Generation Uphill
economist.com
economist.com
Speaking in broad strokes (i.e. I'm sure there are plenty of individual examples to the contrary) the baby boom generation is the most selfish generation in recent history, voting to cut taxes and benefits for government and societal services after they had gotten their full use out of them.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/yes-summer-job-paid...
> What really made me feel ancient is that the 1981 UW student guide shows the Med school charged only $1,029 a year back then. Today: $28,040!
> The reason a summer at KFC could pay for a year of UW med school in 1981 isn’t that we were so hardworking and industrious. It’s that taxpayers back then picked up 90 percent of the tab. We weren’t Horatio Algers. We were socialists.
> Today, the public picks up only 30 percent of UW tuition, and dropping.
Imagine what would happen if young people actually voted.
Imagine what would happen if a degree was about what you know, not just a credential.
If a society is not able to provide free education for the upcoming generations, then the basis of such a society should be questioned, rightfully so.
Education should not cost anything at all.
Education always costs a great deal. Teachers need to be paid, schools need buildings, universities needs labs, etc.
The only question is how payments are organised: taxes, fees, some hybrid ... Whatever mechanism is chosen, somebody feels hard up and will seek to change it.
Yet, it's always the old paying for the education of the young, just like it is always the young paying the oldies' pensions.
Should people be able to live at university forever, with a living wage from the public purse? What if they were enrolled but didn't ever attend?
Should the government even be involved in education? Were it not for government protection, what kind of disruption would we have seen to the education sector by now?
Given that university-educated people earn more than other taxpayers, why is it unreasonable to expect that they should be responsible for covering the cost of their education?
Consider the deferred payment system of the Australian model.
The Swiss model is interesting as well. In Switzerland, each university has to take whoever wants to go. But there's no rules about the conditions that they give you when you get there. So if 200 people applied and they were only set up for 50 places, they could give aptitude tests to them all, and then put seats and books in the gym for the remaining 150 with instruction to submit one difficult major project for pass-fail assessment each per semester.
More for profit colleges?
One way to sort it is the finnish system where you have certain amount of months you can get paid for. Your courses are tracked and if you are enrolled but are not advancing fast enough you need to payback your benefits. If you advance to further studies you can get more months, but eventually you run out of them.
There is only so many places available to study and you need to take test to get into most places.
It's not without its problems and it certainly is not 'free'.
- do you use "disrupt" in a positive sense, or in its original dictionary sense:
"interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem, alter or destroy the structure of .."
My point is also that often when people mean to disrupt in one way, they end up achieving the other.
Hence, I'm tempted to say that both meanings mean the same thing to me.
But it's interesting you raise it. I recently reread _A Second Chance at Eden_ by Peter F Hamilton. In one of the stories, a character turns down an opportunity at fabulous wealth from a mindset that it would cause vast social trauma. This seeded a thought - perhaps creative destruction is not as unambiguously good as I presume. But it still hasn't yet sunk in. (And such a correction would require a worldview rebuild - a trauma of its own :) )
Of course, if you are discussing education in general, the cost is already close to $0. Khan, duolingo, wikipedia, etc are all free.
Edit: In 2011, the cost for all libraries in the US was $11.5 billion.[1] In the same year, $483 billion was spent in the US on college education.[2] That's a 42x difference. Granted, the uses and use-cases are different. But anyone who can go to college can, if they have the motivation, get the same knowledge for far cheaper.
Of course (excepting a few unusual disciplines like programming), credentials help one's career more than knowledge.
1. https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/FY2012%20PLS_Tabl...
2. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_029.asp
So taxpayers should foot the bill for someone to get an expensive degree in women's studies or sports management?
Somebody has to use resources to build, pay salaries, pay for research etc
And every developed country/society on the planet has done it, except one.
It's extremely obvious which society has it figured out when you move from a country where people are encouraged and paid to further their education, to one where people take on crushing debt to get it. It genuinely feels like a society of slaves in comparison.
But is this really true? Student tuition debt would say otherwise. In any case, you should follow the money and see where all this cost increase has landed. Certainly isn't the professor/TA salaries. Most of the increase has flowed into administrative costs. An entire bureaucratic edifice has been constructed that contributes nothing to education. Same with healthcare. Guess what, most of the bureaucrats are Boomers!. One more reason to designate the Boomers as the worst generation.
This is true, but it is not the root cause of the problem - and it is a distraction from the issue because it places the blame on providers. In the past, there was no significant incentive for the cost of higher education to increase at the pace we've seen for the last 20-30 years.
The big mistake was pushing for individual loans for each student to pay for college rather than subsidizing the system. This created distorted incentives where schools needed to spend money on "extra" things to attract students who had money to spend, rather than trying to push down the cost of providing quality education to each student. Schools that didn't invest would not attract paying customers. Providing the level of service & extra amenities students expect is expensive, and carries a lot of overhead support cost from administrative staff.
