Minimum Wage

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:09 pm

Szechuan wrote:
3278 wrote:I know, but it's part of this whole system I've got worked out in my head, where there's no welfare, no free health care, no affirmative action, and the best-educated nation on the planet. It's my idealism showing through.
So what do we do about the inevitable surge of poor children dying in the streets?

How is that "inevitable?"

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:49 pm

I believe the benefits of free health care in America would and do outweigh the drawbacks. I'm aware that you don't; likely, very little I say would convince you otherwise. This issue is too complicated, and too interconnected with so many other issues, to expect to change someone's mind. Essentially, the issue boils down to where one believes the responsibility ultimately lies: with the individual, or with the government. That is the issue on which we do not agree, and given the histories of our respective countries, that is no surprise at all.

32's logic is completely wrong on this, but I have to support his conclusion. We've made astonishing advances in medicine due to the profit potential in our health care system-- something that would be removed under a free system. I think a certain degree of catastrophic and maintenance health care is a good idea, and 32 would agree to that-- at the very least, free vaccinations for many illnesses isn't a bad idea at all, regardless of rather or not you totally deny any sense of collective responsibility.

Still, the fact remains that a state-run system tends to stagnate in terms of technology and technique. Our system allows for mavericks, and encourages more experimentation. (At least, until insurance companies come along and overregulate everything...) The possibility of profit also drives a lot of drug research.

Our system works fine-- in fact, it works better that just about anyone else's, *if* you can afford it. And that's the big sticking point.

I know, but it's part of this whole system I've got worked out in my head, where there's no welfare, no free health care, no affirmative action, and the best-educated nation on the planet. It's my idealism showing through.

Don't take this the wrong way, but... you know you're hallucinating the whole thing, right?

Oh, and BTW: "No free health care" includes "No free immunizations". Which I think is what Szech means by children dying in the streets. I don't think you meant to include "No catastropic coverage at all", but that's the problem with ideals-- they don't really exist.

Because not everyone should go to college. If everyone went to college, who would collect our garbage?

Um... just because you don't have to pay for college, that doesn't mean you automatically get into college. You still have to have good grades, good SAT scores, application essays, and so on. I'd wager if we made state college admission free for everyone tomorrow, we wouldn't see much of an increase in enrollment.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:00 pm

Um... just because you don't have to pay for college, that doesn't mean you automatically get into college. You still have to have good grades, good SAT scores, application essays, and so on

Dude, you don't have to have that /now/. State Universities are crap. I know, I graduated from one, and I'm an idiot.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:03 pm

Um... just because you don't have to pay for college, that doesn't mean you automatically get into college. You still have to have good grades, good SAT scores, application essays, and so on. I'd wager if we made state college admission free for everyone tomorrow, we wouldn't see much of an increase in enrollment.

That's purely ridiculous. Simply to begin with, the vast majority of colleges have jack shit for admissions standards. Good grades and SAT scores? Please. People go to state school all the time with scores of less than 1000 on the SAT and C averages in high school. I know people at state schools who scored less than 800 on the SAT and failed more than they passed in high school. Let's not even talk about the standards at community colleges.

But fuck that. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that we need to give out free college educations because the prohibitive cost of college is hurting people and keeping them from attending, and then say that providing free college for people won't increase enrollment.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:15 pm

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:I believe the benefits of free health care in America would and do outweigh the drawbacks. I'm aware that you don't; likely, very little I say would convince you otherwise. This issue is too complicated, and too interconnected with so many other issues, to expect to change someone's mind. Essentially, the issue boils down to where one believes the responsibility ultimately lies: with the individual, or with the government. That is the issue on which we do not agree, and given the histories of our respective countries, that is no surprise at all.
32's logic is completely wrong on this, but I have to support his conclusion.

Mind you, I specifically avoided any "logic" in my statement, so it's difficult to see how Cain decided it was "wrong." More accurately, Cain and I, like Lorg and I, have differing opinions about where ultimate responsibility lies. My "logic" isn't incorrect at all; I assign a different value and purpose to government. Cain's just being inflammatory, which I'm attempting to avoid by talking about differences in basic values, instead of the logic behind the ramifications of those values.

Cain wrote:Oh, and BTW: "No free health care" includes "No free immunizations".

