Rasing the minimum wage could cost jobs

[Monk Of Reason]

So, where would you have invested increased government spending?

My answers would differ from yours greatly I'm sure but I would have pushed for large tax breaks for smaller business as well as heavily funded programs to get jobs. Also temporary government jobs to kickstart the economy while also giving them work would have been nice. A few places they kick started re-building roads and bridges but they needed to do so much more. This would have given productive jobs to people in need without simply throwing money at them.

Expanding the grants to help people get back into college is something that we simply need to do anyway and would have helped but I wouldn't have stopped that funding or even started it specifically for the economic crash.

Stimulis package was good idea. Bad follow through. They also should not have bailed out a lot of the people they did.

 

[esmith]

My answers would differ from yours greatly I'm sure but I would have pushed for large tax breaks for smaller business as well as heavily funded programs to get jobs. Also temporary government jobs to kickstart the economy while also giving them work would have been nice. A few places they kick started re-building roads and bridges but they needed to do so much more. This would have given productive jobs to people in need without simply throwing money at them.

Expanding the grants to help people get back into college is something that we simply need to do anyway and would have helped but I wouldn't have stopped that funding or even started it specifically for the economic crash.

Stimulis package was good idea. Bad follow through. They also should not have bailed out a lot of the people they did.

I agree with a couple of your points but in general you are correct in that my ideas would differ.
1. Tax breaks for small businesses. As far as taxes, take a close look at the small businesses fleeing states that have excessive taxation and regulations. For example:
California residents, businesses consider bailing on Golden State over taxes | Fox News Now don't shoot the messenger, the article is quoting various sources. Therefore it would be a smart idea to look at the tax code at the city, state, and federal level.
I think the most effective way to help small business is to eliminate the majority of regulations that make it almost impossible to start a business. It seems that the bureaucrats pass laws to show that they are doing something. It seems that they are proud they got a new law and not repelled a law that is, to the point stupid. I say let the consumer vote with their money when it comes to a business. Yes there should be regulation that govern health and safety of the consumer but it has gotten out of hand.

2. You say heavily funded programs to get jobs. Here I totally disagree. If there is a need for a service or product and it is "economically' sound, someone will offer it. That is unless taxation, regulations, and ability to get a loan (here is where Dodd-Frank gums up the works) make it unattractive or economically unfeasible to do so. The entrepreneurship of people in this country is what made it what it is today. But the politicians and petty bureaucrats have managed to make it almost impossible to economically run a business.

3. Expanding grants for college. Here again I disagree with you. We continue to here the fallacy that unless you have a college degree you can not get a good job. Many of the good paying jobs do not need a college degree and many young people go to college just to be going. They get degrees that are basically useless in today's world, other than to show that they have the intelligence and drive to succeed. Yes, there are many professions that by the complexity of the profession require higher education. I would be very selective in which professional field that I provided financial assistance.

4. Stimulus package. Anytime you give politicians money they are going to basically waste it. The only true way you "stimulate" the economy is to increase the permanent workforce. There is enough taxes taken in to invest in the countries infrastructure, if and only if the money is spent wisely; which it isn't. Government has no business being "in business". The majority of politicians have no idea how to run a business, all they know is "how do I get re-elected. We see the government investing in business that continually fail. I say again if the product or service was needed someone would do it. if the government got out of their way.


My idea to improve the economy is again get the governments (city, state, federal) out of the way. People know how to get ahead, let them do it.

 

[Revoltingest]

1. Tax breaks for small businesses. As far as taxes, take a close look at the small businesses fleeing states that have excessive taxation and regulations.

I don't like special preferences reserved for big or small businesses.
I'd rather see a simple system applied uniformly.

I think the most effective way to help small business is to eliminate the majority of regulations that make it almost impossible to start a business. It seems that the bureaucrats pass laws to show that they are doing something. It seems that they are proud they got a new law and not repelled a law that is, to the point stupid. I say let the consumer vote with their money when it comes to a business. Yes there should be regulation that govern health and safety of the consumer but it
has gotten out of hand.

Complex regulations are rougher on smaller businesses because researching & planning for compliance is a higher proportion of overhead for those with less sales volume. Even in political speech, this situation favors the large & discourages the small.

