Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Kevin Gallagher on May 20, 2019, 07:16:16 am
-
The link is to an article about the man that paid off an entire graduating class's student loans. Just amazing and wonderful IMHO.
https://www.ctpost.com/news/education/ctpost/article/Graduation-speaker-pledges-to-pay-class-of-2019-13857376.php#item-85307-tbla-5 (https://www.ctpost.com/news/education/ctpost/article/Graduation-speaker-pledges-to-pay-class-of-2019-13857376.php#item-85307-tbla-5)
-
It's a great gesture, Kevin, but how about next year's graduating class? Is he going to do it again? Problem is, it doesn't solve the problem, probably makes it worse. You'll now have kids hoping somebody will pay off their debts as they buy a round for the whole establishment to the cheers of the group. What we need most desperately is less government subsidization of universities, which dependable surveys again and again show simply increases the costs to students as the universities raise their charges. It's a giant racket and it needs to come to a screeching halt.
-
Hi Russ, I hear and completely understand what you are saying. To me, it's still a hell of a gesture on Robert Smith's part.
-
Yes. He's looking very virtuous.
-
There are many competing, well argued, ideas on why the cost of higher education is rising in the USA and in many other countries. As a former academic I have my own theories.
The one thing we can be certain of is that the reason is not one simple thing that we can just fix.
-
Frankly, Kevin, I think that if his real concern was to relieve the unreasonable financial burden put on these kids by government interference with the market he'd have done this anonymously.
-
It's a great gesture, Kevin, but how about next year's graduating class? Is he going to do it again? Problem is, it doesn't solve the problem, probably makes it worse. You'll now have kids hoping somebody will pay off their debts as they buy a round for the whole establishment to the cheers of the group. What we need most desperately is less government subsidization of universities, which dependable surveys again and again show simply increases the costs to students as the universities raise their charges. It's a giant racket and it needs to come to a screeching halt.
+1
If you think universities overcharge now that government finances whatever loans kids apply for, can you imagine what schools will charge when "progressives" get "free" higher education? No wonder educators "push" for more government subsidies and loans. It goes straight to their pockets.
-
Virtue signaling.
-
Exactly, Slobodan. I hesitated to use that term, but. . .
-
But I just ran across this: "Bernie Sanders Criticizes Billionaire For Giving Money To Students Instead Of The Needy Federal Government." Of course this was coming from the Babylon Bee, but it sounds as if it's not "fake news."
-
This amounts to going to a starving African village and giving everyone a McDonalds. Solves the problem for a day, for that village. And is nice PR.
-
This amounts to going to a starving African village and giving everyone a McDonalds. Solves the problem for a day, for that village. And is nice PR.
Nonesense.
In the first case, the beneficiaries receive no long term benefit, and in the other case the beneficiaries do receive a long term benefit. in some abstract Chicago School Model with cute graphs and charts proving nothing whatever except a spectacular disregard for humanity perhaps these two cases are indistinguishable, but ultimately, who cares?
-
... In the first case, the beneficiaries receive no long term benefit, and in the other case the beneficiaries do receive a long term benefit...
Same difference. It is a benefit. Neither addresses the underlying issue for the whole affected group.
We can also debate the psychological impact (from a behavioral economics standpoint) of a windfall effect. Typically, windfall gains are quickly forgotten and soon taken for granted.
-
To equate one the one hand the staving off the (presumably inevitable, in your scenario?) starvation of a village by 48 hours, with on the other hand a permanent economic step-up for an roughly similar sized population is absurd.
I make no further claims, and have no particular opinions about what the long term effects, if any, of this will be. It is worth noting that other people are rather interested in converting this in to a long term study, though. Does it work out like a lottery win, or does the structure of windfall (debt relief, rather than cash in hand) change the outcome measurably? And so on, and so forth.
About glib forum predictions the only thing we can be reasonably sure is that they are wrong. These things are simply not that predictable.
-
While I understand that this gesture would make a world of difference for anybody struggling with the financial burden, there might be also those who really didn’t need it. I wonder if any of the latter answered with “Thanks, but no thanks”.
In any case I’m more inclined to agree with Slobodan and Russ. One time donations and gifts are good for temporary issues like accidents or natural catastrophes, but don’t help much with structural problems.
-
If you decide to pursue a MFA in French medival music and accumulate $200K along the way (a real-life example, btw), student loan debt can be a bit of a problem.
If all you can afford is a Yugo, but the government will give you a loan to buy a Ferrari, don’t blame society for your debt.
Choose your degree wisely and the amount and type of debt to finance it, and student loan shouldn’t be a problem.
If, by some miracle, education becomes free, it will result in many more deciding to go to college. Maybe twice as many as currently. There are about 4,000 univerities in the U.S. there is no way that would jump to 8,000 anytime soon. What is going to happen is the tuition would go up. The more affordable you strive it to be, the less affordable it will. Given the limited capacity, and given that the government would be paying the piper, the access would be then rationed by the government.
-
I think my biggest surprise with this topic is there are still people on this forum who take Slobo's obviously satirical comparisons seriously to the point of developing arguments against them. ???
Anyway, I tend to agree with Russ and Slobo, college costs have gotten so out of hand because the government has made it so easy to get loans for it. It also seems that governments, and we as a society, have degraded the trades to the point where most look down on those jobs. (So of course more kids want to go to college, even if they ultimately end up in a job that did not require a college degree.)
Plumbing is a great example. I can always remember being told that plumbing was for the idiots who don't study and don't end up going to college. "Do you want to be a plumber when you grow up?" Well, I just bought a 100 year old house and needed to have the stack, sanitary T and entire kitchen drain line replaced, three radiator lines, two water lines and a gas line moved, and a new water line, kitchen sink, dishwasher and radiator installed. $7K for three days of work; supplies were no more then $500 (not including the radiator, sink or dishwasher that I bought of course.) Does not sound too bad.
We should be talking about skilled trades with the same level of respect as college professions too.
BTW, new radiators are damn expensive. Flirted with the idea of replacing all my radiators until I priced them out, and opted for just a new kitchen one this time around.
-
Prices rise for complex reasons.
Indeed, the entire point of a "free market" is that it is the only known way to calculate pricing for things in an economy of non-trivial scale. The problem is literally too large to be calculated, which is basically why planned economies don't work. And yet we have people saying "well, the prices went up because..."
-
Prices rise for complex reasons.
Indeed, the entire point of a "free market" is that it is the only known way to calculate pricing for things in an economy of non-trivial scale. The problem is literally too large to be calculated, which is basically why planned economies don't work. And yet we have people saying "well, the prices went up because..."
So what you are saying is that since planned economies fail, we should ignore the attempt at all of the planning in our economy at trying to make college loans plentiful and easy to get by our government planners, because, well ... pointing it out would be planning? ???
-
No!
-
We should be talking about skilled trades with the same level of respect as college professions too.
Hi Joe, I'm 89 years old and I can remember a time -- actually when I was in high school -- that the trades were treated with respect. There were two tracks in high school: academic and trades. I'm not sure that's exactly what they were named, but you picked one of them. Both were equally respectable in the eyes of the mass of students, and as I remember, the society at large. That was in the forties. We've rolled a long way downhill in terms of education since then.
-
Frankly, Kevin, I think that if his real concern was to relieve the unreasonable financial burden put on these kids by government interference with the market he'd have done this anonymously.
I could not agree more. All, and I mean ALL CHARITY should be Anonymous! FULL STOP!
-
I feel really sorry for then kids in America who know they will need to borrow money amounting to tens to hundreds of thousands of US$ to get educated in a top college.
For what it's worth, the level of taxation in Europe isn't that much higher, but top education is nearly free for all the students having demonstrated the level of skills.
This isn't enforced in a fair way in all countries, France being on poor example, but it is in countries such as Belgian where I grew up.
It is pretty crazy to blame the current increase of tuition fees to limited gov loans when you have a hugely successful counter example in Europe where gov funded top education enables hundreds of thousands of kids coming from low income families to get access to education opening them the doors to a successful professional life...
The increase of the cost of education in the US is simply the result of people accepting to pay the crazy fees that they are trying to charge and of gov not acting to define clear rules limiting the cost of education. Period.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
From what I've read, the single greatest increase in american university costs is in administration, which have gone up about 60% in the last generation. The number of students has gone up as well, but the number of professors hasn't, as the universities prefer to hire temporary sessional instructors who enjoy no long-term stability. The aim seems to be to privatize all university learning and turn schools into profit centres while minimizing costs. Sort of the way you run a hamburger stand or an Amazon warehouse. And the usual fellow travellers latch onto those ideas of course because their tribe requires it. This has the effect of making education more difficult to obtain and so tends to limit access to people whose parents have more money.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, countries try to make education easier to access in the belief that this will benefit those countries. So the rest of the world is turning out engineers and researchers in record numbers and more and more of the best research comes from those places, while the US imposes greater and greater debt on students. What is the long-term goal of this strategy?
The idea that costs go up because governments make loans easier to obtain or because government subsidies makes universities less efficient is laughable. Stop reading from your prayer books.
-
The amount of a typical student loan is not much different than the price of a car. Yet no one ever complained about the need to take a car loan, nor we hear about national car loan crisis. In a few years, the car is gone, while education is going to keep providing benefits for the rest of one’s life.
-
It's a great gesture, Kevin, but how about next year's graduating class? Is he going to do it again? Problem is, it doesn't solve the problem, probably makes it worse. You'll now have kids hoping somebody will pay off their debts as they buy a round for the whole establishment to the cheers of the group. What we need most desperately is less government subsidization of universities, which dependable surveys again and again show simply increases the costs to students as the universities raise their charges. It's a giant racket and it needs to come to a screeching halt.
You're right, Russ. It is unrealistic to expect the hundreds of thousands of student loans to be paid off by "angel" billionaires annually. But the guy is no idiot, so perhaps his intention was more to spotlight the problem in hopes of getting politicians, and the country to consider alternatives to the predatory loan system.
You mentioned universities, so then government subsidized charter schools are OK?
-
...the predatory loan system...
What makes it “predatory”?
-
The amount of a typical student loan is not much different than the price of a car. Yet no one ever complained about the need to take a car loan, nor we hear about national car loan crisis. In a few years, the car is gone, while education is going to keep providing benefits for the rest of one’s life.
Predatory lending, whether for a car or education, is a serious problem. Correct me here, but wasn't the recession caused by the predatory housing loan industry? Or to put it another way, by venal loan entities.
Education should be accessible to anyone without onerous financial burdens.
-
... So the rest of the world is turning out engineers and researchers in record numbers ...
Who then come to the U.S. to work. A normal consequence of providing free education is the overproduction of graduates, outstripping the demand for their skills. In my generation, it wasn’t unusual to wait up to 8-12 years for the first job for doctors, engineers , etc.
Or they come to the U.S. universities, in spite of the cost. Some would even bribe their way in, to the tune of $6.5 million (a real-life example).
I wonder why, in both cases. With the U.S. being so “bad,” why is everyone risking life, limb, and wealth just to get in?
-
I agree with Slobodan, and the problem is not so much the loan for the education as it is the assessment whether the education is worth it. We pretty much expect young people, still searching themselves and their talents, to make a long term assessment that will influence the rest of their miserable lives. If we subsequently devalue education by spitting out too many average graduates for the sake of profitability and system thinking, it becomes a vicious circle.
I see it in our country as well. University graduates from some International Business type of specialty with a complete disinterest in world economics. I don't know how that's even possible. I once asked someone why they chose this education, and the answer, unsurprisingly perhaps, was that they think they can make good money. Next we get lawyers with a disinterest in ethics. Same thing, obviously on their way to politics...
-
Predatory lending, whether for a car or education, is a serious problem. Correct me here, but wasn't the recession caused by the predatory housing loan industry? Or to put it another way, by venal loan entities.
Education should be accessible to anyone without onerous financial burdens.
You have not answered my question, what makes it predatory.