No, it doesn't. As I've stated before, I think there's a big difference between immunization and free health care across the board. Moreover, I think that's if not obvious, at least something you could /ask/ about, instead of /telling me/ what I believe, i.e. that no free health care means no free immunizations. [Although is it really too much to ask for people to pay for their own childrens' immunizations? It's pathetic that this should even be an issue.]

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:26 pm

3278 wrote:
Szechuan wrote:
3278 wrote:I know, but it's part of this whole system I've got worked out in my head, where there's no welfare, no free health care, no affirmative action, and the best-educated nation on the planet. It's my idealism showing through.
So what do we do about the inevitable surge of poor children dying in the streets?
How is that "inevitable?"

Because bad parents will still breed, and no amount of schooling will make up for death by starvation.

Edit: Or neglectful parents opting not to spend money on health care. Or winter clothing. These problems are bad enough without giving shitty parents more reasons not to spend money on their kids.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:50 pm

No, it doesn't. As I've stated before, I think there's a big difference between immunization and free health care across the board. Moreover, I think that's if not obvious, at least something you could /ask/ about, instead of /telling me/ what I believe, i.e. that no free health care means no free immunizations.

This is another one of the classic "error by omission" problems we have in these debates. I *said* that I didn't think that was what you meant, and you chose to interpet it as an attack. Admittedly, I could have stated my request for clairification better, but you could have qualified your thesis in a much better fashion.

[Although is it really too much to ask for people to pay for their own childrens' immunizations? It's pathetic that this should even be an issue.]

Most free immunization programs are targeted at the poor and at immigrants. Immigrants are likely to be genuinely ignorant about the value of immunizations (depending on their home country) and poor people, by definition, are going to have trouble affording it. Since we all agree that keeping everyone immunized is a good thing, making it free to everyone-- *and* a requirement to attend school, work in certain jobs, and so on-- isn't a bad idea at all.

But fuck that. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that we need to give out free college educations because the prohibitive cost of college is hurting people and keeping them from attending, and then say that providing free college for people won't increase enrollment.

It's not just enrollment. How much are *you* going to owe, when you graduate? My understanding is that most students with a 4 year degree end up owing over $28,000 in loans, and more for those with advanced degrees. That's a hell of a lot of debt to be starting your working career with!

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:51 pm

MooCow wrote:
So what do we do about the inevitable surge of poor children dying in the streets?
Build more incinerators.

And as an added bonus, if you run them through a plasma arc process they make great aggregate for use in things like construction or road underlay.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:08 pm

It's not just enrollment. How much are *you* going to owe, when you graduate? My understanding is that most students with a 4 year degree end up owing over $28,000 in loans, and more for those with advanced degrees. That's a hell of a lot of debt to be starting your working career with!

You've got to spend money to make money. And yeah, *chuckle*, it is more for advanced degrees. I, for instance, will finish up owing about $260,000. One might say undergraduate studies are therefore, considerably cheaper. An undergraduate will owe in loans what is essentially equal to anywhere from a little over 1 year to half a year's expected salary. I'll owe fully two years' salary, and because I'll be paying over a longer period, I'll pay more in interest eventually. Probably closer to 5 years' salary.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:51 pm

How much are *you* going to owe, when you graduate?

Zero.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:01 am

You've got to spend money to make money. And yeah, *chuckle*, it is more for advanced degrees. I, for instance, will finish up owing about $260,000. One might say undergraduate studies are therefore, considerably cheaper. An undergraduate will owe in loans what is essentially equal to anywhere from a little over 1 year to half a year's expected salary. I'll owe fully two years' salary, and because I'll be paying over a longer period, I'll pay more in interest eventually. Probably closer to 5 years' salary.

And that also assumes that said undergrads can get a job in their field, and won't have to go back for additional schooling or retraining.

If you consider that most doctors aren't able to really hang a shingle for about ten years, then they're entering the professional work force at about age 30. Let's give them a 30-year career. Using your numbers, a doctor will have lost one-sixth of his income paying back loans; and possibly more.

If you add student loans into the mix, then a free education puts a hell of a lot more money back into circulation. We don't have to worry about defaults, or bankruptcies, or dying young. We won't be handing the debt down like some sort of family heirloom.

