Rich Getting Richer in the U.S

[Freiheit Reich]

Rand?

What was Rand's net worth?

She was also grotesquely hypocritical, taking advantage of the same system she was speaking out against. If the society she espoused actually existed, she would be one of the starving many who would have died quite quickly.

Of course, she was also completely vapid and her philosophy was vacant, but that's a different issue all together.

Seems I have to repost this frequently. She is not a hypocrite for taking SS.
Classic liberal argument, she addressed in in 1966 and liberals ignore her comments:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/libera ... -benefits/

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blo ... ecting-it/

[Freiheit Reich]

Don't hate, congratulate.

We live in a (borderline) firstworld nation where some people die every year from hunger, and some die from lack of healthcare.

We're not talking about a paradigm where everyone has enough, and some people are doing slightly better - we're talking about a class war, where the rich have taken everything they can take. Fuck congratulating someone for climbing over a pile of corpses.

Very few die from hunger, if they do it is because they have mental illnesses and don't have the capacity to go to a soup kitchen.

Healthcare, yes. However, I could find a solution to this. Import foreign doctors and nurses to drive down health care costs. Import foreign drugs for the same purpose.

Also, I would allow reimportation of medicines from other nationsif the US drugs are sold cheaper in other countries. One example that is sickening is the fact AIDS drugs are 90% cheaper in Africa. Very unfair and it hurts US consumers:

http://aids.about.com/od/hivmedicationf ... rdable.htm

Merck and Others Lend a Hand
Drug manufacturer, Merck has announced that it will cut the price of their Protease Inhibitor Crixivan to about $600 per year, or about 10 percent of what it costs in the United States.

A free market would allow US prescription drugs to be at the average world price. US retailers would buy the same drugs from cheaper nations and reduce to cost for US consumers. I would also allow people to buy them online but warn 'buyer beware.'

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/12/wh ... ame-drugs/

A report about this problem:

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/PDF/15-2/15-2%20Ma.pdf

Finally, a last solution. Drug companies and their employees would no longer be allowed to contribute money to political campaigns. This will decrease the political power of these companies.

[Vetalia]

In the case of 18 year old people not finding work, there is plenty of jobs out there, if people are willing to look hard enough. There is companies all over the country who are screaming for more employees. In North Dakota, the unemployment rate is around 3%. This is due to the boom in oil and natural gas there. You don't need an education, and you will receive the training there.

And you'll have to deal with any number of problems trying to get your self established there; the cost of living has gone through the roof due to the sheer migration of workers into the area and conditions are poor for what you're paying. It doesn't matter if you've got a job if you're shelling out huge sums of money just to get by, aside from the general difficulty of packing up and moving to North Dakota, especially if you have no savings to start out with. A good option if you can get out there easily but otherwise you'll just find yourself stuck there, quite possibly worse off than you were before.

The trucking industry is looking for people constantly. They are needing more drivers then ever, and actually have a driver shortage. Most large companies, will pay for your training, if your willing to sign up to a contract for a year or so. This is a good stable job, and you can make a lot of money quickly.

Most, if not all trucking jobs have a minimum age requirement well above 18 (for obvious reasons); add to that the fact that it is a very difficult job that can put huge stress on a person and their family and it's not hard to see why it's not popular. Of course, if you've got nothing else to lose I imagine it's an option but it's not as easy as it seems, not to mention many of the skills involved are completely useless outside of that particular industry, and that's a big thing to consider; a plumber or electrician can parley their skills into more advanced fields if they pursue the education involved, but a trucker's options are a lot more limited unless they can get experience on the logistics side.

Apprenticeship is in fact fairly easy to get. Go to Job Corps. Many of the trades that are taught are Union and Apprenticeship oriented. Many Apprenticeships will reduce the amount of years you need to be in apprenticeship before you are a journeyman. Many apprentice programs will take a Job Corps student over someone off the street, because that person has the basics down.

I agree 100% with this, the trades are neglected I think due to stigmas over pursuing a "vocational" education...there's a lot of money to be made there and it often comes with additional benefits such as the ease of starting your own business and having an easily relocated skillset, not to mention the job security. You can't outsource plumbers, electricians or building contractors after all. Also, for people who aren't suited to a university education for whatever reason it's a fine alternative that gives them a lot of opportunities.

The thing is, there is jobs out there. In general, we have a bunch of 18 year old lazy teens who only go to the mall to apply for jobs. This is not good. What happened to the work ethic and drive that use to be instilled on the young?

Unfortunately, we lost a lot of the jobs that used to be ideal for people in that age range; you used to be able to get a job out of high school working in a factory, hard work but with good pay and guaranteed benefits after you retired. That's now gone by and large, with most of the factory jobs requiring vocational or specialized training; the only other real option is to go to college and get a degree, but that has a whole other set of problems (the least of which is that some people just plain aren't cut out for that kind of degree or environment...either they're not intelligent enough, don't have the work ethic, or want to do something not suited to that kind of environment).

