Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

CNBC 11/9/2011 Republican Debate Thread


visionary

Recommended Posts

Why does it have to be a quick process? A market correction will occur. It will take some time. Nothing is free. Too many of us want everything for free. Entitled.

I borrowed a ton of money to go to undergrad and law school and I'm not asking for anyone else to pay my bills. I simply want people to have access to the same opportunity made available to me, i.e., the chance to get a top notch and ridiculously expensive education and pay for it over the next 20 years. :pfft:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason tuition is so high is because the tuition is getting paid. The reason our country is screwed up is because no one seems to be fiscally conservative. You want all of these benefits, no terrorists in the middle east, cheap health care, assistance with tuition but are fiscally conservative? Doesn't add up.

All we are debating is rather or not it's a good idea for the government to stop subsidizing student loans. There's very good evidence that points to the subsidies as being a major contributing factor as to why tuition is so high.

First, where did I ever say I want "no terrorists in the middle east, cheap health care, assistance with tuition but are fiscally conservative"? Please post that.

Also where did I say "There's very good evidence that points to the subsidies as being a major contributing factor as to why tuition is so high."

Please have a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand supply and demand.

You are insinuating it is ALL because of student loans.

That isn't dense, it's stupid. But please make a point.

No, I'm not. I'm insinuating that it's MOSTLY because of student loans. Of course prices aren't SOLELY determined by one thing and one thing alone. But when you have constantly expanding demand which is willing to agree to virtually any price, that price is only going to go one way. Other factors will tweak it up and down a bit.

So far, Madison has provided the alternative theory that the 30-year trend is due to technology costs like these:

d3856ac95f0e13dd7158c6e26be322022cc89feb.jpg

Also, mental health costs, which must impose an incredibly high burden of, what, 1% of a university's annual budget?

Then there are those damn 2009 budget cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that true? If so, I'd be happy to reconsider my position.

Also, why have private high school tuition rates gone through the roof too?

Same reasons. The money going in is growing faster than than the supply of private schools. More parents are ponying up for private schools because they're better than their failing local public schools.

Supply and demand doesn't start and stop with government subsidies. However, when billions of dollars of government subsidies are added to a marketplace, it does create distortions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, where did I ever say I want "no terrorists in the middle east, cheap health care, assistance with tuition but are fiscally conservative"? Please post that.

Also where did I say "There's very good evidence that points to the subsidies as being a major contributing factor as to why tuition is so high."

Please have a point.

:ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walk me through the scenario in which federal student loan programs disappear, college tuition rates plummet quickly and precipitously enough to offset the lack of access to cheap cash, and college enrollment levels stay roughly the same.

Oh good, we're back to the part where you're advocating for a policy that will make today's $100,000 tuition cost $466,095 in 20 years while today's $100,000 income is $148,594 in 20 years, and then telling me that I'm the one who's not Thinking of The Children. So I think I'll just tell you what I told you before:

You don't get it. It isn't mathematically possible for this system to keep going for that much longer.

Let's say that tuition goes up at 8% per year while inflation averages 2%. This is a very simple mathematical disparity to figure out. We'll take a 4-year combined cost of tuition, room & board, books, etc. of $100,000 today. We'll also take a family income of $100,000 today. In one year, that education cost is now $108,000 while the family income is $102,000. Uh-oh, a few more families can't afford the full cost of college. No need to worry, though, there are federal loans for that. Two years in, the education cost is $116,640, while the income is $104,040. Uh-oh again! Thank God for those loans.

Ten years in, the education cost is $215,892. The income is $121,899. Twenty years, the education is $466,095. The income is $148,594.

Twenty years, and the gap has grown by three hundred thousand dollars, or by two times the entire after-inflation family income.

You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with math. And I hate to break it to you, but math doesn't care if you think it's mean. Math doesn't care if kids graduate with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans that will bankrupt them (but, cruelly, can't even be discharged in bankruptcy). Math doesn't care if their wages will be forcibly garnished because the system has inflated the cost of college so much that paying back loans has to be done by court order.

Math doesn't care. So, please, when you're telling me that I'm not thinking of the children who are 16, make sure to tack on an explanation of how I'm not thinking of the children who are 6.

Oh, and remember, when tuition goes up at 8% a year, the future student loan payments of future graduates is going up at 8% a year, too.

I must really hate children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, why have private high school tuition rates gone through the roof too?

Now that I would say is more a result of rapidly growing upper class incomes. And no, I don't think it's good for them to be screaming upwards while middle and lower class incomes don't.

(If you give it time, you'll see that I don't always go with the stock libertarian position just because it's the stock libertarian position. :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe if you would explain, instead of just posting an opinion we could all cheer. :)

Why does tuition for a semester at Virginia Tech cost 5200 dollars in the fall of 2011, when it cost me 2,300 dollars in 2001?

The school has been showered with more money in the post Michael Vick era then it ever had between 1872 and 1999

Yet in a decade it costs 3,000 more dollars to attend?

:ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does tuition for a semester at Virginia Tech cost 5200 dollars in the fall of 2011, when it cost me 2,300 dollars in 2001?

The school has been showered with more money in the post Michael Vick era then it ever had between 1872 and 1999

Yet in a decade it costs 3,000 more dollars to attend?

:ols:

Why did a house I bought in 1995 cost me $200,000 and I sold it for $450,000 in 2005?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not. I'm insinuating that it's MOSTLY because of student loans. Of course prices aren't SOLELY determined by one thing and one thing alone. But when you have constantly expanding demand which is willing to agree to virtually any price, that price is only going to go one way. Other factors will tweak it up and down a bit.

So far, Madison has provided the alternative theory that the 30-year trend is due to technology costs like these:

Also, mental health costs, which must impose an incredibly high burden of, what, 1% of a university's annual budget?

Then there are those damn 2009 budget cuts.

I said the cost of student services have significantly increased and noted that funding has decreased. Was ^ post a serious attempt to rebut the claim that the cost of student services have increased, or just you being sarcastic? I can't tell. Seriously.

In any case, onto supply and demand. You've repeatedly emphasized that demand for college degrees has grown dramatically. I'm not going to dispute that claim. However, blaming federal student loan programs for the increased demand for college education ignores the rather significant fact that, over the past 40 years, the US has shed manufacturing jobs and gained millions of "service" jobs, i.e., jobs that are far more likely to require college degrees. In other words, the demand for college degrees was going to increase rather dramatically between 1970 and today, regardless of what the government did.

Additionally, what about supply? Have the number of college campuses, classrooms, professors, etc. stayed fixed at 1950 levels?

Finally, not even the Cato Institute is willing to go as far as you and say the predominant factor in the rise of college tuition costs is government loan programs. A rather detailed study claims it is likely a factor, but it's difficult to ascertain the extent to which it has played a role in tuition increases. And that's the friggin Cato Institute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not regulate tuition costs for state-schools with inflation? Texas did it for years. We stopped in 2003. Tuition exploded.

Why did Texas stop?

It seems to me that the real problem is the willingness of consumers to pay whatever the cost of tuition is. If students really protested and revolted peacefully at their universities by not paying and skipping a semester or year, they could significantly drive tuition down and keep it down. Money walks and as long as consumers continue to pay whatever the tuition is, tuition will continue to go up. I don't think a couple points higher in interest rates would significantly drive people away from college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...