Friday, June 17, 2011
Opinions...
There's a phenomenon called confirmation bias, whereby someone will only troll websites, read books, watch news shows, etc., that reinforce already held beliefs. I'm certainly guilty of this, and my already existing points of view really don't really need further exploration. It's beginning to warp my mind.
Although one could say that we should be looking for information that challenges our points of view, if only to better dismantle those arguments. It's a fine and even idealistic notion, but who has the time? College professors, perhaps, or journalists, political bloggers (those who actually get paid for their work, not amateur hacks such as myself...), or those who are both intellectually curious and rich.
As I am none of those, I and billions like me just don't have the time to exhaustively explore every angle or point of view. I do try, and I occasionally learn something I didn't know before, or have a point of view somewhat changed. Radical changes in thinking are probably best left to the younger set; I'm cranky and set in my ways.
Still, all the negativity I read, and hear, and watch are starting to affect me. Actually, it's probably better to say I've just noticed all the effects that had already taken place, much like the damage from smoking only gets noticed when you can't climb the stairs. Still, I can't quit this destructive habit. There's a balance to be achieved, but I haven't quite found it. What counter points I have heard simply haven't convinced me that the system on which we so rely isn't going to come crashing down around our ears.
I guess this is because no one is really satisfied with the system right now, and the radicals on all sides are the one driving the debates. Let's use higher education as an example since it's my field:
Socialists (AKA: The MSNBC crowd) would love to guarantee "free" college to all. Disregarding the logistical nightmare of deciding who would go where, what programs one would allowed to take, the resultant lawsuits, and what would happen to private colleges, I worry what would happen to my profession. Knowing this group, I might actually do best with them in the short term, but the system would run out of money that much faster, leaving me high and dry.
The Right (Fox News 'R us) would limit (if not eliminate) the Pell grant, the smaller programs such as the student equal opportunity grant, and slowly (or not so slowly) choking off funding for public institutions. They would keep student loans, I believe, but it would revert to the private banks and subsidized by the feds. Additionally, tenure (the brass ring in this case), public salaries and pensions and benefits would be limited by statute, and this is in addition to the attack on the right to collectively bargain. New York is in this club, though a only junior member. Our governor is a Democrat, and is changing the rules concerning the retirement age, etc. Of course, these changes would apply to state schools, but these make up the majority of college students. Also, public college pay is generally way better than private school pay. At my first position in financial aid, I was an over-glorified graduate assistant.
This belies the notion Republicans are the only ones who support eliminating or curtailing public salaries, but it's their "issue," and have actually succeeded in changing the law allowing collective bargaining (which Democrats would never do) on a limited basis. This would affect my salary, benefits, and job security. I could see colleges rebelling and trying to undo some of these changes, but they'd be fighting a losing battle. Under these circumstances I my profession could die a slow and ignominious death, and it would be easier to fire me. It would also eliminate some of the private schools hanging on for dear life; speaking of which, I need my MBA transcripts, STAT. Ironically, this may be the best chance for colleges to survive. A little creative destruction is healthy.
The Left (CNN is on honey!) would be the most likely to keep the status quo. Money would pour in to the schools with little regard to the return on investment for either the student or society. We'd subsidize degrees in Art or Ethnic Studies or what have you. The nation would get people with very strong opinions and very little knowledge. Students would get self-esteem boosting and no job prospects.
New grants and loan repayment plans would be created. Essentially, these would be a series of piecemeal programs designed to do the same thing as low mortgage rates: unaffordable educations made accessible via affordable education payments. Now, this isn't automatically the best solution for the students. Student loan debt is crushing our youth, and killing their economic independence and limiting their options. (Hmmm... I may have hit upon something). The cost of school, subsidized the government but not managed by it, would continue to outplace inflation.
I'd have the best situation here, at least until the government money ran out. Depending on when that occurred, I'd have the best chance of a soft landing. I'd still need to find a new profession, but I'd have more time and money in the bank. Note: I also include the Center on this issue. Most people don't believe college is a right, but an opportunity to be earned. That said, those who are talented enough to enter college should have as much help as possible.