One of the problems in our country right now is the excess of credit. We don't tend to think of student loans when we take them out; we thend to think of them as cash we won't have to worry about for a long time. As a result, much of our future net wealth is tied up in these loans; and a whole lot of capital now only exists on paper.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:01 am

Cain wrote:It's not just enrollment. How much are *you* going to owe, when you graduate? My understanding is that most students with a 4 year degree end up owing over $28,000 in loans, and more for those with advanced degrees. That's a hell of a lot of debt to be starting your working career with!

I'll owe about $75K for two degrees, but considering repayments are indexed to your income and I am moving to the UK with my dual citizenship where my income isn't subject to the Australian tax code, I'll owe the princely sum of sweet fuck all.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:04 am

3278 wrote:
Johnny the Bull wrote:That you don't is a disgrace.
And there is the primary difference of opinion. I think it would be a disgrace if we handed money to people who hadn't earned it. It's a different way of thinking. Perhaps you disagree with the system under which we're operating, but it is, beyond doubt, very effective. After all, we are the richest nation in the world.

I get your objection, I really do. It's the same objection raised by many people here in America, and it's possible that someday we'll change to a more forgiving, more supportive system. We move further that direction all the time. I simply don't agree.

I'd agree with you if everyone started life at zero but that plainly isn't the case.

Until there is a 100% death tax on estates and each child is given a quality education with the proceeds I will not be happy unless there is a strong system of welfare in place.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:45 am

Huh?

Okay Johnny I normally think you're pretty damn logical, and while I may not always agree with you, generally I at least get what you're saying.

So you want to make everyone's property at the time of death the states? Is that correct? And then the proceeds from that "estate" will some how be funneled into paing for every child to start at "zero"? (An admittedly nebulous term, but one I think we both have an idea of what its supposed to mean.)

Is that about it in a nut shell?

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:02 am

Serious Paul wrote:Huh?

Okay Johnny I normally think you're pretty damn logical, and while I may not always agree with you, generally I at least get what you're saying.

So you want to make everyone's property at the time of death the states? Is that correct? And then the proceeds from that "estate" will some how be funneled into paing for every child to start at "zero"? (An admittedly nebulous term, but one I think we both have an idea of what its supposed to mean.)

Is that about it in a nut shell?

Yep. That or a decent welfare system. Seeing as most American's don't seem to want the latter, I'll pimp the former.

Like you've said, I know its not rational and I know its never going to happen. But old money is a cancer on our economic system. Forced public seizure of all assets (or a reasonable amount, say everything about 500k) upon death seems to be the only way to reset things.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:13 am

Yeah we'll diagree.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:17 am

Yeah....

While I'm all for a more equal distrbution of wealth, the notion of taking a home away from an orphaned child simply doesn't work for me. Or telling people they can't pass down certain heirlooms. Or inhereit a business they've been working in for their whole lives. Not gonna fly, in my book.

Keep trying, though-- the concept isn't necessarily bad, it's the execution that's going to be a problem.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:06 am

MooCow wrote:Because not everyone should go to college. If everyone went to college, who would collect our garbage?

Correct college/university isn't for everyone and just cause it is there and "free" doesn't mean everyone should or will attend. Some people don't need a degree, have no desire to study, lack the required skills etc etc.

I see free higher/advanced education as an investment by the government or if you will you (the citizen) using tax money to pay for your education. Hopefully you studies something good that will get you a better job then garbage man or McD clerk and you'll pay more taxes back to the government when you have that new and better paying job. Not to mention that I believe higher learning also leads to you growing as a person (and not just your arse from sitting and reading all day).

3278 wrote:Essentially, the issue boils down to where one believes the responsibility ultimately lies: with the individual, or with the government. That is the issue on which we do not agree, and given the histories of our respective countries, that is no surprise at all.

I think I see you point. But there are a lot of diseases and other medical problems one could get that is really beyond once control. Example, if you are born with a cronical medical condition that is your own fault? This to me sounds like shifting all the blame to one person, I'm not saying it is someone elses fault either but it is just one of those things that do happen and I don't see why those people shouldn't be helped. On the other hand people that do jackass type stunts and hurt themselves they really should pay the whole damn thing out of their own pocket.

Just for the record here we actually have both. We have both government sponsored health care and there is also the option if you are loaded that you can pay for the whole thing yourself, there are private hospitals. The que there tends to be a bit shorter but I'd don't really think that they care you recieve is that much better if any better at all. I know there are a lot of companies that have given key staff insurances to get care at such places if they fall ill just cause they are very important to a company/organization and perhaps they can't wait for care, but remember that this ain't emergency care.