College is expensive, and counter productive at this point. It costs too much money, places the person in college too much in debt, and your never able to really get out from under it, and by the time you do, you have not made much more money then someone straight from high school. We also have a problem with people going to college to "discover" themselves. The costs of these colleges are because of the government. It use to be, not even that long ago, that a student could work in the summer, and have made enough money to be able to pay for school that year. A student could actually graduate with money in their hand.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's counter-productive...if you don't have a college degree today, you're pretty much screwed unless you go into a trade, the military or have a brilliant business plan. But you do identify a serious problem with costs and student loan debt like I described previously

And of course, useless degrees aren't going to pay off. The liberal arts education of years past was useful because it created a pool of educated people who could serve in a wide variety of functions; however, the growing complexity of our economic and technological infrastructure means quite simply that this education is no longer sufficient unless you're fortunate enough to secure one of the scarce positions in that field. Incurring a gigantic amount of debt to do this is just plain stupid; if you really want to pursue it, you should definitely get your first two years of general coursework done at a community college and only transfer to a university to pursue your major. Of course, this is sound advice for anyone going into college these days, but them especially.

And lastly, yes...if I had honestly tried to pay for my college education by working while I was at Ohio State, I would have literally had to work 60 hours per week every week of the year at $7.35/hr to cover it. That's simply not possible and completely unreasonable.

In your case, I don't know what you do for a living, or what you make, but I will say this. If you have that view that you will NEVER own a home or flat, then you never will. Your setting yourself up for failure. Its all about attitude. Its about goal setting. You may not have a job that does not pay well. Ask for a raise, or look for a better job. If your in a competitive market, bring your skills that you have to a competitor. They may value the skills you have more then the current company you work for.

This is true, being resigned about your fate is never productive.

However, one concern is being viewed as a "frequent flyer", e.g. leaving jobs often to seek better pay or opportunities. You have to be careful not to go overboard with it, at least in professional occupations, or else you'll be eliminated as a candidate because they think you'll bail at the first chance you get. Better to bite the bullet and forego an opportunity or two to build up experience and demonstrate loyalty to the company (also avoids any awkward bullshitting regarding why you left your previous company...saying you wanted to 'seek other opportunities' at 2 years makes you look like a mercenary, saying so after 3-5 makes you look honest).

Buy land slowly. There is places in the country where land is selling for dirt cheap. If you live in California or New Jersey, or New York, that is your problem right there. If you live in Detroit, run for your life. One does not have to buy a home at one time. It can be done over time. Build it yourself. Talk to an architect, get a floor plan, learn what the general cost of supplies will be. Get the education done yourself, libraries and online is great for this. College isn't needed for this. This is a LONG process, and there is risk, but it can be considerably cheaper.

Eh, if land is cheap it's cheap for a reason...you don't want to build a house in a location you can never get rid of, but still this is a viable option if you can find the right place to build. It can also be cheaper than buying a prebuilt house if you know what you're doing, as you identified.

A business firing you because you ask for a raise: If the business fired you, they were already looking for a a reason to fire you. You may not be doing well at the current job your doing. It could be that the owner, or your current boss does not value your skills that you have, as while you may be getting a pay check from them, your the reason that they are getting any money at all. A foolish boss is one who does not see that. There is plenty of reasons that a boss could fire you, but this is the least likely of reasons.

One should not be afraid to ask for a raise. But before asking, have a good reason. If they fired you for that reason, speak to their competitors. I am sure that many would love to take an employee who has skills and experience in the field, and you may find yourself getting that raise from them instead.

Very true, there are plenty of screwed-up companies out there that will fire you for any number of reasons (mostly being related to their ignorance, arrogance or nepotism)...if you honestly feel you deserve more compensation for your work and your performance justifies it, there should be no fear in asking for a raise.

The only risk is that in today's shitty job market you may end up being terminated simply because they can find someone else desperate enough to take your position for much less, but even in that case a well-run company would recognize that the cost savings on wages would be far exceeded by the loss of a talented employee with experience in both the business and working relations with colleagues. If I were actually fired for this reason, I think after the initial anger I'd be happy because I got the hell out of a screwed-up, mismanaged company before it finally collapses.

We have let this happen, we let this happen because we have placed so many rules and regulations, that any person who wishes to start a company is going to have an uphill battle. We have so many requirements and applications that a person has to do to become a viable business that they give up, or don't even try from the beginning.

I agree 100% many of the rules and regulations are written by legislators bought and paid for by major corporations; e.g. Bank of America or GE can afford to deal with the added expense of new and cumbersome regulations due to their size and resources and so are in favor of them because they harm their competitors much more than themselves. Try starting a new bank and see how that goes, I bet even a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett would be stymied.

In terms of the bubbles, that is due to the Keynesian Monetary Policy that we have.

I wouldn't blame Keynes, I'd blame the intermarriage of corporate and political interests that has consistently pushed for socialization of losses and privatization of gains. This toxic environment would produce catastrophe no matter what economic ideology we formally embraced...corruption knows no ideology.