> making the process of educating less costly by using technology
Technology is not a silver bullet. The cost of delivering education at scale is not where the waste is. Much like the healthcare sector, there is a huge administrative infrastructure at every school dedicated to facilitating a complex system of loans, grants, scholarships, individual payments, etc., for accounting. These jobs are unlikely to be eliminated with automation. The best answer is to make them unnecessary outright.
> if a degree was about what you know, not just a credential
A degree has never been about what you know, otherwise we'd award them to everyone who has equivalent work and life experience. But it's also not just a credential. The value of college is not limited to the academic requirements. A society benefits from an informed and educated populace, and from the personal growth that happens when smart folks learn together. That isn't to say that the country club lifestyle of American colleges today is providing services worth the cost...
Personally I want there to be more coop learning. Combining democratic resources like wikibooks / open courseware and like minded individuals that want to learn the same things, plus a potential volunteer veteran or two, and for a lot of people that can produce a much better education than an overpriced book and lecture seminar with standardized testing ever could. For others, apprenticeship may be optimal. Or fully automated programs like Code Academy or Khan's Academy might be best for some, where they learn best through self-enforcement and learn-at-your-own-pace self pacing.
One of the largest takeaways from the past twenty years should be that trying to push a generation through traditional lecture-based coursework in classical university settings is not a one size fits all solution to education, and that it did not work - this article presents plenty of statistics denoting the failure of that model.
Edit: Side note, I think Stack Overflow is a great model for tutelage in the future. That is basically what it already is for the entire software community, and they have expanded the model into many other disciplines - that kind of ask a question, the community decides on the best answer, and once solved is locked / memorialized for others to easily find when they themselves encounter the same question is immensely valuable. It would be revolutionary to get most people answering their own questions through resources like that.
Gen Y is more than 1 quarter of the US population and outnumber the baby-boomers. We're the children of the baby boomers, hence the alternative name for Gen Y: 'echo boomers'.
Also baby boomers may have retired but most don't need to be in a nursing home yet (which is the really expensive part).
At least in Australia, the really expensive 'contingent liability' (i.e. future tax burden on Gen Y) comes from health care expenditure, which tends to sky-rocket as one grows older. Might be different in the US given the more limited government expenditure on public health.
What? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_law
Actual tax situation is this : In the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_law
I'll agree with you if your saying that growing government spending is a big problem, though.
And of course you'll find wide disagreement on whether we need to cut spending or raise taxes to deal with it.
Just eyeballing it, from 1975 to 2005 the tax to GDP ratio in the US was always above 24% and peaked at 30% in 2000. Is the discrepancy due to State taxes being included in the graph?
In a sense you're right. Government spending is the problem: the money was 'spent' over the past few decades but just won't be paid out until grandfathered boomer pensions and medicaid payments fall due. Pretty sweet deal for politicians and boomers: buy political capital from the boomers now, and let the children pay for it later by raising their taxes in future, cutting their entitlements and raising the retirement age so that they'll be working until they're dead.
Not that Gen Y are blameless. Politicians respond to incentives just like anyone else. If you don't vote, don't expect them to give a crap about you.
An image from the same page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_law#/media/File:U.S._... . Folks argue a lot but rate is fairly steady.
In answer to your question: no. I'm not blaming anyone who turned up to vote. I'm blaming those who didn't turn up to vote.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics/...
The most recent data from the US Census Bureau indicates that the turnout rate for the 18-29 age group is at the lowest it's ever been since at least 1986 (this is as far back as the charted data goes). They are the age group with the lowest participation.
It's from this page http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics/ (3rd chart on page). I think the charts were made using data found here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/
Now ask yourself just how much more honest are the national elections in the US are these days? What's that saying... "If voting mattered, they wouldn't let you do it."
From an outsider's perspective, I don't perceive American elections as being anywhere close to one-candidate Soviet Union elections. Heck, even the 'primaries' process that your major parties use to select presidential nominees seems to create greater scope for the public to influence outcomes.
Not that the US system is without its problems:
- Administratively, the way US elections are run is worthy of a third world banana republic. I find it astounding that gerrymandering and 'vote caging' are routine occurrences in a country that espouses such a strong belief in democracy.
- 'First past the post' is a terrible voting system that guarantees a 2 party system. However, so does Ranked preference/Instant run-off voting (despite what its advocates think).
- US public political discourse does seem to be influenced, to a relatively greater degree, by powerful private interests and god knows who else...
- [This is a bit controversial] Voluntary voting leads to worse outcomes compared to compulsory voting. The greatest virtue of CV is that politicians are forced to consider minorities or cohorts that would otherwise have low turnout rates under voluntary systems.
This thought is both extremely sad and extremely hopeful. It's sad because there are a lot of boomers who I love dearly in my life as with probably most everyone here. It's hopeful because a lot of young people, including myself, are fucking sick and tired of being exploited by the old for their literally insane pursuits (mostly war and hate). In this sense, death is a welcome factor. I'm certain I'm not part of the first generation to think this about their elders nor am I part of the rest. The old, outdated, stupid, insane, cruel, hateful, hurtful ideas have to go and unfortunately the only thing that ever helps in such situations is death. Death is truly, the bringer of change, and in the current status quo, hopeful change.
