Mayor Bloomberg: Skip college, become a plumber

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

If we're comparing it to other countries then that's an extremely inflated price.  Compare France's price to state colleges and it's over ten times cheaper, compare it to community colleges and it's still about half the price.  That's a first-world country, their education is the same quality as ours (perhaps better), and over the same four year period American colleges are almost ten times the cost.  

I will grant that American colleges spend more on facilities and the like, but that brings up other problems.  What about students who don't use certain facilities but still pay for them?  Is all the money these collges are spending being used wisely?  At my university they're doing tons of renovations and construction, year after year something is getting torn down or built, and we're still hemmoraging money (in fact, our credit rating was recently downgraded).  So at the same time as you're seeing annual construction academic programs, which are supposed to be the focus of a university, are getting cut back.  

We can look at this in regards to sporting programs as well.  Colleges are spending boatloads of money on sports programs.  In fact, in almost every state except for a few exceptions (and I literally mean a few, maybe half a dozen at most) the highest-paid public employee is a college coach.  The argument gets made that this brings in money for the school, but if you actually look at it only the most lucrative athletics programs are generating money for their universities.  College athletics programs are actually losing money on average when you're only counting the revenue they generate on their own apart from student fees.  

So what does this all add up to?  We're paying for buildings and services we may never use, we're paying for renovations that administrators greenlight because they think it will spike applications, we're paying for sports teams that are actually probably costing the university, and our academic options are being scaled back, and for all of this our cost is TEN TIMES greater than a comprable European college system.  That in no way sounds fair to me.

theone86

Well, I don't really have an argument to make, I will say that on the world stage American Universities are generally considered better than French ones, so while that doesn't necessarily account for any or all of the price difference, it is worth noting the respect our top colleges receive all around the world not just here in the States.

I mean public universities receive money from the government, that's why they're public, but it's clearly not enough.  So I don't know how you can really suggest that there's any way to actually lower tuition except through increased government funding.  I'm assuming that is why France's schools are so much lower in cost.  From where I'm standing that seems to be the only real solution.

As for paying for services that aren't used, that's tricky, how are you supposed to determine ahead of time what you will and won't use?

Oh, and college athletics: I completely agree with what you're saying.  I'm a big college sports fan, but sports programs don't help the academic department at school's at all.  Even big time school's where the sports programs make tons of money and profit, none of the academic departments ever see any of that money.  That money is simply funneled back into the athletic department to fund less popular sports.  For example at big state schools the Football program might pay for 20 or 30 sports.

And, I'll say it again.  For people in low income brackets, a private college education can be cheaper, even when compared to a cheap public college education, yet so many people remain woefully unaware of this.

That's a really vague statement, how are you measuring this?  Are you saying American universities across the board are better than French universities, are you saying on average, are you saying our best are better than their best, our worst are better than their best, what?  To me, claims like this have always seemed to be along the lines of there are a select few American universities that are among the best in the world, but when you get outside of that select group it's a different story.  I will also say that there are a lot of American universities that are very prestigious, but that don't live all the way up to that prestige.  There are actually a lot of subjects where public universities are actually running better programs than some of the more traditionally acclaimed universities, mostly because those universities are focusing more on high-paying majors.  So if you're just talking prestige that might be true, but the quality of education doesn't always measure up.  Not saying it's bad, just that it doesn't live up to the hype.

Granted, there is a lot of public money funneled into French universities, but their campuses are also much smaller.  You're not seeing all the spending on facilities there, in fact you really don't have many facilities outside of educational facilities there, take that how you will.

In my experience, private universities have a lot of incentive-based scholarships.  If you're a poor student who also is just average as far as college students go then public universities might be the cheaper option (or you might be out of luck).

Also, I can understand a price discrepancy, but ten times cheaper?  It seems to me like this sort of discrepancy is far too large.  This also ties in with tuition going up as the economy gets worse.

One last thing I will say about French universities, their quality of student coming out of high school is generally higher.  If we actually made an investment in our public education system at the pre-college level then I might not be as adverse to people skipping out on college as I am.  I really think there's no reason anyone in this country shouldn't have a basic knowledge of most collegiate subjects.  Whether that knowledge comes from getting an associate's degree or from a better secondary education system, or both, doesn't matter to me.

That's true I admittedly don't know how our universities measure up all the way across the board with French universities.  I know our top schools of which there are actually quite a lot, stack up very well against the rest of the world, but I have less knowledge on how our regular or middle of the road institutions do when compared to the middle level schools elsewhere.

As for the private schools, a lot of the money I was talking about is in the form of financial aid, not scholarships, but those are mostly only at top schools with big endowments, so your point would still stand that for the average student who's poor that doesn't do much.

I agree with the fact that our public education system at the pre-college level is pretty much in shambles and does not prepare kids damn near as well as that seen in many other first world countries.  Again though, that's not necessarily an easy fix.  There are definitely some things that could be done, however.

Even here in the U.S. schools with small urban campuses still have high levels of tuition, so I'm not sure it's always campus size driving up the cost.  And then you could make the argument that there is more to college than just education facilities, but I digress.

Essentially what I am getting at though is how do you suggest public universities lower their costs for students?  Another problem with public universities is that while tuition may be relatively cheap you still have room and board which is in no way cheap. 

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

Well, I don't really have an argument to make, I will say that on the world stage American Universities are generally considered better than French ones, so while that doesn't necessarily account for any or all of the price difference, it is worth noting the respect our top colleges receive all around the world not just here in the States.

I mean public universities receive money from the government, that's why they're public, but it's clearly not enough.  So I don't know how you can really suggest that there's any way to actually lower tuition except through increased government funding.  I'm assuming that is why France's schools are so much lower in cost.  From where I'm standing that seems to be the only real solution.

As for paying for services that aren't used, that's tricky, how are you supposed to determine ahead of time what you will and won't use?

Oh, and college athletics: I completely agree with what you're saying.  I'm a big college sports fan, but sports programs don't help the academic department at school's at all.  Even big time school's where the sports programs make tons of money and profit, none of the academic departments ever see any of that money.  That money is simply funneled back into the athletic department to fund less popular sports.  For example at big state schools the Football program might pay for 20 or 30 sports.