Serious Paul wrote:
lorg wrote:Free health care wouldn't be an investment? healty worker = productive worker, hopefully, or atleast one with one less excuse not to work.
But no guarentee you'd have to work. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the American Judicial system, but assuming you're vaguely familiar, how would you enforce this?

Certainly not. Just cause you are healthy there is no guarantee that you do have a job or are working. I'm not sure at all how this would in anyway be enforced. I guess one could draft some form of a contract but I much prefer the honor system here, they hold up their end and you do the same. After all the government works with your money to do what you think is best, or atleast that is the idea. Sure there are going to be people that abuse the system, there always are no matter the type of system in place. Personally I don't belive that people don't want to work and just slack around, it might be great in the short run but sucks for any extended period of time. Not to mention that slacking doesn't pay very well.

I'm intrested in your answer-and I mean that. I like the idea of free health care, I really do. I just don't see how it could happen in the current America.

It would probably require some pretty radical (by your standards) changes in government policy and reallocation of resources away from say weapons development and the armed forces to state run health care.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:06 pm

I see free higher/advanced education as an investment by the government or if you will you (the citizen) using tax money to pay for your education

I agree. I'm really all for it. I personally think alot of the fundamental principles of Socialism are pretty solid. I just don't think it'll work in this country without some /massive/ shifts in the way we think.

Hopefully you studies something good that will get you a better job

Well, and that's my problem with the plan. If the government is paying for you to go to school, you should be required to study things that economic forcasts predict will be needed by the country about the time you graduate. I'll be damned if my tax dollars are going to go to some kid to study under water basket weaving.

I also think that you should be required to serve X number of hours of community service for every Y dollars you spend to go to school.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:06 pm

We don't tend to think of student loans when we take them out; we thend to think of them as cash we won't have to worry about for a long time.

I think about them a lot. The are cash we won't have to worry about for a long time. Furthermore, they're the closest thing to free money anyone will ever give you. If they offered to double my loans and let me borrow $100 K a year I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

I see free higher/advanced education as an investment by the government or if you will you (the citizen) using tax money to pay for your education. Hopefully you studies something good that will get you a better job then garbage man or McD clerk and you'll pay more taxes back to the government when you have that new and better paying job. Not to mention that I believe higher learning also leads to you growing as a person (and not just your arse from sitting and reading all day).

I see expensive higher/advanced education as an investment by yourself, or if you will, you using your money or credit to pay for your education. You will studdy something good to get you a good job, because it was your money to begin with. You'll get more salary back from your new and better paying job. Not to mention that it's totally not the responsibility of the government to see to it that anyone "grows as a person."

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:57 pm

MooCow wrote:
Hopefully you studies something good that will get you a better job
Well, and that's my problem with the plan. If the government is paying for you to go to school, you should be required to study things that economic forcasts predict will be needed by the country about the time you graduate. I'll be damned if my tax dollars are going to go to some kid to study under water basket weaving.

I agree that is one of the problems with the plan. You can study whatever you want and well lets just say there are alot of wacky courses to choose from that perhaps are not in the economical interest of the government. So perhaps alot of them are the "personal growth" courses. But sure I wouldn't mind the government saying something like 'in the near future, 3-4 years, we see a need for this or that occupation and if you study them and get a degree we'll "forgive" some parts of your loan" or something to that effect. But then I am not sure I would want to devote say 4 years to study something I wasn't really interested in just cause the Government told me they would lack skilled workers with that kind of education. After all they can't be sure either it is just a prognosis.

I also think that you should be required to serve X number of hours of community service for every Y dollars you spend to go to school.

That is an idea. But if I am to repay my studies with services I wouldn't exepect to have to take any loans at all. Then it would be more like non-armed military service. You serve at univ and then give X years of service. After all you have to repay the loan and you pay taxes to the government.

Marius wrote:Quote:
We don't tend to think of student loans when we take them out; we thend to think of them as cash we won't have to worry about for a long time.