And this is amazing progress and the best we can expect in America from the mostly baby boomer assholes in power. But if we repeat mindlessly that America is the greatest country on earth enough, we can overlook the fact that it is dead last in healthcare out of all developed countries. Why socialize medicine, pharmaceuticals, and other industries that profit off of people's misfortunes, sickness, and death? Why not profit off of other people's misfortunes, sickness, and death? Die already so I can get rich. That is the American way, after all, and that's why those prices are so fucking high.
"Among consumers who are signed up for 2015 coverage to date in the 37 HealthCare.gov states, 8 in 10 could choose a plan with a premium of $100 or less after tax credits, based on available options."[1]
[1]http://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2015/02/09/almost-6-point-5-mi...
Is that true though? Having lots of kids so they can work on the farm and mom and dad living with you until they die?
The government spends more than ever as a percent of GDP:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_chart
except for during WW2. This does not look like any recent austerity program.
If you aren't a liberal by age 20, you don't have a heart. If you aren't a conservative by age 35, you don't have a brain.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/
My generation blamed the previous one, as well. "Don't trust anyone over 30", "Hope I die before I get old", etc.
Of the 4 generational archetypes, Gen Y and the G.I. Generation are both of the 'Hero' type:
"Hero generations are born after an Awakening, during an Unraveling, a time of individual pragmatism, self-reliance, and laissez faire. Heroes grow up as increasingly protected post-Awakening children, come of age as team-oriented young optimists during a Crisis, emerge as energetic, overly-confident midlifers, and age into politically powerful elders attacked by another Awakening."
In contrast, the Baby Boomers fall in to the 'Prophet' archetype:
"Prophet generations are born near the end of a Crisis, during a time of rejuvenated community life and consensus around a new societal order. Prophets grow up as the increasingly indulged children of this post-Crisis era, come of age as self-absorbed young crusaders of an Awakening, focus on morals and principles in midlife, and emerge as elders guiding another Crisis."
Similar story is rural India; lots of 'missing women' from the population. In both cases, the first born son is/was culturally expected to be the 'old age pension fund' of the parents, whereas girls were considered financial liabilities until they could be married off (i.e. someone else's problem).
The very disturbing implication being: if you can only have 1 child, and you believe only boys can support you in retirement, what do you do when you give birth and find out it's a girl?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_sex_discernment#India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#Effect_on_inf...
and this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide_in_India#Co...
"The 'one-child' policy has also led to what Amartya Sen first called 'Missing Women', or the 100 million girls 'missing' from the populations of China (and other developing countries) as a result of female infanticide, abandonment, and neglect".
In China's urban populations at least, it is increasingly common for women to take care of their aging parents, I imagine this is partly due to one-child policy. Another interesting shift in social norm is, now single guys need to have a house to be considered an "eligible bachelor", which is a considerable financial burden to many parents due to ballooning housing costs. Those who preferred sons 20 years ago are probably feeling the burn right now.
Total Spend: 6.18tn
Total Revenue: 6.08tn
Healthcare: 1.32tn (21.3%)
Pension: 1.20tn (19.7%)
Education: 0.93tn (14.8%)
Defense: 0.80tn (13.1%)
Welfare: 0.50tn (8.2%)
Other*: 1.43tn (23.1%)
*Other = Protection, Transportation, General Government, Interest
Currently, social security is taking in ~$74bn less in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits. The $2.83tn fund is invested in federal debt that pays 3.4% interest. So the interest payment (from the Federal government) of $96.2b is enough to cover the deficit.
By 2020, interest will no longer be enough to cover the deficit between revenue in from taxes and expenditures out to retirees. At that point, the SS fund will need to start redeeming treasuries for cash. The federal government will then need to issue new debt and/or raise taxes to cover SS treasury bond redemptions.
If the Federal Reserve follows through in its quest to raise interest rates and inflation, it will be relatively expensive to raise the $2.83tn in debt that we will need to fund SS through 2029, when it is projected to completely deplete its reserves of treasury notes. At this point, SS will only be able to pay out 75% of promised benefits given the current tax rate and demographic trends.
I'm less concerned about spend on education (which is broken) than I am about how we plan to fund our health care and pension systems. The only feasible way I can see is through increased taxation. I just started working last year. Hell of a time to enter the work force!
Overall it seems to me like we are paying an increasing amount of our federal budget on the older population than we anticipated we would need to and that we did not adequately provision for.
"They are also brainier than any previous generation. Average scores on intelligence tests have been rising for decades in many countries, thanks to better nutrition and mass education."
Is this true? From what I've read on the Flynn effect[0], these are only possible explanations.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Proposed_explanat...
Edit: What I mean is, what makes you question that explanation?
A reasonable observer would conclude that either
a) the statement is false because politicians listen to the people with power/money
b) the set of democracies is empty, and the statement, while true, is a tautology.
www.economist.com - Access Denied
Error code 16
This request was blocked by the security rules
Edit: Strangely The Economist seems to be blocking Tunisian IP addresses.