And, I'll say it again.  For people in low income brackets, a private college education can be cheaper, even when compared to a cheap public college education, yet so many people remain woefully unaware of this.

TacticalDesire

That's a really vague statement, how are you measuring this?  Are you saying American universities across the board are better than French universities, are you saying on average, are you saying our best are better than their best, our worst are better than their best, what?  To me, claims like this have always seemed to be along the lines of there are a select few American universities that are among the best in the world, but when you get outside of that select group it's a different story.  I will also say that there are a lot of American universities that are very prestigious, but that don't live all the way up to that prestige.  There are actually a lot of subjects where public universities are actually running better programs than some of the more traditionally acclaimed universities, mostly because those universities are focusing more on high-paying majors.  So if you're just talking prestige that might be true, but the quality of education doesn't always measure up.  Not saying it's bad, just that it doesn't live up to the hype.

Granted, there is a lot of public money funneled into French universities, but their campuses are also much smaller.  You're not seeing all the spending on facilities there, in fact you really don't have many facilities outside of educational facilities there, take that how you will.

In my experience, private universities have a lot of incentive-based scholarships.  If you're a poor student who also is just average as far as college students go then public universities might be the cheaper option (or you might be out of luck).

Also, I can understand a price discrepancy, but ten times cheaper?  It seems to me like this sort of discrepancy is far too large.  This also ties in with tuition going up as the economy gets worse.

One last thing I will say about French universities, their quality of student coming out of high school is generally higher.  If we actually made an investment in our public education system at the pre-college level then I might not be as adverse to people skipping out on college as I am.  I really think there's no reason anyone in this country shouldn't have a basic knowledge of most collegiate subjects.  Whether that knowledge comes from getting an associate's degree or from a better secondary education system, or both, doesn't matter to me.

That's true I admittedly don't know how our universities measure up all the way across the board with French universities.  I know our top schools of which there are actually quite a lot, stack up very well against the rest of the world, but I have less knowledge on how our regular or middle of the road institutions do when compared to the middle level schools elsewhere.

I agree with the fact that our public education system at the pre-college level is pretty much in shambles and does not prepare kids damn near as well as that seen in many other first world countries.  Again though, that's not necessarily an easy fix.  There are definitely some things that could be done, however.

Even here in the U.S. schools with small urban campuses still have high levels of tuition, so I'm not sure it's always campus size driving up the cost.  And then you could make the argument that there is more to college than just education facilities, but I digress.

Essentially what I am getting at though is how do you suggest public universities lower their costs for students?  Another problem with public universities is that while tuition may be relatively cheap you still have room and board which is in no way cheap. 

I don't have a lot of specific solutions, but one question I have is why are these costs going up?  If there's a good reason then fine, but it seems like American universities either aren't responding to the market or are responding very slowly.  At the very least, it seems like they know they can get away with annual tuition increases and will do it for as long as they possibly can, which I don't think is a good attitude.  I guess in short I'm not wholly convinced that lowering costs or halting increases would negatively impact universities, I'm not convinced that current tuition rates are completely necessary

I do have some general ideas.  One is cutting funding to sports programs, if that money doesn't get back to the college anyways then why invest?  Two, administrator salaries are extremely high, and from what I've seen of college administrators I can't fathom why.  They're some of the highest-paid people on college campuses, and from what I've seen they mostly spend a ton of money on their pet projects and cut funding for educational programs.  At the very least I think their salaries should be tied to performance and that they should be incentivized for saving programs, not the other way around.

Cutting back on construction is another idea I think has merit.  You can't compete with private universities when it comes to building large facilities, workout facilities, medical facilities, etc., so why try?  You just end up spending a ton of money and not seeing a huge return.  Spend first on education, build when you have extra money, refrain from building when you don't.

And maybe professors' salaries need to come down, though I don't have a lot of knowledge on how high they are now.  I do know that there are a lot of people out there with advanced degrees in some fields, so if there's that much competition in the job market why are professors' jobs so secure and so high-paying?  But maybe the answer isn't necessarily with cutting salaries or reducing job security, maybe we just need more institiutions competing.  I like the idea of community colleges offering four-year degrees because at a lot of them the quality of education is right up there with a lot of four-year schools.  The one I went to had professors teaching from several prestigious universities that wouldn't hire them full-time, if those professors are out there then why do these larger institutions that refuse to employ them full-time have a stranglehold on four-year degrees?

Lastly, there is a ton of ridiculous crap that goes on at colleges that students end up paying for.  We could probably go line by line voer most American universities and find tons and tons of bureaucratic inefficiencies, ridiculous costs, etc.  One more cost I'll bring up is textbooks.  Frankly, I think textbooks should be all electronic and published either by people who teach the course or distributed by them.  I took a course last year where the professor who came up with the course and its content also wrote the textbook, and allowed the textbook to be distributed for free via CD to anyone taking the course.  Frankly, I don't see why all textbooks don't work that way.

Housing I have mixed feelings on.  Sometimes it's overpriced, but it has one problem of directly competing with locally available housing so it is tied to the market, and you're also paying for staff like RAs.  It probably has a lot of the issues I'm associating with other parts of college, but generally I feel like it's to a lesser degree.  This is all anecdotal, though.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Governments up to this point have been run by tyrants, oligarchs and incompetents, not technocracies (i mean the literal definition, hit up wikipedia if you don't know what that is)

frannkzappa

There have been numerous attempts to manage resources, and that has typically fallen to experts (technocrats). Due to the lack of feedback mechanisms like the price system, shortages and surpluses occur. While inequities occur under market systems, governments can deal with that. Now, because unrestrained centralized power holders don't have inherent incentives to not fvck sh!t up, the path to oligarchy is pretty straightforward. This is all pretty simple.

That is an assumption, non price based economics (outside of communism) has not been attempted.

Competence is rewarded in this system, not fVking things up is the fastest and easiest way to get what you want. I suggest you read Platos "The Republic" if you want to know what kind of man is the ideal for government.

Non-price-based economics goes back a very long time.  Prior to capitalism, it was rather prominent.