2. You say heavily funded programs to get jobs. Here I totally disagree. If there is a need for a service or product and it is "economically' sound, someone will offer it. That is unless taxation, regulations, and ability to get a loan (here is where Dodd-Frank gums up the works) make it unattractive or economically unfeasible to do so. The entrepreneurship of people in this country is what made it what it is today. But the politicians and petty bureaucrats have managed to make it almost impossible to economically run a business.

I'll add that one thing never brought up by advocates of subsidies is the cost of the program. The money that Bob gets is money taken away from Heather in the form of taxes. Government generally lacks the ethics, neutrality & wisdom to hand out money to favored companies in a fashion which benefits the overall economy.

3. Expanding grants for college. Here again I disagree with you. We continue to here the fallacy that unless you have a college degree you can not get a good job. Many of the good paying jobs do not need a college degree and many young people go to college just to be going. They get degrees that are basically useless in today's world, other than to show that they have the intelligence and drive to succeed. Yes, there are many professions that by the complexity of the profession require higher education. I would be very selective in which professional field that I provided financial assistance.

I've watched over the last half century as training in skilled trades has largely been abandoned in favor of college bound students. Just cuz degreed people tend to make more does not mean that getting a degree is the best use of one's time & money. We're awash in workers with advanced degrees (diversity studies, victimization studies, political science, philosophy, film, etc) who will never find work in their field of study, & do not benefit from it in their eventual careers.

4. Stimulus package. Anytime you give politicians money they are going to basically waste it. The only true way you "stimulate" the economy is to increase the permanent workforce. There is enough taxes taken in to invest in the countries infrastructure, if and only if the money is spent wisely; which it isn't. Government has no business being "in business". The majority of politicians have no idea how to run a business, all they know is "how do I get re-elected. We see the government investing in business that continually fail. I say again if the product or service was needed someone would do it. if the government got out of their way.

It doesn't help my business to pay taxes which are then given to some other politically connected business.

My idea to improve the economy is again get the governments (city, state, federal) out of the way. People know how to get ahead, let them do it.

I see government gumming up the works severely in real estate development. Getting approval for projects which meet zoning laws & master plans still take many years of negotiation & pay-offs to get approval. And even then, individual businesses must get approval to operate.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

1. Tax breaks for small businesses. As far as taxes, take a close look at the small businesses fleeing states that have excessive taxation and regulations. For example:

California residents, businesses consider bailing on Golden State over taxes | Fox News

Now don't shoot the messenger, the article is quoting various sources. Therefore it would be a smart idea to look at the tax code at the city, state, and federal level.

Did you know that most businesses operate under corporate charters and their payroll is tax deductible?

I think the most effective way to help small business is to eliminate the majority of regulations that make it almost impossible to start a business. It seems that the bureaucrats pass laws to show that they are doing something. It seems that they are proud they got a new law and not repelled a law that is, to the point stupid. I say let the consumer vote with their money when it comes to a business. Yes there should be regulation that govern health and safety of the consumer but it has gotten out of hand.

It was deregulation that got us in the mess Americans have and are facing.

2. You say heavily funded programs to get jobs. Here I totally disagree. If there is a need for a service or product and it is "economically' sound, someone will offer it. That is unless taxation, regulations, and ability to get a loan (here is where Dodd-Frank gums up the works) make it unattractive or economically unfeasible to do so. The entrepreneurship of people in this country is what made it what it is today. But the politicians and petty bureaucrats have managed to make it almost impossible to economically run a business.

Those bureaucrats are lobbied by big business to squash small business from taking off.

3. Expanding grants for college. Here again I disagree with you. We continue to here the fallacy that unless you have a college degree you can not get a good job. Many of the good paying jobs do not need a college degree and many young people go to college just to be going. They get degrees that are basically useless in today's world, other than to show that they have the intelligence and drive to succeed. Yes, there are many professions that by the complexity of the profession require higher education. I would be very selective in which professional field that I provided financial assistance.

The problem with higher education tuition has out paced inflation. What fields would you provide financial assistance?

4. Stimulus package. Anytime you give politicians money they are going to basically waste it. The only true way you "stimulate" the economy is to increase the permanent workforce. There is enough taxes taken in to invest in the countries infrastructure, if and only if the money is spent wisely; which it isn't. Government has no business being "in business". The majority of politicians have no idea how to run a business, all they know is "how do I get re-elected. We see the government investing in business that continually fail. I say again if the product or service was needed someone would do it. if the government got out of their way.