The Libertarians (No fucking TV! It's all corporate and governmental controlled
bullshit!) (Actually, I don't have a TV either... Let me think about this.) would be as radical as Socialists. First I need to explain the two schools of though I've found on the topic. The free enterprise mavens, less philosophically against government programs or public colleges than Constitutionalists, would treat colleges like a business, and we'd fight one another to survive. Not a terrific notion, but the system we know would be intact to some extent. The true anti-government Libertarians would blow the system into cosmic dust, with little debate. The entire notion of higher ed would need to be redefined. You can guess what either approach would do those who give out government money to pay for school.
Any of the above approaches are met with a countervailing influence. Those who would eliminate the system, or starve it of money, would immediately be met with cries of racism, union busting, or that they're destroying our children's future. The courts would be involved, with arguments of discrimination, labor law violations, etc. I believe these approaches would fail, as was covered in a previous post. There's no right to college education, and the courts have decided as such. Access cannot be denied on the basis of certain attributes (sex, race, etc.), except under very unusual circumstances. Women cannot enter a Catholic seminary, for example, and Bob Jones University will not accept anyone who isn't a die-hard Protestant. Catholics, atheists, and most everyone else need not apply. The lynch pin is one of disparate effects. Changes in a workplace that would negatively effect a protected class may be illegal, even if the policy isn't overtly discriminatory. Eliminating the Pell grant would hurt the poor, which in turn would hurt minorities. However, the Pell has been reduced in the past, and was not challenged in the courts. As mention, college is not an entitlement, so governmental support is not required under statute. I could go on, but you get the point.
The other point about America's youth is more persuasive. Even a small shrinking of the system would have a profound effect on how people would learn needed job skills. A side from specific fields such as engineering, nursing, medicine, etc. where credentials are needed, a Bachelor's degree is evidence of the skills, intelligence, and dedication to finishing a task needed to learn a company's system. The truth is a little different. College truly isn't needed for most corporate work, only that having one is proof that you might be able to do it. With the price of college way out of line with its value, students may be better off taking honors courses in high school and simply work in the mail room or flipping burgers. I realize that's an over simplification, but it's not as far off as one would like to believe.
Those who would pour money into the system would be met with shouts of deficit spending, bloated college bureaucracies, and insane salaries, benefits, etc. The court invoked on this side is the court of public opinion much more than the legal system. Those of us who work in higher ed are an easy target, with radical professors screaming idiotic rants in the classroom or on TV, along with our pay, benefits, etc. This is truer now than before the economic meltdown, when people felt they had money. Not everyone who works in higher ed makes as much as I do, but when the pink slips were delivered across the nation, the UPS trucks missed our house. As laws change, the idea of civil service as a safe comfortable job with little risk and a generous pension will die, slowly in some cases, and convulsively in others.
Simmering resentment over public workers aside, the argument that government is broke is more convincing over the long term, and is becoming a more mainstream point of view. As I've stated repeatedly, the debt owed by the feds is staggering, and can never be honestly paid. If the feds were to take the honest route, the austerity needed to get our public finances in order would require my industry to tighten its belt as much (if not more) than anybody else. As a general policy, tax will have to rise, but we won't be able to raise taxes enough to prevent cuts. In other words, we would be paying more in taxes and less in services or benefits. Even if we monetize the debt, (QE1, QE2, and pretty soon QE12 to infinity and beyond), the spike in inflation and/or interest rates will make the system unsupportable. We're boned, period. Note: I'm only discussing the standard debt, a little over 14.2 trillion. The total debt including Social Security and Medicare, is around 55 trillion. You have that in the bank? If so, please send some my way.
I won't say these are the only options, or that we won't be able to delay the consequences of our profligate spending, just that eventually the restaurant will close and the bill will be presented with no more chances to order more drinks or another dessert. This is just more grist for the mill; it's time to go. I should leave the research alone for now, I've learned I need to know. Now is the time for action, wherever that may lead.
Although one could say that we should be looking for information that challenges our points of view, if only to better dismantle those arguments. It's a fine and even idealistic notion, but who has the time? College professors, perhaps, or journalists, political bloggers (those who actually get paid for their work, not amateur hacks such as myself...), or those who are both intellectually curious and rich.