I've read the Republic, and it really doesn't do your side of the argument any favors.  For starters, it has no understanding of man.  It was the work of a philosopher, not a scientist.  Plato's understanding of man is dubious at best.  You assume that competence necessarily will be rewarded - as if, for some reason, the problems inherent to authoritarian power structures disappears.  Yet, you fail to address this.  Now that we've gone over the obvious - that scarcity can't be eliminated, governments are not particularly apt at managing entire economies (which is exacerbated several orders of the magnitude in the absence of any money at all), and that removing money hasn't prevented corruption in the past - do you care at all to address the fundamental problems involved with the system?  Please start taking your thought experiment seriously.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"] Most plumbing jobs are so easy though, the shit people call plumbers for can be handle in a hour or two and a trip to home depot. If more people were DYI plumbing demend would drop to almost nothing. 

theone86

Yeah many plumbing jobs are easy, but most? Not quite. At any rate demand isn't going to drop because people aren't going to start DIY'ing shit like that. Many people don't have the know-how, or don't want to get dirty, or just plain feel more assured it letting a professional handle it than attempting it themselves. There's many reasons why people would choose to hire a plumber. The demand for plumbers is not going to go away.

Frankly, I see that as a bit of a problem.  There are tons of people who just buy things and have no knowledge of how they work and no knowledge of proper maintenance.  I honestly think that there are a lot of basic skills that people should have in a wide variety of different areas, and in reality most people have zero comprehension in these areas.  There are people who literally don't know how to turn a wrench, how does that happen?  You have people who literally don't know how to cook a single meal, how does that happen?  I'm not saying that everyone has to be a four-star chef or master plumber, but I really think everyone should have some basic understanding in these areas, especially homeowners.  Not that I'm completely taking Yusuke's side, but as I've said in ohter threads I don't think economic demand should necessarily justify something.

Maybe I'm just tired, but I really don't get what point you're trying to make here. Sounds like you're in favor of hiring professionals instead of going the DIY route. Whereras Yusuke is advocating the complete opposite of that.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

It's still extremely expensive.  If you go to community college for two years it's about two grand a year, and if you go to a state school it's still going to be over ten grand a year.  That's twenty four grand for four years, that's an assload of money.  Compare that to somewhere like France where it's something like six or seven hundred dollars a year, even if we had four year community colleges they would still be more expensive than that.  France also has close to one hundred percent of their high school graduates going to college, although not all of them finish.  So even if you're going to make the "college isn't for everyone" argument, at least under that sort of system everyone gets the opportunity to find out.  Like I said in the last thread like this, the problem isn't that people shouldn't be going to college or getting certain degrees, the problem is that the cost of college in this country is extremely inflated and looking to continue in that direction.

theone86

Eh, twenty four grand seems like a fair price for a quality education, IMO. Doesn't seem particularly inflated. It's elsewhere that serious, life-crippling financial problems arise.

If we're comparing it to other countries then that's an extremely inflated price.  Compare France's price to state colleges and it's over ten times cheaper, compare it to community colleges and it's still about half the price.  That's a first-world country, their education is the same quality as ours (perhaps better), and over the same four year period American colleges are almost ten times the cost.  

I will grant that American colleges spend more on facilities and the like, but that brings up other problems.  What about students who don't use certain facilities but still pay for them?  Is all the money these collges are spending being used wisely?  At my university they're doing tons of renovations and construction, year after year something is getting torn down or built, and we're still hemmoraging money (in fact, our credit rating was recently downgraded).  So at the same time as you're seeing annual construction academic programs, which are supposed to be the focus of a university, are getting cut back.  

We can look at this in regards to sporting programs as well.  Colleges are spending boatloads of money on sports programs.  In fact, in almost every state except for a few exceptions (and I literally mean a few, maybe half a dozen at most) the highest-paid public employee is a college coach.  The argument gets made that this brings in money for the school, but if you actually look at it only the most lucrative athletics programs are generating money for their universities.  College athletics programs are actually losing money on average when you're only counting the revenue they generate on their own apart from student fees.  

So what does this all add up to?  We're paying for buildings and services we may never use, we're paying for renovations that administrators greenlight because they think it will spike applications, we're paying for sports teams that are actually probably costing the university, and our academic options are being scaled back, and for all of this our cost is TEN TIMES greater than a comprable European college system.  That in no way sounds fair to me.

Also, you have to consider that although quality of community colleges is and has been on the rise, there are still some out there that are considered sub-par.  For people who see less opportunity at their local community college and decide to go to a four-year school for four years you're going to have to add an extra sixteen grand on to the final sticker price.  These are also some low-ball numbers and you have to consider that there is a large segment of people paying significantly more.  Also, many people choose their college according to program.  I go to a state school because it's good for my major, but if I was in a program where the school frankly sucked, and I have seen programs like that, then I'm stuck between paying a lot more money for a school that has a better program or not getting the proper resources as part of my education.

Also, think about how much money this is.  Twenty four grand is not just a new car, but a nice new car.  I know people that have gone twenty years without being able to afford a new car that costs less than that, and cars last for a decade.  We're talking about buying a brand new car every single year for four years in a row, and some families have to do that with multiple children.  Frankly, that is just an insane cost for most Americans, I don't see how that's fair.  I also don't see how it's fair that tuition costs keep rising while the economy is contracting.

That's not inflated (as in paying more than the actual cost of the education).  It is simply having the student foot the bill.  The actual cost of a degree in France isn't a tenth of the cost in the U.S., it is simply subsidized.  That also goes for community college.  A tenth of the cost of a degree in the U.S. (state school @ ~ $11k/year) would barely put food on professor's tables, and that's before considering any other costs.  Sure, some things, like sports, could stand cuts, but that is not at all the majority of expenses.  Maintaining academic facilities, however, which sometimes involves renovations, is really unavoidable.  Perhaps your school is a touch flashier than mine, though.  Now, as to whether or not education should be subsidized more, I think the U.S. system could use some work relative to where it is, but provided that grads are successful in their careers afterwards, I do think that asking them to foot the bill is unwarranted, nor the price of a state school outrageous.  College grads, on average, will make about $26k more per year than their counterparts merely with high school diplomas.  They will make about $1,000,000 more throughout the course of their lifetime than said counterparts.  That is a few houses, a few cars, and beer money.  And as to the rising cost of college, I'll admit that is a problem which needs to be addressed.