Workforces are only useful if the people can buy their goods. Stimulus is just giving people back their money so they can buy those goods.

My idea to improve the economy is again get the governments (city, state, federal) out of the way. People know how to get ahead, let them do it.

Again, government was created to prevent big. croney business from monopolizing. Without regulations, small business would have know chance. Sound familiar?

 

[Revoltingest]

It was deregulation that got us in the mess Americans have and are facing.

This is 95% untrue. Who failed first? The mortgage lenders whose borrowers were underwater & unable to make payments. These borrowers were over extended precisely because of gov policy which subsidized highly leveraged loans to weak borrowers, & even required lenders to make risky loans.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

This is 95% untrue. Who failed first? The mortgage lenders whose borrowers were underwater & unable to make payments. These borrowers were over extended precisely because of gov policy which subsidized highly leveraged loans to weak borrowers, & even required lenders to make risky loans.

I'm talking about how from Reagan on, regulation has been gutted. Look at the derivatives and default credit swaps regulations. Look at the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act and how it made way for Citigroup. As far as Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, those were lobbied and established by bankers who put their politicians in place, in order to grab what little savings the poor and middle-class had saved.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm talking about how from Reagan on, regulation has been gutted. Look at the derivatives and default credit swaps regulations. Look at the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act and how it made way for Citigroup. As far as Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, those were lobbied and established by bankers who put their politicians in place, in order to grab what little savings the poor and middle-class had saved.

You're both correct. It's partially what Rev said but those actions happened, in part, as a result of a lot of deregulation manoeuvres and a lack of regulators enforcing the rules/laws.....



Thiss is a decent documentary on it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nCvO6qEbJw

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Thiss is a decent documentary on it..

[youtube]5nCvO6qEbJw[/youtube]
inside job.avi - YouTube

Great documentary. I downloaded it from iTunes. I hope conservatives, as well as progressives watch this.

 

[esmith]

I agree with a couple of your points but in general you are correct in that my ideas would differ.
1. Tax breaks for small businesses. As far as taxes, take a close look at the small businesses fleeing states that have excessive taxation and regulations. For example:
California residents, businesses consider bailing on Golden State over taxes | Fox News Now don't shoot the messenger, the article is quoting various sources. Therefore it would be a smart idea to look at the tax code at the city, state, and federal level.
I think the most effective way to help small business is to eliminate the majority of regulations that make it almost impossible to start a business. It seems that the bureaucrats pass laws to show that they are doing something. It seems that they are proud they got a new law and not repelled a law that is, to the point stupid. I say let the consumer vote with their money when it comes to a business. Yes there should be regulation that govern health and safety of the consumer but it has gotten out of hand.

Did you know that most businesses operate under corporate charters and their payroll is tax deductible?

And your comment has what to do with the premise that taxes and regulations do not have a negative affect on businesses. Therefor it appears that you disagree with the information that was being presented in the article by businesses?

It was deregulation that got us in the mess Americans have and are facing.

You as well as others are blaming deregulation on the economic recession of 2008. When in actuality it was many factors. So, why don't all of you that are fostering this invalid conclusion stop and take a deep breath and really look at the issue instead of the typical response of those on both sides of telling only half-truths.
Who Caused the Economic Crisis?

If there is a need for a service or product and it is "economically' sound, someone will offer it. That is unless taxation, regulations, and ability to get a loan (here is where Dodd-Frank gums up the works) make it unattractive or economically unfeasible to do so. The entrepreneurship of people in this country is what made it what it is today. But the politicians and petty bureaucrats have managed to make it almost impossible to economically run a business.

Those bureaucrats are lobbied by big business to squash small business from taking off.

And just where do you get the supporting data to support the supposition? Or are you just bloveating?

The problem with higher education tuition has out paced inflation. What fields would you provide financial assistance?

Tuitions have gone up by 1,120 percent in the last 30 years. Cost Of College Degree In U.S. Has Increased 1,120 Percent In 30 Years, Report Says
I would provide financial assistence in the fields of: science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine . Note, social science is not included within the field of science.

