[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Trump - haresfur - Feb 19, 2018 - 11:15pm
 
Name My Band - R_P - Feb 19, 2018 - 10:45pm
 
Regarding dogs - haresfur - Feb 19, 2018 - 9:57pm
 
Gawd, are we such dumb low lifes?..... Sophie Gregoire T... - sdwright - Feb 19, 2018 - 9:35pm
 
That's good advice - sdwright - Feb 19, 2018 - 9:15pm
 
NEED A COMPUTER GEEK! - islander - Feb 19, 2018 - 8:36pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Steely_D - Feb 19, 2018 - 7:14pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - haresfur - Feb 19, 2018 - 7:02pm
 
What's With All the "Fish"? - sdwright - Feb 19, 2018 - 6:04pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Feb 19, 2018 - 5:53pm
 
What makes you smile? - Coaxial - Feb 19, 2018 - 5:53pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - Coaxial - Feb 19, 2018 - 5:51pm
 
Coffee - sdwright - Feb 19, 2018 - 5:43pm
 
Freedom of speech? - sdwright - Feb 19, 2018 - 4:29pm
 
Counting with Pictures - sdwright - Feb 19, 2018 - 4:25pm
 
Favorite President - sdwright - Feb 19, 2018 - 4:13pm
 
Fake News*    ?    ! - sdwright - Feb 19, 2018 - 4:08pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - lily34 - Feb 19, 2018 - 3:30pm
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - triskele - Feb 19, 2018 - 3:20pm
 
Signs of Spring - kctomato - Feb 19, 2018 - 2:42pm
 
Cache Issue on IPhone5s - Katywu - Feb 19, 2018 - 2:36pm
 
Curling? (Small town news) - haresfur - Feb 19, 2018 - 2:24pm
 
Guns - meower - Feb 19, 2018 - 2:02pm
 
Testing your Metal? - Proclivities - Feb 19, 2018 - 12:47pm
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - meower - Feb 19, 2018 - 11:11am
 
Russia - Steely_D - Feb 19, 2018 - 11:09am
 
China - R_P - Feb 19, 2018 - 10:59am
 
WTF??!! - miamizsun - Feb 19, 2018 - 8:12am
 
Apple HomePod - miamizsun - Feb 19, 2018 - 7:43am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - Proclivities - Feb 19, 2018 - 6:57am
 
How's the weather? - islander - Feb 19, 2018 - 6:43am
 
The Moon - Proclivities - Feb 19, 2018 - 6:18am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Feb 19, 2018 - 6:13am
 
Your Current Crush - sdwright - Feb 19, 2018 - 3:29am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - sdwright - Feb 18, 2018 - 6:29pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Antigone - Feb 18, 2018 - 5:19pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - ColdMiser - Feb 18, 2018 - 4:41pm
 
Google's Creative Logos - sdwright - Feb 18, 2018 - 3:20pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Feb 18, 2018 - 3:18pm
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Feb 18, 2018 - 2:55pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - bevgerry - Feb 18, 2018 - 2:42pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - SeriousLee - Feb 18, 2018 - 11:32am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - SeriousLee - Feb 18, 2018 - 11:27am
 
James Brown: The Real Story on CNN - Steely_D - Feb 18, 2018 - 11:13am
 
Olympics - Is anybody interested - sdwright - Feb 18, 2018 - 9:59am
 
True Confessions - Coaxial - Feb 18, 2018 - 9:38am
 
Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? - sdwright - Feb 18, 2018 - 9:06am
 
The "What if..." Forum - sdwright - Feb 18, 2018 - 8:59am
 
Scotch - single malt only, please - Red_Dragon - Feb 18, 2018 - 8:44am
 
Questions. - Antigone - Feb 18, 2018 - 8:28am
 
The war on Funk is over! - Coaxial - Feb 18, 2018 - 7:53am
 
Thoughts in the Middle of the Night - Steely_D - Feb 18, 2018 - 7:43am
 
Word Association - sdwright - Feb 18, 2018 - 7:41am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Feb 18, 2018 - 7:30am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - Coaxial - Feb 18, 2018 - 7:29am
 