Addendum: Housing at my university is cheaper than renting an apartment.  Anecdotal, though.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Whether or not something pays dividends for the time spent in school sort of depends in large part on how many people are doing it. We can identify the majors which pay off and the ones which don't, we can say "don't major in literature, major in electrical engineering." But as soon as everyone starts flocking to the majors which pay off, that just diminishes that major's ability to pay off. At best, we ought to be glad that there are people getting "worthless" majors. If they wised up and decided to go into something which pays off, that'd just diminish the value of those majors.MakeMeaSammitch

Exactly what I was talking about.

And maybe professors' salaries need to come down, though I don't have a lot of knowledge on how high they are now.

theone86

Not at all well unless they research.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Being hard to automate IS NOT a good thing.

frannkzappa

Technocracy only requires the automation of the means of production.

the service industry in a real world would require people.

nice straw man.

Even with the automation of production, you have to have humans in the loop. Case in point, GE Airfoils. The have the greatest automated CNC machines to mill airfoils for industrial gas turbines. Humans still run the programs on the machines, load the machines and finish the blades after they are done in the machine. After that, it is humans that inspect the blades by liquid penetrant and magnetic particle methods (yes, both methods are used on the blades).

Humans will always be needed in the loop somewhere, somehow. Nothing will be fully automated. 

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh, twenty four grand seems like a fair price for a quality education, IMO. Doesn't seem particularly inflated. It's elsewhere that serious, life-crippling financial problems arise.

coolbeans90

If we're comparing it to other countries then that's an extremely inflated price.  Compare France's price to state colleges and it's over ten times cheaper, compare it to community colleges and it's still about half the price.  That's a first-world country, their education is the same quality as ours (perhaps better), and over the same four year period American colleges are almost ten times the cost.  

I will grant that American colleges spend more on facilities and the like, but that brings up other problems.  What about students who don't use certain facilities but still pay for them?  Is all the money these collges are spending being used wisely?  At my university they're doing tons of renovations and construction, year after year something is getting torn down or built, and we're still hemmoraging money (in fact, our credit rating was recently downgraded).  So at the same time as you're seeing annual construction academic programs, which are supposed to be the focus of a university, are getting cut back.  

We can look at this in regards to sporting programs as well.  Colleges are spending boatloads of money on sports programs.  In fact, in almost every state except for a few exceptions (and I literally mean a few, maybe half a dozen at most) the highest-paid public employee is a college coach.  The argument gets made that this brings in money for the school, but if you actually look at it only the most lucrative athletics programs are generating money for their universities.  College athletics programs are actually losing money on average when you're only counting the revenue they generate on their own apart from student fees.  

So what does this all add up to?  We're paying for buildings and services we may never use, we're paying for renovations that administrators greenlight because they think it will spike applications, we're paying for sports teams that are actually probably costing the university, and our academic options are being scaled back, and for all of this our cost is TEN TIMES greater than a comprable European college system.  That in no way sounds fair to me.

Also, you have to consider that although quality of community colleges is and has been on the rise, there are still some out there that are considered sub-par.  For people who see less opportunity at their local community college and decide to go to a four-year school for four years you're going to have to add an extra sixteen grand on to the final sticker price.  These are also some low-ball numbers and you have to consider that there is a large segment of people paying significantly more.  Also, many people choose their college according to program.  I go to a state school because it's good for my major, but if I was in a program where the school frankly sucked, and I have seen programs like that, then I'm stuck between paying a lot more money for a school that has a better program or not getting the proper resources as part of my education.

Also, think about how much money this is.  Twenty four grand is not just a new car, but a nice new car.  I know people that have gone twenty years without being able to afford a new car that costs less than that, and cars last for a decade.  We're talking about buying a brand new car every single year for four years in a row, and some families have to do that with multiple children.  Frankly, that is just an insane cost for most Americans, I don't see how that's fair.  I also don't see how it's fair that tuition costs keep rising while the economy is contracting.

That's not inflated (as in paying more than the actual cost of the education).  It is simply having the student foot the bill.  The actual cost of a degree in France isn't a tenth of the cost in the U.S., it is simply subsidized.  That also goes for community college.  A tenth of the cost of a degree in the U.S. (state school @ ~ $11k/year) would barely put food on professor's tables, and that's before considering any other costs.  Sure, some things, like sports, could stand cuts, but that is not at all the majority of expenses.  Maintaining facilities, however, which sometimes involves renovations, is really unavoidable.  Perhaps your school is a touch flashier than mine, though.  Now, as to whether or not education should be subsidized, I think the U.S. system could use some work relative to where it is, but provided that grads are successful in their careers afterwards, I do think that asking them to foot the bill is unwarranted, nor the price of a state school outrageous.  College grads, on average, will make about $26k more per year than their counterparts merely with high school diplomas.  They will make about $1,000,000 more throughout the course of their lifetime than said counterparts.  That is a few houses, a few cars, and beer money.  And as to the rising cost of college, I'll admit that is a problem which needs to be addressed.

If we're talking subsidization, then college is a public good which benefits the entire country and I'm 100% in favor of it.  As I said, though, I still think the discrepancy is too large.  Subsidization accounts for some of that discrepancy, but I also think that a tenfold increase in the cost is far too much to simply be explained away by that.  Community colleges are a good example.  Yes, they are subsidized, but they do run on smaller budgets and still produce an education that is competitive with many four-year schools.  Furthermore, many states don't pay the full amount of money that community colleges are expecting, so even if subsidization accounts for all of the discrepancy (which I'm sure it doesn't) they're still used to running on smaller budgets.

I also don't think we should be talking about professors having to put food on their tables when they have a degree that guarantees them at least steady pay.  Yes, cutbacks could negatively impact them, but I really doubt they'd be out panhandling.  That sort of rhetoric should be reserved for people who really are struggling to put food on their own table.  Also, part of the cost of professors' salaries is how much they paid for their own degree, which I think is too much in the first place, so we're arguing in a bit of a loop here.

Renovations, if a building needs it then fine, but I'm talking about new buildings going up simply to raise the appeal of the university.  Besides, necessary renovations should be planned for.  I stick by my statement that educational programs should come first, then construction.  To expand on that slightly, education, then necessary construction, then vanity projects.