As for education, your stance is highly debatable. Good education is expensive and someone has to pay for it. We in the U.S. tend to believe that that someone is the one who is going to enjoy the benefits of it, not the taxpayers. When it goes directly out of your pocket, you tend to be more careful how you are going to spend it.
-
What makes it “predatory”?
The loans are offered seemingly without proper oversight of the ability for proper or timely repayment. The young and poor, who can be desperate and poorly educated are usually the victims.
-
Education should be accessible to anyone without onerous financial burdens.
And when I went to University of Michigan in 1949, it was.
-
You have not answered my question, what makes it predatory.
As for education, your stance is highly debatable. Good education is expensive and someone has to pay for it. We in the U.S. tend to believe that that someone is the one who is going to enjoy the benefits of it, not the taxpayers. When it goes directly out of your pocket, you tend to be more careful how you are going to spend it.
The poor and undereducated are a huge burden to the country. We can ease that burden by making education more attainable. This is not socialism, just common sense. The truth, I suspect, is that very few people really believe in socialism, and most Americans are willing to pay for things. But for too many an education is akin to a Leica, and the option for a Canon is disappearing. ;D
-
You mentioned universities, so then government subsidized charter schools are OK?
I didn't say anything about charter schools, Omer. Let's back up. I think the government should keep its hands out of education. Period. I'm sure that idea will drive a couple of our posters crazy. But anything the government touches becomes a political toy. It's unavoidable.
-
I feel really sorry for then kids in America who know they will need to borrow money amounting to tens to hundreds of thousands of US$ to get educated in a top college.
For what it's worth, the level of taxation in Europe isn't that much higher, but top education is nearly free for all the students having demonstrated the level of skills.
This isn't enforced in a fair way in all countries, France being on poor example, but it is in countries such as Belgian where I grew up.
It is pretty crazy to blame the current increase of tuition fees to limited gov loans when you have a hugely successful counter example in Europe where gov funded top education enables hundreds of thousands of kids coming from low income families to get access to education opening them the doors to a successful professional life...
The increase of the cost of education in the US is simply the result of people accepting to pay the crazy fees that they are trying to charge and of gov not acting to define clear rules limiting the cost of education. Period.
Cheers,
Bernard
What is your yearly tax rate please? Also, what is you VAT tax?
Last, I seem to remember reading that (I believe) Denmark is having a very hard time getting students to study important subjects like engineering, leading to a shortage of engineers. The overwhelming consensus on the right and the left is that since kids no longer need to pay for an education, they don't look at it as an investment and therefore are opting to study the easier fields, which do not really contribute to society as much. Now the solutions to this problem do differ, but everyone seems to agree on the cause, free education is causing kids to opt for less paying and less advancing fields of study.
-
The poor and undereducated are a huge burden to the country. We can ease that burden by making education more attainable. This is not socialism, just common sense. The truth, I suspect, is that very few people really believe in socialism, and most Americans are willing to pay for things. But for too many an education is akin to a Leica, and the option for a Canon is disappearing. ;D
This is a ridiculous statement and assumes that all students will be going to the upper echelon of colleges in the country, or that they are the only choice.
I just looked up the cost of tuition for a full time student at the Philadelphia Community College (not a bad school) and it is $4632 per year plus about $1500 for books and supplies. If you don't think a diploma with this institution's name on it is any good, you could always go for two years and transfer somewhere else, still saving a lot of money.
2nd, you don't necessarily need a college eduction to do well in this country. Plumbers, electricians, mechanics, carpenters, machinists, etc, all do pretty well and many get on the job training.
-
The government of the USA had a bad reputation as a runner of things. It turns out that its actual record is pretty good. Not perfect. Quite often, though not always, the government offers a good product more efficiently than the private sector.
It has a few spectacular failures (the military) which have been parleyed into a myth of universal failure. Curiously, many of the players behind the myth making seem to be largely interested in taking money away from other endeavors to spend more on... the military.
-
The poor and undereducated are a huge burden to the country...
Burden!? No, they are not. They are a normal part of every society.
-
The government of the USA had a bad reputation as a runner of things. It turns out that its actual record is pretty good. Not perfect. Quite often, though not always, the government offers a good product more efficiently than the private sector.
It has a few spectacular failures (the military) which have been parleyed into a myth of universal failure. Curiously, many of the players behind the myth making seem to be largely interested in taking money away from other endeavors to spend more on... the military.
???
The government has a horrible record of running things. Aside form NASA, I can't think of any agency that really does a good job. (And I should mention that for years NASA refused to put Wernher von Braun in a position of power purely out of politics even though he was clearly the most qualified. This lead the USSR to beat us in nearly every single major accomplishment of space exploration. And if it was not for Sergei Korolev dying unexpectedly, they very well could have beat us to the moon too.)
-
Please tell me about the military's "spectacular failures" Andrew.
-
I didn't say anything about charter schools, Omer. Let's back up. I think the government should keep its hands out of education. Period. I'm sure that idea will drive a couple of our posters crazy. But anything the government touches becomes a political toy. It's unavoidable.
Well, I wonder what Besty DeVos, et al. would say? :D
-
F35, Russ. F35.
Also the inability to keep two carrier task groups fully operational without at least 11 carriers.
The list goes on.
-
In other words your "spectacular failures" are political failures, not military failures.
-
Well, I wonder what Besty DeVos, et al. would say? :D
Actually, I should have been more specific, Omer. Obviously, local government needs to be involved in the school system. The folks who actually send their kids to school should be the ones making decisions about their schools. Though I think the world of Betsy DeVos, I think her department should be dumped, along with a clutch of other federal departments. The Feds have absolutely no business playing politics with education.
-
Burden!? No, they are not. They are a normal part of every society.
Well Slobodan, if the "normal" poor weren't, the country would get a windfall of reduced taxes, or much better infrastructure, or maybe even affordable NASA vacations to the moon. Assuming, of course, honest politicians in government.
-
Fun fact, the much lauded Arleigh Burke guided missile cruiser, doesn't really have water tight compartments, so if you knock a hole in it anywhere the damage control officer had a real mess on her hands and the ship basically had to devote 100% of its efforts to remaining on the right side of the water.
Don't get me wrong, there are compartments, and fancy doors that you dog. But then there are ducts and stuff. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrible.
Google "fight the ship" and click the propublica link for the whole astounding tale.
-
What “water tight compartments” have to do with this educational debate and the OP!?
-
Anyways, the point is that the actual performance of the US government is a mixed bag. You can say "no! It is all terrible!" but you're just repeating a myth. Examining each department or program one by one, and you find some good, some bad, and a fair bit of stuff in the middle.
The private sector is not some magic bullet. Deregulation is not some magic bullet.
-
Actually, I should have been more specific, Omer. Obviously, local government needs to be involved in the school system. The folks who actually send their kids to school should be the ones making decisions about their schools. Though I think the world of Betsy DeVos, I think her department should be dumped, along with a clutch of other federal departments. The Feds have absolutely no business playing politics with education.
If you're suggesting a libertarianism approach to things, how would you deal with greed and corruption? I mean, the privatized prison system is becoming infamous as a model of cruelty, corruption and greed.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/12006
-
Anyways, the point is that the actual performance of the US government is a mixed bag. You can say "no! It is all terrible!" but you're just repeating a myth. Examining each department or program one by one, and you find some good, some bad, and a fair bit of stuff in the middle.
The private sector is not some magic bullet. Deregulation is not some magic bullet.
But when the private market makes a bad decision, only the investors loose there money. Not mention all those who screwed up often are left with a job.
In government, we all loose out, and we get to listen to those who screwed up come say, "if only we had more money, it would have worked."
-
So what, Joe? The fact remains the the government is somehow able to do a lot of things pretty well. "Proving" that it can't because: investors! changes nothing.
Also, you have a rather touching notion of how private Enterprise works.
-
So what, Joe? The fact remains the the government is somehow able to do a lot of things pretty well. "Proving" that it can't because: investors! changes nothing.
Also, you have a rather touching notion of how private Enterprise works.
I have asked, and you seem to be ignoring my request, to give me examples of the government doing things "pretty well."
Please provide examples and evidence otherwise your statements are hallow.
-
K12 education, Medicaid, Medicare.
(cue loud tedious misinformed discussion of how terrible these programs actually are, but compare with similar private sector offerings and the truth is painfully clear)
-
The poor and undereducated are a huge burden to the country. We can ease that burden by making education more attainable....
Ok, without getting entangled in the semantics of burden, let's see your apparent solution. If "more attainable" or free (higher) education is the solution, then countries like India and China, among others, wouldn't have the poor and "undereducated," right? Or even European countries with free education wouldn't have the poor and undereducated. And yet...
-
K12 education, Medicaid, Medicare...
K12 is not the federal government. And some local governments are providing really lousy K12 education. In any case, anyone who could afford it would send their kids to private schools.
And generally, private medical insurance, if you can afford it, is superior to the government ones.
-
I am aware of how K12 education is delivered in this country. Probably moreso than most of the participants on Lula.
-
K12 education, Medicaid, Medicare.
(cue loud tedious misinformed discussion of how terrible these programs actually are, but compare with similar private sector offerings and the truth is painfully clear)
Go to any major city in the country and you will find that the K12 education you cite is not doing so well. (Great example of failure is Baltimore, which spends more per capita then any other city and it has the worse public education system in the country.)
Additionally, you will find in the majority those cities, most are for school choice and charter schools precisely for these reasons, and that the charter schools are performing better.
Yes, there are some bad charter schools, but many are doing better.
Now the reason for this is not necessarily a different product or more money or being more efficient, but because if you care enough to send your child to a charter school, you are obviously more involved in your child's education then those who do not put forth the effort. This, parental involvement, accounts for over 90% of why a child does well. This has been studied throughly and proven several times all throughout the world.
Now, would this work with public schools, absolutely, but no politician talks about this. They only concentrate on getting more funding, which completely ignores the actual solution. (It is not a surprise of course, because how would one get reelected if he spent his time telling parents how bad of a parent they are being. It would be political suicide; just look at what happened to Obama when he pointed out black fathers needed to start being real fathers. Regardless though, this leads to an ignorance on the actual cause of the problem that ultimately prevents the solution from even being discussed let alone implemented.)
This is why the major cities never actually fix their education system.
Now you could ask why do we not have charter schools in rural and suburban areas and why do the K12 programs work better there? Because, if you live a rural area, there typically is not a market for more then one school, so the more involved parents send there child to the only school available, and this helps skew ups the results. For suburbs, the cost of living tends to be more, lending to higher incomes, and higher income people tend to be more involved in their child's eduction. Also, many suburbs are also spread out over a larger geography that makes the market for charter schools slim. This essentially creates just one choice as well. In the suburbs where it can work, the incomes tend to be high enough that the cost of a private education is not prohibitive for enough to make the private school model work, thus canceling out the market for charter schools even more.
I will let Russ answer the Medicaid and Medicare part since he knows more about medicine then I do.
PS. You could look at this and point out that since the difference is parental involvement, and if you are an involved parent, sending your child to the public option would result in the same outcome. The actuality of this proposal is debatable; I would argue that a lower performing school tends to be more violent and distracting, which takes away from the level of eduction. However, how people perceive the quality of the education gained from a better performing school is going to be higher then that same exact education from a lesser performing school. This would effect the future options one would be given from those who look at these things, such as employers and college admissions boards.
-
The private sector is not some magic bullet. Deregulation is not some magic bullet.
How would we know that, Andrew? There hasn't been a genuine "private sector" in the U.S. at least since F.D.R. On the other hand, we can look at the history of Henry Ford back when there actually was a private sector and see that it really was a "magic bullet." Same thing with deregulation. How could we judge? There hasn't been any for a long, long time.
-
Ok, without getting entangled in the semantics of burden, let's see your apparent solution. If "more attainable" or free (higher) education is the solution, then countries like India and China, among others, wouldn't have the poor and "undereducated," right? Or even European countries with free education wouldn't have the poor and undereducated. And yet...
India and China, two countries that are just beginning to be able to sustain a higher standard of living?
