Originally Posted by James50

... Is higher ed really just designed to offer a credential or is it education? And how much should you indenture yourself to get the credential/education?

James50

Unfortunately, work-perfomance issues are just about all an emplyer is interested in knowing:

1. Can the student function under pressure (extra points given for a sheepskin from an elite university)
2. Can the student absorb complex concepts (extra points for difficult majors)
3. Can the student "fit in" (extra points for attending a school with a suitable* culture)
4. Can the student finish what (s)he begins (points for graduation, extra points for a graduate degree)

* what qualifies as a suitable culture varies widely from company to company and job to job.

Originally Posted by James50

If I am reading in-state politics right, Georgia would pay 100% if necessary. Your 80% figure is nice, but there is a huge difference in $14B (big dig) and $600M (deepening Savannah Harbor).

James50

With Hampton Roads well to the north, Savannah seems to be a good fit. The same applies to New York, in reverse. I think New York has decided that, subsidy or not, they're in. As I've already noted, Federal spending varies by state, so some are due more thn others. Georgia is near the middle, neither gaining or losing by much. On the other hand, NY pays much, gets little.

I'm OK with deepening both at Federal expense.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

With Hampton Roads well to the north, Savannah seems to be a good fit. The same applies to New ork, in reverse. I think New York has decided that, subsidy or not, they're in. As I've already noted, Federal spending varies by state, so some are due more thn others. Georgia is near the middle, neither gaining or losing by much. On the other hand, NY pays much, gets little.

I'm OK with deepening both at Federal expense.

The competition is really with Charleston. Because the north bank of the Savannah River is South Carolina, there have been some political fights where SC threatened not to agree to deepen the Savannah River simply to make Charleston more attractive. Fortunately, Nikki Haley has recently given the go ahead. I think everyone realizes the regional importance of Savannah.

James50

Originally Posted by playwrite

MMTers are not enamored of the FED. It is as archaic as Ron Paul and for the same reason - we are not on the gold standard (and, it would be devastating for our economy and society to try to return to it).

The FED should be returned to solely its primary role of check clearing, maintaining reserve requirements and bank regulation (which should be increased in order to return banking to it boring former self); no more monetary policies - they are an anachronism. A key part of that would be to terminate the service provided primarily to the elites – issuing federal govt bonds. The biggest benefit, of course, would be to finally and completely destroy the myth that the federal govt needs to borrow its own dollars- and maybe folks would start acting like adults a little more.

Sounds good to me, except I don't know why monetary policy is an anachronism, if you mean regulating interest rates. It's just not as effective in really tough times.

Managing the economy should be greatly simplified by the federal govt sufficiently spending (i.e. injecting dollars into the economy) to foster full employment and sufficiently reducing spending or raise taxing (i.e., removing dollars from the economy) when needed for price stabilization. After that, most equity issues will disappear (but, I'd be okay with the govt attempting to deal with those that remain). Much of the desired social engineering (e.g. supporting the old and infirm, educating our youth and giving them a boast up, research and development, building/maintaining public infrastructure ) could then be dealt through the relatively much more open spending policy rather than by the highly cloaked machinations of tax policy. Yes, spending policy is more inefficent as a process, but that is how it should be - classical arguments over how big govt should be and what it should be attempting - those arguments should not be constrainted by the current idiocy that surrounds the ignorance of how our monetary system actually works.

With that in place, I'd would finally be able to sail off to French Polynesia knowing my work was done.

With rest and relaxation well earned, and not terribly disturbed by holding to the inconsequential illusion that "raise taxing (is) removing dollars from the economy"

Originally Posted by James50

Ah, perhaps this is what is going on:



Is higher ed really just designed to offer a credential or is it education? And how much should you indenture yourself to get the credential/education?

James50

The ETS and CAE have nothing to measure unless there is an environment in which the skills it measures can be learned.

Originally Posted by annla899

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

How is this different from K-12 education where administrators get newer facilities and larger salaries, but teachers and students get shafted? Or for that matter how is this different from management and labor? Are you not talking about the two-sets-of-rules system of America as we know it? Somehow the problem doesn't appear to be rising tuition costs or inflated salaries, but gross inequity.



