Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[T-hawk]

many youth in the US want unfettered access to the distinction of being a [generic] college graduate, which taken to a general policy would result in all of them being able to attain it, and then destroying the distinction in the process.

When everyone has a degree, then no one does.

Employers don't want a degree.  They want the best people.  Two generations ago, it used to be that 10% of the population graduated college and that mostly lined up with the amount of productive professional jobs that exist.  When 50% of the population has a degree, that is no longer a sufficient signal.  Nor does it mean that 5x more jobs will materialize.

[Mr. Cairo]

Obstacles aren't per se bad. For example, many youth in the US want unfettered access to the distinction of being a [generic] college graduate, which taken to a general policy would result in all of them being able to attain it, and then destroying the distinction in the process.

Also too many college graduates will mess with the labour market, which is already happening in many countries. Students fork out for college education then find out that there are too few jobs for graduate, and they become baristas or something. And things don't actually get better since each year brings another surplus of college graduates.

Subsequently, middle class people in the name of Equality aspired to the distinction of being upper class, namely a college degree, and things unravelled.

I believe that increasing knowledge though something like a college/university education is a worthwhile goal in and of itself. I would also suggest that by now, most 18 year-olds (in the west at least) understand that a college degree is no longer a magical ticket to an immediate well-paying job. From my own experience at university (in the UK) I'd say that most people are there either to learn about something they are genuinely interested in or to party and have fun. Everyone knew that the likelihood of them getting a job straight out of university was pretty unlikely, and mainly depended on the specific degree.

I would certainly agree that the proliferation of higher education has caused certain structures in our society/civilization to unravel, but the solution isn't to stop people from accessing higher education (is that what you're suggesting? I'm not sure). Personally I have no desire to maintain a staus-quo that relies upon a large, poorly-educated, underclass. So, let them unravel.

[TheHumanHydra]

Why?

Well, because I believe that:

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

I believe that increasing knowledge though something like a college/university education is a worthwhile goal in and of itself. [...]

I would certainly agree that the proliferation of higher education has caused certain structures in our society/civilization to unravel, but the solution isn't to stop people from accessing higher education (is that what you're suggesting? I'm not sure). Personally I have no desire to maintain a staus-quo that relies upon a large, poorly-educated, underclass. So, let them unravel.

Well said, Mr. Cairo.

[Commodore]

Spoken like someone who's never taught a 00- course. I've been there, and can confirm.

[darrelljs]

I think this thread is starting to mix the moral imperative for a society to provide an equal *opportunity* to a quality education with a state mandate that everyone is educated.  I don't disagree with what T-Hawk or Commodore are saying (nor do I necessarily agree, I just haven't thought about it), but it misses the point I at least was initially trying to make.  So when I say this:

There is probably an argument around efficient use of human capital, but I'm just going to go with "because we aren't assholes".

Why is it being an "asshole"?

My point is an unlucky birth should not consign someone to a job & life below their innate potential.  Again my brain automatically replaces the word "government" with "society".  I'd like to first establish agreement (or agreement to disagree ) on the general principle before discussing practicalities.

Darrell

[scooter]

The equal opportunity stuff is a bit of a red herring, and I don't think it's the best argument in favor of investing in state education. I agree with the comments made that equal opportunity is impossible, and I don't think it should actually be the goal.

The proper framing IMO is instead that everyone should have some sort of baseline opportunity level, and even in the US that just doesn't exist for many kids. You shouldn't be educationally screwed based on nothing more than where in your country you were born, even though millions of kids in extremely poor urban/rural areas in the US are fundamentally screwed. I don't think the answer is to give those kids the same access that the wealthy are afforded in fancy private schools. I do think they should at least have the same level of access that, say, working class suburban kids have - not fancy, but perfectly acceptable and enough to at least give you a visible path to success. This means their classrooms should have heat in the winter, AC in hot months, textbooks from this century, no huge mold outbreaks all over the school, working plumbing, and okay teachers that are paid enough to not flee as soon as humanly possible. 

Schools with fundamental deficiencies like that exist all over the place in the US. And to be clear, I'm talking about the pre-university level. This isn't about equal opportunity really, it's about everyone having some sort of opportunity. A lot of kids simply have none at all, and in an obscenely wealthy country that can absolutely afford it, that's a failure of society.


Finally, if you're hung up over "life isn't fair," you ought to consider the net societal benefit to education access. It's been shown time and time again that education (particularly at early ages) is one of the best investments a society can make, because the upside of having more skilled members of society is extremely impactful. It virtually always pays for itself in the long run.

Basically, you don't build cottages in Civ4 for the +1 commerce.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

Obstacles aren't per se bad. For example, many youth in the US want unfettered access to the distinction of being a [generic] college graduate, which taken to a general policy would result in all of them being able to attain it, and then destroying the distinction in the process.

Also too many college graduates will mess with the labour market, which is already happening in many countries. Students fork out for college education then find out that there are too few jobs for graduate, and they become baristas or something. And things don't actually get better since each year brings another surplus of college graduates.

If the government is not corrupt, let the people decide.

Usually a bad idea.

Why is the distinction the thing that is important? The idea is not to get an education to make yourself better compared to those who do not go to college, but to make your life better, full stop. A rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

If too many college degrees messes up the markets then those who go to technical/trade schools will be in higher demand and the market corrects itself, right? But my interest is not in some Ayn Rand market worship. I'm more concerned with equality of opportunity. Education is the key.