As I am none of those, I and billions like me just don't have the time to exhaustively explore every angle or point of view. I do try, and I occasionally learn something I didn't know before, or have a point of view somewhat changed. Radical changes in thinking are probably best left to the younger set; I'm cranky and set in my ways.
Still, all the negativity I read, and hear, and watch are starting to affect me. Actually, it's probably better to say I've just noticed all the effects that had already taken place, much like the damage from smoking only gets noticed when you can't climb the stairs. Still, I can't quit this destructive habit. There's a balance to be achieved, but I haven't quite found it. What counter points I have heard simply haven't convinced me that the system on which we so rely isn't going to come crashing down around our ears.
I guess this is because no one is really satisfied with the system right now, and the radicals on all sides are the one driving the debates. Let's use higher education as an example since it's my field:
Socialists (AKA: The MSNBC crowd) would love to guarantee "free" college to all. Disregarding the logistical nightmare of deciding who would go where, what programs one would allowed to take, the resultant lawsuits, and what would happen to private colleges, I worry what would happen to my profession. Knowing this group, I might actually do best with them in the short term, but the system would run out of money that much faster, leaving me high and dry.
The Right (Fox News 'R us) would limit (if not eliminate) the Pell grant, the smaller programs such as the student equal opportunity grant, and slowly (or not so slowly) choking off funding for public institutions. They would keep student loans, I believe, but it would revert to the private banks and subsidized by the feds. Additionally, tenure (the brass ring in this case), public salaries and pensions and benefits would be limited by statute, and this is in addition to the attack on the right to collectively bargain. New York is in this club, though a only junior member. Our governor is a Democrat, and is changing the rules concerning the retirement age, etc. Of course, these changes would apply to state schools, but these make up the majority of college students. Also, public college pay is generally way better than private school pay. At my first position in financial aid, I was an over-glorified graduate assistant.
This belies the notion Republicans are the only ones who support eliminating or curtailing public salaries, but it's their "issue," and have actually succeeded in changing the law allowing collective bargaining (which Democrats would never do) on a limited basis. This would affect my salary, benefits, and job security. I could see colleges rebelling and trying to undo some of these changes, but they'd be fighting a losing battle. Under these circumstances I my profession could die a slow and ignominious death, and it would be easier to fire me. It would also eliminate some of the private schools hanging on for dear life; speaking of which, I need my MBA transcripts, STAT. Ironically, this may be the best chance for colleges to survive. A little creative destruction is healthy.
The Left (CNN is on honey!) would be the most likely to keep the status quo. Money would pour in to the schools with little regard to the return on investment for either the student or society. We'd subsidize degrees in Art or Ethnic Studies or what have you. The nation would get people with very strong opinions and very little knowledge. Students would get self-esteem boosting and no job prospects.
New grants and loan repayment plans would be created. Essentially, these would be a series of piecemeal programs designed to do the same thing as low mortgage rates: unaffordable educations made accessible via affordable education payments. Now, this isn't automatically the best solution for the students. Student loan debt is crushing our youth, and killing their economic independence and limiting their options. (Hmmm... I may have hit upon something). The cost of school, subsidized the government but not managed by it, would continue to outplace inflation.
I'd have the best situation here, at least until the government money ran out. Depending on when that occurred, I'd have the best chance of a soft landing. I'd still need to find a new profession, but I'd have more time and money in the bank. Note: I also include the Center on this issue. Most people don't believe college is a right, but an opportunity to be earned. That said, those who are talented enough to enter college should have as much help as possible.
The Libertarians (No fucking TV! It's all corporate and governmental controlled
bullshit!) (Actually, I don't have a TV either... Let me think about this.) would be as radical as Socialists. First I need to explain the two schools of though I've found on the topic. The free enterprise mavens, less philosophically against government programs or public colleges than Constitutionalists, would treat colleges like a business, and we'd fight one another to survive. Not a terrific notion, but the system we know would be intact to some extent. The true anti-government Libertarians would blow the system into cosmic dust, with little debate. The entire notion of higher ed would need to be redefined. You can guess what either approach would do those who give out government money to pay for school.
