Sachs Support Occupy Wall Street Movement; Goldman Pissed

[Jon Miller]

If my girlfriend had been employed this year, if she hadn't had several medical emergencies, if I didn't have a 2-3 month gap in my employment... then my situation would be very different. If I could be sure of such a world, then I would agree that the value of ~5k for someone making ~90k is more valuable than ~1k for someone making ~45k.

Maybe my situation is highly unusual.

My personal consumption actually decreased after I graduated.

JM
(That is assuming that seeing my girlfriend a couple times a year was not personal consumption.)

[KrazyHorse]

Get a real job, for Christ's sake. You have a PhD in physics from a respectable institution and you're a US citizen. You can get a job making 90-100k without even trying.

[Jon Miller]

Anybody who makes that argument needs his head examined. College graduates capture the vast majority of the return from the investment. Subsidizing it leads to too much college attendance. The only significant positive externality I can think of is the taxation of wages. To internalize that externality, it is sufficient to make tuition tax deductible.

Countries which subsidize higher education receive a higher rate of return on research dollar spent and 'better' universities per dollar spent.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/bigwideworld/2011/10/university-reform-a-flawed-experiment.html

(links to http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=417689&c=1 which has figures)


JM

[Jon Miller]

Get a real job, for Christ's sake. You have a PhD in physics from a respectable institution and you're a US citizen. You can get a job making 90-100k without even trying.

Fair point.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Stop posting idiotic studies which conflate all the differences between countries into a single instrumental variable. It's not worthy of somebody who's supposed to know how to run an experiment.

Subsidization of college education is merely another giveaway to the 50th to 90th percentile. There is no rationale other than that.

[Jon Miller]

I can compare my experiences between Sweden and the US.

In Sweden professors and students work less (both prefer 9-5 days most of the time, and take significant vacations).
In Sweden professors are paid less. Students are paid more.
In Sweden higher education is highly subsidized (tuition is free, living expenses are highly subsidized).
In Sweden more money (as a percent of GDP) is spent on research.
Swedish Universities seem to have more professors and less postdocs and secretaries.

While Sweden's best universities are without a doubt worse than the best of US (I would say the best is still worse than University of Maryland), it still manages to significantly out perform the US in both impact per gdp and impact per research dollar spent.

What is Canada like?

It is a giveaway to the top 50-90% and so taxes should be raised on the top 50-90% to cover that.

JM

[Jon Miller]

If I wanted to make improvements to the US system without including subsidies I would say that:

US professors are paid too much.
US students are paid too little.

JM

[Kidlicious]

I have to agree with KH. Subsidizing college is already inefficient.

[Tupac Shakur]

So these changes would increase efficiency, increase equality and increase government revenues.

Tax reform is a magical thing.

[Tupac Shakur]

Subsidization of college education is merely another giveaway to the 50th to 90th percentile. There is no rationale other than that.

QFT

The upper middle class is by far the most spoiled group in American society. If I had my druthers, the tax code would be reformed to increase progressivity and social welfare programs would concentrate on helping the needy, but KH is right that this is extremely unlikely to ever be politically feasible in America.

[Fake Boris]

Well, the issue would be more like that private education drives away universities from their vital function.

If you want to solve the attendance issue, subsidize with quotas.

[Fake Boris]

Also, I don't know what the numbers would say about it, but possibly:

1) Your are subsidizing middle and upper middle class because, actually, college is still too expensive compared to countries with true universality

2) Regardless of who is being subsidized, the important point is that it helps mobility.

[Fake Boris]

Sachs' central contention that Reaganomics is responsible for the decreased percentage of GDP devoted to non-defense discretionary spending is ridiculous. Non-defense discretionary spending has decreased largely because entitlement spending has crowded out other spending while total US government expenditures have remained at around 20% of GDP. Reagan didn't succeed in cutting the size of government; Washington spends roughly the same amount of GDP as it did in 1980. The difference is that much of the money that used to be allocated to discretionary programs now goes toward transfer payments.



Intelligent liberals understand that rising entitlement spending is limiting to the government's ability to perform necessary functions and making it increasingly unlikely that the government will ever again be seen by the public as an institution capable of solving problems rather than creating them. Sachs is not an intelligent liberal, however, and seems to think a bunch of halfwit protestors are the makings of a new progressive movement that will somehow overcome Americans' inherent aversion to tax rates significantly higher than the historical average and allow for an unprecedented amount of government spending. This is incredibly naive, even for the author of The End of Poverty.

First, Drake, thanks for actually posting something meaningful for once.

1) A lot of money could be saved on entitlement spendings, if only government cared about making it successful, instead of letting welfare drown until it has to be shut down.

2) Whatever happens, people will still need what they're getting. What makes you think that the private sector will provide it at a better price?

[DaShi]

We need to protect the middle class at the expense of everyone else to ensure proper class mobility

The middle class has twice the mobility of the upper and lower classes.

[Kuciwalker]

Do you mind thinking before you post?

It was sarcasm, dude.