Also, students may make more ove rthe course of a lifetime, but it's still difficult paying the upfront cost.  I may make enough to buy a Vet over the course of my lifetime, but if I walk into a Chevy dealer tomorrow and ask for financing they will laugh me out the door.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Yeah many plumbing jobs are easy, but most? Not quite. At any rate demand isn't going to drop because people aren't going to start DIY'ing shit like that. Many people don't have the know-how, or don't want to get dirty, or just plain feel more assured it letting a professional handle it than attempting it themselves. There's many reasons why people would choose to hire a plumber. The demand for plumbers is not going to go away.

worlock77

Frankly, I see that as a bit of a problem.  There are tons of people who just buy things and have no knowledge of how they work and no knowledge of proper maintenance.  I honestly think that there are a lot of basic skills that people should have in a wide variety of different areas, and in reality most people have zero comprehension in these areas.  There are people who literally don't know how to turn a wrench, how does that happen?  You have people who literally don't know how to cook a single meal, how does that happen?  I'm not saying that everyone has to be a four-star chef or master plumber, but I really think everyone should have some basic understanding in these areas, especially homeowners.  Not that I'm completely taking Yusuke's side, but as I've said in ohter threads I don't think economic demand should necessarily justify something.

Maybe I'm just tired, but I really don't get what point you're trying to make here. Sounds like you're in favor of hiring professionals instead of going the DIY route. Whereras Yusuke is advocating the complete opposite of that.

I'm in favor of the DIY route, I'm just not taking it to the extreme of Yusuke.  I think people should be more knowledgable when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when they own a home or a car, and that a necessary consequence of that would be that demand for professionals would drop.  I just don't think they'll ever disappear entirely, nor should they.

I'm in favor of the DIY route, I'm just not taking it to the extreme of Yusuke.  I think people should be more knowledgable when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when they own a home or a car, and that a necessary consequence of that would be that demand for professionals would drop.  I just don't think they'll ever disappear entirely, nor should they.

theone86

Remember, plumbers just do not unclog drains and install toilets.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I'm in favor of the DIY route, I'm just not taking it to the extreme of Yusuke.  I think people should be more knowledgable when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when they own a home or a car, and that a necessary consequence of that would be that demand for professionals would drop.  I just don't think they'll ever disappear entirely, nor should they.

WhiteKnight77

Remember, plumbers just do not unclog drains and install toilets.

Yeah I know.  I don't want plumbers to disappear, I just don't like the normative/economic equivalence I see in claims like Bloomberg's.  That there's an economic demand for plumbers, to me, shouldn't automatically mean that it's a good thing for more people to become plumbers.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

If we're comparing it to other countries then that's an extremely inflated price.  Compare France's price to state colleges and it's over ten times cheaper, compare it to community colleges and it's still about half the price.  That's a first-world country, their education is the same quality as ours (perhaps better), and over the same four year period American colleges are almost ten times the cost.  

I will grant that American colleges spend more on facilities and the like, but that brings up other problems.  What about students who don't use certain facilities but still pay for them?  Is all the money these collges are spending being used wisely?  At my university they're doing tons of renovations and construction, year after year something is getting torn down or built, and we're still hemmoraging money (in fact, our credit rating was recently downgraded).  So at the same time as you're seeing annual construction academic programs, which are supposed to be the focus of a university, are getting cut back.  

We can look at this in regards to sporting programs as well.  Colleges are spending boatloads of money on sports programs.  In fact, in almost every state except for a few exceptions (and I literally mean a few, maybe half a dozen at most) the highest-paid public employee is a college coach.  The argument gets made that this brings in money for the school, but if you actually look at it only the most lucrative athletics programs are generating money for their universities.  College athletics programs are actually losing money on average when you're only counting the revenue they generate on their own apart from student fees.  

So what does this all add up to?  We're paying for buildings and services we may never use, we're paying for renovations that administrators greenlight because they think it will spike applications, we're paying for sports teams that are actually probably costing the university, and our academic options are being scaled back, and for all of this our cost is TEN TIMES greater than a comprable European college system.  That in no way sounds fair to me.

Also, you have to consider that although quality of community colleges is and has been on the rise, there are still some out there that are considered sub-par.  For people who see less opportunity at their local community college and decide to go to a four-year school for four years you're going to have to add an extra sixteen grand on to the final sticker price.  These are also some low-ball numbers and you have to consider that there is a large segment of people paying significantly more.  Also, many people choose their college according to program.  I go to a state school because it's good for my major, but if I was in a program where the school frankly sucked, and I have seen programs like that, then I'm stuck between paying a lot more money for a school that has a better program or not getting the proper resources as part of my education.

Also, think about how much money this is.  Twenty four grand is not just a new car, but a nice new car.  I know people that have gone twenty years without being able to afford a new car that costs less than that, and cars last for a decade.  We're talking about buying a brand new car every single year for four years in a row, and some families have to do that with multiple children.  Frankly, that is just an insane cost for most Americans, I don't see how that's fair.  I also don't see how it's fair that tuition costs keep rising while the economy is contracting.

theone86

That's not inflated (as in paying more than the actual cost of the education).  It is simply having the student foot the bill.  The actual cost of a degree in France isn't a tenth of the cost in the U.S., it is simply subsidized.  That also goes for community college.  A tenth of the cost of a degree in the U.S. (state school @ ~ $11k/year) would barely put food on professor's tables, and that's before considering any other costs.  Sure, some things, like sports, could stand cuts, but that is not at all the majority of expenses.  Maintaining facilities, however, which sometimes involves renovations, is really unavoidable.  Perhaps your school is a touch flashier than mine, though.  Now, as to whether or not education should be subsidized, I think the U.S. system could use some work relative to where it is, but provided that grads are successful in their careers afterwards, I do think that asking them to foot the bill is unwarranted, nor the price of a state school outrageous.  College grads, on average, will make about $26k more per year than their counterparts merely with high school diplomas.  They will make about $1,000,000 more throughout the course of their lifetime than said counterparts.  That is a few houses, a few cars, and beer money.  And as to the rising cost of college, I'll admit that is a problem which needs to be addressed.

