Why is (American) College So Expensive? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14799500
I want to be an accountant but it will be expensive. For my state I need to have a total of 150 credits in Accounting and some of those have to be in other subjects. So that means that I have to get into grad school before I can even sit for the CPA exam.

Luckily I found an online program to enroll in in the future.

But in my state, I have a feeling that accountants are paid less than the national average of 100k, I think is the estimate.

I decided against law school due to the high cost of tuition. I am glad I passed on the JD. It would be too hard for me to pay back loans.
#14800067
MistyTiger wrote:I thought it was the Conservative Elite who wanted colleges to be prestigious AKA only affordable for the wealthy and those from prominent households.


Not anymore, today these people use the disease of liberalism to infect minorities and keep them in chains. Think FDR
#14800112
:lol: What rubbish! Anything you don't like, you attribute to liberalism, even if it's conservative!
Stupid reasoning, Igor.

Liberalism means education for all, and not simply the rich and well-to-do.
#14800142
SolarCross wrote:They always were "capitalist institutions" and worked just fine that way for centuries. The difference is now they get subsidies and they get customers armed with near infinite borrowing ability.

There is a tug of war of incentives going on all the time anytime any bunch of strangers interact for some trade: staff want more pay, the institution wants to pay them less, the customers want to pay less and the institution wants them to pay more. But if one side starts winning too much then the other side stop wanting to play anymore and in so far as both sides are needed for the trade to continue the winning side will make a concession to bring the others back to the game.

The real problem is that subsidies and loans are free money for the institutions that allow them to win over staff and especially their customers. Subsidies and infinite loans are fuel for price bubbles.


There's one piece of the puzzle missing here. To restate your point, there's increased enrollment and revenue due to government subsidized loans (colleges can charge more). The actual teachers wages have stagnated due to more highly educated former students in debt with the qualifications to teach.

On the other hand, universities are nonprofit institutions, which means that the extra revenue from inflated tuition (and from all the donor money), can't go to shareholders. So where is all the money actually going? In for-profit schools, obviously shareholders are seeing record profits. But in traditional universities, they must be doing something else with the money, right? If it's not going to teachers, where is it going?

The answer: It's going to the arms race to entice students to enroll at their particular school. There's massive bureaucratic bloat (number of administrative staff is increasing relative to the size of the school. There are bigger, more modern student unions, on campus gyms, cafeterias with in-house sushi bars and 24 hour cafes. Marketing budgets are skyrocketing. Sports program funding is increasing. To be fair, administrator salaries are also increasing, but this isn't enough to suck up all the extra money. Basically, schools are investing more money on the flashier parts of what it means to run a campus, not the less sexy educational parts.
#14800147
Godstud wrote::lol: What rubbish! Anything you don't like, you attribute to liberalism, even if it's conservative!
Stupid reasoning, Igor.

Liberalism means education for all, and not simply the rich and well-to-do.



Just like N Korea is a Democracy.... I mean its in the name, must be true. :lol:

Liberalism is the modern form means protecting the Elites through division of races, It is American leftist filth that keeps the black man in ghettos and crumbling schools, fighting tooth and nail any Change that might upend their stranglehold on the voting slave class they fostered.
#14800224
Everyone knows DPRK is a dictatorship. Now you're posting asinine and idiotic comments.

Conservativism is the world famous device for ensuring the elites maintain their hold. You need look no father than the current POTUS to see that. He's as conservative as they come. He conned the public into thinking he'd change the position of the elites, but he's a bigger elitist than anyone before him.

Liberalism is not about maintaining the status quo. Your suggesting the opposite is simply laughable. :lol:

Stop trolling, Igor. It's really lame.
#14800241
Oxymoron wrote:
Not anymore, today these people use the disease of liberalism to infect minorities and keep them in chains. Think FDR


FDR helped a lot of people with his plans and projects and he was in charge at a very tough time in the US. Few leaders can rally the American morale as he did. Trump does not even know what rallying morale is...he just want to rally up the Stock Market and help all his rich buddies who kiss the ground he walks on and pay him money too. Bad hombres are the ones who do not pay the Donald. :lol:
#14800363
MistyTiger wrote:FDR helped a lot of people with his plans and projects and he was in charge at a very tough time in the US. Few leaders can rally the American morale as he did. Trump does not even know what rallying morale is...he just want to rally up the Stock Market and help all his rich buddies who kiss the ground he walks on and pay him money too. Bad hombres are the ones who do not pay the Donald. :lol:



FDR was a Tyrant and a piece of shit, but I do not want steer away from the topic into my disgust of him?
As far as the stock market, the market indicates America's overall economic health, so when it sky rocketed that means the collective conscious approves of him.
Now my point is simple, the people who call them selves progressives, are in reality elite snobs who want to maintain power through De-franchising the productive classes, while creating easily controlled slave classes.
#14800365
Godstud wrote:Everyone knows DPRK is a dictatorship. Now you're posting asinine and idiotic comments.

