he doesn't know the answer

Few do.

Most of those who agree that the UK will be worse off for leaving the EU are basing their opinion on increased trade frictions between the UK and the EU and greater restrictions on immigration. Personally, I side more with economists like Autor and Thaler who either didn't answer or affirmed uncertainty; the net economic gain from being a member of the EU--especially in the current economic climate--is not very well estimated. The best work I know of on this topic is by Patrick Minford, who is a staunch Eurosceptic.

My reasons for leaving are primarily political.

If there was a TV sitting in a shop right now, and it didn't cost any money for me to go in there and bring it back home with me, you can bet that I'd look for the swankiest fucking TV I could get my hands on. You can bet that other people, would look for the best TV they could get their hands on.

Yeah, so what? Hell, people will go to prison for a swanky TV, that's basically looting. What's your point though?

How do fulfill the supply aspect then?

A collection of people then meet that demand by supplying the good at a cost to the consumer which covers their labour and capital costs and (usually) make a profit.

If everybody has access to basically free shit, then who would want to work, apart from people who enjoyed their job?

If everybody had access to free shit, there would be no jobs as we conceive. Technology will have reached a point of totally transforming our society once supply is literally larger than demand at zero price.

Rather than work for that value that lets you access the things you want, you work for the system that allows you access to the things you want.

This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 25, 2016, 11:52:15 AM

Care to repeat them?

They were actually in a separate thread, but it's the same topic.

The income level required here is £21,000/pa. If you never earn above that, the debt is wiped.

And what I meant was that the revenue you'd need to raise in order to finance the national higher education system would be larger on a given worker's pay packet than the benefit to that worker from that extra college educated individual being in the labour market. And yes, while there are positive externalities to higher education, it's still far and away the case that those in low-skilled labour markets are being left behind.

College graduates reap almost all of the benefits of their education when they move into a high-paying field which requires more complex skills than found in the lower income deciles. Those who don't have a college education, yet are still being taxed for it, may see some minor benefit but they themselves are still without substantial skils, and so will be left behind as technological change takes its course. It makes no sense to tax people to give some other people substantial benefits, when we could be making much more important structural and fiscal changes within the welfare system to help those at the bottom.

In the US, at least, a college degree is virtually required for any job that pays more than minimum wage.

Irrelevant. 89pc enrolment rate. The investment in higher education is already being made; the discussion now is solely about different funding models. I say the general taxation model is not equitable, due to issues surrounding the size of tertiary education's externalities, the issues with accessibility due to cost and political strife.

It's also well known that debt burdens motivate graduates to have higher paying jobs; there's no reason, at all, to suppose that free college would increase labour productivity.

Don't think I need to rephrase exactly what Verb's been saying, fam

So instead of responding to queries directly specifically at your comment, you're going to lazily rely on somebody vastly more intelligent than yourself to fight your battles? Despite the fact Verbatim has neither cast the kind of aspersions you have without making some kind of subsequent apology, nor adequately answered the problem of general taxation being inequitable?

Are you forming opinions on an area you don't know enough about, or are you too cowardly to stand up for your beliefs when challenged?

There's numerous recorded cases in, for example, the US and Canada of something like this happening.

Aren't Canadian laws on the possession of CP pretty lenient? I thought gaol sentences were around 90 days, and given that Eliab's brother is just 13 it doesn't seem like he's going to have his life ruined.

I really just can't understand the "I got mine" mentality of so many right-wingers

What?

I'm a right-wing student who believes he should pay for his own higher education, thus I have a "I got mine" mentality. Maybe it's got nothing to do with the kind of mentalities you want to super-impose on people of a different political persuasion; maybe, just maybe, you arrogant fuck, they have different opinions on the best way to organise the higher ed. system.

And, possibly, my own opinions and those of other right-wingers could be disastrously wrong. But as least do us the fucking courtesy of affording us the virtue of intellectual integrity, as I grant those who disagree with me.

Why is it so bad to create a more equal society?