I think about them a lot. The are cash we won't have to worry about for a long time. Furthermore, they're the closest thing to free money anyone will ever give you. If they offered to double my loans and let me borrow $100 K a year I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

Currently I have zero, I think about them a bit. I don't want to get more in debt then I have to. Not to mention that it ain't free money even if you get them once a month. Cause some time in the future they are going back and with interest. The only way they could be free is that the loan terms are so good and the interest so low, so in that way sure it is "free" money.

Marius wrote:I see expensive higher/advanced education as an investment by yourself, or if you will, you using your money or credit to pay for your education. You will studdy something good to get you a good job, because it was your money to begin with. You'll get more salary back from your new and better paying job. Not to mention that it's totally not the responsibility of the government to see to it that anyone "grows as a person."

This is where our opinions differ some then, since I see it as an investment by the government. But studying 3-4 years is in my mind a huge personal sacrifice, one that might not even be economically benefitial to you in the long run.

It ain't the governments responsibility to make you grow as a person, it is just an added bonus you get from the education.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:08 pm

Currently I have zero, I think about them a bit. I don't want to get more in debt then I have to.

I do. It's good for you.

Not to mention that it ain't free money even if you get them once a month. Cause some time in the future they are going back and with interest.

And in between it's going to buy me things that I need, and it's going to be invested and earn me money.

The only way they could be free is that the loan terms are so good and the interest so low, so in that way sure it is "free" money.

Yeah, the interest is low. Like, currently less than two and a half percent. You can knock off a percent or two for inflation, and I've got a half to one and a half percent interest to work with. Sure, it gets tagged on to what I have to pay back, but in the meantime I can sink it into investments that sure as hell are going to earn better than 1.5% interest.

I'm not saying that life wouldn't be better with lots of free money from the government and no student loan debt. But student loan debt doesn't make it prohibitively expensive to get schooling. Or, if it does, then the schooling really isn't worth it, nevermind whether it's you or the government who pays.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:11 pm

This is where our opinions differ some then, since I see it as an investment by the government

I agree with you there, as long as you study something useful to society as a whole. I just don't want some guy using my tax dollars to get a degree in Klingon.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:20 pm

Well, and that's my problem with the plan. If the government is paying for you to go to school, you should be required to study things that economic forcasts predict will be needed by the country about the time you graduate.

We already have that in basic education, and to a degree, in undergraduate. Kids are required to take increasing amounts of math and science in K-12, for one. Undergraduate degrees don't actually list your major on them, so you end up with one of two generic degrees: Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science. Both degrees are quite useful.

I'm not saying that life wouldn't be better with lots of free money from the government and no student loan debt. But student loan debt doesn't make it prohibitively expensive to get schooling. Or, if it does, then the schooling really isn't worth it, nevermind whether it's you or the government who pays.

Check me on this, but IIRC the goverment *doesn't* pay for your loans. A bunch of private banks do. The government simply guarantees the loans, so the banks are covered if you default. With low risk, they can offer low interest rates.

So, huge amounts of student loans are actually taking private capital out of the system, and putting it into a place where it won't give very much in the way of returns. Economically, that's not the best way of getting money out of a system.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:36 pm

so you end up with one of two generic degrees: Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science. Both degrees are quite useful.

I don' t know anyone who simply has a generic Bachelor of Arts or Science. Do you? Are there institutions out there granting degrees in no particular field whatsoever?

Check me on this, but IIRC the goverment *doesn't* pay for your loans. A bunch of private banks do. The government simply guarantees the loans, so the banks are covered if you default. With low risk, they can offer low interest rates.

Absolutely right, in the case of some loans, but not generally. The loans that most people take most of are Stafford loans, which are subsidized by the government. That is, the government pays interest on the loans during the period the student is in school. Those are rather small, but usually sufficient for a state school. For people who require more loans, you're looking at Alternative loans, which are definitely not subsidized, and I don't believe are guaranteed by the government. Interest on these tends to be a little higher. I think mine are in the 3-4% range, which is still plenty good as far as I'm concerned. As far as I know, the reason they offer such low rates is that the chance of default is virtually nil. Perhaps there's some guarantee, but I don' t think it's general.

So, huge amounts of student loans are actually taking private capital out of the system, and putting it into a place where it won't give very much in the way of returns. Economically, that's not the best way of getting money out of a system.