Conservativism is the world famous device for ensuring the elites maintain their hold. You need look no father than the current POTUS to see that. He's as conservative as they come. He conned the public into thinking he'd change the position of the elites, but he's a bigger elitist than anyone before him.

Liberalism is not about maintaining the status quo. Your suggesting the opposite is simply laughable. :lol:

Stop trolling, Igor. It's really lame.


Why are you calling me Igor?

My point is that just because you call yourself progressive and liberal does not in fact make you one ,in the same way as North Korea is not a Democracy even though its in the name of their country. So stop being Dense.
thank
The current president wants to empower all Americans, something Obama that piece of shit tried so hard to deny. Obama wanted to keep his own people on the plantation.
#14800479
Brother of Karl wrote:The answer: It's going to the arms race to entice students to enroll at their particular school. There's massive bureaucratic bloat (number of administrative staff is increasing relative to the size of the school. There are bigger, more modern student unions, on campus gyms, cafeterias with in-house sushi bars and 24 hour cafes. Marketing budgets are skyrocketing. Sports program funding is increasing. To be fair, administrator salaries are also increasing, but this isn't enough to suck up all the extra money. Basically, schools are investing more money on the flashier parts of what it means to run a campus, not the less sexy educational parts.

Just thinking out loud here, but has anyone ever considered legislating a cap on the amount of non-educational spending at certain proportion of educational spending in public universities, and what would the impact of that be on the standing of those universities. That seems like a (probably way too simple) way to at the very least channel the issue outlined in the OP towards some actual public good.

The same thing is happening - though, to a much lesser extent - in the country where I live and it's been a disaster for our national rankings.
#14800482
SolarCross. Unless I am mistaken you are not an American. That gives you a pass on posting quotes from LBJ and Malcolm X made when the democratic party WAS the openly racist party. You may also be too young to remember this. At the time these two statements were made the republican party (party of Lincoln) was the civil rights party.

You may wish to delete that post lest others find you uninformed. Or worse. Just propagandizing.
#14800503
Oxymoron wrote:

FDR was a Tyrant and a piece of shit, but I do not want steer away from the topic into my disgust of him?
As far as the stock market, the market indicates America's overall economic health, so when it sky rocketed that means the collective conscious approves of him.
Now my point is simple, the people who call them selves progressives, are in reality elite snobs who want to maintain power through De-franchising the productive classes, while creating easily controlled slave classes.


FDR really cared about the little people while Trump cares by twittering and bashing people like the maniac that he is.

The stock market rises when people buy more stocks and plummets when people sell stocks. Last year and at the start of this year, it was a good time to buy stocks because prices were relatively low. Now though, it might not be a very good time to buy. The sky rocketing has more to do with how confident people are with certain industries than by how much they approve of him. Maybe you think that Boeing's stock plummeted because Trump refused to use Air Force One anymore but that had more to do with people quickly deciding to sell( because they figured that if the POTUS doesn't want Boeing, then neither should they) so it is really about trading behavior...the simple act of buying low or selling high or selling low.
#14800504
MistyTiger wrote:FDR really cared about the little people while Trump cares by twittering and bashing people like the maniac that he is.

The stock market rises when people buy more stocks and plummets when people sell stocks. Last year and at the start of this year, it was a good time to buy stocks because prices were relatively low. Now though, it might not be a very good time to buy. The sky rocketing has more to do with how confident people are with certain industries than by how much they approve of him. Maybe you think that Boeing's stock plummeted because Trump refused to use Air Force One anymore but that had more to do with people quickly deciding to sell( because they figured that if the POTUS doesn't want Boeing, then neither should they) so it is really about trading behavior...the simple act of buying low or selling high or selling low.


Little people have little affect on the country, and overall growth. Some people need bashing like the criminal invaders, and muslim jihadist. Stocks represent American confidence in our economy, overall it is not arbitrary the stocks have rose and not fallen, meaning this is real not a one off.
#14800510
Oxymoron wrote:
Little people have little affect on the country, and overall growth. Some people need bashing like the criminal invaders, and muslim jihadist. Stocks represent American confidence in our economy, overall it is not arbitrary the stocks have rose and not fallen, meaning this is real not a one off.