Poetry Forum - helenofjoy - Feb 18, 2018 - 6:57am
 
What Did You Do Today? - Antigone - Feb 18, 2018 - 4:46am
 
RP App for Android - thomas.besand@gmail.com - Feb 18, 2018 - 3:03am
 
Sex for Love vs Love for Sex: Discuss - lily34 - Feb 18, 2018 - 1:01am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Feb 17, 2018 - 11:47pm
 
Movie quotes used as life's truisms - sdwright - Feb 17, 2018 - 4:55pm
 
Favorite Quotes - haresfur - Feb 17, 2018 - 4:26pm
 
Great music. - Steely_D - Feb 17, 2018 - 4:05pm
 
what makes you frown - triskele - Feb 17, 2018 - 3:50pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Feb 17, 2018 - 11:43am
 
Our Little Secret No More:.Great RP work - sdwright - Feb 17, 2018 - 9:03am
 
Trolls at RP - sdwright - Feb 17, 2018 - 6:51am
 
New Echo (Alexa) Skill - LameBuffalo - Feb 17, 2018 - 12:18am
 
Live Music - R_P - Feb 16, 2018 - 10:16pm
 
Separated At Birth...? - sdwright - Feb 16, 2018 - 9:42pm
 
~ Have a good joke you can post? ~ - oldviolin - Feb 16, 2018 - 8:20pm
 
What Are You Grateful For? - SeriousLee - Feb 16, 2018 - 3:57pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - SamShearman - Feb 16, 2018 - 3:47pm
 
• • • Poopoo • • • - haresfur - Feb 16, 2018 - 3:06pm
 
Star Trek - miamizsun - Feb 16, 2018 - 2:47pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 158, 159, 160  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 11, 2018 - 9:19pm

Oh, the irony!

Despite at one point declaring himself to be a libertarian Matt Taibbi has had nothing good to say about the libertarian movement or anyone in it, but he has a book to peddle and no one on the left will talk to him since a book he co-wrote about his days writing for an English language tabloid in Russia called The eXile came to light. It (the new book) is, by all accounts, very good and Reason magazine interviewed him about it.

This is interesting for a lot of reasons (one of which is how civil everybody is) but mostly for how similar their views are on the subject of the book, the death of Eric Garner. Give it a watch.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 6, 2018 - 8:49am

i may disagree with boaz on some small stuff but he captures the essence here pretty well

i think it is worth your time


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 31, 2017 - 5:31pm

 aflanigan wrote:
Now, now. Don't get too excited; unlike most libertarian rants, it's a fairly balanced article. They quote farmers who acknowledge that some safety rules are certainly necessary and helpful. Most pragmatists like me acknowledge that if there is anything bureaucracy is good at, it's overdoing a good thing.

Reforming things to make regulation less onerous and more effective without getting rid of the good aspects (baby/bathwater) may require a bureaucratic cultural shift. I suspect the system by which we determine funding for regulatory agencies shares a big part of the blame. As the article points out, some agencies with overlapping responsibilities seem intent on outdoing each other; the mindset behind it is likely based on "the more rules we have and the more regulatory responsibility we have, the more money/staff we will be able to request to enforce them". How can we eliminate that sort of perverse incentive? I suspect it's fairly widespread. Look at turf wars/jurisdictional battles that happen in the Pentagon, between law enforcement agencies, etc.

I would like you to consider the context here before I comment further: the farm in the article grows apples. Humans have grown (and eaten) apples for thousands of years, mostly without the heavy hand of government guiding them. Somehow we managed. Most of the harm we're supposedly being protected from is imaginary.

I'd also like you to compare two regulatory frameworks the growers operate under: one mandated by government and the other by their customers. But have their drawbacks but their aims and methods are very different.

The customer gives the grower a clear list of rules they want followed*. The rules are intended to make the end users happy with the product. If the rules aren't followed (or if for some other reason the end users don't like them) they won't buy the apples.

The government(s) give the grower an infinite list of rules and insists that he follow all of them. Which of them actually apply is left as an exercise for the grower...until the regulatory agencies step in and issue a ruling that oops you missed one. Or thousands, whatever, not my problem pay up. The satisfaction of the end user is irrelevant; if the process wasn't followed as laid out (even if separate regulatory agencies insist on contradictory processes; even if the regulatory agency changes its mind about what the rules mean; even if the grower asks for guidance and gets told what the rules mean but someone else at the agency decides differently) the grower gets penalized. Fined usually, but harsher punishments are on hand, meted out by the same people that write and interpret the rules and judge any appeals.