Eh, no, quite the opposite. Banks aren't going to take the money they're giving out in aid loans and run out and buy Corvettes. Private loans do what all good credit does, which is to pump money into the system now that will come back out later, at lower cost. The cost is lower later because of the combination of inflation and the investment growth of the capital allocated, which in this case is substantial.

Contrast that with taxes, which takes money from people who were planning to do other things with it, and invests it in education with no eye for potential returns. An highly untalented english major with a penchant for fan fiction gets money just the same help as a future nobel laureate. Government funding of education is absolutely the best example of "taking private capital out of the system, and putting it into a place where it won't give very much in the way of returns."

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:47 pm

Both degrees are quite useful

No, they aren't. A BA is not the equivalent of a BS. There was a time when they were, but not any more.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:05 pm

Szechuan wrote:
3278 wrote:
Szechuan wrote:So what do we do about the inevitable surge of poor children dying in the streets?
How is that "inevitable?"
Because bad parents will still breed, and no amount of schooling will make up for death by starvation.

If parents are bad enough that their children are starving despite their being the best-educated people in the world, then I believe we should take the children from the parents, as this would be a pretty clear case of parental neglect. So I suppose that means more money spent on those portions of the system, but I honestly don't believe that, in the medium or long term, there's going to be a massive increase in starving children. I think there will actually be fewer starving children in the long run. It's difficult to know until we try. And we're not likely to try eliminating welfare and overhauling our education system anytime soon. :|

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:31 pm

I don' t know anyone who simply has a generic Bachelor of Arts or Science. Do you? Are there institutions out there granting degrees in no particular field whatsoever?

Technically, all of them. All schools demand that you pursue a major, but that major isn't actually listed on your final degree. You can tell people that you have a BS/BA in a particular field, but they'd have to call the college and do a detailed check, since it's not listed. I remember this from when I was trying to pursue a triple-major; they advised against it, because the degree would end up being exactly the same as a single major.

So, except for specialized degrees, a BS in Ballistic Physics is identical to one in, say, Aquatic Topographical Enmeshing Techniques. In other words, the same degree could be held by a major in Rocket Science, and a major in Underwater Basket Weaving.

No, they aren't. A BA is not the equivalent of a BS. There was a time when they were, but not any more.

It depends on what you're doing, and how well you can sell it. Again, that degree in Eskimo Cooking techniques doesn't list what classes you actually took; so you could legitimately say you had a "Business focus" and try to land an administrative job. A BA can get you anywhere in the business world-- MBA's are better, but not required for a lot of stuff.

A BS won't get you very far in a scientific field, since Master's and PhD's are the norm. It just opens a few more doors for future education. For example, as a nurse, there's two ways I could go about getting a Registered Nurse certificate-- through a communuty college, which effectively grants an AA in Nursing; or through a four-year college, that grants a BS/Nursing. Now, the problem is, the RN certificate is the same for both-- you have to sit the same boards, and you end up with the same jobs. Any job that requires a RN would consider us equal, except perhaps at the most highly technical end, where the BSN would have a small advantage.

The advantage of a BSN is that it's required to progress further academically. You need to have a BSN in order to go back for specialized training, so you can be a Public Health Nurse,a School System nurse, and so on. (Given the current shortage, RN's frequently end up in those jobs anyways, so this difference is theoretical.) But the big leap is that a BSN is required to start training for Nurse Practicioner status-- which, depending on your state, is effectively one step removed from being a full doctor. About the only difference is that a doctor can perform surgery. Nurse Practicioners can specialize, just like doctor's do, so they can progress even further.

So, there is no advantage to having a BS, except insofar as it opens more doors to you academically. The bonuses come later, after you've been in school for a long time.

Liniah · Post by **Liniah** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:07 pm

Marius wrote: I don' t know anyone who simply has a generic Bachelor of Arts or Science. Do you? Are there institutions out there granting degrees in no particular field whatsoever?

I do. Yes there are. There are also institutions where you can basically make up your own degree.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:24 pm

All schools demand that you pursue a major, but that major isn't actually listed on your final degree

Bullshit. I have a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. Says so right on my diploma. All my paperwork lists me as having a BSCE.

So, there is no advantage to having a BS, except insofar as it opens more doors to you academically

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about Cain. I can give you page after page of job listings that require a BS to apply.

I'm not talking about what is on the damned paper. I'm talking what they teach you. BA's don't teach you the problem solving techniques that BS degrees do. Having worked with plenty of them when I was in college, it was utterly amazing how helpless they were.

