Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Of course (Score 1) 1012

Right, but we can't pretend there is no side effect... Mary can enjoy her new job at 7-11, but she displaced the moron that used to have the job and now he's out of work entirely. Raising minimum wage is correlated to unemployment... I'm not saying that as someone opposed to minimum wage, but we need to be realistic about its effects.

Comment Re:Why the quotes? (Score 1) 94

It was just a very stark example so I chose it. You could be right, but then all I can say is she has a very strong correlation between "guests she respects" and "liberal guests". I still like to listen to some of her interviews - her show is a regular podcast of mine (though I admit to skipping the artsy and celebrity ones, which are most of them these days).

Comment Re:Why the quotes? (Score 5, Interesting) 94

It's the best of the "two sides to every story" echo chamber. But as your comment reinforces, we are stuck in a two party mentality and getting a slick spokesman from the Democrat and Republican parties to comment on your show does not illuminate a path to the truth. I listen to NPR all the time, but their bias is sufficient to make me chuckle. Some of the in-depth shows on NPR are excellent - to some extent the news shows are limited by their format. Terry Gross, on topic, once did an interview with Bill O'Reilly. Now, he is a tremendous asshole - but her interview was immediately combative and he ended up walking off the set. During the interview, O'Reilly pointed out that she had just interviewed Al Franken - a fellow political entertainer - and he was given a softball interview. Listening to the Franken interview, it is true - it was a lovefest. I still listen to her and respect her, but her political bias is obvious.

Comment Re:Of course (Score 1) 1012

Suppose you run a pizzeria

You were doing a good job until this point. It's a fine defense of limited liability, but it does not make limited liability part of a "free market". As you say, free markets existed long before there was a name (though I still argue that they have never been "ideal" free markets, which are an abstract idea). Limited liability certainly did not exist until very recently in human history - well after people "invented" the free market idea. Whether you feel it is justified or not, it is a massive change with tremendous impact and is not the natural or default state of a market. I mean, the natural state is to organize a posse and burn down the store that killed your loved one :)

Comment Re:And yet.. (Score 2) 250

OK, I'll hold your hand for you, since you talk so sweetly:
Number of colleges in 2000 (technically Title IV postsecondary institutions): 6,479 In 2013: 7,236. Total increase of 11.9%. Source
Number of college students in 2000: 13.2 million In 2015: 17.0 million. Total increase of 29%. Source

But just so you don't accuse me of cherry-picking numbers, let's use the larger increase of 45% between 2000 and 2012 from Pew - they only consider full-time students.

From the same link:

A major shift has occurred in the relative levels of funding provided by states and the federal government in recent years. By 2010, federal revenue per full-time equivalent (FTE) student surpassed that of states for the first time in at least two decades, after adjusting for enrollment and inflation. From 2000 to 2012, revenue per FTE student from federal sources going to public, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions grew by 32 percent in real terms, while state revenue fell by 37 percent. The number of FTE students at the nation’s colleges and universities grew by 45 percent during the same period. Without adjusting for enrollment growth, total federal revenue grew by 92 percent from $43.3 billion to $83.2 billion in real terms, while state revenue fell by 9 percent from $77.8 billion to $70.8 billion after adjusting for inflation.

To sum up, enrollment increased by 45%. Number of schools rose by around 12%. Total state and federal direct funding (sans loans and tax credits) went from $121.1 billion to $154.0 billion, for a total of 27% increase in direct funding. In addition to that, tax credits have increased from around $12 billion to around $31 billion. Add that to the direct funding and you have $133.1 billion vs $185.0 billion, or a total increase of 39%. Enter student loans. I get that these are meant to be repaid (except the subsidy) and should not count as direct subsidy. But the fact remains that they have increased 376% in the same time period.

So if we use total enrollment, then direct funding has been approximately flat, but tax credits have increased substantially. If we use only full time students, then direct funding has decreased significantly, but when you add in tax credits the decrease is not as significant, around 6%. If you consider student loans to be a kind of subsidy, there certainly has been no decrease no matter how you run the numbers.

I'm on firm ground, even if I don't have your silver tongue.

Comment Re:And yet.. (Score 2) 250

I'd be more charitable about believing them if they hadn't sustained something like an average 7% increase over 30 years, whether the state funding was going up or down, and if the problem were limited to state schools. I think it's a complex problem, but easy loans and lavish spending on perks to make the schools appealing to wealthy international students seem to be large contributors. I'm not smart enough to resolve this, but at the very least I wonder why so much attention is spent seeking foreign dollars at taxpayer-funded schools. There was a time when you could fund your way through a 4-year state college with a crappy job. It didn't have $50 million student centers or food courts, but you got a decent education without getting buried in debt. There should be something to fill this void.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Just the facts, Ma'am" -- Joe Friday

Working...