But getting back on topic, these are problems with mobility, not with inequality. Everyone is equal, everyone is equally given the chance to succeed or fail based on their ethics, ability, and drive. The problem we have though, is that one is unable to do well because we have so many hurdles to jump through, that it makes it very hard for people to succeed. Is it true that someone who starts with nothing, vs someone who starts rich will have a tougher time? Yes. But at the same time, if that person who has more drive to complete their goals, never gives up and has a better ability then the man who is rich, they could easily find themselves switching places.

Inherently, I agree. The problems we face are a product of a broken system that favors the rich at the expense of everyone else; in years past, there were many people who rose from completely impoverished circumstances to greatness (e.g. Andrew Carnegie). However, now we've been hobbled by regulations written by those who want to preclude competition and it's that much harder to get ahead, especially when the entire system is stacked against you in favor of special interests...if you need to borrow $50,000 to get a professional degree, how can you ever hope to strike out on your own? You've enslaved to whomever will hire you, and by the time you pay everything off what do you have to show for it, no property, limited savings, and quite likely a lot of debt.

I don't advocate abolishing regulations; the memories of polluted, filthy rivers and dirty, smog-choked cities are recent enough that we should never consider rescinding the powers granted to the EPA, nor should we revoke the protections given to workers via OSHA and other labor laws. However, these should be streamlined and made clear so that small businesses can easily comply without dealing with mountains of paperwork and expensive procedures. In regards to financial regulation, either we strongly regulate or don't regulate at all...the current system is bound to produce crisis after crisis with nothing to show for it but suffering.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because you don't seek to go where the jobs are,

Not everyone has the luxury of traveling for work. Harsh reality, I'm afraid.

...or only submit applications to stores in a mall, it your fault.

My particular field is a growth market, at the moment, so it's hardly 'my fault'.

Not sure what's supposed to be wrong with applying to mall stores, though - if that's all there is around someone.

I'm sorry that you have to have your hand held to get a job.

I don't know where you got the idea that I do. The harsh reality is that I was employing kids like you 20 years ago.

It's a different market, now. And I'm not sure what industry it is you're qualified for - but most industries aren't working the way you seem to think they work, this decade.

[Grave_n_idle]

Very few die from hunger, if they do it is because they have mental illnesses and don't have the capacity to go to a soup kitchen.

If anyone dies of hunger in the US, it's a travesty.

But we have a lot of hungry people - almost 15% of our population is not 'food secure' - and that's in a supposedly first world nation. That shouldn't happen.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lea ... _facts.htm

Healthcare, yes.

And again, that shouldn't happen. 30,000 deaths a year due to healthcare that should have been available. Those deaths aren't just avoidable - it's criminal that they're not avoided.

However, I could find a solution to this. Import foreign doctors and nurses to drive down health care costs.

Not even vaguely a solution.

We're not in this situation because of a lack of available practitioners - we're in this situation because healthcare is unaffordable.

Adding more doctors wouldn't drive costs down - because that's not where the cost is coming from.

Import foreign drugs for the same purpose.

Importing drugs isn't the problem. We make most of the drugs here, and sell them cheaper outside our borders.

Also, I would allow reimportation of medicines from other nationsif the US drugs are sold cheaper in other countries. One example that is sickening is the fact AIDS drugs are 90% cheaper in Africa. Very unfair and it hurts US consumers:

This is true - US drugs are sold much cheaper elsewhere. The pharmacy and insurance industry in the US keeps drugs expensive.

A free market would allow US prescription drugs to be at the average world price.

Nope - actually that's not only wrong, but 100% untrue.

The problem with the price of drugs in America can't be solved by 'the free market' - because the drugs aren't being inflated in cost by a shortage, or because demand outstrips supply.

Drug prices are high here because of a conspiracy of profiteers - the insurance industry forces the prices up because the pharmacies want it that way, and pharmacies propel the rules that determine which drugs are covered, and what can be prescribed.

Opening our borders to foreign drugs might help a little - but insurance agencies would just stop covering the treatments, would bind people to US-only programs (like preferred provider networks now), and would use their political power to block prescription and/or trading in foreign drugs.

Finally, a last solution. Drug companies and their employees would no longer be allowed to contribute money to political campaigns. This will decrease the political power of these companies.

This, I agree with.

The Medical Industrial Complex is too politically powerful, and needs to be politically neutered. Nothing really good is going to happen in healthcare until it stops being a political game.

[Seangoli]

She was also grotesquely hypocritical, taking advantage of the same system she was speaking out against. If the society she espoused actually existed, she would be one of the starving many who would have died quite quickly.

Of course, she was also completely vapid and her philosophy was vacant, but that's a different issue all together.

Seems I have to repost this frequently. She is not a hypocrite for taking SS.
Classic liberal argument, she addressed in in 1966 and liberals ignore her comments:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/libera ... -benefits/

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blo ... ecting-it/

Neither link works.