4. Stimulus package. Anytime you give politicians money they are going to basically waste it. The only true way you "stimulate" the economy is to increase the permanent workforce. There is enough taxes taken in to invest in the countries infrastructure, if and only if the money is spent wisely; which it isn't. Government has no business being "in business". The majority of politicians have no idea how to run a business, all they know is "how do I get re-elected. We see the government investing in business that continually fail. I say again if the product or service was needed someone would do it. if the government got out of their way.

Workforces are only useful if the people can buy their goods. Stimulus is just giving people back their money so they can buy those goods.

But stimulus is not given to the individual taxpayer. Obama's stimulus package cost approximately $831 billion dollars and it accomplished nothing. The administration said it created 3 million jobs, if so then it cost the US taxpayer $266,000 per job. Doesn't sound too efficient to me. No,all a stimulus does is take from the taxpayer and give it to political connected entities.

Again, government was created to prevent big. croney business from monopolizing. Without regulations, small business would have know chance. Sound familiar?

What school did you get that idea from, the school of the ridiculous? And no it does not sound familiar. With excessive regulations enacted by government, small business do not have a chance to thrive. Big business can basically buy their way out of regulations in many ways.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm talking about how from Reagan on, regulation has been gutted. Look at the derivatives and default credit swaps regulations. Look at the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act and how it made way for Citigroup.

You name a single piece of legislation, which could've provided more stability to the system, but this would be to focus on a small part of the financial instability picture. Why were the banks at risk in the first place? Because old & added gov regulation created new destabilizing factors in the economy, particular real estate.
- Requirements by legislation (Community Reinvestment Act) & by bank auditors to make more loans in risky areas which were previously "red lined".
- Intentional inflation (currency deflation), which encouraged speculative investing in homes.
- Tax deductability of interest & property taxes, which subsidized speculative investing.
- Fannie & Freddie bought & guaranteed highly leveraged loans, so that banks were encouraged to make riskier loans.
- Tax free capital gains, which subsidized "flipping", & encouraged speculative investing in homes.
- Prohibiting Fannie & Freddie from negotiating principal forgiveness for troubled borrowers, driving many in to foreclosure & bankruptcy.

Some regulation is useful to stabilize the market, such as:
- Licensing of real estate appraisers after the S&L crisis prevented kiting of appraised values, limiting borrowing leverage.
- We need more regulation of hardening of utilities & infrastructure against loss, eg, terrorism, natural disaster. Were we better prepared for 9/11, we'd have avoided that trigger of the 2007 finanacial crash. (2001 was the actual beginning, but those looking at the economy from a Wall St perspective don't see this.)

Note: Regulation at all levels (fed, state, local) has increased continually since before & during Reagan. Looking at the volume of regulation in the CFR (Code of Fed Regs), only briefly during Clinton's reign did we see even a slight slacking of the increasingly heavy hand of Uncle Sam.

As far as Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, those were lobbied and established by bankers who put their politicians in place, in order to grab what little savings the poor and middle-class had saved.

The federal gov established & runs Fannie (not "Fanny") & Freddie (not "Freddy"), the largest residential lenders in the world. You may blame lobbyists, but the entire existence of these GSEs is due to gov regulation.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

And your comment has what to do with the premise that taxes and regulations do not have a negative affect on businesses. Therefor it appears that you disagree with the information that was being presented in the article by businesses?

I was commenting on your comments.

You as well as others are blaming deregulation on the economic recession of 2008. When in actuality it was many factors. So, why don't all of you that are fostering this invalid conclusion stop and take a deep breath and really look at the issue instead of the typical response of those on both sides of telling only half-truths.

Who Caused the Economic Crisis?

Speaking of half-truths.
Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are only a small part of the problem. It was credit default swaps that magnified the total cost.

And just where do you get the supporting data to support the supposition? Or are you just bloveating?

[youtube]nUwU9G87RKM[/youtube]
Credit Default Swaps for dummies. - YouTube

I would provide financial assistence in the fields of: science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine . Note, social science is not included within the field of science.