Under one regime what is expected is clear and the worst that can happen is failing to sell a crop. Under the other regime the grower can lose much much more than the value of a single crop or even the value of the entire farm—the punishment can be as draconian as the whim of a regulator wants to make it.

But won't someone think of the children!

I am thinking of the children. The children who eat nice safe processed foods made in gleaming factories where every variable can be controlled and every regulation can be complied with...instead of eating apples.

*It's in the interest of both parties that the list be both clear, concise, and relevant.  There is no incentive to make that list longer or harder to follow than necessary.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Dec 31, 2017 - 11:10am

Clinical psychologist explains how Ayn Rand helped turn the US into a selfish and greedy nation
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Dec 28, 2017 - 6:03am

 Lazy8 wrote:

Whoa, the Times noticed that the endless rules it sanctimoniously insists on might actually be counterproductive? Did somebody spike the punch at the Christmas party?

 
Now, now. Don't get too excited; unlike most libertarian rants, it's a fairly balanced article. They quote farmers who acknowledge that some safety rules are certainly necessary and helpful. Most pragmatists like me acknowledge that if there is anything bureaucracy is good at, it's overdoing a good thing.

Reforming things to make regulation less onerous and more effective without getting rid of the good aspects (baby/bathwater) may require a bureaucratic cultural shift. I suspect the system by which we determine funding for regulatory agencies shares a big part of the blame. As the article points out, some agencies with overlapping responsibilities seem intent on outdoing each other; the mindset behind it is likely based on "the more rules we have and the more regulatory responsibility we have, the more money/staff we will be able to request to enforce them". How can we eliminate that sort of perverse incentive? I suspect it's fairly widespread. Look at turf wars/jurisdictional battles that happen in the Pentagon, between law enforcement agencies, etc.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 27, 2017 - 9:06pm

 aflanigan wrote: 
Whoa, the Times noticed that the endless rules it sanctimoniously insists on might actually be counterproductive? Did somebody spike the punch at the Christmas party?
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Dec 27, 2017 - 10:02am

One of Lazy8's pet soap boxes.

When Picking Apples on a Farm With
5,000 Rules, Watch Out for the Ladders




sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Sep 2, 2017 - 4:11am

 Lazy8 wrote:


 Well the internet has made it easier to allege that countries meddle in elections, anyway.


 
True, but let's also not be so naive' to think that countries do not meddle in elections, oh they do and the number one offender for years is the United States through the enforcement wing the CIA. There is just no proof that countries have actually hacked into electoral systems and literally altered the votes which is the false insinuation.  Usually the meddling is propaganda and sometimes the point of a gun. I am aware you already know all of this, I suppose it is just important to distinguish between meddling and altering the outcome literally, huge difference that the media seems to want to muddle for some reason.{#Think}


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 1, 2017 - 12:33pm

 black321 wrote:
Ok, that's fair.  To be clear, i wasn't arguing one way or the other...simply "asking the libertarian."  Thanks for the comments.  I do think it is interesting how the internet has made it easier for countries to allegedly meddle in elections.

Well the internet has made it easier to allege that countries meddle in elections, anyway.
 

 

sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Sep 1, 2017 - 11:51am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:

I stumbled upon this…no idea of the source or how accurate, but thought it was at least an interesting read, if not accurate. 

 The Ron Paul and Tea Party ‘revolution’ of 2008 look suspicious, considering Russia’s 2016 hacking

https://timeline.com/ron-paul-russia-hacking-e248f87f38f2


So...Ron Paul's support is fake? All those people who voted for him...didn't? He didn't start Young Americans for Liberty, a thriving campus organization with 900 chapters and 310,000 members? Or are all those people Russian agents?

I have no idea if Russia or Ukraine (Ukraine, btw, is a country that has been at war with Russia since 2014, and wasn't exactly on good terms in 2008 but whatever) sent out spam emails for Ron Paul in 2008. I honestly don't care either. I don't care if Vladimir Putin likes Ron Paul or not, likes the TEA Party (which Dr. Paul is only peripherally involved with) or not.

But let's say Ron Paul (or Donald Trump, for that matter) is Vladimir Putin favorite person ever. Let's say Vladimir Putin personally wrote the spam emails promoting Ron Paul in 2008. Still don't care.