Cheers.

You'll get no argument from me there! It absolutely is a labor-management issue, no different than for K-12.

Then there's a reason why people are being told to fear European socialism

Teh Wiki

Codetermination in Germany is a concept with a solid history that involves the right of workers to participate in management of the companies they work for. Known as Mitbestimmung, the modern law on codetermination is found principally in the Mitbestimmungsgesetz of 1976. The law allows workers to elect representatives (usually trade union representatives) for almost half of the supervisory board of directors. The legislation is separate from the main German company law Act for public companies, the Aktiengesetz. It applies to public and private companies, so long as there are over 2000 employees. For companies with 500-2000 employees, one third of the supervisory board must be elected.
There is also legislation in Germany, known as the Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, whereby workers are entitled to form Works Councils at local shop floor level.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by James50

I am just following the money. Were you not surprised at the collective impact of that one institution? I know I was surprised. They are giving the money for a reason and not just because they are boy scouts. No doubt you would have thought it important if the institution was part of the financial world.

James50

The obvious point being that these folks gave as individuals and not as an "institution."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The obvious point being that these folks gave as individuals and not as an "institution."

You would not be saying this if the "individuals" all worked for Goldman Sachs.

JNM

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The ETS and CAE have nothing to measure unless there is an environment in which the skills it measures can be learned.

There is no reason that that environment has to exist within the current educational structure.

Big Ed has economic interests and should be looked at just like big labor, big government, and big corporations. We need to get over the idea that just because they are a non-profit that we should excuse their rapacious market behavior.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

There is no reason that that environment has to exist within the current educational structure.

Big Ed has economic interests and should be looked at just like big labor, big government, and big corporations. We need to get over the idea that just because they are a non-profit that we should excuse their rapacious market behavior.

James50

We are agreed on that point. I was just wondering where this environment to learn these skills would be found, if not in colleges.

Originally Posted by James50

You would not be saying this if the "individuals" all worked for Goldman Sachs.

JNM

I dunno, I might.

Originally Posted by James50

... Big Ed has economic interests and should be looked at just like big labor, big government, and big corporations. We need to get over the idea that just because they are a non-profit that we should excuse their rapacious market behavior.

James50

Agreed. But let's not conflate the instutiton with the people who work there, any more than we do with the workers at any other concern. In fact, at larger institutions, the opposite tends to be the default. If you want a simple rule for when that's the case, consider the structure. If the company is big enough that it needs a coterie of MBAs to run the place, you can consider that threshold crossed. Its not alwasy true, but it is more often than not.

There used to be an assumption (maybe it's still true) that a growing company has to change its character when the employee base crosses ~100. Tha sounds like a reasonalbe benchmark, rough as it is.

Originally Posted by James50

Ah, perhaps this is what is going on:



Is higher ed really just designed to offer a credential or is it education? And how much should you indenture yourself to get the credential/education?

James50

James, I've seen students referred to as "customers" for quite some time now. I've seen everything in that excerpt going on for quite some time now. You'll get no argument from me.

Bill Moyers talks with former Citigroup Chairman John Reed to explore a momentous instance: how the mid-90’s merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group – and a friendly Presidential pen — brought down the Glass-Steagall Act, a crucial firewall between banks and investment firms which had protected consumers from financial calamity since the aftermath of the Great Depression. In effect, says Moyers, they put the watchdog to sleep.

In this edition, we’ll look at a seminal moment when Wall Street and Washington stacked the deck against the rest of us.

Remember, this is the political equivalent of a crime story, a mystery. How is it that our economy stopped working for the broad majority of Americans? How did our political and financial class shift the benefits of the economy to the very top, while saddling us with greater debt and tearing new holes in the safety net? In other words, how did politics create a winner-take-all economy?

If you really want to see the facts about an inside job.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/john-r...and-influence/

Back on topic. . .

