I wouldn't be able to prove the diminishing value of an American diploma, and now you're now rejecting the figures I've supplied because they undermine your confirmation bias. Review the figures before you make construct your argument if you wish to avoid these inconvenient pickles. Second, I love how you literally listed "grades" and "confusion about...college readiness" as "barriers" to college enrollment. LMFAO, yeah, if one doesn't study or learn anything in high school, which is free, or take advantage of any of the free resources to prepare oneself for an academic career in higher education, then generally one finds oneself less desirable to college admissions officers, and also to those who distributed scholarships, loans, or other forms of aid. What have I been talking about in my last two walls of text? Are you trolling me?

The future need for a more educated first-world work force is a highly complicated matter that is partially intertwined with our current capitalist Ponzi scheme, and is a bit illusory; in this case the growing globalist economy whereby we first worlders export our manufacturing, and other jobs requiring less education to second and third world countries like China, India, and principally these other countries in Asia that account for ~45% of our overall imports. This strategy is not sustainable, and the countries who have borne the burden of these so-called undesirable jobs are rapidly and tremendously ballooning in wealth. As expected, this is shifting the global landscape in terms of the jobs they find palatable to them as their economies strengthen, and they have better opportunities at home. New indigent populations must be sought out and exploited.

Nevertheless, look at the correction already taking place in the college space. Humanity degrees are on the decline because this generation of kids is figuring out the simplistic "just send them to college" strategy you espouse by broad correlation isn't actually conditioning them to be more valuable employees relative to more valuable fields of study. Colleges may be lethargic to adapt, but they are adapting, and once we reduce these less useleful fields of study from our institutions and replace them with more practical disciplines/classes students will once again matriculate in those programs. Right now the internet is proving a remarkable resource for prospective college students to weigh the median salaries of an institution's graduates against the cost of attending that institution. This is how the market correct itself, and determines which kind of training (academic, vocational, or otherwise) is worth the investment.

What the hell are you on about correlating humanity degrees to higher earning potential versus high school graduates? Nobody has argued high school graduates make more. Did you even read that Forbes article about the AAC&U study?

One reason liberal arts graduates wind up closing the gap with pre-professional students: 40% of humanities and social sciences students go on to graduate school, with 9% of that group getting professional degrees in business or law, which lead to higher pay. Only 30% of pre-professional students earn post-graduate degrees.

That $2k/yr advantage over the general group with professional degrees is:

1. Not a control against STEM undergraduate degrees
2. Comparing laborers at the peak of their career earnings (when they're older, in this case 56-60 years old, and this is true for all earners by work sector) against professional degree holders who are just out of school; in other words, it takes the humanities holders ~35 years for their degrees to catch up.
   
3. These are only ahead of the professional degree general base by $2k/yr at this point when the majority of Americans retire before the age of 65 (i.e. the professional degree holders enjoy more profitable career earnings)
   
4. They are at this point $32K below nurses and engineers (STEM degrees!) who are at the same respective peak in their own careers

I'll assume you also missed:

As for employment rates, 5.2% of liberal arts majors are unemployed from the ages of 21-30. That rate drops to 3.5% among 41-to-50-year-olds. Those are decent numbers, especially given the national rate of 6.7%, though they’re not as good as the rates for pre-professionals, 4.2% for recent grads and 3.1% among older workers.

The relative earning power of humanity majors is pitiful respective to the time and cost of their training. In fact, the entire point of that article was to apologize for the lower salaries of humanity degrees:

The report offers some explanation of why humanities grads don’t earn higher salaries: People with liberal arts degrees fill half of all social service jobs, including counselors, religious, social and community service workers. Those jobs tend to have mediocre pay. The report also says there are excess numbers of humanities grads with degrees in foreign languages and linguistics, theology and the field that’s perennially the most challenging for job hunters, visual and performing arts...

President Obama has also said that colleges should be rated based on graduates’ job placement and earning potential, which could further hurt humanities programs, especially if the administration focuses on the period directly after graduation.

These aren't job fields that require higher education. They can more sensibly be filled without burdening the taxpayer as a middle man. I guarantee you Obama didn't enjoy party support with such a rational, surgical approach to taxpayer-funded aid of higher education. Those are the kind of policy proposals which intrigue me. I am a sensible individual, and understand the sensibility of taxpayer investment, but not when there is zero indication it won't continue to explode costs, disproportionately burden the taxpayer relative to his investment, and produce a body of graduates who are less likely to be profitable among their peers with no forces present to correct that imbalance. After all, comparing college graduates to those who don't graduate college is itself a comparison of "socioeconomic heredity"; a contrast of those who are more likely to enjoy a larger slice of the pie versus those who are not. If this cannot be linearly correlated to a greater real GDP per capita it isn't compelling.