If we're talking subsidization, then college is a public good which benefits the entire country and I'm 100% in favor of it.  As I said, though, I still think the discrepancy is too large.  Subsidization accounts for some of that discrepancy, but I also think that a tenfold increase in the cost is far too much to simply be explained away by that.  Community colleges are a good example.  Yes, they are subsidized, but they do run on smaller budgets and still produce an education that is competitive with many four-year schools.  Furthermore, many states don't pay the full amount of money that community colleges are expecting, so even if subsidization accounts for all of the discrepancy (which I'm sure it doesn't) they're still used to running on smaller budgets.

I also don't think we should be talking about professors having to put food on their tables when they have a degree that guarantees them at least steady pay.  Yes, cutbacks could negatively impact them, but I really doubt they'd be out panhandling.  That sort of rhetoric should be reserved for people who really are struggling to put food on their own table.  Also, part of the cost of professors' salaries is how much they paid for their own degree, which I think is too much in the first place, so we're arguing in a bit of a loop here.

Renovations, if a building needs it then fine, but I'm talking about new buildings going up simply to raise the appeal of the university.  Besides, necessary renovations should be planned for.  I stick by my statement that educational programs should come first, then construction.  To expand on that slightly, education, then necessary construction, then vanity projects.

Even a twofold increase would be be surprising.  Hell, state schools are already subsidized considerably.  Anyway, I agree that to the extent that students need assistance that they should receive it.  That said, considering the benefits that college students receive, I don't think that expecting them to contribute to the cost of their education, if they are able to, is problematic.

Having formerly attended a community college and now that I currently attend a state school, I don't think that a direct comparison on costs is quite fair for a few reasons.  The first is that state schools, at least the one I attend, would need slightly more in the way of facilities as it is not located near where most of the people attending it lived prior to moving on campus.  Likewise, having health facilities and a gym makes sense as the place is somewhat of a home away from home, where attending community college was much more of a "go to class and leave" sort of thing.  It also more or less is responsible for the busing system for off-campus students (its a college town - wouldn't exist otherwise - but all things considered, definitely useful).  Things can get a little out of hand, sports comes to mind, and simply charging students for what facilities they use could be done, but overall, I don't feel like my school is spending money outright frivolously.  The idea of a four-year community college really makes sense to me, though.  I really haven't noticed anything in the way of vanity projects, but I suppose that is situational, and analyzing the issue at the macroscopic level would take a bit more information.

My point was that with the the amount of money you were talking about, one tenth of the price of a current state tuition, being a professor could not be a profession.

Also, students may make more ove rthe course of a lifetime, but it's still difficult paying the upfront cost.  I may make enough to buy a Vet over the course of my lifetime, but if I walk into a Chevy dealer tomorrow and ask for financing they will laugh me out the door.

theone86

Government can provide access to loans.  IIRC, if students in the U.K. can't afford to pay them back, they don't have to.  Just a thought.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Remember, plumbers just do not unclog drains and install toilets. 

theone86

Yeah I know.  I don't want plumbers to disappear, I just don't like the normative/economic equivalence I see in claims like Bloomberg's.  That there's an economic demand for plumbers, to me, shouldn't automatically mean that it's a good thing for more people to become plumbers.

I can't say for sure, but I believe his point is to learn a trade and not just become a plumber. Trades can encompase carpenters, welders, millwrights, plumbers of course, boilermakers, etc. You could even say what I do (NDT inspector) is a trade. Someone said something about work being hit or miss. It really depends. Plants shut down during certain times of the year for maintenence. They are scheduled so you know you will have work during the spring, fall and winter (depending on where said plant is). I know welders making 6 figures and only work 8 months or so out of the year. People with degrees work 5 days a week, 50-51 weeks a year.

I may work long hours and for long periods of time, but I typically take a week off without having to worry about bills falling behind if I take that week off. To me those are pluses since OT pays pretty good.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

There have been numerous attempts to manage resources, and that has typically fallen to experts (technocrats). Due to the lack of feedback mechanisms like the price system, shortages and surpluses occur. While inequities occur under market systems, governments can deal with that. Now, because unrestrained centralized power holders don't have inherent incentives to not fvck sh!t up, the path to oligarchy is pretty straightforward. This is all pretty simple.

coolbeans90

That is an assumption, non price based economics (outside of communism) has not been attempted.

Competence is rewarded in this system, not fVking things up is the fastest and easiest way to get what you want. I suggest you read Platos "The Republic" if you want to know what kind of man is the ideal for government.

Non-price-based economics goes back a very long time. Prior to capitalism, it was rather prominent.

I've read the Republic, and it really doesn't do your side of the argument any favors. For starters, it has no understanding of man. It was the work of a philosopher, not a scientist. Plato's understanding of man is dubious at best. You assume that competence necessarily will be rewarded - as if, for some reason, the problems inherent to authoritarian power structures disappears. Yet, you fail to address this. Now that we've gone over the obvious - that scarcity can't be eliminated, governments are not particularly apt at managing entire economies (which is exacerbated several orders of the magnitude in the absence of any money at all), and that removing money hasn't prevented corruption in the past - do you care at all to address the fundamental problems involved with the system? Please start taking your thought experiment seriously.

You forget that bartering (which is what i assume you are talking about) while not included in the price system still involves trading one physical thing or service for another based on an agreed upon worth by individuals. In the system i have discussed a qualified government determines the value of goods and services, not the general public.

Keep in mind however that the economic part of my theory is the most subject to change. i will take any alternatives into consideration. In fact the whole point is moot realy, as my opinion on the matter is meaningless as the technocratic government, should it be formed, would determine economic policy which would likely change based on the situation at hand.

As for the bolded: you have not proven anything, to think such a general conversation would validate those statements (neither of us has really backed up what we are saying in substantial detail nesesary to reach such sweeping conclusions) is debateable at best . I am however open for contenued discussion to see if we can reach an agreement.

As for the underlined: What problems do you have with Plato's theory of man? Do you not agree with his tripartite theory of the soul?

You forget that bartering (which is what i assume you are talking about) while not included in the price system still involves trading one physical thing or service for another based on an agreed upon worth by individuals. In the system i have discussed a qualified government determines the value of goods and services, not the general public. keep in mind however that the economic part of my theory is the most subject to change. i will take any alternatives into consideration. In fact the whole point is moot as my opinion on the matter is meaningless as the technocratic should it be formed would determine economic policy which would likely change based on the situation.