Vladimir Putin doesn't vote in US elections. Vladimir Putin can't make anyone vote for any candidate. If he wants to send out spam emails or go door-to-door he's welcome—that's not only not illegal it does no harm to our electoral process.

If you (or anyone) want's to allege that Russians interfered with an election you're going to have to go beyond "they said some things". You're going to have to show some actual, you know, interference with an election. Changing vote counts. Preventing people from voting. Casting fake ballots.

So far the only allegations I've seen of that kind of activity are by Americans.

So go ahead and make a case, but it better have more than innuendo and six-degrees-of-separation guilt by association to it.
 


 


Thank you.  да здравствует мать россия!


black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Sep 1, 2017 - 11:43am

 Lazy8 wrote:
So...Ron Paul's support is fake? All those people who voted for him...didn't? He didn't start Young Americans for Liberty, a thriving campus organization with 900 chapters and 310,000 members? Or are all those people Russian agents?

I have no idea if Russia or Ukraine (Ukraine, btw, is a country that has been at war with Russia since 2014, and wasn't exactly on good terms in 2008 but whatever) sent out spam emails for Ron Paul in 2008. I honestly don't care either. I don't care if Vladimir Putin likes Ron Paul or not, likes the TEA Party (which Dr. Paul is only peripherally involved with) or not.

But let's say Ron Paul (or Donald Trump, for that matter) is Vladimir Putin favorite person ever. Let's say Vladimir Putin personally wrote the spam emails promoting Ron Paul in 2008. Still don't care.

Vladimir Putin doesn't vote in US elections. Vladimir Putin can't make anyone vote for any candidate. If he wants to send out spam emails or go door-to-door he's welcome—that's not only not illegal it does no harm to our electoral process.

If you (or anyone) want's to allege that Russians interfered with an election you're going to have to go beyond "they said some things". You're going to have to show some actual, you know, interference with an election. Changing vote counts. Preventing people from voting. Casting fake ballots.

So far the only allegations I've seen of that kind of activity are by Americans.

So go ahead and make a case, but it better have more than innuendo and six-degrees-of-separation guilt by association to it.
 
 

Ok, that's fair.  To be clear, i wasn't arguing one way or the other...simply "asking the libertarian."  Thanks for the comments.  I do think it is interesting how the internet has made it easier for countries to allegedly meddle in elections. 


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 1, 2017 - 11:34am

 black321 wrote:

I stumbled upon this…no idea of the source or how accurate, but thought it was at least an interesting read, if not accurate. 

 The Ron Paul and Tea Party ‘revolution’ of 2008 look suspicious, considering Russia’s 2016 hacking

https://timeline.com/ron-paul-russia-hacking-e248f87f38f2


So...Ron Paul's support is fake? All those people who voted for him...didn't? He didn't start Young Americans for Liberty, a thriving campus organization with 900 chapters and 310,000 members? Or are all those people Russian agents?

I have no idea if Russia or Ukraine (Ukraine, btw, is a country that has been at war with Russia since 2014, and wasn't exactly on good terms in 2008 but whatever) sent out spam emails for Ron Paul in 2008. I honestly don't care either. I don't care if Vladimir Putin likes Ron Paul or not, likes the TEA Party (which Dr. Paul is only peripherally involved with) or not.

But let's say Ron Paul (or Donald Trump, for that matter) is Vladimir Putin favorite person ever. Let's say Vladimir Putin personally wrote the spam emails promoting Ron Paul in 2008. Still don't care.

Vladimir Putin doesn't vote in US elections. Vladimir Putin can't make anyone vote for any candidate. If he wants to send out spam emails or go door-to-door he's welcome—that's not only not illegal it does no harm to our electoral process.

If you (or anyone) want's to allege that Russians interfered with an election you're going to have to go beyond "they said some things". You're going to have to show some actual, you know, interference with an election. Changing vote counts. Preventing people from voting. Casting fake ballots.

So far the only allegations I've seen of that kind of activity are by Americans.

So go ahead and make a case, but it better have more than innuendo and six-degrees-of-separation guilt by association to it.
 

black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Sep 1, 2017 - 9:08am

I stumbled upon this…no idea of the source or how accurate, but thought it was at least an interesting read, if not accurate. 