I won’t pretend that easily available education is a panacea for poverty, but other than inheritance what else can propel someone out of being poor? But I do believe poverty is not a goal of most people. Are there poor people who are happy, of course, but not because they consider themselves to be lucky by their poverty.
We all know that a good work ethic is important, but normalizing poverty is in effect the creation of an indentured caste class for the convenience of, and in service to those not in poverty. I guess to those who believe in their lucky predestination, an affordable education that at least offers options is to be frowned upon.
-
I think my biggest surprise with this topic is there are still people on this forum who take Slobo's obviously satirical comparisons seriously to the point of developing arguments against them. ???
I think my biggest surprise with this topic is there are still people on this forum who take Slobo seriously. As I've said before, I like Slobo, he is a smart guy, a good writer and a good photographer. But his politics is full of ****
-
How would we know that, Andrew? There hasn't been a genuine "private sector" in the U.S. at least since F.D.R. On the other hand, we can look at the history of Henry Ford back when there actually was a private sector and see that it really was a "magic bullet." Same thing with deregulation. How could we judge? There hasn't been any for a long, long time.
Hadn’t the loan industry been deregulated before the recession?
-
Prices rise for complex reasons.
Indeed, the entire point of a "free market" is that it is the only known way to calculate pricing for things in an economy of non-trivial scale. The problem is literally too large to be calculated, which is basically why planned economies don't work. And yet we have people saying "well, the prices went up because..."
You can calculate prices, but that doesn't get you very far unless your system is at an optimum point, which is never the case. All civilised societies are "planned"; the alternative was tried out in caves.
-
Ok, without getting entangled in the semantics of burden, let's see your apparent solution. If "more attainable" or free (higher) education is the solution, then countries like India and China, among others, wouldn't have the poor and "undereducated," right? Or even European countries with free education wouldn't have the poor and undereducated. And yet...
I was listening to Jordon Peterson (and no, I don't agree with everything he says. I also listen to liberal podcasters too, lately Jonathan Haidt) and he made a rather interesting observation, which is somewhat depressing. But it could go a long way to explaining why we seem to always have a 15% poverty rate in this country regardless of how much money we spend.
He pointed out the US military has an extremely large range of jobs and range of skill set requirements for those jobs, not to mention a very large range of stress levels depending on the particular job. This range is so big in fact that it somewhat mirrors the range of skills in a normal economy. Now regardless of this huge range, the military has found that people with an IQ below 85 really cant fit in anywhere and are denied entry, which is about 10% of the population.
So the military operates with the policy that 10% of the population is too unintelligent to be useful regardless of the very large range in differing levels of job skills it has.
If you juxtapose this reasoning onto the overall economy, it could be the case that the 10 percentage points of that 15% poverty figure is due to 10% of the population just being too unintelligent to make it out of poverty. This is a pretty depressing theory, which could be true, and, if so, I cant even imagine how you would fix this. Although more education can certainly improve overall knowledge, your cognitive skills are pretty much set biologically, so I am not sure more education is really going to change anything.
The remaining 5 percentage points could be accounted for from people just entering the workforce and therefore not make a lot of money yet, or someone being hit with an accident that puts them in poverty, etc. Often though, these are temporary positions for most; it's just a large number of people tend to cycle in and out of these situations.
-
Hadn’t the loan industry been deregulated before the recession?
You should have posted a couple smileys with that one, Omer. You know perfectly well it was a political effort to buy votes by making housing "more affordable" that pushed freddy mac and fannie mae to make loans to people who had no business borrowing money, and crashed the economy. As usual, the problem was politics and the government was the instigator.
-
10% of the population just being too unintelligent to make it out of poverty. This is a pretty depressing theory, which could be true, and, if so, I cant even imagine how you would fix this.
Really? Surely the fix is blindingly obvious?
-
Jordan Peterson is, functionally, an idiot. In reality I suspect that he's fairly bright, but his job is carrying water for conservative interests and he cannot as a general rule be bothered to construct sensible arguments, and he doesn't actually know anything. That works out fine, because reasoned arguments and facts actually have essentially no effect on the opinions and ideas people, we are emotional animals and respond well to propaganda.
The idea that the poor are just stupid is insane. Poverty is a vastly complex multi-faceted problem, and there are plenty of profoundly stupid people who are not poor, good lord.
As soon as he drags out "IQ 85" though, you know he's just throwing dog-whistles.
He's got it all: Rah rah! The military is a great model, because, heros! IQ is actually a thing, not a completely discredited pile of bunk! The poor are just stupid!
It's a gorgeous job of work. It doesn't resemble an argument, but by god it's solid propaganda!
-
I think my biggest surprise with this topic is there are still people on this forum who take Slobo seriously. As I've said before, I like Slobo, he is a smart guy, a good writer and a good photographer. But his politics is full of ****
Thanks for the other compliments, but your opinion of my politics is just that, an opinion. Wouldn’t it be more correct to say you just don’t like it? I am usually trying to provide reasoned explanations for my politics, so feel free to argue with that, rather than simply dismissing it as ****.
-
Andrew, righteous indignation doesn’t constitute a sensible argument. Nor is reductio ad absurdum. Or feigned sarcasm. You can do better, occasionally.
-
If, when some fellow launches into an argument, you can reliably predict his conclusion without bothering to look at his argument, you are probably dealing with an ideologue.
This applies even if "some fellow" is yourself.
Have you surprised yourself lately?
-
If, when some fellow launches into an argument, you can reliably predict his conclusion without bothering to look at his argument...
Or, perhaps, you are just a pompous ass, full of yourself, too lazy and arrogant to bother looking at the argument? Know-it-all-in-advance kind of guy? I don’t know, just asking.
-
Really? Surely the fix is blindingly obvious?
Well point it out?
Beside charity, what do you got?
Amendment: beside charity and the countless programs we have spent money on since the 60s, which has had zero effect of changing the 15% poverty rate, what do you got?
-
Or, perhaps, you are just a pompous ass, full of yourself, too lazy and arrogant to bother looking at the argument? Know-it-all-in-advance kind of guy? I don’t know, just asking.
All things are possible, you appalling, and incredibly rude man.
-
Which kettle is that, Andrew?
-
Seriously, Russ? I was unkind to you one time, for a calculated reason. Slobodan is consistently horrible to everyone.
But it's ME that's the bad guy?
Stuff it.
Oh, wait, let me couch that in classic Slobodan style, so I can pretend I'm not actually telling you to stuff it:
"If were a less generously inclined, Russ, I would tell you to stuff it. LOL. Just Kidding. :) :) :) :)"
because that's not disingenuous at all.
-
Jordan Peterson is, functionally, an idiot. In reality I suspect that he's fairly bright, but his job is carrying water for conservative interests and he cannot as a general rule be bothered to construct sensible arguments, and he doesn't actually know anything. That works out fine, because reasoned arguments and facts actually have essentially no effect on the opinions and ideas people, we are emotional animals and respond well to propaganda.
The idea that the poor are just stupid is insane. Poverty is a vastly complex multi-faceted problem, and there are plenty of profoundly stupid people who are not poor, good lord.
As soon as he drags out "IQ 85" though, you know he's just throwing dog-whistles.
He's got it all: Rah rah! The military is a great model, because, heros! IQ is actually a thing, not a completely discredited pile of bunk! The poor are just stupid!
It's a gorgeous job of work. It doesn't resemble an argument, but by god it's solid propaganda!
I'm pretty sure being "stupid" (as you so rudely put it) can be a really big challenge to overcome, especially when it comes to making a good income. To insist otherwise is, well, being stupid. And this is not to say the reasoning for poverty is not a multi-facetted problem, which I alluded to above. I was merely pointing out something which could be a major cause. Second, I never said he suggested that he was right and that his theory was proven; it was merely a conjecture that he had.
Third, lack of evidence does not imply a lack of existence. Forth, the idea that there exist some, as you put it, "stupid people" that make money does not imply the conjecture is false.
This is the equivalent of when a person points out that the two parent system is the best way to the raise a child. Then someone else invariably says, but wait, there are plenty of good single parent households out there and plenty of bad two parent households. Well no $&*% Sherlock! But the existence of a few good single parent households does not negate the extremely large amount of statistical evidence that proves two parent households are much better at raising children.
By the way, for someone who claims to be very learned, I have yet to see you supply an argument in this topic that is not a classic fallacy or a truism. Actually, most of the time you provide neither, and just insist you're right with no evidence.
Still waiting on the rebuttal from my K12 post.
-
I am utterly uninterested in constructing detailed arguments on an internet forum. You and I both know what happens:
I spend so-and-so many minutes or hours constructing the thing, and then you spend 30 seconds airily waving it away. This is an asymmetry I have not been draw in in to in some years. I am not new to the internet.
If, perchance, you are actually interested in following and checking my arguments, I give you the tools to do so. If you read my brief remarks carefully, you can easily work out what sorts of things to look for to see what sources, or kinds of sources, I an referring to. I suspect, based on the structure of your replies, that you have no such interest, but it's certainly possible I am wrong. In either case, best of luck with your research.
-
I am utterly uninterested in constructing detailed arguments on an internet forum. You and I both know what happens:
I spend so-and-so many minutes or hours constructing the thing, and then you spend 30 seconds airily waving it away. This is an asymmetry I have not been draw in in to in some years. I am not new to the internet.
If, perchance, you are actually interested in following and checking my arguments, I give you the tools to do so. If you read my brief remarks carefully, you can easily work out what sorts of things to look for to see what sources, or kinds of sources, I an referring to. I suspect, based on the structure of your replies, that you have no such interest, but it's certainly possible I am wrong. In either case, best of luck with your research.
Ahhh. The I don't need to explain myself, I'm just right and accept it approach.
Not a very great counter to my K12 post which gave well thought reasons for inner city education failures and why politicians, who never focus on the actual cause, is making it worse.
-
You may continue to attempt to draw me into an asymmetrical argument on an internet forum, or you could fire up google to see what I am talking about.
Or both, really. The former will not produce any effect, the latter might.
-
You may continue to attempt to draw me into an asymmetrical argument on an internet forum, or you could fire up google to see what I am talking about.
Or both, really. The former will not produce any effect, the latter might.
Perhaps you could supply those links for me ...
It is not up to me to prove your argument.
-
No.
I don't care to try to persuade you, because I do not believe you to be persuadable. Why on earth would I expend effort on what I believe to be an impossible task? I have, it turns out, things to do that are not impossible. I am willing to go as far as to place into the record brief statements that contradict the right-wing ideological stances that dominate Lula's forums, on principle, together with adequate wording to allow an interested party to follow up.
I am not willing to attempt to change the minds of what appear to me ideologues, because that leads nowhere.
-
The amount of a typical student loan is not much different than the price of a car. Yet no one ever complained about the need to take a car loan, nor we hear about national car loan crisis. In a few years, the car is gone, while education is going to keep providing benefits for the rest of one’s life.
I noticed that no one bothered to discuss this. I am inviting you all, including Andrew, to poke holes in this analogy. Not because I think it is unassailable, but because I am genuinely interested in hearing counter-arguments.
To provide a personal perspective. My parent loan will probably end up being about $50-$60K in two years, when my daughter graduates. I recently bought a $34K car and took a loan for it. I am generally frugal, so I went for a lowly Camry. Just a slightly more prestigious brands would cost me easily those $50-$60K I am having in student loans.
So, why we do not even blink when we spend the same amount on a car, but complain bitterly about the education (I personally do not)?
Poke away.
-
No.
I don't care to try to persuade you, because I do not believe you to be persuadable. Why on earth would I expend effort on what I believe to be an impossible task? I have, it turns out, things to do that are not impossible. I am willing to go as far as to place into the record brief statements that contradict the right-wing ideological stances that dominate Lula's forums, on principle, together with adequate wording to allow an interested party to follow up.
I am not willing to attempt to change the minds of what appear to me ideologues, because that leads nowhere.
Okay.