Which is neither here no there. I doubt that anything she says will change my opinion on the matter, as the mere fact is that utilizing the system which you speak out against is practically the definition of hypocritical.

[Freiheit Reich]

Seems I have to repost this frequently. She is not a hypocrite for taking SS.
Classic liberal argument, she addressed in in 1966 and liberals ignore her comments:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/libera ... -benefits/

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blo ... ecting-it/

Neither link works.

Which is neither here no there. I doubt that anything she says will change my opinion on the matter, as the mere fact is that utilizing the system which you speak out against is practically the definition of hypocritical.

http://aynrandmyths.com/#22

The Myth - Ayn Rand violated her own philosophy by collecting social security.

The Truth:
This is the same as claiming that if you are against robbery, and you were one of Bernie Madoff's victims, you violate your principles by putting in a claim for partial restitution.

She addressed a similar issue in her article "The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist, June, 1966. From that article:

"Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?” (more mid way down the page)

[Greed and Death]

Seems I have to repost this frequently. She is not a hypocrite for taking SS.
Classic liberal argument, she addressed in in 1966 and liberals ignore her comments:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/libera ... -benefits/

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blo ... ecting-it/

Neither link works.

Which is neither here no there. I doubt that anything she says will change my opinion on the matter, as the mere fact is that utilizing the system which you speak out against is practically the definition of hypocritical.

She was against the system, because forcing people to buy into prevented them funding alternatives, and would force them to utilize it.

There is a lot to criticize Rand over that is not really one of them.

[The Black Forrest]

Neither link works.

Which is neither here no there. I doubt that anything she says will change my opinion on the matter, as the mere fact is that utilizing the system which you speak out against is practically the definition of hypocritical.

http://aynrandmyths.com/#22

The Myth - Ayn Rand violated her own philosophy by collecting social security.

The Truth:
This is the same as claiming that if you are against robbery, and you were one of Bernie Madoff's victims, you violate your principles by putting in a claim for partial restitution.

She addressed a similar issue in her article "The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist, June, 1966. From that article:

"Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?” (more mid way down the page)

ok?

Claim: Ayn Rand violated her own philosophy by collecting social security.


Arguments:

This is the same as claiming that if you are against robbery, and you were one of Bernie Madoff's victims, you violate your principles by putting in a claim for partial restitution.

Bernie Madoff schemes != social security.

She addressed a similar issue in her article "The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist, June, 1966. From that article:

"Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?” (more mid way down the page)

Ok. Scholarship != social security

Grade for attempting to disprove hypocrisy?

F-

[Freiheit Reich]

http://aynrandmyths.com/#22

The Myth - Ayn Rand violated her own philosophy by collecting social security.

The Truth:
This is the same as claiming that if you are against robbery, and you were one of Bernie Madoff's victims, you violate your principles by putting in a claim for partial restitution.

She addressed a similar issue in her article "The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist, June, 1966. From that article:

"Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?” (more mid way down the page)

ok?

Claim: Ayn Rand violated her own philosophy by collecting social security.


Arguments:

This is the same as claiming that if you are against robbery, and you were one of Bernie Madoff's victims, you violate your principles by putting in a claim for partial restitution.

Bernie Madoff schemes != social security.

She addressed a similar issue in her article "The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist, June, 1966. From that article:

"Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?” (more mid way down the page)

Ok. Scholarship != social security

Grade for attempting to disprove hypocrisy?

F-

This addresses it better:

http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-D ... urity.html

A number of readers know I’m a fan of Ayn Rand’s ideas. (Ayn Rand is the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and much else.) They have written to ask me if it’s true that Ayn Rand, an advocate of individual rights and an absolute opponent of government redistribution programs, accepted Medicare and Social Security.

I don’t know the answer to this question. But what I do know is that she was entitled to do so.
Participation in Medicare and Social Security is not voluntary. A payroll tax is imposed on every working person or productive business in the country. Yes, this initiation of force is unwarranted and unjustified. It’s done in the name of “your own good.” But government has no business imposing your own good. Government’s only proper missions are (1) leaving you alone and (2) ensuring that others (e.g., criminals or crooks) leave you alone.

Nowhere, morally or politically speaking, is there justification for imposing programs such as Social Security or Medicare on people, because there’s no reason for justifying the initiation of force by government (or anyone) against an individual in the first place.

Nevertheless, this force was imposed, starting in the 1930s, expanded further in the 1960s and now again with Obamacare. There’s nothing you can do about it, once it’s law, short of risking imprisonment. Risking imprisonment is not worth it, because in America, especially, our other freedoms have been left alone enough that life can still be highly worthwhile, despite the intrusions of government into certain areas where it does not belong.

So what’s a person who disagrees with these programs, on principle, to do? Attempt to get back his or her money, of course! And all the while fighting those programs, on principle, every step of the way.