I do. Yes there are. There are also institutions where you can basically make up your own degree

Yeah, from what I understand a lot of European schools still hold to the tradition of simply awarding a Bachelor, Master, Doctorat. Many, if not most, US schools award a BS/BA in a particular subject.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:54 pm

I can give you page after page of job listings that require a BS to apply.

And I can give you page after page of job listings that require a BA. Your point?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:00 pm

And I can give you page after page of job listings that require a BA. Your point?

You claimed that a BS was good only academically. That's patently not true.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 11:46 pm

You claimed that a BS was good only academically.

Where?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 12:02 am

So, there is no advantage to having a BS, except insofar as it opens more doors to you academically

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 12:06 am

No, he said that there is no advantage to having a BS over a BA (besides it opening more academic doors for you).

Either way, it's Cain. I take whatever he says with a huge grain of salt.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 12:15 am

Well in that case he's still wrong. A Science degree is always superior to an Arts degree (at least from a US university).

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:19 am

Well in that case he's still wrong. A Science degree is always superior to an Arts degree (at least from a US university).

Depends on what you mean by "superior". Take a look at the Forbes 500, and compare how many have BA/Business degrees to BS/Technical degrees.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:21 am

Cain wrote:Yeah....

While I'm all for a more equal distrbution of wealth, the notion of taking a home away from an orphaned child simply doesn't work for me. Or telling people they can't pass down certain heirlooms. Or inhereit a business they've been working in for their whole lives. Not gonna fly, in my book.

Keep trying, though-- the concept isn't necessarily bad, it's the execution that's going to be a problem.

Somehow I don't think I am going to bother developing the concept. I like the idea of removing the free ride just cause one's parents worked hard, but it won't work realistically.

I think my intellectual energies would be better spent in fleecing stupid trust fund babies from their inheritence through dodgy property development deals.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:28 am

MooCow wrote:Yeah, from what I understand a lot of European schools still hold to the tradition of simply awarding a Bachelor, Master, Doctorat. Many, if not most, US schools award a BS/BA in a particular subject.

They do that over here a lot as well. Looks nice on paper, but it means for any job you have to provide a certified academic transcript (at $15/each) whenever you apply for a job so they can check what subjects you've done.

crone · Post by **crone** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:19 am

Johnny the Bull wrote:They do that over here a lot as well. Looks nice on paper, but it means for any job you have to provide a certified academic transcript (at $15/each) whenever you apply for a job so they can check what subjects you've done.

Can't you just photocopy it and get a JP to sign it?

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 6:21 am

crone wrote:
Johnny the Bull wrote:They do that over here a lot as well. Looks nice on paper, but it means for any job you have to provide a certified academic transcript (at $15/each) whenever you apply for a job so they can check what subjects you've done.
Can't you just photocopy it and get a JP to sign it?

Some places, yes. Federal government and anyone else actually worth working for? No.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:33 am

Marius wrote:Yeah, the interest is low. Like, currently less than two and a half percent. You can knock off a percent or two for inflation, and I've got a half to one and a half percent interest to work with. Sure, it gets tagged on to what I have to pay back, but in the meantime I can sink it into investments that sure as hell are going to earn better than 1.5% interest.

That is what I have been thinking about. But in my situation of working while studying I make to much money from my job to get the to take the loan, you may not make more then 50k a year, after that the amount you get to borrow is lowered and in my case it is basically no point in borrowing it. But if I didn't work then sure I'd borrow all I could.

Think that is a pretty smart thing to do in any case borrow their money at cheap rate and put them in some "safe" method of increase, in the end you should be able to repay the money almost at once and still having made a profit.

MooCow wrote:
This is where our opinions differ some then, since I see it as an investment by the government
I agree with you there, as long as you study something useful to society as a whole. I just don't want some guy using my tax dollars to get a degree in Klingon.

Certainly, I can't even believe they actually have courses like that at other schools then perhaps LooooserU and Clown University. Just what are you going to do with a degree in Buffology - the study of buffy the vampire slayer, I ain't kidding that actually exists.

Cain wrote:We already have that in basic education, and to a degree, in undergraduate. Kids are required to take increasing amounts of math and science in K-12, for one. Undergraduate degrees don't actually list your major on them, so you end up with one of two generic degrees: Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science. Both degrees are quite useful.