For the record, you have not really provide any of those brief statements that contradict what you disagree with. You have merely stated you disagree with them with no proof provided. It's not the same thing.
People change their minds from logical reason based arguments, not being told to just "trust me, I'm right." I believe we had an election over this.
And the idea that I would not change my mind is false, and an argument you are using to try and denigrate me, while at the same time allowing it to be a quality with which you possess.
If you need an example of when I recently changed my mind on something, it would be on wind and solar. I use to be for them, now I am not. I have looked at all the real life results, and along with many leading environmentalists, come to the conclusion they don't work. 5 years ago I was not really for nuclear; I have completely changed my mind on the future of nuclear and feel that it is the only why to get rid of fossil fuels. That is another topic of course.
-
I think my biggest surprise with this topic is there are still people on this forum who take Slobo seriously.
Really? I find the political perspectives of the people on this forum I disagree with—e.g., Slobodan, Russ—more interesting than those of the people I agree with.
-
Average student loan size is equivalent to the loan on quite a nice car ($37,000 is the figure that popped up for me).
Student loans are incurred earlier, typically before the student has any substantial income. A dollar now is worth more than a dollar a year from now, and correspondingly a debt now is more onerous than the same sized debt later, on average and in general terms. Student loans are also impossible to get out from under (a car be sold or repossessed, a bankruptcy can erase that debt, and, well, perhaps there are other ways out from under your car loan).
The shapes of the two debts strike me as different enough to be interesting.
-
... Student loans are incurred earlier, typically before the student has any substantial income. A dollar now is worth more than a dollar a year from now, and correspondingly a debt now is more onerous than the same sized debt later, on average and in general terms...
Ok, now we are talking. Student loans are not repayable until the student graduates, therefore the initial lack of income is not a problem.
... Student loans are also impossible to get out from under (a car be sold or repossessed, a bankruptcy can erase that debt, and, well, perhaps there are other ways out from under your car loan)...
True, but for a good reason. Student loans are not dischargeable and usually carry a higher interest rate because there is no collateral, like there is for a mortgage or car. If student loans could be dischargeable through bankruptcy, that would just raise the rate for everyone else (higher risk, higher rate). It would also encourage people to be even less careful with degree selection, knowing that if their French medieval music degree doesn't pan out, they can always hide behind bankruptcy (the moral hazard concept - i.e., "lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences")
-
Whether the reasons for the shape of the student loan are good or bad does not strike me as particularly relevant to the question of whether they are, or are not, more onerous than a car loan.
Would it be wise for a a new graduate to purchase, say, a new Toyota Sienna minivan (MSRP $31,000, presumably more after fees and enough options to render it civilized)? I think many would argue that perhaps that would not be a great choice, and perhaps the recent student should look for a good second-hand Corolla.
If not wise at that moment, why? Because a debt burden of that size at that moment in the recent student's life would be foolish and excessively onerous.
It follows, I think trivially, that a similar student loan at that moment in the recent student's life might be similarly considered onerous.
-
Really? I find the political perspectives of the people on this forum I disagree with—e.g., Slobodan, Russ—more interesting than those of the people I agree with.
I appreciate that, Chris.
I just hope that "interesting" is not just a synonym for entertaining, amusing, or laughable, but rather indicates a different perspective on the matter.
-
Whether the reasons for the shape of the student loan are good or bad does not strike me as particularly relevant to the question of whether they are, or are not, more onerous than a car loan.
Would it be wise for a a new graduate to purchase, say, a new Toyota Sienna minivan (MSRP $31,000, presumably more after fees and enough options to render it civilized)? I think many would argue that perhaps that would not be a great choice, and perhaps the recent student should look for a good second-hand Corolla.
If not wise at that moment, why? Because a debt burden of that size at that moment in the recent student's life would be foolish and excessively onerous.
It follows, I think trivially, that a similar student loan at that moment in the recent student's life might be similarly considered onerous.
So does this apply you are against loans and for free education? Or could this concern be mitigated by extending the grace period on when loans start to be repaid?
The idea of free (well actaully tax-payer supplied) higher education is not something you will ever get the majority of the country to buy onto. However, you probably could get people to think the typical three month grace period after graduation for when student loans need to start to be repaid may be wishful thinking. Extending that to say a year or so may be something palatable for most in the country.
It would give a little more breathing room while mitigating the concerns you have listed while at the same preserving the idea of higher education being an investment.
-
... Would it be wise for a a new graduate to purchase, say, a new Toyota Sienna minivan (MSRP $31,000, presumably more after fees and enough options to render it civilized)? I think many would argue that perhaps that would not be a great choice, and perhaps the recent student should look for a good second-hand Corolla.
If not wise at that moment, why? Because a debt burden of that size at that moment in the recent student's life would be foolish and excessively onerous.
It follows, I think trivially, that a similar student loan at that moment in the recent student's life might be similarly considered onerous.
I see the validity in that type of argument.
However, a counter-argument could be this: cars are mostly pure expense and loss over time. Car loans are also limited to 5-6 years. Student loans provide for: 1. a lifelong benefit of higher income (with appropriate degree) and 2. student loans are usually for much longer term, with the possibility of percentage linking to the level of income.
An employee that worked for me right out of school had a starting salary of $55K, $60K after one year, and easily $80-$100K in a few years. Sounds pretty sufficient to carry an average student loan.
-
Details of student loans are not particularly a hill I want to die on. Having, to my surprise, some to some sort of roughly common ground I am perfectly satisfied to leave it there, Slobodan.
I think college is too expensive, Joe. But I don't think there are any single causes, or quick fixes.
-
At the request of some members whom I admire & respect I have unlocked the topic. Have at it but please play nice!
-
At the request of some members whom I admire & respect I have unlocked the topic. Have at it but please play nice!
Way to go!
-
This Fresh Air podcast describes some ways in which college education/tuition policies can go wrong https://www.npr.org/2017/03/27/521371034/how-for-profit-colleges-sell-risky-education-to-the-most-vulnerable (https://www.npr.org/2017/03/27/521371034/how-for-profit-colleges-sell-risky-education-to-the-most-vulnerable). It refers back partly to the notion that the availability of government aid is a factor leading to increasing tuitions, which I think is at best a superficial analysis. A "for profit" college model sounds vaguely free marketishy so is an easy sell to some folks, but I think all this shows is how bad policy leads to bad results.
The so-called free market does a fantastic job delivering fresh fruit and consumer electronics but it's not clear that it can solve all problems, especially in its unregulated flavour. The "all government is bad" chant is silly dogma and it's getting old.
-
This Fresh Air podcast describes some ways in which college education/tuition policies can go wrong https://www.npr.org/2017/03/27/521371034/how-for-profit-colleges-sell-risky-education-to-the-most-vulnerable (https://www.npr.org/2017/03/27/521371034/how-for-profit-colleges-sell-risky-education-to-the-most-vulnerable). It refers back partly to the notion that the availability of government aid is a factor leading to increasing tuitions, which I think is at best a superficial analysis. A "for profit" college model sounds vaguely free marketishy so is an easy sell to some folks, but I think all this shows is how bad policy leads to bad results.
The so-called free market does a fantastic job delivering fresh fruit and consumer electronics but it's not clear that it can solve all problems, especially in its unregulated flavour. The "all government is bad" chant is silly dogma and it's getting old.
I tend to agree that there's certainly a place for state endeavour but, as always, exactly where that starts and ends is open to debate.
I would think that education is one such, and could easily be given freely to children. Further education should then depend, as it always did seem to depend in my day, on how well the pupil performed in school. If family money is to be the key to further education, then much potential will be smothered at birth. Grants were what opened the door to university for many of my generation. A problem, of course, is the one of quality, not just of teaching in the public sector - it can't be greater than the quality of pupil allows - but of the domestic time and care given to the education of children after school hours. Again, that inevitably brings me back to the traditional idea of mothers being at home and not in some effin' office instead. The basic problem is simple: nobody can have it both ways and not, then, affect the offspring. I know, first-hand, about this one. We resolved it amicably.
In the case of my own brood, my granddaughters were both sent to private schools because the parents, both teachers, were only too aware of the environmental damage to eductional prospects that the state school environment can threaten. When so many kids come from a home where nobody gives a damn, what chance the kids behaving themselves and not disrupting classes to the cost of the few interested in learning?
The reality of life appears to remain fairly constant: social mobility, both in terms of learning and earning, is a tough nut to crack, if it can be cracked at all.
Some do cross over, against all the odds stacked against them, but those are exceptionally strong-minded individuals. And all kudos to them.
Rob
-
There's no such thing as a free lunch, as we all know.
The question though is how much worth has education to society? In most of Western-Europe, the retired generation depends on the working generation for their pensions. In addition, society relies on a minimum level of behavioural uniformity. Society expects people to be properly dressed etc... Hence, it stands to reason that society takes the (distributed) costs.
Considering the weight of pensions on the entire economic system, it clearly benefits society to have a workforce with a relatively high level of education. It may be entirely different in countries where people are individually responsible for their pension.
-
... Considering the weight of pensions on the entire economic system, it clearly benefits society to have a workforce with a relatively high level of education.
What it benefits the society in that respect is to have working population, because you can tax only those who have income. Delaying employment by four or more years to study delays tax contribution.
-
What it benefits the society in that respect is to have working population, because you can tax only those who have income. Delaying employment by four or more years to study delays tax contribution.
Which is offset by a higher average income and more competitive global outlook for an educated workforce.
-
Which is offset by a higher average income and more competitive global outlook for an educated workforce.
What's interesting here is that Slobodan surely knows that this is the counter, which begs some questions.
-
What's interesting here is that Slobodan surely knows that this is the counter, which begs some questions.
I surely know, just trying to separate issues.
However, two things: 1. a welfare state can reduce that difference in life-time earning potential and 2. free education encourages selection of less "profitable" degrees, which then results in baristas with PhD in Philosophy. In which case a plumber, working since the age of 16-18, can outearn the philosophy guy.
-
What's interesting here is that Slobodan surely knows that this is the counter, which begs some questions.
Or I can be that guy who raises his hand in a debate to say: "I have an opinion, but I disagree with it." ;D
-
I surely know, just trying to separate issues.
However, two things: 1. a welfare state can reduce that difference in life-time earning potential and 2. free education encourages selection of less "profitable" degrees, which then results in baristas with PhD in Philosophy. In which case a plumber, working since the age of 16-18, can outearn the philosophy guy.
The problem with examples is whether they are representative of the average. If white collar work pays less on average than blue collar work, then there is a significant disadvantage in getting education. Both for society as well as the individual. Clearly, this isn't the case (yet), although I readily agree that 1) the value of education is eroding fast for several different reasons some of which have already been pointed out, and 2) there is a significant influx of cheap blue collar labour because laundry still needs to be done and bedcare is desired when hospitalized etc.
We are apparently at the point where we do have the doctors but no longer the nurses. The question of course is whether we can afford to import those services. From an economical perspective the answer seems to be yes, but considering what is currently happening worldwide, from a social and cultural perspective the answer increasingly appears to be no.
-
What's interesting here is that Slobodan surely knows that this is the counter, which begs some questions.
Arrrrgggghhh. Another product of our sad education system who doesn't understand the phrase "begs the question."
The classic example of begging the question is this: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" In other words, to say that a sentence begs the question is to say that there's an unexamined assumption embedded in the question. It's a tactic used often by left-wing writers. Surely you're not one of those, Andrew.
-
Arrrrgggghhh. Another product of our sad education system who doesn't understand the phrase "begs the question."
The classic example of begging the question is this: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" In other words, to say that a sentence begs the question is to say that there's an unexamined assumption embedded in the question. It's a tactic used often by left-wing writers. Surely you're not one of those, Andrew.
We've had this discussion before. The two usages of the phrase are both in common use now and have been for a while. You just happened to learn one of them first and so make the mistake of thinking it's the correct usage and that the other is wrong, but this is incorrect. This is NOT an issue of grammar. The usage that you favour is merely a connotation that developed over time. Accepting that usage was itself just something that happened, as the denotation of the words in the phrase would NOT lead one to infer that meaning.