In a consistently free society, the rational person would be responsible for saving, or otherwise providing for, his or her retirement via an unhampered free market. Such a free market would offer who-knows-what array of benefits, insurance policies and the like for purchase. People would know from their young adulthoods that this was their responsibility. (The current generation of young people will almost certainly face this responsibility, as the welfare state continues its inevitable fiscal implosion, already underway.) Such freedom was denied the rational person via government monopolization of the insurance industry with the Medicare and Social Security behemoths, not to mention other government regulations too numerous to detail here.

The point is: It’s not the innocent person’s fault.

I can’t speak for Ayn Rand, but I will speak for myself. I have been paying payroll taxes in very large portions for Medicare and Social Security for many years now. I fully intend to cash in on those and attempt to get some of that money back, if those programs still exist when I’m in my 60s or 70s (far from guaranteed). Even if those programs do still exist in 20 years, I will never get the return on my coerced investment. I would have fared much better in an unhampered market economy for medical and retirement insurance, had one existed. I wish I had the responsibility and freedom to plan my own retirement, but my government does not let me.

Also, I know full well that my current payroll taxes are not really being “put aside” for me in the future. This money is simply being transferred to people currently obtaining Social Security and Medicare benefits, some of whom will never pay into "the system." This angers me, but I cope with it by focusing on the fact that certain people I value are already of age for these programs, and at least I can think of them benefiting from those programs. (Everyone I value is productive, and like myself they were forced to pay more into those programs than they'll ever receive.)

It would be hypocritical of me to lend financial or moral support to somebody who wants to preserve or expand government redistribution of wealth, or other so-called welfare programs. Why? Because I’m against those programs on principle. Initiation of force is always wrong. It’s wrong when a criminal does it with a gun or a threat of violence, and it’s equally wrong when a government does it with the threat of imprisonment. The added claim that it’s “for your own good” does not alter the coercive nature of the whole scheme.

It’s not hypocritical to take back some of what was forcibly taken from you. Consider the alternative. If the government takes a third, a half or even more of your income, and if you object to this fact (on principle), what are you supposed to do? Let others who are supportive of government’s actions have the benefits? Ridiculous.

For example: What if refusing to take the money led to your death? What if the only health insurance available was government insurance? Let's say a doctor was available to cure your fatal illness using government insurance. “No,” you’d say. “I’m going to stand on principle. I won’t accept government help.” But this is government help you were forced to pay for, in the first place!

And it’s not your fault that government has refused to let a free marketplace exist. (At least, not if you don't support what the government is doing.) It certainly wasn’t Ayn Rand’s fault, who spent her entire life developing a philosophy (deeper than politics) to allow for a rational existence on earth, including the implementation of a completely unhampered free market system grounded in individual rights.

If the government left the marketplace, including for medical care, alone, then you would be responsible for taking care of those important needs, or even worst case finding voluntary charity to help you. By the way, there's nothing morally wrong with taking charity if you honestly did not create your own problems. However, it's always morally wrong to advocate force in doing so.

I recall it was Ayn Rand herself who wrote, “Morality ends where a gun begins.” The guns and intimidation of government are not your fault, especially if you speak out against them (at least while it’s still legal to do so). Those who produce the most and/or who oppose Big Government in the most consistent way are, in a sense, the greatest victims of the whole nasty enterprise of the entitlement state.

Integrity does not exist in a vacuum; nor does any human knowledge. If you’re forced to do something against your will, the moral condemnation belongs to the persons initiating the force … not their victims.

[Brickistan]

Yes, some might make it. Those who are lucky enough to have parents with resources to send them to a good school. A few might even make it on their own, either by having the right idea at the right time or by sheer coldblooded ruthlessness and determination. But many of us are stuck in the same job, not getting a decent wage, nor being able to get another job.

One big problem is the dysfunctional system we have that incentivizes taking on huge amounts of student loan debt, not because of necessity but because the system creates a perverse incentive to drastically and continually increase the cost; the government guarantees most student loan debt, which means the lenders and school will get their money no matter what happens and changes over the past couple of decades have made discharging debt via bankruptcy difficult or even impossible for some people. So, there's basically no incentive not to hike costs as much as possible, especially since it also allows universities to bolster payrolls for "administrators" and other staff who have no direct involvement in education...leading to over a 16%/year growth rate in outstanding debt since 2004. That's insane.

And if you graduate college with the average student loan debt of $26,000 and start a job making, say, $40,000 per year, over 10% of your net pay is going to repay loans...that's a big hit when you consider all the other expenses you'll have, to say nothing of saving up money for emergencies, retirement, buying a car/house or anything else. And that's the average, not some of the huge amounts people have borrowed for, say, a medical degree or graduate degree.

Yes and no...

I live in Denmark where education is free. Yes, that includes university. However, the cost of even renting a small flat is so high that many are forced to take student loans to get by. Yet another legacy of the housing bubble...

In the end, having gotten my Masters degree, I ended up with a student debt of nearly £60.000 - something which will haunt me for the foreseeable future. Most of which went to pay the rent. And if I hadn't gotten seriously lucky and get a student-job things would have been worse.