Not even in Den--- Sweden. Indeed, I do enjoy trolling you, and I enjoy even more that you believe it means I'm not paying attention. You say you don't care about race, but you are the one who posted this PDF earlier:
https://economics.handels.gu.se/digitalAssets/1439/1439011_49-55_research_lochner.pdf

Merlo and Wolpin (2009) take a very different
approach to estimating the relationship between
schooling and subsequent crime. Using individual-
level panel data on American black males ages 13-22
from the NLSY, they estimate a discrete choice vec-
tor autoregression model in which individuals can
choose to engage in crime, attend school, and/or
work each year. These decisions are allowed to
depend on unobserved individual-specific returns to
each activity, as well as crime, schooling, and work
choices during the previous year. Simulations that
use estimates for their model suggest that, on aver-
age, attending school at age 16 reduces the probabil-
ity of a black male ever committing a crime over
ages 19-22 by 42 percent and the probability of an
arrest over those ages by 23 percent...

Court-ordered school desegregation policies enact-
ed sinceBrown vs. Board of Education of Topeka
in1954 dramatically altered the types of schools blacks
attended in many American districts. In most cases,
the resources and average student achievement of
schools attended by blacks would have improved
markedly. Guryan (2004) estimates that these deseg-
regation efforts significantly increased high school
graduation rates among blacks by 2-3 percentage
points, but had no effect on white graduation rates.
Weiner, Lutz and Ludwig (2009) examine whether
these changes affected county-level homicide rates.
Their estimates suggest that homicide deaths among
blacks ages 15-19 declined by 17 percent in the first
five years after court-ordered desegregation, while
homicide deaths among white 15-19 year olds
declined by about 23 percent. Homicide deaths
among slightly older whites and blacks also
declined. In looking at offenders, they find that
arrest rates for homicide declined by one-third for
blacks between the ages of 15-19 years, while there
was no decline for young whites. They argue that
much of the effect may be coming from the
increased schooling among blacks.

16 is secondary age, so I don't even know why you cited this study within the context of this debate. That schooling is already government funded. Showing up to class is entirely the choice of the student. This is a fine example of a statistic demonstrating how an individual's behavior is a much stronger indicator of his future success and behavior than one of government subsidy. Even when we supply a free education it is only those who choose to pursue yield favorable social metrics. This is an international paper, and these are the studies cited concerning the American landscape. It makes no sense that you're presenting studies broaching crime by race & desegregation while you insist you don't care about this. In fact, I don't know why you're citing a paper that revolve around papers like Lochner and Moretti (2004) at all when it analyzes the effect of an additional year of high school on UCR crime rates (including by ethnicity).

Humanity degrees held more value when they were more difficult to obtain, and obviously they were not at a "much higher ratio" back in 1967. You can't dismiss the declining relative value of the American diploma with the single sentence, "You're also not considering that 1969 was the highest median wage recorded for new grads and the percentage of humanities graduates were way higher at that time, nor the fluctuations in the median new grad wage. There is a lot of moving parts here." You make no effort to explain that. You say you explained that, but you didn't. If simply increasing the number of college graduates will be so good for upward mobility, and for the earning potential of a graduate, relative to taxpayer investment, then it makes no sense that it has declined. There certainly are a lot of moving parts. In 1967 the average humanities department wasn't ravaged by a hyperpartisan split with over 97% of professors donating to Democrats-- as at Ivy League universities-- we see today (while STEM departments are neutrally split).

UC spiking tuition immediately after the recession can be attributed most directly to California's need to increase revenues and relieve the tax burden due to a liberal policy (the Fair Housing Act) of lending that was exploited and corrupted within the private sector, and ultimately exploded into a recession which sent a financial shockwave across the globe. Furthermore, your analysis correlating the slashing of California support to the UC in exchange for tuition fees is inaccurate, fuzzy math. From 2007, prior to following year's Great Recession and immediate 26% decline in state funding to the UC system, and further restrictions mentioned after you parroted, the cost only increased from $5,790 for in-state students to $14,409 in 2017: a 248% raw increase, and a 210% increase adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, from 1988 to 2007, covering a little less than double the same time frame, tuition went from $840 to $5790: a 689% raw increase, and a 543% increase adjusted for inflation. Obviously the latter outpaces the former.

So, in fact, no, removing government subsidy most definitely DID NOT accompany the steepest tuition inflation. Meanwhile, did you miss the final flourish? In 2017 California decided to resolve the balance issue by charging out-of-state residents what amount to private school tuition rates: $42,423. The following year in-state tuition dropped from $14,409 to $11,5042.

It's almost magic, huh?