English changes all the time, just like climate. :)
-
... We are apparently at the point where we do have the doctors but no longer the nurses...
That's an excellent metaphor against the clamoring to send everyone to college (although in the U.S. nurses do have college, and even PhD in Nursing). In order to function, society needs job stratification. Importing might be a short-term solution, but is not in principle (if the whole world becomes one, and everyone is a doctor, where do we import from... Mars?)
-
We've had this discussion before. The two usages of the phrase are both in common use now and have been for a while. You just happened to learn one of them first and so make the mistake of thinking it's the correct usage and that the other is wrong, but this is incorrect. This is NOT an issue of grammar. The usage that you favour is merely a connotation that developed over time. Accepting that usage was itself just something that happened, as the denotation of the words in the phrase would NOT lead one to infer that meaning.
English changes all the time, just like climate. :)
You can believe that if you want to, Robert, and I won’t try to puncture your bubble. But the correct phrase for what Andrew was trying to say is “raises some questions.” Converting that to “begs some questions” is simple exhibitionism: an attempt to sound jazzy. Saying that something “begs some questions” doesn’t even make sense. Why would anything or anybody “beg” a question?
-
... English Robert changes all the time, just like climate. :)
... The idea that costs go up because governments make loans easier to obtain or because government subsidies makes universities less efficient is laughable...
... the notion that the availability of government aid is a factor leading to increasing tuitions, which I think is at best a superficial analysis...
You are progressing toward "perhaps it makes sense"? ;)
-
You are progressing toward "perhaps it makes sense"? ;)
In the strict sense, you're correct. It is possible to conclude that because of misalignment, it is possible to milk the government subsidies in a way that was unintended (but maybe foreseeable), but it is not the existence of the subsidies that is the root cause of the problem. This kind of thing has happened a lot over time, and it is pathetic the way we keep repeating the same mistakes. Some study that showed up in a google search pointed out that this mis-alignment occurs specifically in the case of for profit colleges and is not true in other cases. The chances of me finding that link again are next to zero though, sorry.
-
You can believe that if you want to, Robert, and I won’t try to puncture your bubble. But the correct phrase for what Andrew was trying to say is “raises some questions.” Converting that to “begs some questions” is simple exhibitionism: an attempt to sound jazzy. Saying that something “begs some questions” doesn’t even make sense. Why would anything or anybody “beg” a question?
Yes, I know. "Raises the question" was the more acceptable way to phrase that meaning but usage has changed over time and "begs the question" is also used the same way. Whether one means "raises" or the other meaning is determined from context.
There is nothing in the definition of the individual words "begs", "the", and "question" that would lead one to think that it is not synonymous with "raises". That other meaning is a cultural artifact and has NOTHING to do with grammar.
-
There's a hell of a lot of difference between "begs" and "asks," which is what "raises" translates into. Begging is an act of despair. It's dramatic. The only reason for using the term "begs the question" meaning "raises the question" is to attempt to be a drama king or drama queen. It's just plain bad writing.
-
Honestly, it's an internet forum, and that particular phrase got some editing and back-and-forthing as I removed some expansions and compressed the thought down.
Fair dinkum, Russ. At some point my thought evolved from something I cannot even remember in to "raises some questions" without eliminating the word "begs" which crept in for reasons I no longer recall. I think the meaning was adequately clear, though.
-
There was never any question about the meaning being clear, Andrew. And {I guess) I apologize for coming down on the wording as hard as I did, but it's something that drives me up the wall every time I see it. Almost as bad as somebody "laying" in the street. I always try to explain the difference this way: "The chicken was lying in the straw, laying eggs."
-
The problem with examples is whether they are representative of the average. If white collar work pays less on average than blue collar work, then there is a significant disadvantage in getting education...
I used a colorful anecdotal evidence for rhetorical purposes. However, about 1/3 of college graduates are underemployed, i.e., work in positions below their degree.
-
I used a colorful anecdotal evidence for rhetorical purposes. However, about 1/3 of college graduates are underemployed, i.e., work in positions below their degree.
I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are similar in NL. Another devaluation seems to be that a college degree today no longer represents a level of knowledge as before (and not in a good way mind you, like: advancing science implying advancing knowledge). A common complaint from the educational system I seem to read a lot is that students no longer have sufficient basic math skills, yet we manage to churn out more degrees. My limited maths skillzz suggest that those numbers don't quite add up... ;-)
-
There is no need to apologize for a reflex like that. I have spent more or my life than I care to admit trying to repair people's usage of its/it's. I understood you perfectly, Russ, and took no offence.
-
There is no need to apologize for a reflex like that. I have spent more or my life than I care to admit trying to repair people's usage of its/it's. I understood you perfectly, Russ, and took no offence.
Which begs the question whether publicly reprimanding an honest mistake reflects well on any of the participants??? (For the record: that was meant as a rethorical question.)
ps. I'm not an English native speaker, I'm fully exempt from proper use of colloquialism.
-
So some guy does a nice thing and all people can do is complain.
-
So guy does a nice thing and all people can do is complain.
What else is new?
-
There is no need to apologize for a reflex like that. I have spent more or my life than I care to admit trying to repair people's usage of its/it's. I understood you perfectly, Russ, and took no offence.
Thanks, Andrew. No hard feelings in either direction.
-
Which begs the question whether publicly reprimanding an honest mistake reflects well on any of the participants??? (For the record: that was meant as a rethorical question.)
ps. I'm not an English native speaker, I'm fully exempt from proper use of colloquialism.
Okay, Oscar. You can beg the question all you want to and lay on the floor. Its all right. We'll let you do any dumb thing you want to do. Hundreds are watching, so do your thing.
-
The problem with examples is whether they are representative of the average. If white collar work pays less on average than blue collar work, then there is a significant disadvantage in getting education. Both for society as well as the individual. Clearly, this isn't the case (yet), although I readily agree that 1) the value of education is eroding fast for several different reasons some of which have already been pointed out, and 2) there is a significant influx of cheap blue collar labour because laundry still needs to be done and bedcare is desired when hospitalized etc.
We are apparently at the point where we do have the doctors but no longer the nurses. The question of course is whether we can afford to import those services. From an economical perspective the answer seems to be yes, but considering what is currently happening worldwide, from a social and cultural perspective the answer increasingly appears to be no.
My doctor granddaughter tells me that if the UK health service loses its foreign nurses due to Brexit, the goddam system will stop in its tracks. British doctors, too, are looking at far horizons, and many of the ones working in Britain come from abroad; a sort of skills replacement going down then, or change in national identity by default. This may sound heavy, but it's true: my mother-in-law had a hard time understanding some of the doctors in her local hospital because they were first-generation from Asia and hadn't acquired the language skills, though I guess they were still good doctors - it was accent that created the barriers. I find the same in Mallorca: some speak perfectly clearly and I understand them, whereas others, I have to look at the nurse for translation from whatever region they belong to; I find those from Andalucia most difficult. However, this seems a peculiarly male problem: I've not run into it with females. Thank God!
-
I noticed that no one bothered to discuss this. I am inviting you all, including Andrew, to poke holes in this analogy. Not because I think it is unassailable, but because I am genuinely interested in hearing counter-arguments.
To provide a personal perspective. My parent loan will probably end up being about $50-$60K in two years, when my daughter graduates. I recently bought a $34K car and took a loan for it. I am generally frugal, so I went for a lowly Camry. Just a slightly more prestigious brands would cost me easily those $50-$60K I am having in student loans.
So, why we do not even blink when we spend the same amount on a car, but complain bitterly about the education (I personally do not)?
Poke away.
Who buys a car every year for four or six years without tradint the prior one in?
-
Who buys a car every year for four or six years without tradint the prior one in?
Average student loan per year is not equivalent to the price of an average car. Average student loan in total, after graduation, is approximately equal to a decent new car. One source puts it at $28,650. Another source at $37,172.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/09/20/average-loan-debt-graduates-four-year-colleges-28650
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2018/06/13/student-loan-debt-statistics-2018/#1613bf567310
-
Who buys a car every year for four or six years without tradint the prior one in?
Bad for business
Who would hire a photographer who drives a Camry?
Not me...
https://www.business.com/articles/the-top-10-cars-for-ceos/
-
Bad for business
Who would hire a photographer who drives a Camry?
Not me...
Thanks, my friend ;)
-
Thanks, my friend ;)
Good one :)
-
Back to serious business.
For those concerned about inequality in education in the "heartless, racist" America:
"A Tennessee valedictorian received more than $3 million in college scholarships—despite being homeless."
https://www.newsweek.com/tupac-mosley-raleigh-egypt-high-school-homeless-student-college-scholarship-1431303
Or:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/student-accepted-to-over-100-colleges-offered-nearly-4m-in-scholarships-58747461940
Etc.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are similar in NL.
Since this is a Canadian site, I presume you meant Newfoundland. Or possibly Netherlands?
-
Since this is a Canadian site, I presume you meant Newfoundland. Or possibly Netherlands?
NL stands for the Netherlands.
-
Average student loan per year is not equivalent to the price of an average car. Average student loan in total, after graduation, is approximately equal to a decent new car. One source puts it at $28,650. Another source at $37,172.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/09/20/average-loan-debt-graduates-four-year-colleges-28650
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2018/06/13/student-loan-debt-statistics-2018/#1613bf567310
And a young person graduating from college would be an idiot to borrow that for a car. Your number represents about $9,300 per year, which will buy a very decent used car. Every year.
So I repeat, who buys an new (used) car every year without trading the old one in? Your analogy is good propaganda, but it doesn’t scale to reality.
-
And a young person graduating from college would be an idiot to borrow that for a car. Your number represents about $9,300 per year, which will buy a very decent used car. Every year.
So I repeat, who buys an new (used) car every year without trading the old one in? Your analogy is good propaganda, but it doesn’t scale to reality.
Frankly, I do not get your point. Who says that the comparison I am having in mind involves a freshly minted graduate buying a new car? I can ask you an equally inane question: who drives a used car (or new) for 40 years? Are you also implying that no one buys a new car?
It is about a mental comparison between buying a new car and student debt, from a behavioral economics standpoint. Car is an expense and a total loss. Student debt is an asset that delivers tangible benefits over 40 years. Car expense is not only the purchase price but also insurance, gas, maintenance, etc. "Cost to Own" is much higher than a purchase price. For the simplicity sake, I am just taking into account the purchase price.
Who pays for education? Either parents or student or a combination of the two. As a parent, I just spent $34K on a new car. It is going to last me the next 10-12 years. When my daughter comes to me and ask me for an equivalent amount to help her with her education, am I supposed to be outraged by the amount and blame the society? In the next 40 years (hypothetically, of course) I would spend $136K buying a new car every 10 years.
Now, if student herself finances her education: in the next 40 years, are you saying she will never buy a new car? When she does, 5, 10 or 20 years from now, her mental comparison will be the same: my student loan debt is not such a big deal, it is just as much as this new car I just bought. The car that is going to disappear in 10 years and accumulate a ton in costs to own along the way, while my equivalent student debt is rewarding me with a higher salary over a 40 year period.
In summary, we do not even blink when buying a new car for ourselves, but are supposed to be outraged by the equivalent student debt?
-
Ep. 377 of the Freakonomics podcast is all about the US student debt: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/student-debt/ (http://freakonomics.com/podcast/student-debt/). I just came across it, haven't listened to it yet, but I just wanted to provide the link here before I forgot as it seemed to be on point.
-
Ep. 377 of the Freakonomics podcast is all about the US student debt: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/student-debt/ (http://freakonomics.com/podcast/student-debt/). I just came across it, haven't listened to it yet, but I just wanted to provide the link here before I forgot as it seemed to be on point.
Thanks for posting this! I found these podcast very informative and entertaining, but have fallen off listening to them lately.
-
Student loans, expensive medical care, and frivolous legal suits are all American inventions to channel funds from the poor constituents to special conglomerates and interest groups. Now we've learned that even Stormy Daniels was taken advantage of by her previous lawyer.