I fully agree that paid tuition and student loans is a very bad combination indeed. But we also have to look at other factors such as the cost of living in general.

In the case of 18 year old people not finding work, there is plenty of jobs out there, if people are willing to look hard enough. There is companies all over the country who are screaming for more employees. In North Dakota, the unemployment rate is around 3%. This is due to the boom in oil and natural gas there. You don't need an education, and you will receive the training there.

No, there isn't... At least not here in Denmark...

Those menial learn-on-the-job jobs are either gone or a dead-end job with no prospect of ever getting much more than minimum pay. You want to get anywhere in life, you'll need an education.

Apprenticeship is in fact fairly easy to get. Go to Job Corps. Many of the trades that are taught are Union and Apprenticeship oriented. Many Apprenticeships will reduce the amount of years you need to be in apprenticeship before you are a journeyman. Many apprentice programs will take a Job Corps student over someone off the street, because that person has the basics down.

I don't know how it works in America, but here in Denmark even an apprenticeship will require some preliminary schooling and there are virtually always more students than job-openings. This has been a problem for many years and we're now nearing a point where there is fear that we'll end up lacking these workers as so few have gotten through the needle over the last couple of decades. I know... I've been there...

The thing is, there is jobs out there. In general, we have a bunch of 18 year old lazy teens who only go to the mall to apply for jobs. This is not good. What happened to the work ethic and drive that use to be instilled on the young?

Bull...

I'm getting so incredibly tired of the "lazy" argument. We - the western world - has been steadily loosing jobs since somewhere around the nineteen-eighties where there was a shift from production to speculation. Yes, there are some jobs, but not nearly enough. And the young and uneducated are those facing the worst problems.

College is expensive, and counter productive at this point. It costs too much money, places the person in college too much in debt, and your never able to really get out from under it, and by the time you do, you have not made much more money then someone straight from high school. We also have a problem with people going to college to "discover" themselves. The costs of these colleges are because of the government. It use to be, not even that long ago, that a student could work in the summer, and have made enough money to be able to pay for school that year. A student could actually graduate with money in their hand.

I actually agree with you on this one.

Take my grandfather, for example. As a young man he worked hard and got what would today be a simple degree from a business school. Back then it was enough to get him a job as a teacher, then as a consultant, then finally as CFO for several major corporations. Today this would be the bare minimum if you want to stand behind a cash register.

What we have seen is an "education inflation" where the requirements for even menial tasks have gone through the roof. Do you really need to have gone through business school to stand behind a cash register? Well, no... Not necessarily. But if you have ambitions to ever get further than that, then you better do your time in school first.

In your case, I don't know what you do for a living, or what you make, but I will say this. If you have that view that you will NEVER own a home or flat, then you never will. Your setting yourself up for failure. Its all about attitude. Its about goal setting. You may not have a job that does not pay well. Ask for a raise, or look for a better job. If your in a competitive market, bring your skills that you have to a competitor. They may value the skills you have more then the current company you work for.

I'm simply being realistic. Even as a stupid teenager it was obvious to me that the housing bubble was going to burst at some point and that I would have to struggle much harder than my parents to get anywhere. Sadly, life has only confirmed this...

I hold a degree as Master of Computer Science. One of the first jobs I was given an interview for was a job as a simple programmer/supporter in a small company. A truly menial task, barely worth the time I had just spend on getting that degree. But it was a start, right? At the end of the interview, I asked if there were other candidates for the job and was told that they would be talking to nine in all. And, get this, three of them held Ph.D's. Three guys holding Ph.D's were competing for an entry-level job? You've got to be kidding me...!

That's the kind of competition that I face these days. That's how desperate people are and how tough the competition is.

And that reflects on the pay I receive. Believe me, I've tried several times to get my boss to give me a decent wage. And every time I've been told that I can take the money he will offer or I can get fired. My choice...

Move to a competitor? Wish I could, but given the kind of competition I'm facing - and having neither a car, nor enough money to move to another part of the country - this is much easier said then done.


And so we come full circle to the problem with "education inflation". Not only are there too many with similar high-end skills, none of us can compete with Indians working for a fraction of the payment we receive.

And so, the unending greed and need to raise profits have resulted in not only blue collar work being outsourced, but now the white collar jobs are being sent overseas as well. But greed is good, right? As long as our corporate masters get rich, everything is good, right? Bull...!

A business firing you because you ask for a raise: If the business fired you, they were already looking for a a reason to fire you. You may not be doing well at the current job your doing. It could be that the owner, or your current boss does not value your skills that you have, as while you may be getting a pay check from them, your the reason that they are getting any money at all. A foolish boss is one who does not see that. There is plenty of reasons that a boss could fire you, but this is the least likely of reasons.

Not necessarily. Not when there are plenty of others like me who are desperate enough to accept my payment - at least for a while.