Any of the above approaches are met with a countervailing influence. Those who would eliminate the system, or starve it of money, would immediately be met with cries of racism, union busting, or that they're destroying our children's future. The courts would be involved, with arguments of discrimination, labor law violations, etc. I believe these approaches would fail, as was covered in a previous post. There's no right to college education, and the courts have decided as such. Access cannot be denied on the basis of certain attributes (sex, race, etc.), except under very unusual circumstances. Women cannot enter a Catholic seminary, for example, and Bob Jones University will not accept anyone who isn't a die-hard Protestant. Catholics, atheists, and most everyone else need not apply. The lynch pin is one of disparate effects. Changes in a workplace that would negatively effect a protected class may be illegal, even if the policy isn't overtly discriminatory. Eliminating the Pell grant would hurt the poor, which in turn would hurt minorities. However, the Pell has been reduced in the past, and was not challenged in the courts. As mention, college is not an entitlement, so governmental support is not required under statute. I could go on, but you get the point.
The other point about America's youth is more persuasive. Even a small shrinking of the system would have a profound effect on how people would learn needed job skills. A side from specific fields such as engineering, nursing, medicine, etc. where credentials are needed, a Bachelor's degree is evidence of the skills, intelligence, and dedication to finishing a task needed to learn a company's system. The truth is a little different. College truly isn't needed for most corporate work, only that having one is proof that you might be able to do it. With the price of college way out of line with its value, students may be better off taking honors courses in high school and simply work in the mail room or flipping burgers. I realize that's an over simplification, but it's not as far off as one would like to believe.
Those who would pour money into the system would be met with shouts of deficit spending, bloated college bureaucracies, and insane salaries, benefits, etc. The court invoked on this side is the court of public opinion much more than the legal system. Those of us who work in higher ed are an easy target, with radical professors screaming idiotic rants in the classroom or on TV, along with our pay, benefits, etc. This is truer now than before the economic meltdown, when people felt they had money. Not everyone who works in higher ed makes as much as I do, but when the pink slips were delivered across the nation, the UPS trucks missed our house. As laws change, the idea of civil service as a safe comfortable job with little risk and a generous pension will die, slowly in some cases, and convulsively in others.
Simmering resentment over public workers aside, the argument that government is broke is more convincing over the long term, and is becoming a more mainstream point of view. As I've stated repeatedly, the debt owed by the feds is staggering, and can never be honestly paid. If the feds were to take the honest route, the austerity needed to get our public finances in order would require my industry to tighten its belt as much (if not more) than anybody else. As a general policy, tax will have to rise, but we won't be able to raise taxes enough to prevent cuts. In other words, we would be paying more in taxes and less in services or benefits. Even if we monetize the debt, (QE1, QE2, and pretty soon QE12 to infinity and beyond), the spike in inflation and/or interest rates will make the system unsupportable. We're boned, period. Note: I'm only discussing the standard debt, a little over 14.2 trillion. The total debt including Social Security and Medicare, is around 55 trillion. You have that in the bank? If so, please send some my way.
I won't say these are the only options, or that we won't be able to delay the consequences of our profligate spending, just that eventually the restaurant will close and the bill will be presented with no more chances to order more drinks or another dessert. This is just more grist for the mill; it's time to go. I should leave the research alone for now, I've learned I need to know. Now is the time for action, wherever that may lead.
Comments:
<< Home
Brian - This is brilliant and well thought out. I disagree with some of it, but agree with most of it. It is a shame that the ability to think is not a requirement for members of congress. When I was a kid, "Technical schools" were part of the local education system, because it was recognized that not all students would go on to college, and the local "Technical Schools" taught people to be plumbers, electricians, car mechanics, secretaries and beauticians. Then someone realized that they could make money teaching this, and local school budgets could be reduced by eliminating these programs from local school programs. Bad Idea! We must talk some more. I think we agree on more than we disagree.
David
Post a Comment
David
<< Home