-
Student loan issues are one aspect, but it seems to me that the bigger question that needs to be answered is why tuition has grown at a much more rapid pace than normal cost of living. What caused this? There should be enough data by now to have a reasoned analysis, beyond anecdotes and personal opinion. There has been cost cutting at the professorial level and increases in the number of students, so on the face of it there's no obvious need for higher tuition other than "they can". Seems like a misalignment of incentives.
-
Student loan issues are one aspect, but it seems to me that the bigger question that needs to be answered is why tuition has grown at a much more rapid pace than normal cost of living. What caused this? There should be enough data by now to have a reasoned analysis, beyond anecdotes and personal opinion. There has been cost cutting at the professorial level and increases in the number of students, so on the face of it there's no obvious need for higher tuition other than "they can". Seems like a misalignment of incentives.
Public universities that are in part dependent on state funding will need to adjust tuition based on how much is needed to augment the money received from taxpayers. When I first started off at UC Santa Barbara in 1965, all UC campuses were tuition free. Governor Reagan's administration imposed a $100/semester tuition and everyone was outraged and there was a march by students to Sacramento in protest. Once tuition became the policy it only gradually increased as the state was still providing significant funds. At UC out of state students paid markedly higher tuition rates and some have argued that today the system encourages such applications as it increases the revenue stream.
Private universities need to impose tuition for the majority of their operating expenses. If they are a research university additional funding can come from alumni donations, Federal and private grants as well as income from research that gets commercialized (patent royalties). Both of our daughters went to private universities on merit scholarships that were adjusted based on our income. In one case the scholarship covered 20% of the first year tuition and in the second, 15%. Neither scholarship was adjusted for inflation or tuition increase and we observed that tuition increased 5-8% each school year so that the value of the scholarship decreased.
One daughter went to University of Rochester which has a significant endowment. Every year (2005-09) I would get a financial statement from the University that also showed royalty income from patents which was significant as several childhood vaccines were developed at the medical school and there was also a nice patent portfolio from optics research. None of this income was used to defray tuition costs, rather it just went to build up the endowment. Most of the Ivy League schools have much larger endowments and I think a couple of them could totally eliminate tuition for undergraduates just on the income from the endowment without affecting the principal.
The best way to minimize college costs is to spend the first two years at a community college and then move on to an in-state university for the final two.
-
Student loan issues are one aspect, but it seems to me that the bigger question that needs to be answered is why tuition has grown at a much more rapid pace than normal cost of living. What caused this? There should be enough data by now to have a reasoned analysis, beyond anecdotes and personal opinion. There has been cost cutting at the professorial level and increases in the number of students, so on the face of it there's no obvious need for higher tuition other than "they can". Seems like a misalignment of incentives.
Aside from demand increasing at a rate that is higher then what supply is, which we all seem to agree on is one root cause but disagree on the reasons for why this is happening, I think we also need to look at student life.
Dorms, food halls, support services, chaperoned activities, etc., have all increased in scope and quality. This needs to be paid for as well, and surely adds to the increase in cost.
-
Dorms, food halls, support services, chaperoned activities, etc., have all increased in scope and quality. This needs to be paid for as well, and surely adds to the increase in cost.
True, but our experience was that tuition increases were higher YTY than dorm/food costs. I don't remember either school having chaperoned activities.
-
True, but our experience was that tuition increases were higher YTY than dorm/food costs. I don't remember either school having chaperoned activities.
Not so much activities, I should have used another term but not sure what. Just the overall increase in the amount of staff present to assist students in college life outside of the classroom. Good or bad, all these people need to be paid.
-
I think it's pretty well established where the money is going, the answer being "to all kinds of stuff"
Physical plant and infrastructure. Sporting facilities, newer fancier dorms, more amenities for students, and so on.
There is usually some expensive academic initiative in play, the school playing out its ambition to become a Premier Something Or Other to attract more grant money.
There are more administrators and support staff across the board, with salaries and other expenses (chairs, offices, phones, computers, and so on).
What we do not have a firm answer to is "why?"
You can point to the professional administrator class and argue that bureaucrats, unchecked, will always find ways to expand the departments and thus their budgets endlessly. This is probably not wrong.
You can point to the fact that a university education is routinely valued at some high number in terms of lifetime earnings. A number I have seen is a $2M bump in lifetime earnings, then one can argue that in an unfettered market the correct price for tuition is: $2M, perhaps corrected for the time-value of money.
You can point to the availability of student loans being a factor that permits prices to drift upwards.
All of these things, and more, are probably true to one degree or another. None of them is a simple, pat, "why" and none of them suggest a simple solution. Markets are complicated.
-
... there's no obvious need for higher tuition other than "they can"...
"they can" = supply and demand = a.k.a. free market
-
In the two years my daughter has been in this Florida university, they just finished a third dorm building on campus. Indicating, more or less, a 20%-30% jump in demand. Their prices went up last year by about 5%. Have not received the bill for the next year, but I do not expect a jump of 20%-30% either. My daughter heard the new dorms are super nice: dryer/washer in rooms, etc. Monthly rent is similar to what I pay for a one bedroom apartment in a luxurious condo building near Miami. She and her friends decided to move to an older, but cheaper, off-campus dorm.
I heard in the first year many parents complaining the living conditions in the dorms were not up to the standard their kids had at home.
-
Or this:
-
I heard in the first year many parents complaining the living conditions in the dorms were not up to the standard their kids had at home.
Duh.
-
Absolutely. Art is stupid and useless, and nobody should pursue it without first ensuring their financial security, and only then should they pursue Art as a leisure activity.
That will definitely result in some great art, and a marvelous, rich, culture.
-
Absolutely. Art is stupid and useless, and nobody should pursue it without first ensuring their financial security, and only then should they pursue Art as a leisure activity.
That will definitely result in some great art, and a marvelous, rich, culture.
If I properly understood the above as sarcasm, nobody prevents anybody from studying arts. Just do it on your own dime, or pay back the loan if you take it. In most cases, they will be unable to repay it, which only raises the cost for everyone else. Besides, studying arts doesn't make you an artist, let alone great.
-
As someone who makes his sole income from my art, along with my wife, and does very well for himself, I can tell you, you are both wrong.
First and foremost, most art programs do not teach business skills and marketing. Art is a business, and as such, follows the same rules as any business. The fact that so many programs have very little, if any, business course requirements is a very big part of the reason so many art students fail at making a living from their art.
So, partly going to Slobo's point, if you want to study the fine arts, and be an artist, make sure you really vet the schools and go with that that has good art business courses.
Second, being a professional artist is a very very different lifestyle then the normal 9 to 5 job most people not only end up in but mentally desire. I have no set schedule nor a set location to work from nor do I have a consistent income. I am always reinventing myself, not to mention picking apart my work to the point where I am disappointed 99% of the time. My wife and I love it, and find it exhilarating. However, until you actually start living it, you just don't know if you can really deal with it, and most can't. I am not saying I am better then others, just I have no issues with this lifestyle, whereas an inconsistent schedule with out a set income is very daunting and fearful to most people. So many of my former assistants left the industry due to these inconsistency and the fear of not bringing home a weekly paycheck, and this is another reason so many with art degrees end up not being a pro. Not sure how you teach this to the point of someone truly understanding it, but it is certainly a big issue.
So, Slobo, an art degree can be very rewarding and pay very well, so long as you put in the effort to learn the business side of things, really vet the schools, which I think you advocate for. However, Andrew, studying fine arts and trying to make a career out of it should not be taken light heartily. You really need to think about the lifestyle and whether or not it is right for you. After doing this for 12 years and seeing so many consumed by the fear of inconsistencies, I would not frivolously recommend it to anyone with our a good deal of sole searching.
-
Joe, what you do is probably better known as applied arts, which can be commercially rather rewarding. Something that most "true" art students probably deeply despise. And even if they study for applied arts (e.g., graphic design, if I am not mistaken), it still takes talent and a good deal of hustling to break into the field and make decent money. You can't just say "I am an artist" and expect the world to fall into your lap.
-
The point is that by evaluating everything in dollars, we continue to place the cart before the horse. The economy is a support for culture, not the other way around.
Never has any society every produced so much abundance with so little labor.
And yet, never has any society, though every other society has required more productive labor from its citizens, so thoroughly evaluated higher education in terms of how well it equips the student for productive labor.
It is absurd.
-
Joe, what you do is probably better known as applied arts, which can be commercially rather rewarding. Something that most "true" art students probably deeply despise. And even if they study for applied arts (e.g., graphic design, if I am not mistaken), it still takes talent and a good deal of hustling to break into the field and make decent money. You can't just say "I am an artist" and expect the world to fall into your lap.
I tend to agree w/ that-
Photography as defined to make money is better defined as "artisanat", not art.
Among other things, you make what you think others will like, not necesarily your "inspiration" (Others no liking, others no giving money)
I copied part of a statement by one Michelle Gaugy, Art gallery owner, author, art consultant
"What also makes this question more interesting - and somewhat more confusing - is that in that past several decades the definition of artist has expanded greatly. The result is that a significant number of people who heretofore would have been deemed “mere” artisans are now freely using the title of artist as a self-referent. Many craftspeople, furniture-makers, jewelers, clothing designers, hairdressers, etc. etc. now regularly refer to themselves as artists, and their products as art."
The full thing (and ergo in the real context) can be found at
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-artist-and-an-artisan
-
As someone who makes his sole income from my art, along with my wife, and does very well for himself, I can tell you, you are both wrong.
First and foremost, most art programs do not teach business skills and marketing. Art is a business, and as such, follows the same rules as any business. The fact that so many programs have very little, if any, business course requirements is a very big part of the reason so many art students fail at making a living from their art.
So, partly going to Slobo's point, if you want to study the fine arts, and be an artist, make sure you really vet the schools and go with that that has good art business courses.
Second, being a professional artist is a very very different lifestyle then the normal 9 to 5 job most people not only end up in but mentally desire. I have no set schedule nor a set location to work from nor do I have a consistent income. I am always reinventing myself, not to mention picking apart my work to the point where I am disappointed 99% of the time. My wife and I love it, and find it exhilarating. However, until you actually start living it, you just don't know if you can really deal with it, and most can't. I am not saying I am better then others, just I have no issues with this lifestyle, whereas an inconsistent schedule with out a set income is very daunting and fearful to most people. So many of my former assistants left the industry due to these inconsistency and the fear of not bringing home a weekly paycheck, and this is another reason so many with art degrees end up not being a pro. Not sure how you teach this to the point of someone truly understanding it, but it is certainly a big issue.
So, Slobo, an art degree can be very rewarding and pay very well, so long as you put in the effort to learn the business side of things, really vet the schools, which I think you advocate for. However, Andrew, studying fine arts and trying to make a career out of it should not be taken light heartily. You really need to think about the lifestyle and whether or not it is right for you. After doing this for 12 years and seeing so many consumed by the fear of inconsistencies, I would not frivolously recommend it to anyone with our a good deal of sole searching.
Yeah, the freelance lifestyle.
1. Knowing enough about your career choice when you are young is not easy; unless you have a family member in the commercial art world how can you know? Folks don't usually go around telling you how much or how little they earn - most want to be thought successful, not the opposite.
2. I kinda believe that choosing the lifestyle is a two-way number: it chooses you as much as the other way around.
3. "Fine" art, as compared with commercial art (meaning anything artistic that you do to earn your keep, on a salary or by commission, including industrial design, photography, advertising design, copywriting, all those things), is more of a conceit, I think, and puts you in a very hot seat if you expect to live from it. Basically, nobody needs your product. That's probably why so many turn to full-time teaching. I should imagine that only a handful of students has the family money behind it to indulge the dream of being the next Picasso or whoever was the incentive to study art. I'm sure one could remain a happy student until one's thirties! After that, I think self-doubt and grim realisation of not making it may remove the golden glow. If you do make it, then you can laugh at the world. It's why I play the lottery.