The little people are the majority in this country. They are the ones who keep spending especially during holiday seasons. They influence GDP the most. Stock values and prices are erratic. They have rose now but in the future they could fall too.
#14800512
MistyTiger wrote:The little people are the majority in this country. They are the ones who keep spending especially during holiday seasons. They influence GDP the most. Stock values and prices are erratic. They have rose now but in the future they could fall too.


What on earth are you talking about? The little people do not drive our GDP, yes they account for a lot of retail but that is a small percentage of American GDP. Stock prices are not erratic, they represent our economy. Stop talking none sense.
#14800516
Oxymoron wrote:
What on earth are you talking about? The little people do not drive our GDP, yes they account for a lot of retail but that is a small percentage of American GDP. Stock prices are not erratic, they represent our economy. Stop talking none sense.


I have cited a source about GDP.
Measuring GDP is complicated (which is why we leave it to the economists), but at its most basic, the calculation can be done in one of two ways: either by adding up what everyone earned in a year (income approach), or by adding up what everyone spent (expenditure method). Logically, both measures should arrive at roughly the same total. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/199.asp


GDP can be determined by adding up what people spend in a year, little and larger people.

Stock prices do not stay the same, they could suddenly drop overnight.
#14800517
MistyTiger wrote:I have cited a source about GDP.


GDP can be determined by adding up what people spend in a year, little and larger people.

Stock prices do not stay the same, they could suddenly drop overnight.


Ok what percentage of the US GDP is from retail sales?
#14800539
Oxymoron wrote:Little people have little affect on the country, and overall growth. Some people need bashing like the criminal invaders, and muslim jihadist. Stocks represent American confidence in our economy, overall it is not arbitrary the stocks have rose and not fallen, meaning this is real not a one off.

The stock market represent how profitable investors consider their potential investments to be. We live in an economy where half of all resources are owned by 1% of the population and even within that 1% wealth is weighted at the top (Oxfam). The stock market's valuation is a reflection of a small minority (and the amount of QE being pumped in).
#14800542
Ok what percentage of the US GDP is from retail sales?


According to the world bank Household final consumption, etc is 68% of the US GDP.

The Fed says:

Consumer spending in the US rose from about 62% of GDP in 1960, where it stayed until about 1981, and has since risen to 71% in 2013.[5]


So apologize to Misty. Man up.
#14800585
Misty Tiger wrote:The little people are the majority in this country. They are the ones who keep spending especially during holiday seasons.

The little people - i.e. Aggregate Demand - are influential in the short-run. But in the long-run, economic growth is determined by supply-side forces.

This is because in the short-run when demand increases the price of a firm's output increases (heightened demand induces an increase in the aggregate price level) but the price of a firm's inputs remains relatively constant (wages are relatively sticky, inputs are bought on contract etc.)^. Firms respond to this by increasing their own production, which requires an increase in their own demand for inputs - think workers, capital, etc. Except these are finite, and as the stock of free inputs falls their price increases. At some point the economy is going to reach capacity: there's going to be no free inputs which aren't prohibitively expensive remaining. When this happens, prices of output are forced to rise, demand falls, people are made redundant, we might have a recession, etc. Point is, we return to a stable equilibrium*.

The implication here is that in the long-run, supply is fixed. The little people can push up us and down across a settled equilibrium, but our growth is ultimately bounded by supply forces. Thus, imperative to sustained long-run growth is facilitating inexpensive production and cheapening inputs** or making them more productive, otherwise. Bringing this all back to the theme of this thread, you can still be correct. Third-level education increases the productivity of our labor force and, thus, can positively affect aggregate supply there, too.

However, focus on retail sales or consumption is misguided*** if you care about your economies long-run growth.

---

* Under conditions of zero technological progress, we return to the exact equilibrium we were presented with before the increase in demand.

** N.B. This does not mean not having a minimum wage is an optimal strategy. That's a whole other kettle of fish.

*** In fact, yous probably have it backwards. An upwards shift in long-run consumption implies a downward shift in savings and, thus, the price of loanable funds. If investment (a key determinant of effective supply) is falls as a result of this, that might constrain the economy's potential in the long-run. (I use 'if' and 'might' because, at current, this may be irrelevant).

^ This is the justification for engaging in stimulus during recessions, too.

For me Republicanism is masculine and monarchism i[…]

Please provide it again. You have no problem aski[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It has already been explained that this type of co[…]

Sure, keep thinking that. Election year is caus[…]