Once again, there are simply too many of us. It's employers marked - they can simply pick and choose who they want. And if you make too much of a fuss there are plenty of replacements standing by.

We have let this happen, we let this happen because we have placed so many rules and regulations, that any person who wishes to start a company is going to have an uphill battle. We have so many requirements and applications that a person has to do to become a viable business that they give up, or don't even try from the beginning.

Yes, because things totally didn't go down the drain as soon as regulations on the banks were removed, right?

If anything, we need more regulations to bring the wild speculations and bubble inflations under control.

But getting back on topic, these are problems with mobility, not with inequality. Everyone is equal, everyone is equally given the chance to succeed or fail based on their ethics, ability, and drive. The problem we have though, is that one is unable to do well because we have so many hurdles to jump through, that it makes it very hard for people to succeed. Is it true that someone who starts with nothing, vs someone who starts rich will have a tougher time? Yes. But at the same time, if that person who has more drive to complete their goals, never gives up and has a better ability then the man who is rich, they could easily find themselves switching places.

Problem is that the divide is now so big that if you start out poor you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere. The game is so badly rigged now that the middle class is slowly disappearing, drowning in debt and unable to claw their way out of the hole as their real-wages continue to fall.

Drive won't get you anywhere when you can't even get a basic education.

[Seangoli]

In the case of 18 year old people not finding work, there is plenty of jobs out there, if people are willing to look hard enough. There is companies all over the country who are screaming for more employees. In North Dakota, the unemployment rate is around 3%. This is due to the boom in oil and natural gas there. You don't need an education, and you will receive the training there.

[/quote]

As someone who actually works out there, the oil field is a trap for jobs. Most of the menial work actually pays fairly low, and considering the expensive nature of living in the oil field it is almost unlivable (I've seen 1-room efficiencies going for around $1000 or so in the area and good luck finding anything reasonable at that). Some workers are "lucky" enough to stay in the man-camps out there which range from actually decent to a glorified shed. The wages seem nice for normal areas, until one realizes the expense of doing anything in the area. Gas is significantly more expensive, so traveling in and out of the area is out of the question (The prices are well inflated for a hundred or so miles surrounding the area). Food and basic amenities are priced at whatever the hell shop owners want, as they know people will pay for it (When you are the only shop for 50 or so miles, people will pay). And of course living expenses on top of that.

As of last winter, there were 40,000 or so jobs available. Unfortunately, almost all of these jobs are high-skill jobs that are not the type to provide on site training. They are looking for people with a given skillset. As I recall, the majority are welders and high-skill manufacturers, as well as certain types of business type positions (Accounting, lawyers, etc).

If you want to be paid slightly decent wages to live in an area that is in the middle of absolutely nowhere, with costs of living that are absolutely unlivable for someone who makes nearly twice the amount of a normal oil worker (Seriously, every monday I started my drive on the absolute other end of the state and every friday I come back as it is much cheaper to do so), and add on top of that being practically 100% expendable and possibly being left high and dry in the middle of oil-country, by all means live there and work there.

I would not, however, suggest it. Much like many friends I have who went to make the big-bucks in Alaska working in the oil industry, I have met many who are damn-near broke and barely making ends meet in North Dakota.

[Grave_n_idle]

A number of readers know I’m a fan of Ayn Rand’s ideas. (Ayn Rand is the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and much else.) They have written to ask me if it’s true that Ayn Rand, an advocate of individual rights and an absolute opponent of government redistribution programs, accepted Medicare and Social Security.

I don’t know the answer to this question. But what I do know is that she was entitled to do so.

I'd have been embarrassed to post a link to a rebuttal that not only failed to actually answer the question, but also tried to answer the question of hypocrisy by making excuses.

The question isn't whether she was 'entitled to' do so - it's whether it's hypocritical for someone who has made a name opposing government redistribution programs that help those in need... to use those same programs.

You don't need to link to someone else's excuses to answer that question - it's obvious. It's hypocritical.

You could make an argument that her ideology changed (lots of people change their position on such things when it's THEM that has the need) or that it doesn't matter whether she was a hypocrite. But the argument that it wasn't hypocrisy is untenable... which is why you have to link to people making excuses, and failing to answer the question.

[Freiheit Reich]

A number of readers know I’m a fan of Ayn Rand’s ideas. (Ayn Rand is the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and much else.) They have written to ask me if it’s true that Ayn Rand, an advocate of individual rights and an absolute opponent of government redistribution programs, accepted Medicare and Social Security.

I don’t know the answer to this question. But what I do know is that she was entitled to do so.

I'd have been embarrassed to post a link to a rebuttal that not only failed to actually answer the question, but also tried to answer the question of hypocrisy by making excuses.

The question isn't whether she was 'entitled to' do so - it's whether it's hypocritical for someone who has made a name opposing government redistribution programs that help those in need... to use those same programs.

You don't need to link to someone else's excuses to answer that question - it's obvious. It's hypocritical.