So no grant money for the programs listed in Wikipedia.
Social science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But stimulus is not given to the individual taxpayer. Obama's stimulus package cost approximately $831 billion dollars and it accomplished nothing. The administration said it created 3 million jobs, if so then it cost the US taxpayer $266,000 per job. Doesn't sound too efficient to me. No,all a stimulus does is take from the taxpayer and give it to political connected entities.

Funny, I got a stimulus money and I'm a tax payer. Where are YOU getting your information from.

What school did you get that idea from, the school of the ridiculous? And no it does not sound familiar. With excessive regulations enacted by government, small business do not have a chance to thrive. Big business can basically buy their way out of regulations in many ways.

Follow the money.

 

[esmith]

So no grant money for the programs listed in Wikipedia.
Social science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope
There are very few that contribute to improving the economic health of a country.
Possible careers

• archaeologist
• college professor
• consultant
• cultural anthropologist
• editor/writer
• geologist
• historian
• linguistic anthropologist
• museum curator
• park interpreter
• physical anthropologist
• oceanographer
• statistician
• travel agent/guide

from :http://www.collegexpress.com/articl...hoosing-major/social-sciences-and-humanities/

Funny, I got a stimulus money and I'm a tax payer. Where are YOU getting your information from.

Yes you are right. I put it toward our mortgage instead of spending it frivolously on items that I really didn't need or want.

Follow the money.

Interrogative your last.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Nope
There are very few that contribute to improving the economic health of a country.

:biglaugh:

Possible careers

• archaeologist
• college professor
• consultant
• cultural anthropologist
• editor/writer
• geologist
• historian
• linguistic anthropologist
• museum curator
• park interpreter
• physical anthropologist
• oceanographer
• statistician
• travel agent/guide

from :http://www.collegexpress.com/articl...hoosing-major/social-sciences-and-humanities/

Are you saying that these professions don't contribute to our economy?

Yes you are right. I put it toward our mortgage instead of spending it frivolously on items that I really didn't need or want.

So stimulus went to tax payers, great. The fact that you put it toward your mortgage is good. The fact that you say that other people put it towards frivolous items is presumptuous.

Interrogative your last.

Let me know when you find out. Big hint: Banks and the people who own them.

 

[esmith]

:biglaugh:


Are you saying that these professions don't contribute to our economy?

Yep, as far as I'm concerned the majority of them are not.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Yep, as far as I'm concerned the majority of them are not.

So when these people buy groceries and whatever they buy, that doesn't contribute to the economy?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree with a couple of your points but in general you are correct in that my ideas would differ.
1. Tax breaks for small businesses. As far as taxes, take a close look at the small businesses fleeing states that have excessive taxation and regulations. For example:
California residents, businesses consider bailing on Golden State over taxes | Fox News Now don't shoot the messenger, the article is quoting various sources. Therefore it would be a smart idea to look at the tax code at the city, state, and federal level.
I think the most effective way to help small business is to eliminate the majority of regulations that make it almost impossible to start a business. It seems that the bureaucrats pass laws to show that they are doing something. It seems that they are proud they got a new law and not repelled a law that is, to the point stupid. I say let the consumer vote with their money when it comes to a business. Yes there should be regulation that govern health and safety of the consumer but it has gotten out of hand.

some regulation I agree should be taken out. If it were done my way I would overhaul the whole thing and have people far smarter than I who actually have degree's and experience in said fields conduct extensive study on what would be the best method of regulation to allow the most freedom without actually endangering the society.

I don't feel I am properly equipped to make such decisions. Revolutionist has pointed out several things I didn't know about landlording that did seem redundant and asinine rather than effective. But again we have seen no regulation and it failed terribly.

So better regulation rather than more regulation has been my viewpoint. Overbearing and bad regulation is usually worse than no regulation. But no regulation is dangerous. So I don't see any way around throwing out the system as a whole and write new laws. However we cannot do this because our government is based on nothing but conflicting interests. And we will NEVER pass a law that will stop this.
Plutocracy has won for now.

2. You say heavily funded programs to get jobs. Here I totally disagree. If there is a need for a service or product and it is "economically' sound, someone will offer it. That is unless taxation, regulations, and ability to get a loan (here is where Dodd-Frank gums up the works) make it unattractive or economically unfeasible to do so. The entrepreneurship of people in this country is what made it what it is today. But the politicians and petty bureaucrats have managed to make it almost impossible to economically run a business.