 The Ron Paul and Tea Party ‘revolution’ of 2008 look suspicious, considering Russia’s 2016 hacking

https://timeline.com/ron-paul-russia-hacking-e248f87f38f2

 




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 31, 2017 - 12:17pm



What the Alt-Right Gets Wrong

Libertarians should reject right-wing populism in all its forms.

Some news outlets have claimed that there's a troubling "pipeline" from libertarianism to the most revolting corners of the alt-right movement.

Their evidence is that white supremacist Christopher Cantwell, the star of a Vice documentary about the racist, tiki torch-wielding Charlottesville mob, was once a figure in the libertarian Free State project, and alt-right icon and white nationalist Richard Spencer himself was once a Ron Paul supporter and self-identified as a libertarian.

Anyone who claims to care about individual liberty should reject the overt racism in Charlottesville, the broadly defined alt-right and the watered down "alt-lite" variants represented by provocateurs like Milo Yiannopoulous and YouTube personalities Stefan Molyneux and Laura Southern, as well as the right-wing nationalism pushed by recently fired White House strategist Steve Bannon.

These expressions of right wing populism are the anti-thesis of libertarianism and they collapse under their own logic.


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 12:31pm

 black321 wrote:
So in addition to increased capital investments (being on a few different campuses the last couple years, I have seen soft evidence of this given the projects underway), we have rising overhead/admin costs...which it seems adds little value to the education...which is further exasperated by rising costs for benefits (pensions and health care).  Looking at public k-12 schools in my area, the benefit part of the equation eats about 30% of the budget. 

So we have rising capital and benefit costs (healthcare)...along with more paper pushing suits.  Except for the benefit bit, the other two could/should be easy fixes. 

In NY out of state tuition is still a bargain at about $16k.  My son goes to Illinois (out of state) where tuition is about $35k..and the labor for most of his classes is already spread pretty thin (large lecture halls). 

Once you have arena-sized lecture halls and office hours held entirely by poorly-paid grad students it's hard to find cost savings in direct labor (teaching). It's all overhead. Which keeps growing.

And—the root of the problem—parents and students keep paying for it, so it keeps happening.
black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 12:20pm

 miamizsun wrote:

"Before we can find any solution, it is important to understand the root cause of the rising prices. Professor Lin finds that increased demand—fueled by improved job prospects for graduates and increased government assistance—is to blame for soaring tuition prices. Knowing the cause should inform our search for a solution."

politically if you want more of something subsidize it

The Student Debt Crisis Is the Predictable Consequence of Subsidies



National Bureau of Economic Research has some info on that as well




 
but over the past 30 years, it seems the amount of subsidies has declined?  For the average student, they only qualify for about $6k in "subsidized" loans...with the subsidy consisting of a deferral on when payments start (after graduation).  The interest rates on these loans aren't particularly attractive.  Even the full subsidies for low income families have declined...while prices continued to climb. 

Still, the demand has remained strong. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 11:27am

 black321 wrote:

So this video is basically arguing that due to rising demand, schools are raising prices because they can, and using that cash windfall to invest in new facilities/capital investments....instead using the higher demand/revenue to leverage their costs, which would allow them to lower their tuition rates.  Possible, but I'd be interested seeing any real evidence/data behind this theory.  If its true, then we have a very simple fix to our tuition issue.  Highlight the issue and get colleges to return to a normal rate of capital investments.

p.s., at the state level, a simple solution would be to curb out of state enrollment, or at least shift more of the tuition burden to those students.
 
"Before we can find any solution, it is important to understand the root cause of the rising prices. Professor Lin finds that increased demand—fueled by improved job prospects for graduates and increased government assistance—is to blame for soaring tuition prices. Knowing the cause should inform our search for a solution."

politically if you want more of something subsidize it

The Student Debt Crisis Is the Predictable Consequence of Subsidies



National Bureau of Economic Research has some info on that as well





black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 11:18am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:
So this video is basically arguing that due to rising demand, schools are raising prices because they can, and using that cash windfall to invest in new facilities/capital investments....instead using the higher demand/revenue to leverage their costs, which would allow them to lower their tuition rates.  Possible, but I'd be interested seeing any real evidence/data behind this theory.  If its true, then we have a very simple fix to our tuition issue.  Highlight the issue and get colleges to return to a normal rate of capital investments.

p.s., at the state level, a simple solution would be to curb out of state enrollment, or at least shift more of the tuition burden to those students.

