Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
S. 897: BANK ON STUDENTS LOAN FAIRNESS ACT
Posts
Dyhalto
7536
Dyhalto
View playlists
CloseI think a few people here might be interested in this, particularly ones taking on loans for post-secondary education.
It's a bill proposed by senator Elizabeth Warren that will lower the Stafford student loan interest rate to 0.75% instead of the current 3.4% and soon-to-double 6.8% from July onward. The genius of it is that it's done at no cost to the taxpayer*.
In its current form, it only affects Stafford loans for 2013-2014. For one, it shouldn't be limited to just that timespan, and two, it shouldn't be restricted to Stafford loans only. Because the corrupt political establishment is largely against it, it'll need a lot of democratic action to not only get passed, but to be amended so that it includes all student loans.
To Americans, this is where you might want to consider becoming politically active for the first time in your life (or stepping it up if you're a veteran).
Consider the difference between 6.8% and 0.75% on a $50,000 loan (phDs can go >$100,000). That's ~$3000/year just in interest. That's car payments for a year, or several months rent, or even just more beer and video games. How many work hours will you have to put in just to make that annual interest payment, nevermind working down the principal? Try putting those hours into some kind of meaningful activism in order to get this thing through.
The most basic form would be to simply talk about it. Raise the discussion on other forums you visit. Talk about it with family and friends. Talk about it at work. Etc. The more people who know about it, the more popular it gets. It's an idea that immediately appeals to almost everybody in the country, as long as they "get it".
And to non-Americans, the idea of low interest student loans will spread worldwide if it happens in the US. All roads lead to Rome, and today the US is Rome.
At the very least, open a new window and get acquainted with what I'm talking about.
*Technical jargon: The bill proposes to use the Federal Reserve Discount Window to finance the Stafford loans. Currently, technically-bankrupt zombie banks enjoy the exclusive right to borrow money at 0.75% interest to keep themselves afloat via this window. In the way the bill works, money would go from the Fed, to the student loan agency, to the student. The student would then repay the student loan agency, which would repay the Fed. This leaves the taxpayer, and thus the budget and T-bill issuance, completely out of the picture.
It's a bill proposed by senator Elizabeth Warren that will lower the Stafford student loan interest rate to 0.75% instead of the current 3.4% and soon-to-double 6.8% from July onward. The genius of it is that it's done at no cost to the taxpayer*.
In its current form, it only affects Stafford loans for 2013-2014. For one, it shouldn't be limited to just that timespan, and two, it shouldn't be restricted to Stafford loans only. Because the corrupt political establishment is largely against it, it'll need a lot of democratic action to not only get passed, but to be amended so that it includes all student loans.
To Americans, this is where you might want to consider becoming politically active for the first time in your life (or stepping it up if you're a veteran).
Consider the difference between 6.8% and 0.75% on a $50,000 loan (phDs can go >$100,000). That's ~$3000/year just in interest. That's car payments for a year, or several months rent, or even just more beer and video games. How many work hours will you have to put in just to make that annual interest payment, nevermind working down the principal? Try putting those hours into some kind of meaningful activism in order to get this thing through.
The most basic form would be to simply talk about it. Raise the discussion on other forums you visit. Talk about it with family and friends. Talk about it at work. Etc. The more people who know about it, the more popular it gets. It's an idea that immediately appeals to almost everybody in the country, as long as they "get it".
And to non-Americans, the idea of low interest student loans will spread worldwide if it happens in the US. All roads lead to Rome, and today the US is Rome.
At the very least, open a new window and get acquainted with what I'm talking about.
*Technical jargon: The bill proposes to use the Federal Reserve Discount Window to finance the Stafford loans. Currently, technically-bankrupt zombie banks enjoy the exclusive right to borrow money at 0.75% interest to keep themselves afloat via this window. In the way the bill works, money would go from the Fed, to the student loan agency, to the student. The student would then repay the student loan agency, which would repay the Fed. This leaves the taxpayer, and thus the budget and T-bill issuance, completely out of the picture.
Rome fell due to extreme corruption.
This should tell us something.
Currently living with my parents because I can't afford car, food, apartment, gas AND student loans. I can't imagine how anyone can with those interest rates. What do they teach in school that is so valuable anyway?
All I got out of it was a bunch of literature, some painting, how to use a library and math which my brain somehow can't apply to solving math problems (I can do programming because I don't think of it as math).