There are useful government jobs that would act as a pseudo stimulus. The economy is driven by consumers and that is one thing Obama got right (in his speeches anyway. Not so much in the laws he passed) that the middle class is invaluable to the economy. We need very very very few (ideally none) lower class but at least 80-90% of our population should be middle class working folk that make enough to get by, send their kids to college and have a modest retirement if they play their cards right.

Giving people the financial security of a job in times where the economy is slow will make sure that the sluggish recovery doesn't happen. The reason why the sluggish recovery has dragged so long is not for lack of money at wallstreet, corporate profits or taxes. Its because so many people lost their job and couldn't generate the consumer rates needed for the economy to get back on track. Had we made sure that unemployment had stayed low (even if that meant high amounts of temporary government jobs) the economy would have bounced back far faster.

But unemployment stayed high and even worse underemployment has become rampant. The wage disparity is also another problem though it is somewhat separate but at least linked. The ones in the middle class simply don't make as much as they used too.

I don't mean the minimum wage. I don't even support raising the minimum wage by much. 9-10 at the most. Those that want a 15 dollar minimum wage are crazy. But I'm talking about the far more pressing problem of low wags in skilled work. Work that requires degree's as high as master's degree.

3. Expanding grants for college. Here again I disagree with you. We continue to here the fallacy that unless you have a college degree you can not get a good job. Many of the good paying jobs do not need a college degree and many young people go to college just to be going. They get degrees that are basically useless in today's world, other than to show that they have the intelligence and drive to succeed. Yes, there are many professions that by the complexity of the profession require higher education. I would be very selective in which professional field that I provided financial assistance.

College education is always a worthwhile venture. I have never met a graduate that was like "Damn. Wish I hadn't gotten my degree." Even the unemployed ones. What is the problem is people going into terrible debt because of it.

Though the numbers don't lie. The average income of college graduates is substantially higher than those that do not. I think everyone should get some form of alternative education after high school. If that is community college for some then thats good. If its a BA even better. Masters or PHd isn't for everyone but never mock anyone for getting one. Simply the enrichment one has to their day to day life from being educated is a measurable advantage for the college educated.

I think on top of having higher education for most that there should be philosophy courses required for most degree's and even high school. In high school they should have mandatory "real life" education classes they must pass that will tell them the ins and outs of taxes, investments, education and a bit about the capitalistic system that they will soon be flung into.

4. Stimulus package. Anytime you give politicians money they are going to basically waste it. The only true way you "stimulate" the economy is to increase the permanent workforce. There is enough taxes taken in to invest in the countries infrastructure, if and only if the money is spent wisely; which it isn't. Government has no business being "in business". The majority of politicians have no idea how to run a business, all they know is "how do I get re-elected. We see the government investing in business that continually fail. I say again if the product or service was needed someone would do it. if the government got out of their way.

I agree on most points. Blind money is not the best way to solve things. It is the equivalent of the "gum and paperclip" fixes. Its always better to actually do something with money rather than give it away. I also think that the unemployment system should require people to put in so many job applications and have far more adept job seeking centers that have strong connections to the community businesses.

Though politicians are inept due to the fact that they are almost always working for others with alternative and conflicting interests in mind.

 

[esmith]

About the only time temporary government jobs helped was started in 1933 and ended in 1942 it was called the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), However, in today's society a program like this would not work because no one would be willing to do the jobs and the unions would scream bloody murder.....taking jobs away from honest hard working union members.

I agree that there are those professions that a degree is almost mandatory; however, a 4 year or more degree is not for everyone. Yet kids go into debt for degrees that they will never probably be able to pay back and are basically a dead end position. I agree that additional training is almost necessary to survive in today employment market; but that additional training can be obtained through technical/vocational schooling. Once a person has successfully completed technical/vocational education nothing says that they can not take classes that will give them a 4 year degree. As a matter of fact I would highly recommend doing so. Showing that you are willing to continue ones education has never hurt anyone and if you do so will give you a leg up on those in your field that do not do so. I still say that institution of higher learning are in some aspects nothing more than any other business that is selling a product and it is being fostered onto high-school graduates as a must have. They, the institutions of higher learning have an excellent marketing staff.