At least in my state out-of-state students pay full freight, locals get subsidized, and foreign students pay a premium. They work pretty hard to attract foreign students.

It's not that administrators raise prices just because they can, the effect is subtler than that—raising prices doesn't reduce demand, so the disincentive disappears. It becomes the first choice to balance the books rather than the last. Ironically state schools have had better fiscal discipline because in the absence of economic restraints on increasing prices political restraints act. Most state schools have to at least ask a board of governors (if not the lege) to raise tuition.

One of the problems with the traditional model of education is that it's driven to a large degree by labor costs. In other industries when labor gets expensive you automate. Leverage that labor over more units to keep the cost down, whether that means using combines instead of mowing with scythes and threshing or giving managers PCs to type their own memos instead of hiring secretaries. In education you still have one prof and a roomful of students.

Added on top of that you have the explosive growth in the numbers of administrators. We see this in public as well as private schools; a higher and higher percentage of the people who work there don't teach, and when enrollment drops (as it did, drastically, at one of my states schools recently) the staff they cut is teaching staff rather than overhead. Gotta have a Title IX Compliance Officer and someone to run the fitness center even if you only have four student left in the department.

 
So in addition to increased capital investments (being on a few different campuses the last couple years, I have seen soft evidence of this given the projects underway), we have rising overhead/admin costs...which it seems adds little value to the education...which is further exasperated by rising costs for benefits (pensions and health care).  Looking at public k-12 schools in my area, the benefit part of the equation eats about 30% of the budget. 

So we have rising capital and benefit costs (healthcare)...along with more paper pushing suits.  Except for the benefit bit, the other two could/should be easy fixes. 

In NY out of state tuition is still a bargain at about $16k.  My son goes to Illinois (out of state) where tuition is about $35k..and the labor for most of his classes is already spread pretty thin (large lecture halls). 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 10:55am

 black321 wrote:
So this video is basically arguing that due to rising demand, schools are raising prices because they can, and using that cash windfall to invest in new facilities/capital investments....instead using the higher demand/revenue to leverage their costs, which would allow them to lower their tuition rates.  Possible, but I'd be interested seeing any real evidence/data behind this theory.  If its true, then we have a very simple fix to our tuition issue.  Highlight the issue and get colleges to return to a normal rate of capital investments.

p.s., at the state level, a simple solution would be to curb out of state enrollment, or at least shift more of the tuition burden to those students.

At least in my state out-of-state students pay full freight, locals get subsidized, and foreign students pay a premium. They work pretty hard to attract foreign students.

It's not that administrators raise prices just because they can, the effect is subtler than that—raising prices doesn't reduce demand, so the disincentive disappears. It becomes the first choice to balance the books rather than the last. Ironically state schools have had better fiscal discipline because in the absence of economic restraints on increasing prices political restraints act. Most state schools have to at least ask a board of governors (if not the lege) to raise tuition.

One of the problems with the traditional model of education is that it's driven to a large degree by labor costs. In other industries when labor gets expensive you automate. Leverage that labor over more units to keep the cost down, whether that means using combines instead of mowing with scythes and threshing or giving managers PCs to type their own memos instead of hiring secretaries. In education you still have one prof and a roomful of students.

Added on top of that you have the explosive growth in the numbers of administrators. We see this in public as well as private schools; a higher and higher percentage of the people who work there don't teach, and when enrollment drops (as it did, drastically, at one of my states schools recently) the staff they cut is teaching staff rather than overhead. Gotta have a Title IX Compliance Officer and someone to run the fitness center even if you only have four student left in the department.
black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 10:26am

 miamizsun wrote:

there are a few short videos over at learn liberty that may explain this


 
So this video is basically arguing that due to rising demand, schools are raising prices because they can, and using that cash windfall to invest in new facilities/capital investments....instead using the higher demand/revenue to leverage their costs, which would allow them to lower their tuition rates.  Possible, but I'd be interested seeing any real evidence/data behind this theory.  If its true, then we have a very simple fix to our tuition issue.  Highlight the issue and get colleges to return to a normal rate of capital investments.

p.s., at the state level, a simple solution would be to curb out of state enrollment, or at least shift more of the tuition burden to those students.


Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 158, 159, 160  Next