This should tell us something.
Currently living with my parents because I can't afford car, food, apartment, gas AND student loans. I can't imagine how anyone can with those interest rates. What do they teach in school that is so valuable anyway?
All I got out of it was a bunch of literature, some painting, how to use a library and math which my brain somehow can't apply to solving math problems (I can do programming because I don't think of it as math).
ubon
66
author=bulmabriefs144
Rome fell due to extreme corruption.
this is an idiotic soundbyte that has nothing to do with the topic (and actually if you want to be technical rome declined and fell due to its conquest by people who could not adequately support an empire of its size (fuckin learn your history boy this is what they teach in school that is so valuable (because a proper understanding of the past helps you predict the future hth)))
his point is that student loans represent a catch-22 situation everywhere, not just the US, and that the US often serves as a policy pioneer. I can especially speak to the truth of this from where I am in Canada, where the party currently in power is keeping neurotically close to American policy as it possibly can.
I know you hate homework or can't handle sitting in a chair for fifty minutes or whatever but this isn't about how you can't handle school, it's about something that could be a very big deal for the broke-ass students who can. this is not the time to go "pff who needs school anyway". this is the time to go "holy shit this could be huge" and talk about how we can help make it happen.
Dyhalto
7536
author=bulmabriefs144
What do they teach in school that is so valuable anyway?
I've actually seen this sentiment going around a lot lately, particularly among Ron/Rand Paul supporters who cite an "education bubble" that's about to burst. It's a prejudice that comes from the foul taste left by useless Arts and Business degrees most of us took at least once in our post-secondary years.
If you want to be a doctor, engineer, lawyer, veterinarian, social worker, auto mechanic, teacher, or even just a step above mere general labor (a skilled trade), you need some basis of education. And you should be aspiring to something, as it betters your own life and inadvertently contributes to society at large. Why limit yourself to the Unskilled Labor section of the classifieds and Help Wanted signs outside Stabucks?
author=mawk
[I can especially speak to the truth of this from where I am in Canada, where the party currently in power is keeping neurotically close to American policy as it possibly can.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who holds Canadian "sovereignty" in low regard.
Still, no personal attacks here please.
I was under the impression that the Roman Empire didn't so much as fall as it did slowly decay away over a loooooong period of time, little bites and chunks dropping off here and there over hundreds of years, until there wasn't enough left to be called an Empire and they got swallowed by bigger fish.
6.8% is fucking predatory for student loans. This is a right step in making post secondary education not something that can destroy lives due to how much it costs. Unfortunately due to the well known fact that people with higher education don't tend to vote GOP it's going to be DOA for quite a few more years and then you have to deal with the fucking blue dogs. Don't get me wrong, building consciousness about the problem will help in the long run but there's going to be an awfully shitty period once that 6.8% comes into effect and when the people in charge are willing to do something about it.
ubon
66
author=Libertythat's basically what happened, yeah. historians don't 100% agree on the factors surrounding Rome's decline but it's generally taken to be true that Rome was unable to sustain many of the institutions that made it such an immense power and became the victim of various invaders, raiders, and usurpers as a result. the actual dissolution (which is what most people refer to as the fall) occurred toward the end of the fifth century but none of it could have happened without the slow and grueling process of decay that had begun centuries prior.
I was under the impression that the Roman Empire didn't so much as fall as it did slowly decay away over a loooooong period of time, little bites and chunks dropping off here and there over hundreds of years, until there wasn't enough left to be called an Empire and they got swallowed by bigger fish.
it certainly wasn't corruption!
I scoff at Business degrees slightly less than I do History degrees or English ones. You can at least have a shot working at some company. English degree, if you don't plan to be a teacher, it's a straight shot to McDonalds.
It fell because (1) it was overextended and increasingly broke (see below), (2) two it was corrupt in terms of laws and oppression of people and took too much from the land around it, and (3) because they got soft militarily and they entrusted their borders to barbarian soldiers (who later decided they sucked and attacked them). Spread out enough, and piss off enough people, and see how this turns out in the long run. Rome also had no budget to speak of and spent money they could get, and they had a plunder economy (possibly why they had to keep spreading further out with their empire). Other complicating factors, like the rise of Christianity (the Christians basically made a nuisance of themselves, distracting energy from other problems) didn't help. And likely, the Christians was the nicest of the enemies they'd made taxing people. When they ran out of money, they started looting from farmers and the like. There's a number of other theories (lead poison being one, "moral depravity" being another), but the most common seems to be that they overextended, overlooted (including in terms of food and water, causing mass starvation and deforestation), and really made friends and influenced people to attack them.