You do know that the next big "housing type" bubble is the student loan bubble. Approximately $1 Trillion in outstanding student debts, as of 2012 $8 Billion of it was in default. Again what caused this bubble.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...trillion-delinquency-rate-soars-all-time-high
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101012270

Some say that the Federal student loan problem is exacerbating the problem just as the federal government home mortgages policies helped cause the housing bubble.

http://communities.washingtontimes....ment-loans-are-causing-debt-crisis-higher-ed/

 

[Monk Of Reason]

About the only time temporary government jobs helped was started in 1933 and ended in 1942 it was called the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), However, in today's society a program like this would not work because no one would be willing to do the jobs and the unions would scream bloody murder.....taking jobs away from honest hard working union members.

Why do you say this? And unions are at their weakest right now than they have been in decades.

I agree that there are those professions that a degree is almost mandatory; however, a 4 year or more degree is not for everyone. Yet kids go into debt for degrees that they will never probably be able to pay back and are basically a dead end position. I agree that additional training is almost necessary to survive in today employment market; but that additional training can be obtained through technical/vocational schooling. Once a person has successfully completed technical/vocational education nothing says that they can not take classes that will give them a 4 year degree. As a matter of fact I would highly recommend doing so. Showing that you are willing to continue ones education has never hurt anyone and if you do so will give you a leg up on those in your field that do not do so. I still say that institution of higher learning are in some aspects nothing more than any other business that is selling a product and it is being fostered onto high-school graduates as a must have. They, the institutions of higher learning have an excellent marketing staff.

Thats why I said community college. Not everyone is gonna need a BA. But a local community college has dozens of qualifying programs. Everything from Dental Hygienist to solar panel technician. These are skilled positions that most places want a degree or certification for first and very very very very very few people offer on the job training now a days. Its either experience needed or degree/certification needed. Far to often its both.

You do know that the next big "housing type" bubble is the student loan bubble. Approximately $1 Trillion in outstanding student debts, as of 2012 $8 Billion of it was in default. Again what caused this bubble.
Federal Student Loans Surpass $1 Trillion; Delinquency Rate Soars To All Time High | Zero Hedge
The student loan bubble is starting to burst

Some say that the Federal student loan problem is exacerbating the problem just as the federal government home mortgages policies helped cause the housing bubble.

Government loans are causing a debt crisis in higher education | Washington Times Communities

I fail to see how they are at all similar. The housing bubble was a great way to make money but the false sense of profit eventually lead to its downfall as it literally too good to be true. The student loan situation is far worse as there is no way to make it good. We have far to many students paying back massive interest rates.

The interest rate should be .5% or even lower. Not 7-12%. It is the responsibility of the student to choose a career path that will be good for them. It was no small part of my choice to go into accounting when I figured out their unemployment rate was lower during the recession than most jobs are prior to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And your comment has what to do with the premise that taxes and regulations do not have a negative affect on businesses. Therefor it appears that you disagree with the information that was being presented in the article by businesses?

Taxes and regulations have both positive and negative effects on business. IMO, on the whole, the positives outweigh the negatives in most cases.

Taxes pay for things like the highway infrastructure that businesses use to get their raw materials and deliver their goods to market. Taxes also pay for the education that allows them to have a skilled labour force.

Regulation helps to foster trust between suppliers and customers, as well as ensure that the common things that businesses rely on will be at least a certain quality. How many businesses do you think were negatively impacted by the Elk River MCHM spill? Imagine you were the owner of a brewery downstream; do you think your business would be hurt or helped by regulation that properly protected the quality of your water supply?

 

[esmith]

Taxes and regulations have both positive and negative effects on business. IMO, on the whole, the positives outweigh the negatives in most cases.

Taxes pay for things like the highway infrastructure that businesses use to get their raw materials and deliver their goods to market. Taxes also pay for the education that allows them to have a skilled labour force.

Regulation helps to foster trust between suppliers and customers, as well as ensure that the common things that businesses rely on will be at least a certain quality. How many businesses do you think were negatively impacted by the Elk River MCHM spill? Imagine you were the owner of a brewery downstream; do you think your business would be hurt or helped by regulation that properly protected the quality of your water supply?

Then why are we seeing a continuning exodus of businesses and population from states like California.

Civic Report 71 | The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look