4. For either gig, commercial or "fine", you gotta be really lucky. In my own life, so much fell into my lap by chance, and so much that I fought to get never opened its door an inch. I hardly think my story was unique.
5. The freelance life, with its ups and downs of income, does not make for forward planning. Pensions come to mind. Pensions are vital when you are old and mostly knackered, and increasingly so.
6. Looking back. The good times were good when they were happening - if you recognized them at the time - the bad get forgotten quickly (but not the personal, professional slights). Everything gets compressed, with all the separate gigs becoming part of the same compounded one. You can derive pleasure from memories, despite what many people think it hip to tell you. In other words, better a has-been that a never-was.
Rob
-
Joe, what you do is probably better known as applied arts, which can be commercially rather rewarding. Something that most "true" art students probably deeply despise. And even if they study for applied arts (e.g., graphic design, if I am not mistaken), it still takes talent and a good deal of hustling to break into the field and make decent money. You can't just say "I am an artist" and expect the world to fall into your lap.
Any business takes a good deal of hustle; it's no different with commercial art. Or even fine arts, getting shown in galleries takes a good deal of hustle and the marketing to those galleries pretty much follows the same principles of any marketing.
-
I tend to agree w/ that-
Photography as defined to make money is better defined as "artisanat", not art.
Among other things, you make what you think others will like, not necesarily your "inspiration" (Others no liking, others no giving money)
I copied part of a statement by one Michelle Gaugy, Art gallery owner, author, art consultant
"What also makes this question more interesting - and somewhat more confusing - is that in that past several decades the definition of artist has expanded greatly. The result is that a significant number of people who heretofore would have been deemed “mere” artisans are now freely using the title of artist as a self-referent. Many craftspeople, furniture-makers, jewelers, clothing designers, hairdressers, etc. etc. now regularly refer to themselves as artists, and their products as art."
The full thing (and ergo in the real context) can be found at
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-artist-and-an-artisan
Not really. Probably about 95% of the images I have shot were exactly what I wanted to shoot. Only about 5% were client directed. Now I dont get to pick the buildings I am hired to shoot, but at the end of the day, the images were all still exactly what I would have shot. And any way, no way could I get the access I would need to do what I would want to without getting hired to shoot the building. Most places are not going to let some random guy come in with 500 lb. of gear, take over the place, and do a photo shoot unless it benefits them some how.
Not to mention we are always engaged in personal projects, which are entirely our own, to help draw attention to us from the art buyers. In these cases, the art buyers never want to see commercially viable works, since that is what they do all day. They want to see independent works that are funky, and perhaps pull them away from their day job.
Insofar as you quote, it has always been the case that those in the fine arts looked down on those doing commercial arts. For some reason, as soon as you make money, outside of a gallery, these fine artist have a change in opinion. Sorry, but to assume the only avenue to make money at being a true artist is a gallery is very short sighted. Anyway, not that I think an average furniture maker is an artist, but I have seen furniture shows at high successful fine art galleries that you find it very difficult to argue against it being art. They were very functional too.
-
The economy is a support for culture, not the other way around.
Absolutely this!! If no-one lacked food or shelter - what would they do?
-
Art is a business
Mmm - no, it ain't. If you can get paid on the back of it, fine, but that's not what it is.
-
Mmm - no, it ain't. If you can get paid on the back of it, fine, but that's not what it is.
Fine, the actual art is not a business. Making a living from your art is very much a business. Every successful gallery owner would completely agree with me here. If you want to ignore this and put your head in the sand, that is your own prerogative. But at the end of the day, no one really makes it being lucky (as Rob implied).
You make it by putting into effect good business practices, whether you realize it or not. Such as, constantly reaching out to gallery owners whom you research first to see if your work would make sense with what they show, sending out fliers and examples of your work to get attention, when you do have a show promoting it on Social Networks and other traditional media, negotiating what your take is from the gallery sales (and making sure that the first print in a series sold you get your percentage plus the cost of the frame), knowing to put aside artist prints of each work so if you get famous you can sell those at the current market price, etc. These are all business practices.
-
Fine, the actual art is not a business. Making a living from your art is very much a business. Every successful gallery owner would completely agree with me here. If you want to ignore this and put your head in the sand, that is your own prerogative. But at the end of the day, no one really makes it being lucky (as Rob implied).
You make it by putting into effect good business practices, whether you realize it or not. Such as, constantly reaching out to gallery owners whom you research first to see if your work would make sense with what they show, sending out fliers and examples of your work to get attention, when you do have a show promoting it on Social Networks and other traditional media, negotiating what your take is from the gallery sales (and making sure that the first print in a series sold you get your percentage plus the cost of the frame), knowing to put aside artist prints of each work so if you get famous you can sell those at the current market price, etc. These are all business practices.
You are clearly making it - and well done for that. Did van Gogh make it? How does your art stack up against his?
-
Sarah Moon made it as an artistic fashion photographer; she has written of how some contemporaries derided her success as meaning some kind of selling out: as she says, because she made heaps more money than did they with their reportage etc. was an absurd reason for dislike, and not without a tinge of the colour of envy.
Deborah Turbeville and Sheila Metzner did much the same, use their God-given eyes to make exceptional work the technician photographers could not.
Money discolours everything, especially when someone has more than do you.
Regarding my own tale, I can only repeat: without extraordinarily good luck and chains of coincidence, I would now be a retired, knackered old engineer filled with no memories, no adventures. I am equally knackered as I would have been in the other life, but have few regrets of omission.
:-)
-
Fine, the actual art is not a business. Making a living from your art is very much a business. Every successful gallery owner would completely agree with me here. If you want to ignore this and put your head in the sand, that is your own prerogative. But at the end of the day, no one really makes it being lucky (as Rob implied).
Rob said the opposite, and I agree with him. It's mostly about luck, not hustle. A degree in business studies is of no help here.
You make it by putting into effect good business practices, whether you realize it or not. Such as, constantly reaching out to gallery owners whom you research first to see if your work would make sense with what they show, sending out fliers and examples of your work to get attention...
This is not how it works. Gallerists have no interest in artists 'reaching out' to them. Keep the flyers for commercial prospects.
Commerical photography, with its 'art buyers' and 'art directors', might somehow seem 'arty', but photographs made in this context are not art. A commercial photograph is little more than a piece of propaganda.
-
Joe, what you do is probably better known as applied arts, which can be commercially rather rewarding. Something that most "true" art students probably deeply despise. And even if they study for applied arts (e.g., graphic design, if I am not mistaken), it still takes talent and a good deal of hustling to break into the field and make decent money. You can't just say "I am an artist" and expect the world to fall into your lap.
There are also alternative career paths that can be explored. One of my daughters was a music major in college with a minor in brain and cognitive science. She wanted to continue playing the bassoon but not as a career and hence did not get a performance degree (recieve a BA rather than BM). She worked in an office setting for a couple of years and then went back to grad school to get a Masters in Music Therapy and now works at a children's hospital at a major medical school. Similarly, there are opportunities for degrees in art and dance therapy and one can have a rewarding career in those fields.
I'm sure that there are a lot of us who either are working or have worked in fields that were quite removed from our college education. That certainly was my experience when I moved into pharmaceutical regulatory affairs after a short career in medical research.
-
Rob said the opposite, and I agree with him. It's mostly about luck, not hustle. A degree in business studies is of no help here.
This is not how it works. Gallerists have no interest in artists 'reaching out' to them. Keep the flyers for commercial prospects.
Commerical photography, with its 'art buyers' and 'art directors', might somehow seem 'arty', but photographs made in this context are not art. A commercial photograph is little more than a piece of propaganda.
This is a subjective call, and many famous snappers publicly refute the branding of artist, but whatever they seek as their job description, the fact remains that some of them are exactly that: artists. How else could one classify folks like Penn, for one? Not only a leading photographer but also a pretty decisively good painter!
As far as I know, few photographers today have the freedom to shoot unsupervised, without a "team" peering into a monitor, second-guessing every click. I was lucky - you see, luck, again - in being in a place and of a time when monitors did not have a rôle in a shoot, and there were very few art directors who felt a need to accompany me; I believe most would actually have preferred not to have to share the blame just in case things turned out not to suit the yarn the accounts people had sold the client! All that digested, I know that my worst work came from client-present gigs: their insecurities were contagious. At the end, you get the gig because somebody likes what you have already done. Why try to turn that guy into your alter ego?
Today, it seems that few commercial photographers get to work alone, however famous they become.
-
This is a subjective call, and many famous snappers publicly refute the branding of artist, but whatever they seek as their job description, the fact remains that some of them are exactly that: artists. How else could one classify folks like Penn, for one? Not only a leading photographer but also a pretty decisively good painter!
Yes, in the world of editorial photography (more so than commercial photography), it's possible to operate in a grey area between art and commerce. However the likes of Penn are rare. Walker Evans managed it. Contemporary examples might be: Wolfgang Tilmans, Juergen Teller, Nadav Kander, Nick Knight - all fashion people.
-
Not really. Probably about 95% of the images I have shot were exactly what I wanted to shoot. Only about 5% were client directed. Now I dont get to pick the buildings I am hired to shoot, but at the end of the day, the images were all still exactly what I would have shot.
I didn't mean to be personal but on the other hand, yes, I looked at your webpage.
What I've seen is excellent craftsmanship. IMHO you are an excellent photographer.
But if that's art, is no for me to judge, of course.
-
... I copied part of a statement by one Michelle Gaugy, Art gallery owner, author, art consultant
"What also makes this question more interesting - and somewhat more confusing - is that in that past several decades the definition of artist has expanded greatly. The result is that a significant number of people who heretofore would have been deemed “mere” artisans are now freely using the title of artist as a self-referent. Many craftspeople, furniture-makers, jewelers, clothing designers, hairdressers, etc. etc. now regularly refer to themselves as artists, and their products as art."
The full thing (and ergo in the real context) can be found at
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-artist-and-an-artisan
+1
(Also a rare event that I ageee with Rabanito :) )
-
+1
(Also a rare event that I ageee with Rabanito :) )
When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
-
Absolutely this!! If no-one lacked food or shelter - what would they do?
Call their doodling art? ;)
-
I'm not specifically trying to revive this thread but I came across a podcast that is partly on point with a slightly different point of view. Michael Lewis (author of Liar's Poker and many other books) has a new podcast called Against the Rules. Season one's over-arching theme is the collapse of refereeing in today's USA, as seen in many different sectors. There are 7 parts (+ 1 bonus cast) and they're all very interesting, but this particular one addresses the area of "consumer finance" and refers quite a bit to student loans and how they're handled on the ground day to day: https://atrpodcast.com/episodes/the-seven-minute-rule-s1!1c964 (https://atrpodcast.com/episodes/the-seven-minute-rule-s1!1c964).
-
Just a personal pet peeve: I hate podcasts and videos. I have to spend one hour or so on listening or viewing mostly fluff, to hear or see one major point. With written text, I can skim the fluff and find a nugget of wisdom quickly, if there is one. Or go back and forth through text.
This is not to criticize Robert's contribution, as I am sure there are many people who enjoy podcasts.
-
Just a personal pet peeve: I hate podcasts and videos. I have to spend one hour or so on listening or viewing mostly fluff, to hear or see one major point. With written text, I can skim the fluff and find a nugget of wisdom quickly, if there is one. Or go back and forth through text.
I'm calling a therapist urgently... I'm agreeing with Slobodan again!
Entering Old Age? ;)
-
Just a personal pet peeve: I hate podcasts and videos. I have to spend one hour or so on listening or viewing mostly fluff, to hear or see one major point. With written text, I can skim the fluff and find a nugget of wisdom quickly, if there is one. Or go back and forth through text.
This is not to criticize Robert's contribution, as I am sure there are many people who enjoy podcasts.
They are different media and each suited to a different styles of story-telling. Podcasting is radio on demand, and I listen to them mostly in the car, rarely (almost never) listen at home. I find that music in the car lulls me to sleep these days, so short radio mini-docs are perfect for me while driving. In the case of personal interviews, I find radio/podcast unbeatable, a good way to get an intro to a topic.
