Reminds me of the scene in The Big Short when the pole dancets each "owned" multiple homes and the guys came back to the office and exclaiming, "Yep! It's a bubble!"
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Why does one take on debt they cannot afford, especially when they lack a good career to help pay for it, in the first place?
From the stories I've taken in from people attending college over the years, I suspect it is because they see people like these administrative staff, who will tell you they got there by going to college, making serious amounts of money and are willing to take a chance that they too will become that person in the future. Which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The schools are incentivized to ensure that a small group of college graduates are paid handsomely to make their product look more attractive, and more students taking notice of that attractiveness allows them to pay those people even more.
Despite substantial growth in college attainment over the last number of decades, incomes for the general population have remained stagnant and job quality is in decline. That fact is reported in the news almost daily, it feels like. It is no secret that the average person is going to see no workplace gains by going to college, otherwise incomes would be going up and/or job quality would be rising with increasing attainment. It appears to me, however, that some are willing to gamble on the small chance they are the exceptional case that gets the exceptional job (like College President).
Ultimately, the colleges are providing what the students want: A perceived chance, albeit small, of significant upward mobility. Until their desires change, it is going to be difficult to change that outward contract.
> It is no secret that the average person is going to see no workplace gains by going to college, otherwise incomes would be going up and/or job quality would be rising with increasing attainment.
Incomes do go up and job quality does rise with increasing educational attainment, and empirically the average person is going to see workplace gains by going to college.
People are not going to college solely to gamble on a chance to make million dollar salaries. That's a bizarre outlook that excludes every middle class job that increasingly tends to require a college degree.
Hell, most college administrators don't make more than middle class salaries.
> Incomes do go up and job quality does rise with increasing educational attainment
I really don't think this is found in the data. Among the general population, incomes are quite stagnant, and job quality is considered to be falling. At best, it is no better than in the past. With the rising rates of educational attainment, if what you say is true, incomes should be rising along with job quality. That does not appear to be happening.
What we do see that those with higher educational attainment are the ones who are more likely to have the higher paying and better jobs, but that is not the same thing as incomes increasing and job quality improving with increased levels of schooling. All that really tells us is that those who have the most difficulty in the workplace (those with mental disabilities, for instance) are also most likely to have less formal education. Which comes as no surprise to, well, anyone.
> That's a bizarre outlook that excludes every middle class job that increasingly tends to require a college degree.
That is a bizarre outlook. Employers are not a charity to help out those with college debt. Unless the law requires it, employers couldn't care less about where you went to school. And the jobs that do require it by law are vanishingly small. We covered why those with post-secondary educations are more likely to get those better jobs (high achievers tend to be high achievers in everything they do), but that does not mean it is a requirement or is increasing as a requirement.
The only thing increasing is the rate of post-secondary attainment, which understandably will result in more and more jobs filled with college graduates. Of course. That's just basic math.
> Hell, most college administrators don't make more than middle class salaries.
Along with everyone else. Why would you take on that massive debt if you knew you were guaranteed to end up in the same place as you otherwise would? Especially when education is a life-long endeavour. You can always go to college once you have saved up the necessary cash. There is no rush.
The only reasonable explanation I see here is that people see the small chance of significantly improving their situation beyond the average middle class person. Which, given the costs of post-secondary education, is a pretty big gamble. There has to be some kind of substantial reward potential given the high stakes. Not just another middle class lifestyle like almost everyone else in the country. That would never justify the costs.
The bigger concern is here is the clear link between automation and increased worker mental instability.
Will automation lead to more populists revolts ?
I don't know but we need research into more solutions (besides just basic income), the problem is too big to ignore.
Something like a partial tax might be better.
A tax that doesn't affect the meat, the lower classes buy.
A much higher tax on the cuts of meat preferred by the upper classes.
Ex. no tax on ground beef, but a very high tax on filet mignon or ny strip steaks.
I personally think we can have a less divisive higher environmental impact by banning private jets.
A tax will lead to democrat losses in 2018.
The sugar tax in philadelphia galvanized republicans across the rest of PA during 2016.
Eating meat is incredibly important to the middle classes.
BBQ's are important social quasi-religious family bonding events in the United States.
Taxing meat will lead to backlash far bigger than a "tea party".
I really wonder if people said to lincoln something like:
"Please don't end slavery. The whole economy depends on it. Hell my brother would be out of a job. We would loose half the states in the next vote if you do. Be reasonable mate. There is probably a middle way that can make everyone happy."
Everytime there is an important question raised, it will be hard on the system, on the habits and traditions, and on the ones implementing the new thing.
This can not be a reason not to do it.
Now there could be very good reasons no to do it. Like discovering the whole specie would degenerate if we did.
But "we always have been doing this" should never be a answer in a civilized debate.
Let's talk about this. What are the fact ? What is the price we are paying now from eating that much meat. What would be the benefit and price of stopping ? Is it worth it ?
> So do you really believe eating meat is at the same level as human slavery , or is it an argument to ridiculousness.
I'm just using humor to state that if an issue is important, there will always be those type of argument. We should not stop at them. Taking them in consideration is obviously the right thing, but those can't be definitive show stoppers.
Otherwise the status quo will always win since by definition all our systems are built around what we are doing right now.
Eating meat is not comparable to slavery, and that's really all that needs to be said in response to this.
Is this actually supposed to be a serious platform plank? Not seeing how this will draw more than a pittance of a vote - maybe 5%. It's an extreme minority view, on par with "literal communism now".
But it's sad that issues like these can completely grip groups of constituents to vote with tradition against health care, gun control, fair taxation, climate legislation, etc.
People are literally dying by the busload in all those issues, but half the people vote against sane reform for supposedly needing automatic weapons, 4x4 city pickups, $100 less in "taxes" by paying $1000 more elsewhere, and having to eat a 2 pound steak because it's what we've always done...
I think using higher taxes as a solution to anything is stupid and annoying as well.
I think education should be the key, not taxation.
Educate people that it's more healthy to eat less meat or eat meat less often. Educate people on the amount of resources needed to raise cattle and the impact on the earth. But let people make their own educated choices.
I eat meat maybe 2 times a week. I don't want to pay more for my meat. Buying organic meat is expensive enough already.
The myth that software was excellent under Jobs is just hat - a myth. I mean, iTunes was commissioned by Jobs, as well as many of early, clunkier iOS versions(no notification centre until much later, no copy/paste in the original iPhone, etc.
that's even worse as he could see plain as day the product they were investing in. with a commission you may claim it was a failed vision implementation
Smartphones are just not designed for phoning people anymore. they are designed to make you better consumers. Web browsers, Apple Store, I-Tunes etc. I have a Samsung and it has serious lag around opening up a keypad to dial a number. Seriously? It's like they didn't test 'just making a call'
It was much easier to just make calls on a 3310, in fact Siri is not a patch on the 1930's concept of asking a lady at the exchange to patch you through.
It hasn't - they don't intend to update it either. For now, the newer Macbook and Macbook Pro 13" (without touchbar) are intended to be the 'newer' Macbook Airs.
To ask 'are any of their products even new anymore' is a bit odd though.
A counter example is Nintendo, where Sakurai was literally recorded, so people wouldn't be confused about the project status and what he told them to do.
I'm inclined to think bitcoin is a bubble, but cryptotech is the future.