You could make an argument that her ideology changed (lots of people change their position on such things when it's THEM that has the need) or that it doesn't matter whether she was a hypocrite. But the argument that it wasn't hypocrisy is untenable... which is why you have to link to people making excuses, and failing to answer the question.

Perhaps the word from the genius and very important thinker herself will convince you she was right. Well worth reading, she explains it well (I apologize for not finding her words earlier, she can explain it much better):

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/gover ... ships.html

Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.

There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.

The growth of the welfare state is approaching the stage where virtually the only money available for scientific research will be government money. (The disastrous effects of this situation and the disgraceful state of government-sponsored science are apparent already, but that is a different subject. We are concerned here only with the moral dilemma of scientists.) Taxation is destroying private resources, while government money is flooding and taking over the field of research.

In these conditions, a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.



“The Question of Scholarships,”
The Objectivist, June, 1966, 11

[Khadgar]

I'd have been embarrassed to post a link to a rebuttal that not only failed to actually answer the question, but also tried to answer the question of hypocrisy by making excuses.

The question isn't whether she was 'entitled to' do so - it's whether it's hypocritical for someone who has made a name opposing government redistribution programs that help those in need... to use those same programs.

You don't need to link to someone else's excuses to answer that question - it's obvious. It's hypocritical.

You could make an argument that her ideology changed (lots of people change their position on such things when it's THEM that has the need) or that it doesn't matter whether she was a hypocrite. But the argument that it wasn't hypocrisy is untenable... which is why you have to link to people making excuses, and failing to answer the question.

Perhaps the word from the genius and very important thinker herself will convince you she was right. Well worth reading, she explains it well (I apologize for not finding her words earlier, she can explain it much better):

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/gover ... ships.html

Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.

There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.

The growth of the welfare state is approaching the stage where virtually the only money available for scientific research will be government money. (The disastrous effects of this situation and the disgraceful state of government-sponsored science are apparent already, but that is a different subject. We are concerned here only with the moral dilemma of scientists.) Taxation is destroying private resources, while government money is flooding and taking over the field of research.

In these conditions, a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.



“The Question of Scholarships,”
The Objectivist, June, 1966, 11

Short answer "It's okay if We do it.".

[Freiheit Reich]

Perhaps the word from the genius and very important thinker herself will convince you she was right. Well worth reading, she explains it well (I apologize for not finding her words earlier, she can explain it much better):

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/gover ... ships.html

Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.

There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.

The growth of the welfare state is approaching the stage where virtually the only money available for scientific research will be government money. (The disastrous effects of this situation and the disgraceful state of government-sponsored science are apparent already, but that is a different subject. We are concerned here only with the moral dilemma of scientists.) Taxation is destroying private resources, while government money is flooding and taking over the field of research.

In these conditions, a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.



“The Question of Scholarships,”
The Objectivist, June, 1966, 11

Short answer "It's okay if We do it.".

Accept it BUT try to change it as well (ex. by voting). If you are robbed than it is OK to get some of your money back. You are against robbery but if the robber decides to give you your money back you will take it back. Saying 'no' would be stupid and would not furthur the cause.

[Khadgar]

Short answer "It's okay if We do it.".

Accept it BUT try to change it as well (ex. by voting). If you are robbed than it is OK to get some of your money back. You are against robbery but if the robber decides to give you your money back you will take it back. Saying 'no' would be stupid and would not furthur the cause.

See that's my problem with Rand, took you four sentences to say that. Took her nine paragraphs. She needed an editor.

[Grave_n_idle]

Perhaps the word from the genius and very important thinker herself will convince you she was right.

Ayn Rand was a hypocritical intellectual infant. She never drooled a word worth repeating, so her whiny baby babbling about how it's okay for her to be a hypocrite couldn't interest me less.

[Freiheit Reich]

Accept it BUT try to change it as well (ex. by voting). If you are robbed than it is OK to get some of your money back. You are against robbery but if the robber decides to give you your money back you will take it back. Saying 'no' would be stupid and would not furthur the cause.

See that's my problem with Rand, took you four sentences to say that. Took her nine paragraphs. She needed an editor.

2 styles of writing that are popular.

English Composition: The teachers want you to use a lot of fluff and the more you write the better your paper is. Quantity=quality.

Business Communications: KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). The boss wants simplicity and doesn't want to waste time on fluff.

Ayn Rand subscribed to the first style. Yes, she goes on too long BUT her words are true. Have patience and you can learn from her wisdom.

[Khadgar]

See that's my problem with Rand, took you four sentences to say that. Took her nine paragraphs. She needed an editor.

2 styles of writing that are popular.

English Composition: The teachers want you to use a lot of fluff and the more you write the better your paper is. Quantity=quality.

Business Communications: KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). The boss wants simplicity and doesn't want to waste time on fluff.

Ayn Rand subscribed to the first style. Yes, she goes on too long BUT her words are true. Have patience and you can learn from her wisdom.

Excessively verbose language does not equal wisdom. Though if your readers try hard enough they can read wisdom into drivel.