The best way of me saying this is general corruption (but maybe that's the wrong word), since the government had become horribly messed up, to the point where it didn't do its job properly. But yes, it did fall somewhat slowly.
...Loss of topic.
6.8% is way out of control. Also, I think part of the reason college is so expensive (it's overshot alot of other things in inflation, my dad says), is because people started doing these loans in the first place. When everyone can afford college by way of loans, people are justified in raising prices with demand. When they default on loans, you have to raise prices anyway, to cover the fact not everyone pays (I've seen this sort of thing in rent to own places).
author=mawkauthor=bulmabriefs144this is an idiotic soundbyte that has nothing to do with the topic (and actually if you want to be technical rome declined and fell due to its conquest by people who could not adequately support an empire of its size (fuckin learn your history boy this is what they teach in school that is so valuable (because a proper understanding of the past helps you predict the future hth)))
Rome fell due to extreme corruption.
It fell because (1) it was overextended and increasingly broke (see below), (2) two it was corrupt in terms of laws and oppression of people and took too much from the land around it, and (3) because they got soft militarily and they entrusted their borders to barbarian soldiers (who later decided they sucked and attacked them). Spread out enough, and piss off enough people, and see how this turns out in the long run. Rome also had no budget to speak of and spent money they could get, and they had a plunder economy (possibly why they had to keep spreading further out with their empire). Other complicating factors, like the rise of Christianity (the Christians basically made a nuisance of themselves, distracting energy from other problems) didn't help. And likely, the Christians was the nicest of the enemies they'd made taxing people. When they ran out of money, they started looting from farmers and the like. There's a number of other theories (lead poison being one, "moral depravity" being another), but the most common seems to be that they overextended, overlooted (including in terms of food and water, causing mass starvation and deforestation), and really made friends and influenced people to attack them.
The best way of me saying this is general corruption (but maybe that's the wrong word), since the government had become horribly messed up, to the point where it didn't do its job properly. But yes, it did fall somewhat slowly.
...Loss of topic.
6.8% is way out of control. Also, I think part of the reason college is so expensive (it's overshot alot of other things in inflation, my dad says), is because people started doing these loans in the first place. When everyone can afford college by way of loans, people are justified in raising prices with demand. When they default on loans, you have to raise prices anyway, to cover the fact not everyone pays (I've seen this sort of thing in rent to own places).
I'm all for this, of course - I don't know if it would affect me and my already existing Stafford loans, but the fact is that a better-educated society means improvements for humanity across the board and I'm all for anything that makes it more accessible.
Does it now?
Disadvantages of an Elite Education
(Apparently, this guy found holes in teaching at 35, I found ones straight out of college. Namely, that I had to learn all practical skills, because most of what my fancy degree taught me was how to use the computer for stuff like rm, classic novels, some history which I've mostly forgotten as noted above, dewey system, and some philosophy/theology. Nothing about any "unskilled" trades like carpentry, plumbing, or electrical. Hell, I didn't even know carpet cleaning when I first got out, and mopped myself into a corner)
We would not have this problem if half the population realized they weren't cut out for liberal arts education, that they went instead to learn a specific technical field that they were actually interested in (like I dunno being a mechanic or computer maintenance), and skipped all the other crap like having to write novels when you're wanting to fix electrical. Demand goes down, colleges cannot realistically afford "creating the leaders of tomorrow" so they have to cut their prices, and raise quality so those people actually are leaders of tomorrow.
If that's actually what we want (the article goes on to say leaders of tomorrow are just that, building a class system, when the original design was to have people freely rise or fall to any class they want).
Disadvantages of an Elite Education
(Apparently, this guy found holes in teaching at 35, I found ones straight out of college. Namely, that I had to learn all practical skills, because most of what my fancy degree taught me was how to use the computer for stuff like rm, classic novels, some history which I've mostly forgotten as noted above, dewey system, and some philosophy/theology. Nothing about any "unskilled" trades like carpentry, plumbing, or electrical. Hell, I didn't even know carpet cleaning when I first got out, and mopped myself into a corner)
We would not have this problem if half the population realized they weren't cut out for liberal arts education, that they went instead to learn a specific technical field that they were actually interested in (like I dunno being a mechanic or computer maintenance), and skipped all the other crap like having to write novels when you're wanting to fix electrical. Demand goes down, colleges cannot realistically afford "creating the leaders of tomorrow" so they have to cut their prices, and raise quality so those people actually are leaders of tomorrow.
