281–290 of 370 posts
While more and better employment would help with the student debt, the fact is starting out in life saddled with what is essentially a home mortgage takes a huge bite out of the potential value of education.
And it carries a very high opportunity cost in that increasing numbers are avoiding school and or seeking options that do not put them in profound debt so early in life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For starters, H1Bs are cheaper to hire Citation needed, because this is a sweepingly broad statement. To hire an H1B you need to pay the prevailing wage, usually at least $60k, which is more than an entry-level non-STEM college grad is going to be paid outside the Bay Area (it should still be increased to something like $90-95k IMO but that's a different issue). In addition to that, there are thousands of dollars i…
In my anecdotal experience, the business axes a position and downgrades responsibilities to a lower title. So what a Sr. DBA did before would go to a regular DBA or even a Jr. DBA. It doesn't matter what the prevailing wage for a title is when responsibilities are loosely coupled. I think the best way to counter the abuse is to increase the premium ($100k+) and allow H1Bs to move between companies.
GP was asserting that it is cheaper to hire H1Bs than entry-level grads, which isn't the same thing as what you're describing.
> I think the best way to counter the abuse is to increase the premium ($100k+) and allow H1Bs to move between companies.
I agree re: increasing the minimum to ~$90-100k. Maybe apply a CoL based multiplier so it's $85k in, for instance, Tulsa but $135-145k in the Bay Area.
H1Bs are already allowed to move between companies. But the new company has to apply for a fresh visa, without going through the lottery, and it takes a few weeks, which is a hassle. Plus there's a risk of being denied or going into RFE. I think that rule could be tweaked to allow movement without approval if the offered salary in the new role is higher by a certain minimum percentage (like say 10% increase).
If we want college grads able to leave school and not be saddled with debt for the remainder of their lives, make college free. I'm not interested in hearing about how someone might dare learn something that isn't inherently profitable; I reject the assertion that just because something cannot be successfully monetized does not automatically make it worthless. Art, culture, history, all of these are more valuable to society at large than the highest valued startup. End of. Argue it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did everybody manage to convince themselves that they need these expensive add-ons? You need seatbelts, airbags, and impact absorption. That was perfected 20 years ago. Everything else is a luxury not needed for driving.
The new radar systems in the front of the car that slam the brakes if you might hit something are lifesaving for both occupant and pedestrian. The little indicators if someone in your blind spot is also a HUGE safety increase for drivers and bikers/scooters/etc. Those should be as standard as seatbelts an airbags in 2020.
The amount of labor required for an individual to attend even a community college has increased more than 5-fold. This is for basic tuition at a no-name university, obviously the numbers are far worse for ivy league. You can slice that in terms of markets demanding more, costs going up, administration bloat or whatever else how you like but the fact of the matter is, when a college education is more critical than eve…
It's worse, but opposite of the way you're thinking. Harvard/Yale/Princeton are basically free if your parents make less than about $65,000 per year. So, a smart ambitious kid with non-rich parents can graduate from a top school with an extremely strong network and have no debt. But an "average" kid with non-rich parents will have to work a side job or two, and graduate with substantial debt, all for a not particularly useful degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Productivity growth collapsed in 1973 and it has not recovered yet. There were a few good years in the 1990s, but nothing like the reliable productivity growth that the USA saw for the century before the 1970s.
My gut reaction to this claim is always that it seems wrong; that the metric we're using to measure productivity must be missing a big part of the story. Why is that reaction wrong?
It's fairly easy to measure how much money is produced per employee. That number grew 3% to 4% a year for most of the 20th Century, till 1973, when it collapsed. Since then it's average 1.5% a year (again, with a few good years in the 1990s, and with some up and down wobbles during the Great Recession).
The central fact is the big push towards automation in the 1930s and 1940s and 1950s simply had a bigger impact than the kind of breakthroughs we've had in the last 40 years.
The automation of the telephone systems, and the removal of all the women who worked as operators, was huge in the 1940s and 1950s (and a fantastic boost to the computer industry). The later boom in multiplexing made capital investments more profitable, but did not increase the amount of money made per employee.
The introduction of the modern combine tractors on USA farms lead to a fantastic increase in agricultural productivity in the 1930s and 1940s and 1950s and 1960s, and nothing since then has had a similar effect on agricultural productivity.
The introduction of digging robots transformed the coal industry in the 1930s and 1940s and 1950s. Mountain top clearance was another huge change in how the work was done. Nothing since the 1960s has had anything like a similar impact. In fact, the opposite is true, increased environmental protections have, if anything, decreased productivity in that sector, or at least slowed the increase.
And on and on.
The transformations in the early to mid 20th Century were huge. The more recent transformations have been small. The Great Boom gave way to the Great Stagnation.
Check out:
The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-American-Growth-Princeton/d...
The amount of labor required for an individual to attend even a community college has increased more than 5-fold. This is for basic tuition at a no-name university, obviously the numbers are far worse for ivy league. You can slice that in terms of markets demanding more, costs going up, administration bloat or whatever else how you like but the fact of the matter is, when a college education is more critical than eve…
> This is for basic tuition at a no-name university, obviously the numbers are far worse for ivy league. It's worse, but opposite of the way you're thinking. Harvard/Yale/Princeton are basically free if your parents make less than about $65,000 per year. So, a smart ambitious kid with non-rich parents can graduate from a top school with an extremely strong network and have no debt. But an "average" kid with non-rich…
Or the kid could win the lottery, with effectively the same odds of success. That does not make this a good system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is for basic tuition at a no-name university, obviously the numbers are far worse for ivy league. It's worse, but opposite of the way you're thinking. Harvard/Yale/Princeton are basically free if your parents make less than about $65,000 per year. So, a smart ambitious kid with non-rich parents can graduate from a top school with an extremely strong network and have no debt. But an "average" kid with non-rich…
> So, a smart ambitious kid with non-rich parents can graduate from a top school with an extremely strong network and have no debt. Or the kid could win the lottery, with effectively the same odds of success. That does not make this a good system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, a smart ambitious kid with non-rich parents can graduate from a top school with an extremely strong network and have no debt. Or the kid could win the lottery, with effectively the same odds of success. That does not make this a good system.
I'm not saying it's a good system, but we've effectively ended up in a situation where some of the kids least in need of a leg up end up getting a huge boost, and the ones who need more help get nothing.
Instead of band-aiding the bad solution, throw it out. Get a better one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it's hard to find base model cars anywhere.
Is it? I’m still driving the same car I bought 10 years ago so I’m genuinely not sure. At the time, I ordered it from the Honda fleet manager at a dealership and getting a base model was no problem. If you’re walking into a dealership or want a car ASAP then you’re probably right, but I feel like if you can wait a couple weeks getting a base model is still relatively easy.