And if the people do not decide, who should? I don't see many Benevolent Dictators (ala Plato's Philosopher King) out there looking for work, just Mugabe's and their ilk. I'm not a huge fan of redneck ingrates in Alabama (sorry guys, Doug Jones election notwithstanding) sending one racist/misogynist after another to DC but that doesn't mean that I think some warlord who can wrest power away from the Constitution is going to do better. In fact, I think that would be much worse. So Winston Churchill's quoted line "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" rings true. Find me a real Philosopher King and a means of insulating this individual from corruption, guaranteeing benevolent rule and I'll concede the point. Failing this, better to rely in the naked self-interest of voters. And, better still, how about we provide a good education to those voters so they will be less susceptible to propaganda and have better critical thinking skills. There is literally zero downside to having a well-educated populace, unless you are the corrupt individual (government, business, etc).

So you think both Nature's and Nurture's inequalities are basically too big to tackle. What's left then? Also, what's the point?

No. I think that Nature's inequalities are too big to tackle at this point. You missed the argument there entirely. Nurture issues are certainly within our grasp, if we are willing to work collectively toward a good solution. 

Preview edit: Scooter, you advocate for a good first step. Everyone should have an opportunity, even at a basic baseline level as you say. Once that goal is reached, universal access to some sort of education that is reasonably effective and doesn't require a young person to take a bus 2 hours each way every day for a good school for example, then we should strive for better opportunities. Every step should lead in the direction of "more equal". 

Current political trends seem to be headed in the direction of "less equal, win more" policies. See the recent tax bill travesty for the most blatant example.

[scooter]

Preview edit: Scooter, you advocate for a good first step. Everyone should have an opportunity, even at a basic baseline level as you say. Once that goal is reached, universal access to some sort of education that is reasonably effective and doesn't require a young person to take a bus 2 hours each way every day for a good school for example, then we should strive for better opportunities. Every step should lead in the direction of "more equal". 

I do agree with this, especially the last sentence. I should clarify that basically I think one of the issues here is the goal that you have in mind here mainly has bad branding. When you say "equal opportunity," a lot of people rightfully point out that's literally impossible, and tune it out. But ultimately, I'm OK with the fact that Donald Trump's kids had better opportunities than me, but it's less OK that kids who grew up literally 15 minutes away from me (I grew up in suburban Detroit) had 0 opportunity whatsoever.

[TheHumanHydra]

Spoken like someone who's never taught a 00- course. I've been there, and can confirm.

I'm not sure if that was directed at me or Mr. Cairo, but I think it misses the point entirely. Educational progress is/should be based on merit. Equal opportunity does not mean equal education (beyond fundamentals), it means progress is based on academic merit only and not on financial resources. Put another way, if it's a travesty so many dumb people are at college, how much the greater if so many smart people are not?

[MJW (ya that one)]

To be honest I just cut and pasted what I said earlier from a website; here's what I actually feel. Due to the fact that things tend to break all one way the DEMs chances of a takeover are much greater than what this list would seem to show.

Safe D: HI, CA, MA, MD, VT, NY, WA, RI, MN, CT, DE, NM
Likely D: VA, MN-S, MI, NJ, PA
Lean D: WI, FL, OH, ME, MT
Toss-Ups: AZ, MO, IN, NV, ND 
Lean R: WV
Likely R: TX, TN, MS-S
Safe R: WY, UT, NE, MS

Safe D: All these states are hard-core blue states except MN (NM was close only because Gary Johnson). MN has a very popular incumbent Senator.

Likely D:
VA: Probably the last competitive VA Senate election ever not triggered by something dumb.
MN-S: There's a 90%+ of the Senator's being the same.
NJ: I don't give Safe ratings to someone who is going to trial again.
PA&MI: Incumbent Senators in light blue states.

Lean D:
ME: GOP could run a ham sandwich and get 40% of the vote due to polarization. That wouldn't be good enough if he was smart but for some reason he refuses to run in the DEM primary. FYI ranked-choice voting here was tossed.
OH&MT: Popular incumbents in red states.
WI: Average incumbent in a purple state.
FL: Popular incumbent in a purple state but is facing a strong challenger.

Toss-Ups:
MO, IN, ND: Incumbents in red states but not red enough to put in Lean R.  MO is less red but the incumbent isn't as good as others.
NV: Below average incumbent in a purple state against a strong challenger. The fact that no-one serious has put this in Lean D yet shows the power of incumbency.  
AZ: I think there won't be an AZ-S. This is still barely a red state. The GOP is against a strong DEM in a hostile environment.

Lean R:
WV: A very popular incumbent in a favorable environment. People think this will be an easy win but he was up against a lemming last time who didn't live in the state. He won't be able to maintain popularity when he has to run against his own party. Trump beat Lincoln's record in this state.  

Likely R:
TX: So far right and hostile environment makes it competitive.
MS-S: I think there will be a MS-S. The far-right candidate is likely to win which would make it competitive. MS is actually much easier to win than AL but nationalization should bail out the GOP here.
TN: Pretty similar to MS-S. Less far-right candidate and TN being easier than MS cancel another out.

Safe R:
WY, NE, MS: Incumbents in deep-red states. NE is slightly less red but it won't matter because the DEM's bench got obliterated in the Obama years.  
UT: He will run and win.

Edit: Safe=This team will win. Likely=This team should win but could lose. Lean=This team has a clear edge Toss-up: No team has a clear edge
Edit 2: This was made just before Josh dropped in OH; rating will be the same because OH is red so I cannot give likely.