If that's actually what we want (the article goes on to say leaders of tomorrow are just that, building a class system, when the original design was to have people freely rise or fall to any class they want).
There are a lot of problems with colleges today and with our school system in general. However, there is still potential there and there are still some things colleges teach that wouldn't otherwise be easily learned on one's own time - say, applied practice and research of medicine or some kinds of engineering, which requires expensive laboratories, etc.
However, I think there are a lot of things people could learn just as well outside of college as well - such as a lot of the creative arts - and that some people have fallen into the trap of going to college and taking out loans because it worked for their parents, not because it was the correct course of action. It's unfortunate that it was our generation that had to spring that trap.
Anyway, out of all the expensive things in the world, education is one of the few things I think people should invest in, instead of a wide variety of overpriced houses and cars. I also absolutely believe that the world would benefit from a more varied base of students, not just people with families rich enough to front the bill.
However, I think there are a lot of things people could learn just as well outside of college as well - such as a lot of the creative arts - and that some people have fallen into the trap of going to college and taking out loans because it worked for their parents, not because it was the correct course of action. It's unfortunate that it was our generation that had to spring that trap.
Anyway, out of all the expensive things in the world, education is one of the few things I think people should invest in, instead of a wide variety of overpriced houses and cars. I also absolutely believe that the world would benefit from a more varied base of students, not just people with families rich enough to front the bill.
More varied type is right.
At the low end (just out of high school) we should have Trade Internships. Working for some guy who knows his field and will let you intern, mainly simple fields. There is some overlap with Trade Schools below. (Free, but you have to find someone to teach you)
The, Labor Schools. There should a school that gives people decent enough skills that they can work in about 48% or more over all jobs, from retail, to labor, to an assembly line, to even landscaping. Sort of a liberal arts broadbase, only for practical stuff. (Somewhat cheap)
Next, Trade Schools. Formalized schools for teaching semi-technical but still simple stuff like repairing VCRs or watches. This is essential, because we don't actually have many trades anymore, like it's harder to get something fixed than replaced. (Somewhat cheap)
Then, Art Schools. For culinary and design types. If you're gonna be a landscape designer/artist instead of just a grunt that pulls weeds, this also applies (Middle price)
Then, Technical Schools. Extended education on a specific course, like medicine, automotive engineering, or computer tech (High price, due to the high level training)
Then, University. Generally a liberal arts idea, only it should actually extend to any conceivable field at any level. The idea is not to promote elitism, as reading that article above made me realize we can do without this snobbery. This is for people who might find they like working at any level in a company from grunt to the CEO to entrepreneur itself. (High price, due to the wide field of training)
Finally, you should have Management Schools. (Obviously, high price, because these people lead big companies, or even run for president or become diplomats) If you're gonna snob your way through, the quality should raise though. Make it so people who attend get wide experience relating to a broad base of people, not just their own social class. Learning good diplomacy, good management, and good leadership is key to running everything from a business to a country.
At the low end (just out of high school) we should have Trade Internships. Working for some guy who knows his field and will let you intern, mainly simple fields. There is some overlap with Trade Schools below. (Free, but you have to find someone to teach you)
The, Labor Schools. There should a school that gives people decent enough skills that they can work in about 48% or more over all jobs, from retail, to labor, to an assembly line, to even landscaping. Sort of a liberal arts broadbase, only for practical stuff. (Somewhat cheap)
Next, Trade Schools. Formalized schools for teaching semi-technical but still simple stuff like repairing VCRs or watches. This is essential, because we don't actually have many trades anymore, like it's harder to get something fixed than replaced. (Somewhat cheap)
Then, Art Schools. For culinary and design types. If you're gonna be a landscape designer/artist instead of just a grunt that pulls weeds, this also applies (Middle price)
Then, Technical Schools. Extended education on a specific course, like medicine, automotive engineering, or computer tech (High price, due to the high level training)
Then, University. Generally a liberal arts idea, only it should actually extend to any conceivable field at any level. The idea is not to promote elitism, as reading that article above made me realize we can do without this snobbery. This is for people who might find they like working at any level in a company from grunt to the CEO to entrepreneur itself. (High price, due to the wide field of training)
Finally, you should have Management Schools. (Obviously, high price, because these people lead big companies, or even run for president or become diplomats) If you're gonna snob your way through, the quality should raise though. Make it so people who attend get wide experience relating to a broad base of people, not just their own social class. Learning good diplomacy, good management, and good leadership is key to running everything from a business to a country.