A very interesting article about how Newt became Newt. He is the symbol, the progenitor, of what happened to our politics over the last 35 years. Ugh.

I found this article informative:
Who exactly are the 1%? | The Economist-Jan 21st 2012

http://www.economist.com/node/21543178

..."Updating a series developed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Mr Kaplan notes that the share of income going to the 1% reached an 80-year high of 23.5% in 2007, only to sink to 17.6% in 2009 as the financial markets deflated ... . The trend is even more pronounced for the top 0.1%, whose share of total income rose to 12.3% in 2007 but sank to a still disproportionate 8.1% in 2009."...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

With Hampton Roads well to the north, Savannah seems to be a good fit. The same applies to New York, in reverse. I think New York has decided that, subsidy or not, they're in. As I've already noted, Federal spending varies by state, so some are due more thn others. Georgia is near the middle, neither gaining or losing by much. On the other hand, NY pays much, gets little.

I'm OK with deepening both at Federal expense.

I, obviously, will second that motion.

"At Federal expense" means the Treasury will request the FED to make some keystrokes and credit the bank accounts of all the contractors creating tons of jobs and, just like all the bailouts, it will cost no one a penny in increased taxes and I very much doubt it will cause even a slight uptick in inflation or interest rates.

But I can only imagine the typical idiotic gyrations in store for us over budget busting doom.

At some point in the future, people are going to look back and wonder how they could have been so dumb.

Originally Posted by radind

I found this article informative:
Who exactly are the 1%? | The Economist-Jan 21st 2012

http://www.economist.com/node/21543178

The other implication of having more of the 1% in finance is that their share of income will be much more volatile.

What I found interesting was the backside of these statistics. eg.

1. The share of income going to the 1% fell from 23.5% in 2007 to 17.6% in 2009. The low point of the last 80 years was around 10%. What is the right number? Trickle down does have some truth to it (please PB, don't let your head explode ). That is, it takes some accumulation of capital to start a business. If income were evenly distributed, the only businesses that could be formed would be those of a tradesperson. It takes capital to make capital investments.

2. 25% of the people in the 1% will not be there a year later. The article calls this stable. To me, that doesn't seem very stable at all.

3. 28% of the 1% do not have a college degree. 50% only have a bachelors. So, not only is it possible to get rich without a college degree, its possible to get uber-rich without going to college.

4. 33% of the 1% identify as Republicans. 26% as Democrats. The article says this difference is significant. I am surprised how close the two numbers are. These low percentages are hardly the basis for a class revolution.

5. Only 25% of the income of the 1% comes from interest, dividends, and capital gains. The Buffetts of the world are even rarer than I thought. 75% of the 1%'s income is taxed at ordinary personal income and corporate tax rates.

Its weird how journalists like to look at data.

James50

This one is worth a good laugh. Elizabeth Warren says she is not wealthy. (I know, I know, she is a good liberal democrat from big academia which excuses her from any criticism, but at least we can be "fact based" can't we? )

Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.

Warren would not, of course, be particularly wealthy by the tony standards of the Senate. But she’s also unlikely to draw the sort of popular identification with her financial status that might attach to Marco Rubio, whose home is underwater.

And efforts to pass herself off as one of the 99% for whom she aims to speak appear likely to backfire.

I am sure I don't need to point out that the $429K from Harvard by itself puts her in the 1%. How many 20 somethings are in hock for the next 20 years so she can take down the big bucks?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

This one is worth a good laugh. Elizabeth Warren says she is not wealthy.

I did not parse it that way at all. Watching the video in this link from about the 25 second mark, it seems like she's saying she's not one of those wealthy folks who put all their money in stock portfolios, not that she isn't wealthy.

That's another assertion ripe for fact-checking, sure, but I didn't parse her remarks as saying she isn't wealthy.

Originally Posted by James50

The other implication of having more of the 1% in finance is that their share of income will be much more volatile.

What I found interesting was the backside of these statistics. eg.