 

As for the bolded: you have not proven anything, to think such a general conversation would validate those statements (neither of us has really backed up what we are saying in substantial detail nesesary to reach such sweeping conclusions) is debateable at best . I am however open for contenued discussion to see if we can reach an agreement.

 

 

as for the underlined: What problems do you have with Plato's theory of man? Do you not agree with his tripartite theory of the soul?

frannkzappa

As to the gov't determines value: It really wouldn't. Value, at least in an economic respect, is related to supply and demand, and simply ignoring those factors necessarily results in shortages and surpluses - inefficiency. The price system in competitive markets has been considerably more efficient than top-down alternatives.

The bolded is really not a contentious statement, and I would be quite surprised if you actually disagreed.

As for the underlined, the tripartite theory is a rather silly construct. It does touch upon some aspects of men, but they are not entirely separable from each other, nor do they encompass the entirety of man.

Anyway, I have doubts that anything resembling agreement will result from this discussion.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

You forget that bartering (which is what i assume you are talking about) while not included in the price system still involves trading one physical thing or service for another based on an agreed upon worth by individuals. In the system i have discussed a qualified government determines the value of goods and services, not the general public. keep in mind however that the economic part of my theory is the most subject to change. i will take any alternatives into consideration. In fact the whole point is moot as my opinion on the matter is meaningless as the technocratic should it be formed would determine economic policy which would likely change based on the situation.

As for the bolded: you have not proven anything, to think such a general conversation would validate those statements (neither of us has really backed up what we are saying in substantial detail nesesary to reach such sweeping conclusions) is debateable at best . I am however open for contenued discussion to see if we can reach an agreement.

as for the underlined: What problems do you have with Plato's theory of man? Do you not agree with his tripartite theory of the soul?

coolbeans90

As to the gov't determines value: It really wouldn't. Value, at least in an economic respect, is related to supply and demand, and simply ignoring those factors necessarily results in shortages and surpluses - inefficiency. The price system in competitive markets has been considerably more efficient than top-down alternatives.

The bolded is really not a contentious statement, and I would be quite surprised if you actually disagreed.

As for the underlined, the tripartite theory is a rather silly construct. It does touch upon some aspects of men, but they are not entirely separable from each other, nor do they encompass the entirety of man.

Anyway, I have doubts that anything resembling agreement will result from this discussion.

Well disagreements are a part of life. You'll certainly see no hard feelings coming from me.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

You forget that bartering (which is what i assume you are talking about) while not included in the price system still involves trading one physical thing or service for another based on an agreed upon worth by individuals. In the system i have discussed a qualified government determines the value of goods and services, not the general public. keep in mind however that the economic part of my theory is the most subject to change. i will take any alternatives into consideration. In fact the whole point is moot as my opinion on the matter is meaningless as the technocratic should it be formed would determine economic policy which would likely change based on the situation.

 

As for the bolded: you have not proven anything, to think such a general conversation would validate those statements (neither of us has really backed up what we are saying in substantial detail nesesary to reach such sweeping conclusions) is debateable at best . I am however open for contenued discussion to see if we can reach an agreement.

 

 

as for the underlined: What problems do you have with Plato's theory of man? Do you not agree with his tripartite theory of the soul?

frannkzappa

As to the gov't determines value: It really wouldn't. Value, at least in an economic respect, is related to supply and demand, and simply ignoring those factors necessarily results in shortages and surpluses - inefficiency. The price system in competitive markets has been considerably more efficient than top-down alternatives.

The bolded is really not a contentious statement, and I would be quite surprised if you actually disagreed.

As for the underlined, the tripartite theory is a rather silly construct. It does touch upon some aspects of men, but they are not entirely separable from each other, nor do they encompass the entirety of man.

Anyway, I have doubts that anything resembling agreement will result from this discussion.

Well disagreements are a part of life. You'll certainly see no hard feelings coming from me.

Same, though a bit of bewilderment on a few key issues, particularly the economics.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

As to the gov't determines value: It really wouldn't. Value, at least in an economic respect, is related to supply and demand, and simply ignoring those factors necessarily results in shortages and surpluses - inefficiency. The price system in competitive markets has been considerably more efficient than top-down alternatives.

The bolded is really not a contentious statement, and I would be quite surprised if you actually disagreed.

As for the underlined, the tripartite theory is a rather silly construct. It does touch upon some aspects of men, but they are not entirely separable from each other, nor do they encompass the entirety of man.

Anyway, I have doubts that anything resembling agreement will result from this discussion.

coolbeans90

Well disagreements are a part of life. You'll certainly see no hard feelings coming from me.

Same, though a bit of bewilderment on a few key issues, particularly the economics.

i've been known to be an idealist...add x10 to that on an internet forum.

I'm in favor of the DIY route, I'm just not taking it to the extreme of Yusuke.  I think people should be more knowledgable when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when they own a home or a car, and that a necessary consequence of that would be that demand for professionals would drop.  I just don't think they'll ever disappear entirely, nor should they.

theone86

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I'm in favor of the DIY route, I'm just not taking it to the extreme of Yusuke.  I think people should be more knowledgable when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when they own a home or a car, and that a necessary consequence of that would be that demand for professionals would drop.  I just don't think they'll ever disappear entirely, nor should they.

theone86

Remember, plumbers just do not unclog drains and install toilets.

Yeah I know.  I don't want plumbers to disappear, I just don't like the normative/economic equivalence I see in claims like Bloomberg's.  That there's an economic demand for plumbers, to me, shouldn't automatically mean that it's a good thing for more people to become plumbers.

