Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

statecraft.beehiiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 771 posts

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#761

Post by somewhat_drunk »

leshow wrote: post #760
somewhat_drunk wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd wager they aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls

If you actually read the rest of my comment, I acknowledge mainstream (that is to say, neoclassical) economists don't like price controls, which is almost exactly what the wiki page says.

I did read your comment, and I blithely responded with another source supporting my original claim. In hindsight though, you're right: I should have simply picked apart your original argument instead of providing another source, as your argument is self-contradictory.

You argued that econlib cherry-picked economists to generate a biased result, which you then followed up by acknowledging that "mainstream" economists do not support price controls, which is exactly what the survey showed.

There is, in fact, a broad consensus among economists that price controls are generally counterproductive. The econlib survey showed it, the wikipedia links support that, and you apparently agree. So... thanks?

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#762

Post by leshow »

somewhat_drunk wrote: post #761
leshow wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you actually read the rest of my comment, I acknowledge mainstream (that is to say, neoclassical) economists don't like price controls, which is almost exactly what the wiki page says.

I did read your comment, and I blithely responded with another source supporting my original claim. In hindsight though, you're right: I should have simply picked apart your original argument instead of providing another source, as your argument is self-contradictory. You argued that econlib cherry-picked economists to generate a biased result, which you then followed up by acknowledging that "mainstream" economists…

I think it goes without saying that if you don't include any voices of dissent, you get a remarkably consistent answer. That is still a bias.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#763

Post by somewhat_drunk »

leshow wrote: post #762
somewhat_drunk wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read your comment, and I blithely responded with another source supporting my original claim. In hindsight though, you're right: I should have simply picked apart your original argument instead of providing another source, as your argument is self-contradictory. You argued that econlib cherry-picked economists to generate a biased result, which you then followed up by acknowledging that "mainstream" economists…

I think it goes without saying that if you don't include any voices of dissent, you get a remarkably consistent answer. That is still a bias.

I don't think you understand what bias is in this context.

To illustrate this, consider the following hypothetical survey.

Survey:

"Is murdering babies wrong"?

End Survey

Essentially everyone will respond with a strong yes.

By your logic, if I don't include a dissenting opinion, the poll is necessarily biased.

Of course that's not correct.

The purpose of a poll is to understand the opinions of a population by understanding the opinions of a randomly selected sample of the population. If the population has strong opinions on a given topic, the survey will return lopsided results. That does not make the survey biased.

If however you seek out people with opinions to the contrary for the sake of including unpopular opinions, THAT DOES bias the survey, because the survey sample is then no longer randomly selected.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#764

Post by leshow »

gameman144 wrote: post #339
jedberg wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but see the problem is how does a really smart poor person get an education so they can become a really smart rich person?

They study in a field which has a high likelihood of loan repayment, or study at a less expensive school. If a really smart poor person wants to become a really smart rich person by pursuing a degree in film studies, it's reasonable (in my opinion) for a bank to say "borrowers whose only education is a bachelors in film studies tend to have trouble paying back loans, so we won't lend you very much". If that very smar…

> They study in a field which has a high likelihood of loan repayment, or study at a less expensive school.

What you're saying here is that only rich people get to go for degrees which don't have a guaranteed return on investment. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Where only the rich can study philosophy, or history?

Alternatively, university could be paid for like K-12 is and everyone could have a chance to go, or go into a trade school. You'll have a much more educated, diverse society and kids don't need to worry about bankruptcy and crushing loans.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#766

Post by verteu »

zer8k wrote: post #740
leshow wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everything you have said here is untrue. Pharma companies still make profits in other countries, they just make much more profit in the US. Much of medical research is in fact funded by the government to begin with. By removing the for-profit system, you would actually be removing rampant rent-seeking on something that should be a human right. > Imagine if the price of insulin, almost completely funded by US c…

Sure bud. What is it about HN'ers talking with such confidence they legitimately have no idea what they're even talking about? I googled it for you, and gave you two sources are probably amicable towards - there are THOUSANDS more[0][1]. It's exhausting that everyone here talks like they are an expert at everything. I thought I left that when I came here from reddit. [0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/do-other-…

This doesn't come close to supporting your claim that (most of?) the entire healthcare cost gap is due to subsidizing innovation, for the reasons I described in my other comment. (ie: Drugs are only ~10% of our healthcare costs.)

Even your own source [1] contradicts the idea that high costs are inevitably caused by this subsidization:

> Why doesn’t competition bring U.S. health-care prices down? The answer: America’s stagnant third-party payment system allows hospitals and doctors to avoid competing on price.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#767

Post by leshow »

somewhat_drunk wrote: post #763
leshow wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it goes without saying that if you don't include any voices of dissent, you get a remarkably consistent answer. That is still a bias.

I don't think you understand what bias is in this context. To illustrate this, consider the following hypothetical survey. Survey: "Is murdering babies wrong"? End Survey Essentially everyone will respond with a strong yes. By your logic, if I don't include a dissenting opinion, the poll is necessarily biased. Of course that's not correct. The purpose of a poll is to understand the opinions of a population by underst…

I don't think you understand how diverse different schools of thought are in economics. To build on your example, it would be like asking "is abortion wrong?" to a group of religious fundamentalists. Ask a post-Keynesian what they think about price controls, or really, any school that's not a free market fundamentalist.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#768

Post by somewhat_drunk »

leshow wrote: post #767
somewhat_drunk wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand what bias is in this context. To illustrate this, consider the following hypothetical survey. Survey: "Is murdering babies wrong"? End Survey Essentially everyone will respond with a strong yes. By your logic, if I don't include a dissenting opinion, the poll is necessarily biased. Of course that's not correct. The purpose of a poll is to understand the opinions of a population by underst…

I don't think you understand how diverse different schools of thought are in economics. To build on your example, it would be like asking "is abortion wrong?" to a group of religious fundamentalists. Ask a post-Keynesian what they think about price controls, or really, any school that's not a free market fundamentalist.

I don't think you understand how surveys work. The goal of a survey isn't to include everyone's opinion. The goal of a survey is to understand the overall opinion of the population. This is not difficult to understand, I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid having to admit you're wrong.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#769

Post by tekknik »

runarberg wrote: post #751
tekknik wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea I don’t want to pay taxes for someone pursuing something worthless. You missed the point.

You probably already do. If you are American, you probably paid much more taxes to pursue a worthless invasion into Iraq and Afghanistan. If you live in a capitalist country, you are probably paying taxes to pursue worthless bailouts of corporations, or whatever infrastructure these corporations want the state to pay for them. It is also a bit unfortunate that you view education that doesn’t lead directly to a career…

I agree with all of those, but not paying for a degree in underwater basket weaving. Sorry.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#770

Post by tekknik »

skrtskrt wrote: post #756
tekknik wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah no, I never said it was affordable, that’s putting words in my mouth and you’re now bowing out because you found out you weren’t poor. Education isn’t affordable but I still think people should pay their loans, especially if their parents made $95k/yr Maybe start with what city you lived in yea?

I never said I was poor, that's putting words in my mouth. I said I was mid-income (just below the median household income for our area at the time) and that it's the mid-income families that get saddled with tons of debt, and the idea that there's financial aid and scholarships to cover that gap in the middle income range is a fairy tail.

If you’re not poor, you can afford college. Period.
Post reply on HN