They might be reading more and more of it but it is quite apparent it ain't quality studies since most of the institutions of higher learning reports every year that the average knowledge of math and science just gets worse and worse with every passing year. Just go by any university math department and ask them what they think of the new students math skills and they'll tell you its not good.

MooCow wrote:Yeah, from what I understand a lot of European schools still hold to the tradition of simply awarding a Bachelor, Master, Doctorat. Many, if not most, US schools award a BS/BA in a particular subject.

Really? Care to point me in the direction where I could get one of these no work just attend degrees? I'm sure there are schools that pretty much despens degrees like the where Pez candy but that is hardly all of them. For each level you have to write a paper and the higher the level the more complex and so on. The Ba paper was in hind sight quite lame, but it passed. But then when I looked at some of the others they where even worse so perhaps mine wasn't that bad after all. But it sucks when I compare it to my master one I have started working on. Which in turn will probably suck when I compare it to the one after that (when I get there).

Johnny the Bull wrote:They do that over here a lot as well. Looks nice on paper, but it means for any job you have to provide a certified academic transcript (at $15/each) whenever you apply for a job so they can check what subjects you've done.

They charge you for them? Here they are free. Just go and ask for one and they'll get one or two or ten or howevery many you desire for you.

BA vs BS? In my book the only one that ain't totally BS is the BS degree

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:44 am

Depends on what you mean by "superior". Take a look at the Forbes 500, and compare how many have BA/Business degrees to BS/Technical degrees.

Yeah, and some of the richest people in the world don't have degrees period, so by your argument no one should go to college.

At today's US universities BA programs do not teach the analytical skills neccesary to be truly useful to society. BB programs are slightly better, but not much. Even BS programs have seriously degraded, though they're still better then BA/BB.

My sister graduated from Miami University with her MBA (the university is reported to have a good solid program). Her and about 2 others in a graduating class of 40 were actually competent. The rest were idiots. I recall my sister telling me of an incident where they had some big nasty looking formula to memorize. She rearanged the formula so it was easier to follow, and these people thought she was some kind of mathmatical god. They didn't realize you can rearange a formula. She used basic algebra and calculus, and these people couldn't even grasp the concept that it was possible.

And you're going to tell me that these programs are graduating people that are smarter then turnips? Sorry, no dice.

I have no problems with BA degrees in general. I just don't think the government should pay for people to get them. They have no practical value.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 10:38 am

MooCow wrote:I also think that you should be required to serve X number of hours of community service for every Y dollars you spend to go to school.

I think you should be required to serve X number of hours of community service for every Y hours you live in the country.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 10:56 am

I'm cool with that.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:07 am

Depending on the ratio between X and Y I might be ok with that. So what kind of community service did you have in mind?

Chopper · Post by **Chopper** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 12:55 pm

Szechuan wrote:
MooCow wrote:I also think that you should be required to serve X number of hours of community service for every Y dollars you spend to go to school.
I think you should be required to serve X number of hours of community service for every Y hours you live in the country.

So you are in support of a draft?

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:12 pm

Chopper wrote:
Szechuan wrote:
MooCow wrote:I also think that you should be required to serve X number of hours of community service for every Y dollars you spend to go to school.
I think you should be required to serve X number of hours of community service for every Y hours you live in the country.
So you are in support of a draft?

I hardly think signing up to blow up whatever group of little brown people you have a beef with is much in the way of community service...

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:09 pm

What do you mean? I've always thought joining the police force was a good thing.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:21 pm

So you are in support of a draft?

Absolutely. Disclaimer: I am not eligible for the Draft.

Depending on the ratio between X and Y I might be ok with that. So what kind of community service did you have in mind?

Well, my idea of community service always comes back to doing cheap labor in your field of expertise for the government. In my case I'd work for the Army Corps of Engineers for some period of time at substantially less then what I could make as a private citizen. If I were an artist, maybe I'd work at painting murals around the city. As a teacher, I'd work with disadvantaged children as a tutor.

I hardly think signing up to blow up whatever group of little brown people you have a beef with is much in the way of community service...

The advancment of my community is community service.

What do you mean? I've always thought joining the police force was a good thing

Mmmm.... Racist cops. I wish I were a racist cop. That'd be cool.