1. The share of income going to the 1% fell from 23.5% in 2007 to 17.6% in 2009. The low point of the last 80 years was around 10%. What is the right number? Trickle down does have some truth to it (please PB, don't let your head explode ). That is, it takes some accumulation of capital to start a business. If income were evenly distributed, the only businesses that could be formed would be those of a tradesperson. It takes capital to make capital investments.

2. 25% of the people in the 1% will not be there a year later. The article calls this stable. To me, that doesn't seem very stable at all.

3. 28% of the 1% do not have a college degree. 50% only have a bachelors. So, not only is it possible to get rich without a college degree, its possible to get uber-rich without going to college.

4. 33% of the 1% identify as Republicans. 26% as Democrats. The article says this difference is significant. I am surprised how close the two numbers are. These low percentages are hardly the basis for a class revolution.

5. Only 25% of the income of the 1% comes from interest, dividends, and capital gains. The Buffetts of the world are even rarer than I thought. 75% of the 1%'s income is taxed at ordinary personal income and corporate tax rates.

Its weird how journalists like to look at data.

James50

1. I'm not going to deny the need for the accumulation of capital for the formation of a business larger than a tradesman's operation or a street vendor. It certainly takes capital to educate someone to be a physician, attorney, dentist, pharmacist,veterinarian, engineer, or accountant. But that capital has existed for more than a century and a half.

2. For a year or so a big winner of the super-duper megabucks lottery or someone who wins a large claim for punitive damages is in the top 1%. There are other windfalls from the one-time sale of property that suddenly increased in value (farmland at a freeway interchange). Wow!

3. Is anyone born with a college degree? I'm going to figure that nobody leaves the womb clutching even a document asserting 'graduation' from a day-care center. Much of the extreme wealth in America is inherited.

4. It's the Republicans who are now very loud and abrasive in their politics these days.

5. Many of the super-rich are big landowners and real estate developers (if you had the right sort of real estate development you did fine when others f---ed up). Rental income and royalty receipts (oil, minerals) are not capital gains. Some are owners of intellectual property. There's no capital gain from owning the proceeds from copyrights or patents. Some invested heavily in bonds that afford income but little potential for appreciation.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I did not parse it that way at all. Watching the video in this link from about the 25 second mark, it seems like she's saying she's not one of those wealthy folks who put all their money in stock portfolios, not that she isn't wealthy.

That's another assertion ripe for fact-checking, sure, but I didn't parse her remarks as saying she isn't wealthy.

OK, I agree you could hear it that way, but aren't you still amazed that a college professor is making this much money? Forget about the greedy financiers for a minute, what about these big educational institutions that pay no taxes and are lavishly supported with government loan policies? I wonder what percent of the 1% works in academia?

Let's just say that I bet you won't catch Elizabeth Warren riding in coach.

James50

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

4. It's the Republicans who are now very loud and abrasive in their politics these days.

Spend an evening listening to MSNBC, then come back and talk about who is loud and abrasive.

James50

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

2. For a year or so a big winner of the super-duper megabucks lottery or someone who wins a large claim for punitive damages is in the top 1%. There are other windfalls from the one-time sale of property that suddenly increased in value (farmland at a freeway interchange). Wow!

Interesting that what you are saying is that much of the 1% only spends a brief time there because of one time events. So, why the worry about their influence? Its all pretty fleeting.

There are vanishingly few people who win lotteries big enough to put them in the 1%. Without looking, I would guess less than 50 per year in the whole US. Lotteries are not an explanation for turnover in the 1%. What is an explanation is bad investing or bad luck. The more wealth is based on financial legerdemain the more transient.

James50

PS: Sad story about someone who was in the 1% . Terrell Owens, Broke And Friendless . This kind of stuff probably happens more often than you think.

Originally Posted by James50

PS: Sad story about someone who was in the 1% . Terrell Owens, Broke And Friendless . This kind of stuff probably happens more often than you think.

Typically though, a former 1% though has a better chance of regaining that 1% status by writing a book deal about their "ordeal" and becoming the "reformed sinner". Everybody just loves the story of a reformed sinner.

~Chas'88