I'd lump video in a different category than podcasts, they command all your attention, you have to sit, listen and watch. Ok for some things, but a lousy way to understand something complex, for example, for which the written word is still best imo.
-
Rob said the opposite, and I agree with him. It's mostly about luck, not hustle. A degree in business studies is of no help here.
This is not how it works. Gallerists have no interest in artists 'reaching out' to them. Keep the flyers for commercial prospects.
Sorry, this is simply not true!
I know and have attended workshops on the business of fine art photography given by successful galleryists. (I am an ASMP member and my local chapter has given talks on this, which is why I attended even though I am not a fin-art photographer.) Although there may be a few loud galleryists that scream they dont want flyers, just like there a few loud art buyers at agencies that scream the same, and stand out because of it, many get to know and become aware of fine art photographers they show by flyers and emails and networking.
And if you bring up and ask about the loud anti-flyer gallerists with the successful ones, most of the time they simply cant understand why anyone in the business would be like that. It is one of the main ways they find out about good artist worth showing.
Artists are not magically discovered by sorcerers. They are introduced, self-introduced, in almost all cases brought on by good business and marketing practices.
To add my own personal experience to this, I have reached out to several people in the past 12 years of being in business that simply told me that were not interested. Like a good businessman, I did not take this to mean they are not ever interest only not interested right now, and I persisted by following up every now and then, staying on their radar. Then, one day, I called and just like that they had a project for me and became great clients. Same thing happens with artist showing in galleries. If you only ever introduce yourself once, of course you'll get nowhere.
Insofar as Rob's comment on luck, I am sure his intense hustle when he was younger introduced him to people he was not planning on ever meeting that ended up giving him gigs. Although these chance encounters were "lucky," without his networking or marketing efforts, they would have never happened.
This is how all marketing and networking works, hence old business adage, "the harder you work, the luckier you get."
-
You are clearly making it - and well done for that. Did van Gogh make it? How does your art stack up against his?
Unfortunately for Van Gogh he was not able to enjoy the fruits of his labor, and if it were not for his brother's and sister-in-law's great job at promoting (aka marketing) his work after he died, we would not know anything about him either.
-
As an ending on this, I often forget that many on here are hobbyists and amateurs. Although you may feel this should not matter, it most certainly does since you are looking at photography as an escape from your normal lives, which is exactly what hobbies are for. In this case, why would anyone want there hobby to be a business? They would not, and it would be natural to fight this idea.
Even though I very much enjoy my work, I too need an escape from it occasionally, and cooking is something I very much enjoy doing as well. I would never want cooking to become a business for me. However, if I actually wanted to make money from cooking, it would have to be.
Art is the same way. If you actually want to make a living from being an artist, you better learn the business side of it, otherwise you will have a very short career. And the business of art follows the same exact principles of any business, just applied differently.
Furthermore, if you are looking at being an artist (and trying to make a living at it) as an escape from business, as if it transcends the normal world and works on a entirely different spectrum of rules, that is a rather naive mindset. The product is certainly different, and the lifestyle too, but make no mistake, to actually make a living at it, you need to treat it like a business.
-
As an ending on this, I often forget that many on here are hobbyists and amateurs. Although you may feel this should not matter, it most certainly does since you are looking at photography as an escape from your normal lives, which is exactly what hobbies are for. In this case, why would anyone want there hobby to be a business? They would not, and it would be natural to fight this idea.
Hmmm...
As far as I know the fundamental difference between amateurs and professionals is that the amateur does what he wants, an important proposition for being an artist and the professional does it to please Coca Cola or Mercedes Benz or whatever.
The amateur at his summit "creates" The pro does what others want. Or doesn't sell.
Just my HO
-
Hmmm...
As far as I know the fundamental difference between amateurs and professionals is that the amateur does what he wants, an important proposition for being an artist and the professional does it to please Coca Cola or Mercedes Benz or whatever.
The amateur at his summit "creates" The pro does what others want. Or doesn't sell.
Just my HO
Yet, yet... the pro that's getting Coke or Merc is getting them because they like what he does. He manages to put his identity onto his work, and you can't do too much spoor-spreading if you remain someone else's button-pusher.
There used to be thousands of guys doing exactly as was asked, many made a good living. I don't think any became stars. Today, seems mostly it's the stars still get gigs.
Rob
-
Yet, yet... the pro that's getting Coke or Merc is getting them because they like what he does.
Of course.
Just saying that if Vladimir or Adolf like your work it doesn't make you automatically an "artist", whatever that word may mean.
I bet you don't sell them your art but your work, that must not necessarily be "art".
This doesn't necessarily belittle the work of those artisans.
-
Of course.
Just saying that if Vladimir or Adolf like your work it doesn't make you automatically an "artist", whatever that word may mean.
I bet you don't sell them your art but your work, that must not necessarily be "art".
This doesn't necessarily belittle the work of those artisans.
Rabanito, you're hedging so many bets so as not to offend anyone that I'm getting lost in the maze!
Your work, if it stands out enough to get you the big gigs, can't avoid showing your stamp, your style/creativity, if you will, and what is your style if not your art?
Rob
-
Rabanito, you're hedging so many bets so as not to offend anyone that I'm getting lost in the maze!
Your work, if it stands out enough to get you the big gigs, can't avoid showing your stamp, your style/creativity, if you will, and what is your style if not your art?
Rob
You're right. The problem is that the (catch)words "art" and "artist" are not clearly defined .
And yes, I try to offend nobody.
BTW you owe me a coffee, I looked into that "weebly" thing you mentioned and now I am bogged in a quagmire
(just joking, I find my way alright :) )
-
You're right. The problem is that the (catch)words "art" and "artist" are not clearly defined .
And yes, I try to offend nobody.
BTW you owe me a coffee, I looked into that "weebly" thing you mentioned and now I am bogged in a quagmire
(just joking, I find my way alright :) )
You may be right about Weebly; they seemed to use the same technology or should I say system, for a while, until I got comfortable with it at least, then changed it. Now, to start a new gallery with its own name, the only way I know how to do it is to create a "copy" of the least important one - just in case I manage to wipe the original out by mistake - and then slowly delete the images in the "copy" as I replace them with the ones for the new gallery, at which point I change the original name of the " copy" to the new name I want to use. Then, it's just a matter of positioning it in the list of galleries.
I'm surprised I can still manage that!
Rob
-
You may be right about Weebly; they seemed to use the same technology or should I say system, for a while, until I got comfortable with it at least, then changed it.
Hahahaha.
Richard Feynman said once on Physics:
"We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics..."
That's how I felt at the beginning. I got some rules, then a pawn transmuted into a Queen but not always...OMG
There is some fun in it. I'm creating a great Website that will be ready around 2050
-
Hahahaha.
Richard Feynman said once on Physics:
"We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics..."
That's how I felt at the beginning. I got some rules, then a pawn transmuted into a Queen but not always...OMG
There is some fun in it. I'm creating a great Website that will be ready around 2050
Abandon the plan: by 2050 there may be no electricity left for Internetting; everybody will be using it to drive toy cars at twenty miles per hour in the built-up zones. There will be no other kinds of zones. At last, landscape photography will have become historical documentary photography and will have to carry certificates of origin to prove they are not fakes, not Photoshop Instinct productions.
-
Abandon the plan: by 2050 there may be no electricity left for Internetting; everybody will be using it to drive toy cars at twenty miles per hour in the built-up zones. There will be no other kinds of zones. At last, landscape photography will have become historical documentary photography and will have to carry certificates of origin to prove they are not fakes, not Photoshop Instinct productions.
Given the average driver's skill level, 20 mph would be just about right.
Automobiles are not a good way to get around in crowded urban zones. Many jurisdictions are realizing that was a poor urban design choice. Eventually we'll get it right.
-
Abandon the plan: by 2050 there may be no electricity left for Internetting; everybody will be using it to drive toy cars at twenty miles per hour in the built-up zones. There will be no other kinds of zones. At last, landscape photography will have become historical documentary photography and will have to carry certificates of origin to prove they are not fakes, not Photoshop Instinct productions.
I think the most difficult part is creating a navigable structure that doesn't bore the visitor too soon. :(
-
Hmmm...
As far as I know the fundamental difference between amateurs and professionals is that the amateur does what he wants, an important proposition for being an artist and the professional does it to please Coca Cola or Mercedes Benz or whatever.
The amateur at his summit "creates" The pro does what others want. Or doesn't sell.
Just my HO
An amateur does not make enough money to live off of his art. A pro, regardless if he does it for others or himself, makes money and lives off his work. That's the difference.
Anyway, this came up on a recent shoot with an assistant who's father is a fine art painter and makes a living at showing and selling his work. He (the father), according to his son, does all the same marketing and business stuff I do (and have been writing about here) even though he is a fine art "artist."
That's right, he reaches out to galleries, sends fliers, uses instagram and other social media to promote shows, negotiates contracts, networks, etc ... (according to my assistant) "plays the game."
-
I have to ask, for all those who say anything commissioned is not real art, or at least below art done for one's self, how about Michelangelo? Most of his work was commissioned by the Catholic Church.
Is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel less good and not worthy of praise because it was commissioned?
One could even argue that David, his most famous personal project, was a big marketing scheme. A statue that was sure to stir the pot (nudity was such taboo then) carved in secret and unveiled, with no fanfare, overnight in a major town square so the first thing everyone would see and talk about that day was David. Not to mention, using a biblical character, was an obvious nod to the largest employer of the time, which he probably already had developed some connections with. You would have to be a fool to think Michelangelo did not use David to play the game.
-
I have to ask, for all those who say anything commissioned is not real art, or at least below art done for one's self, how about Michelangelo? Most of his work was commissioned by the Catholic Church.
Is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel less good and not worthy of praise because it was commissioned?
One could even argue that David, his most famous personal project, was a big marketing scheme. A statue that was sure to stir the pot (nudity was such taboo then) carved in secret and unveiled, with no fanfare, overnight in a major town square so the first thing everyone would see and talk about that day was David. Not to mention, using a biblical character, was an obvious nod to the largest employer of the time, which he probably already had developed some connections with. You would have to be a fool to think Michelangelo did not use David to play the game.
Haven't artists relied on commissions for a long time? I would expand this beyond painters to all those engaged in fine arts from jewelry making to music to photography and so on. I have commissioned several pieces of music from well known American composers and those have been published though I don't know what kind of sales they have. Certainly there are photographers who mainly worked in advertising (Avedon) or magazine (Annie Liebowitz) and they have had major retrospectives in art galleries. Commissions and commercial work should not be denigrated.
-
Haven't artists relied on commissions for a long time? I would expand this beyond painters to all those engaged in fine arts from jewelry making to music to photography and so on. I have commissioned several pieces of music from well known American composers and those have been published though I don't know what kind of sales they have. Certainly there are photographers who mainly worked in advertising (Avedon) or magazine (Annie Liebowitz) and they have had major retrospectives in art galleries. Commissions and commercial work should not be denigrated.
My point exactly!
-
... I have commissioned several pieces of music from well known American composers...
Bravo, you!
You and the Pope, promoting arts! Michelangelo and American composers must have been eternally grateful.
-
Bravo, you!
You and the Pope, promoting arts! Michelangelo and American composers must have been eternally grateful.
Now there you are on safe ground: until we all meet up again in Celestial LuLa, © (yes, again, you heard it here first, and sure, there probably will be one, without need for monetizing, and where all of our pictures will get +1 x infinity plaudits and be observed via perfectly calbrated monitors and invisible computers), nobody can really know. Old Mikey may have hated them all equally, seeing the entire career as nothing more than goddam TMAR productions. I bet he wished he had a Nikon and a 2.8/300 Nikkor, and his competitor's La Gioconda babe all to himself, down on the beach at Fregene.
I think he and Fellini would have been best buddies. I'm booking my seat for the show.