Dyhalto
7536
author=GreatRedSpiritThis is one of those situations where the democratic system has to be exercised by us plebeians for once. Things like organized rallies and strike action have historically been able to force the government to do things it wouldn't ordinarily do.
Don't get me wrong, building consciousness about the problem will help in the long run but there's going to be an awfully shitty period once that 6.8% comes into effect and when the people in charge are willing to do something about it.
Remember Occupy? They occupied public spaces and didn't demand anything, so uninvolved people saw them as anarchists and nuisances, and nothing changed. If they occupied now and demanded that this bill be passed, they'd receive more support and public officials wouldn't be able to go on record denouncing it without compromising the safety of their position.
A hunger strike would do the trick too.
If we wait for elected representatives to vote for it, then yeah, it'll never, ever go anywhere.
author=bulmabriefs144This is incorrect.
Also, I think part of the reason college is so expensive (it's overshot alot of other things in inflation, my dad says), is because people started doing these loans in the first place. When everyone can afford college by way of loans, people are justified in raising prices with demand. When they default on loans, you have to raise prices anyway, to cover the fact not everyone pays (I've seen this sort of thing in rent to own places).
The reason tuition rates have gone up is the same reason rates go up for every other sector with some level of government subsidization : Not policing the rent-seekers. It's especially bad in the US where post-secondaries benefit from higher tuition, government lenders benefit from higher interest payments, and there's nobody to represent the paying student body.
If your proposed solution is the diminishing or abolition of student loans, a kind of blame the lower class for wanting higher education approach, then you'll fast track your society back 100 years to when education was a privilege of the rich.
author=slashphoenixActually, this is why you should be agitating to not only get it passed, but have it amended to allow the ability to refinance at the new 0.75% interest rate. You may feel like a lone individual, but I'm sure there are various organization leaders you can talk to, like if your mom/dad is unionized or your uni's student council.
I don't know if it would affect me and my already existing Stafford loans
Novalux
618
As a longtime libertarian that's more or less well versed in politics, I'd like to propose an alternate solution to the problem: Don't lower the interest rates.
Why? Because it won't solve the problem. I'll try to explain it the best I can here, but its probably best to check out this video to get a better explanation:
Basically, there are 2 reasons why the price of tuition is going up:
1. Degrees are getting more valuable. This one is more or less obvious; the more money you get from a degree, the more colleges are going to charge for it. Basic supply and demand, right?
2. Gov. subsidies (including student loans) artificially inflate demand. This one is much less obvious, but nonetheless it is real. By giving students subsidies, college becomes more affordable, therefore demand rises, and colleges subsequently increase prices.
While it may seem like a good idea to cut interest rates, it does nothing to solve the problem of rising college prices, and if anything it increases the problem.
Why? Because it won't solve the problem. I'll try to explain it the best I can here, but its probably best to check out this video to get a better explanation:
Basically, there are 2 reasons why the price of tuition is going up:
1. Degrees are getting more valuable. This one is more or less obvious; the more money you get from a degree, the more colleges are going to charge for it. Basic supply and demand, right?
2. Gov. subsidies (including student loans) artificially inflate demand. This one is much less obvious, but nonetheless it is real. By giving students subsidies, college becomes more affordable, therefore demand rises, and colleges subsequently increase prices.
While it may seem like a good idea to cut interest rates, it does nothing to solve the problem of rising college prices, and if anything it increases the problem.
Dyhalto
7536
I could explain point-by-point why that interpretation of rising tuition costs is wrong and why libertarianism in general is stupid, but I'd rather see if you have a solution.
What do you have in mind?
What do you have in mind?
I am so not qualified to weigh in here. Some of you people make me look at myself and say, "man, you're so uneducated for someone who is supposedly 'smart' and 'educated'." I'm so fried; working years in retail has done that.
But yeah, I'm all for paying less on my student loans.
But yeah, I'm all for paying less on my student loans.