Given that most of the benefits of higher ed. accrue to those pursuing it, and not society as a whole, funding it via general taxation is emphatically not equitable. Indeed, that's almost our whole point.

BBC article.

I'm surprised people like you haven't tried commodifying oxygen yet.

Huh?

How might this be solved if the demand for higher education really doesn't show any sign of falling?

With a superior repayment system; at least, that's part of the issue. Price controls are also used in countries like Britain, but I'm not entirely sure how well they work.

As it stands, however, demand for higher education shouldn't fall. Indeed it would be bad for the labour market if it did, given the rising wage premia on college degrees.

Does it have to be government intervention?

This definitely needs to be a component.

Because it's easier to make it taxpayer subsidized than it is to make universities reel in their absurd costs.

Ha. . . Haha.

All of the rise in tuition over the past few decades is explainable by increased government subsidisation of higher ed.

I don't see why people aren't bothered by that, too.

Perhaps because it is mandatory?

This just isn't true, though.

It is, to an extent. There's some evidence that over- (or more accurately, mis-) education has led employers to demand a college degree for jobs which don't really require them.

The literature isn't especially clear, however.

despite the UK being a bit of a rebellious type of member.

Fuck off, Frenchie.

Alright so lemme explain something here

Most SANE people do not expect anyone with "privilege" to actually do much about it. "Privilege" has become such a buzzword that most people are content to think that it's simply a non-issue and just a point for the "opposing" side to shut down arguments.

All these dumb talking points with "WELL THERE ARE POOR WHITE PEOPLE SO WHAT ABOUT THEIR PRIVILEGE, HUH?!" come from people that don't get the basic concept that class is the ultimate divider. Skin color and gender really only effect someone over the same class level. "Privilege" simply means that, given the same starting point in life, it is easier for that person to gain traction over others.

Class > race > gender, it's pretty much as simple as that. A poor white man will naturally have eons less opportunity than a rich black woman, but will have slightly more opportunities than a poor black woman due to institutionalized and systemic racism and sexism.

Like, seriously, it's a really simple concept. Nobody is saying that men never face any hardships or are never discriminated against - ESPECIALLY due to class divides. People are simply saying that, among the same level, white males tend to have a higher disposition towards success than black males or women.

So basically we just have to sit here and accept your bullshit, revisionist, world-salad definition of what white privilege  actually means and that it's not a racially-motivated concept and how it's oh-so simple that fucking naming it like a racially-motivated concept shouldn't have thrown us off. And, lo and behold, you arrive at the same conclusion both a conservative and moderate liberal managed to articulate before you.

You could give Camnator a run for his money.

I'd say for about as long as it takes for you to explain how your solution is better than the one proposed by Sanders, or myself.

• Change the repayment system to be more like the U.K.'s or Australia's. The more you earn, the more you pay back, and you only begin paying when you earn above a certain income.
• Funding higher education via loans is more equitable than funding it via taxation; simply soaking the rich will not work, and it's not even how the Nordic countries--which Sanders wants to emulate--work. The revenue required for funding higher education nationally would probably tax people more than the minimal gains they see in wage rises. This is incredibly important in the age of depressed productivity we are currently witnessing.
• Higher education is something which is pursued while an adult; it is something you choose to pursue after having received both your entitlement and duty to non-tertiary education.
• Funding it via loans from the students themselves offers a lot more security than simply being a figure on a government budget; if costs spiral out of control due to some issue in the higher education market (or government mishandling), a left-wing Congress is not going to be jumping at the chance to control those costs. And, similarly, it saves higher education from the chopping block of any right-wing Congress which will want to pursue austerity at any point.
• This discussion is one about the best funding model, not quality of or access to higher education. Like I've said, the U.S. has an 89pc enrolment rate and there is no evidence of credit constraints on potential students, at least not since the federalisation of the loan system. Educational investment at the tertiary level already occurs. the question we are discussing is strictly regarding the best way to finance it.