Novalux
618
author=Dyhalto
I could explain point-by-point why that interpretation of rising tuition costs is wrong and why libertarianism in general is stupid, but I'd rather see if you have a solution.
What do you have in mind?
I don't want to get into a debate about politics on rpgmaker, but here goes nothing.
1. Lower the amounts of subsidies. It would have better if we didn't put them into effect in the first place, but lowering the amounts of subsidies to schools will help to stem the tide of artificially increased demand that they have generated.
2. Reduce the power of teachers unions. This is a pretty controversial point, and its true that unions, at their core, are a necessary part of our country. The problem comes when the growth of unions spirals drastically out of control, into what it has become today. I believe in the right of businesses (and colleges) to fire employees who aren't doing their job. As much as everyone hates the idea of being fired, it creates a great incentive to work hard and do your job. Teacher pay is also notoriously mistaken as far too low, as the average teacher salary for 2007-2008 was about $53,000. That's not including their giant health and retirement benefits, and the fact that they get the entire summer off. That's higher than the average household salary for those two years, which was only $52,000.
3.Run more like a private school. Private schools do many things better, and for a cheaper price tag. Those rich, elite private schools you so often here about are the outcast of private schools: the average private school spends $8,549 per student as opposed to the average of $12,922 for public schools. Studies have been inconclusive about testing results, but private schools generally rank from the same as to better than public schools, and certainly not substantially worse.
The good news is that future generations won't have nearly as many education problems as us. The advent of technology in education is bringing about a new generation in education where you don't physically have to be in a school to learn. Khan Academy is a great example of where the future of education is going, where people can learn things for free online and not even have to pay a dime. There's already multiple colleges offering free online lectures, so the only obstacle remaining is the stigma against people who don't have college degrees and instead learn by themselves.
author=Novalux
Teacher pay is also notoriously mistaken as far too low, as the average teacher salary for 2007-2008 was about $53,000. That's not including their giant health and retirement benefits, and the fact that they get the entire summer off. That's higher than the average household salary for those two years, which was only $52,000.
I can pretty safely say that the "average" teacher does not make this much.
author=Novalux
Teacher pay is also notoriously mistaken as far too low, as the average teacher salary for 2007-2008 was about $53,000. That's not including their giant health and retirement benefits, and the fact that they get the entire summer off. That's higher than the average household salary for those two years, which was only $52,000.
That is a doctored load of crap. Trust me on this, my mom's a teacher. Should any teacher get anything approaching this, much of it goes into the NEA (a glorified protection racket), the teacher's union.
Second, teachers do not get the entire summer off. There isn't a year that goes by that they don't have stupid meetings to discuss SOLs or some equally meaningless tripe. The admins at the school schedule these stupid meetings to rob teachers of their time off. Workshops and other bull, accounts for roughly 1/3 of their vacation time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/10/i-have-had-enough-veteran-teacher-tells-school-board/
Dyhalto
7536
author=Novalux
I don't want to get into a debate about politics on rpgmaker, but here goes nothing.
Okay, I'll try to be brief too.
On your points...
#1. Lowering subsidies won't solve the root problem that is inflation by rent-seekers.
Obviously in doing so, exploiting a thinly-regulated government program won't be as lucrative an investment, but the real harm will be done to students who now won't be able to afford school. The notion that post-secondary prices will come down is only marginally true because of the sad fact that education is extremely expensive. If the time and effort involved in schooling large groups of people were relatively cheap, we would have had powerful education systems 3000 years ago, and we'd probably be 3000 years ahead of where we are now.
#2. While I agree that being unable to punish inefficient workers is bullshit, reducing the strength of the unions is the wrong approach. That's just the shallow rhetoric of union busting neoliberals.
Besides, people aren't motivated to do a good job by fear (of losing their job). They're motivated by dignity and improvement, which often take back seat when their homes are out of order. If fear of firing was a prime motivator then slavery would be more efficient than high capital intensity, which it is not.
#3. This more or less returns to something I said in an earlier post : The reason tuition rates have gone up is the same reason rates go up for every other sector with some level of government subsidization : Not policing the rent-seekers.. It also reinforces my point about how expensive education is.
Lastly, talking about the bright future of education is meaningless because online schooling has yet to define relevant quality standards, or even profess to match existing ones. If you want to spend time talking about how things will be better in days to come, then you're just ignoring the issues of now.