If you can pick up a trade, or do something that doesn't require college then you should go for it. If college is something you want to do, go for it.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

That's not inflated (as in paying more than the actual cost of the education).  It is simply having the student foot the bill.  The actual cost of a degree in France isn't a tenth of the cost in the U.S., it is simply subsidized.  That also goes for community college.  A tenth of the cost of a degree in the U.S. (state school @ ~ $11k/year) would barely put food on professor's tables, and that's before considering any other costs.  Sure, some things, like sports, could stand cuts, but that is not at all the majority of expenses.  Maintaining facilities, however, which sometimes involves renovations, is really unavoidable.  Perhaps your school is a touch flashier than mine, though.  Now, as to whether or not education should be subsidized, I think the U.S. system could use some work relative to where it is, but provided that grads are successful in their careers afterwards, I do think that asking them to foot the bill is unwarranted, nor the price of a state school outrageous.  College grads, on average, will make about $26k more per year than their counterparts merely with high school diplomas.  They will make about $1,000,000 more throughout the course of their lifetime than said counterparts.  That is a few houses, a few cars, and beer money.  And as to the rising cost of college, I'll admit that is a problem which needs to be addressed.

coolbeans90

If we're talking subsidization, then college is a public good which benefits the entire country and I'm 100% in favor of it.  As I said, though, I still think the discrepancy is too large.  Subsidization accounts for some of that discrepancy, but I also think that a tenfold increase in the cost is far too much to simply be explained away by that.  Community colleges are a good example.  Yes, they are subsidized, but they do run on smaller budgets and still produce an education that is competitive with many four-year schools.  Furthermore, many states don't pay the full amount of money that community colleges are expecting, so even if subsidization accounts for all of the discrepancy (which I'm sure it doesn't) they're still used to running on smaller budgets.

I also don't think we should be talking about professors having to put food on their tables when they have a degree that guarantees them at least steady pay.  Yes, cutbacks could negatively impact them, but I really doubt they'd be out panhandling.  That sort of rhetoric should be reserved for people who really are struggling to put food on their own table.  Also, part of the cost of professors' salaries is how much they paid for their own degree, which I think is too much in the first place, so we're arguing in a bit of a loop here.

Renovations, if a building needs it then fine, but I'm talking about new buildings going up simply to raise the appeal of the university.  Besides, necessary renovations should be planned for.  I stick by my statement that educational programs should come first, then construction.  To expand on that slightly, education, then necessary construction, then vanity projects.

Even a twofold increase would be be surprising.  Hell, state schools are already subsidized considerably.  Anyway, I agree that to the extent that students need assistance that they should receive it.  That said, considering the benefits that college students receive, I don't think that expecting them to contribute to the cost of their education, if they are able to, is problematic.

Having formerly attended a community college and now that I currently attend a state school, I don't think that a direct comparison on costs is quite fair for a few reasons.  The first is that state schools, at least the one I attend, would need slightly more in the way of facilities as it is not located near where most of the people attending it lived prior to moving on campus.  Likewise, having health facilities and a gym makes sense as the place is somewhat of a home away from home, where attending community college was much more of a "go to class and leave" sort of thing.  It also more or less is responsible for the busing system for off-campus students (its a college town - wouldn't exist otherwise - but all things considered, definitely useful).  Things can get a little out of hand, sports comes to mind, and simply charging students for what facilities they use could be done, but overall, I don't feel like my school is spending money outright frivolously.  The idea of a four-year community college really makes sense to me, though.  I really haven't noticed anything in the way of vanity projects, but I suppose that is situational, and analyzing the issue at the macroscopic level would take a bit more information.

My point was that with the the amount of money you were talking about, one tenth of the price of a current state tuition, being a professor could not be a profession.

I really like having access to a lot of these facilities, but when I think about costs I have to ask myself if I would be paying for these if they weren't included in my tuition and my answer is no.  I'm a little conflicted, I think health facilities and gyms are good for students, but in the end it just comes down to price.  If local gyms or perhaps optional membership fees for a university gym could provide the same service and also lower tuition then I have to ask myself if it's really worth it.

Part of my issue is also that I think a lot of these things should be public services with or without the college.  My college includes a cheap healthcare plan in my tuition, but I basically have to use their facility (which is new and expensive, the facility not the service itself).  If we had a more comprehensive national healthcare system it wouldn't really be necessary to build a huge facility just to service students.  Public transportation is another thing that I think should be a huge priority nationwide.  Yes, I like that students get access to cheap public transportation, I don't like that it would be non-existent if not for the college.

From the professors I've talked to, a lot of this money colleges are making doesn't see their way to them.  I think that's part of my issue, is that if tuition is going up then why aren't professors or academic programs seeing more of that money?  I am saying, though, that I think professor salaries can be part of this conversation, even if it turns out they're really not one of the primary problems with college costs.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Remember, plumbers just do not unclog drains and install toilets. 

WhiteKnight77

Yeah I know.  I don't want plumbers to disappear, I just don't like the normative/economic equivalence I see in claims like Bloomberg's.  That there's an economic demand for plumbers, to me, shouldn't automatically mean that it's a good thing for more people to become plumbers.

I can't say for sure, but I believe his point is to learn a trade and not just become a plumber. Trades can encompase carpenters, welders, millwrights, plumbers of course, boilermakers, etc. You could even say what I do (NDT inspector) is a trade. Someone said something about work being hit or miss. It really depends. Plants shut down during certain times of the year for maintenence. They are scheduled so you know you will have work during the spring, fall and winter (depending on where said plant is). I know welders making 6 figures and only work 8 months or so out of the year. People with degrees work 5 days a week, 50-51 weeks a year.

I may work long hours and for long periods of time, but I typically take a week off without having to worry about bills falling behind if I take that week off. To me those are pluses since OT pays pretty good.

Then perhaps I agree a bit in principle, but I still dislike his rhetoric.  I think the entire population is under-educated on average and discouraging education doesn't seem like a good idea to me.  you can even take my case as an example, I used to work as a mechanic because I never really excelled in middle or high school.  Once I went back to college, though, I learned I loved it.  I wonder how many plumbers there are who aren't aware of how successful they might be in an academic setting.  The way our primary and secondary education is now I at least think everyone should get an associate's degree, though I could change my mind if our public education became more comprehensive.

That being said I think the opposite holds true for academics, they shouldn't just get wrapped up in books and should have some proficiency in manual labor.  When I talk about primary and secondary education being more comprehensive I think that applies to this sort of thing as well, I think everyone should have some experience in a shop class, which is part of what I was saying with the whole DIY thing.  I also don't have any problem with people getting bachelor's degrees and then going off and doing a trade, I think it's great to have a more educated workforce even if that education isn't being used in their everyday work.  

Finally, some of the trades you mentioned are actually in decline because there's not a real economic demand for them, carpenters being one.  I think it's important to preserve crafts like that even if there's not a lot of demand.  His comments, in my reading, seemed to indicate that it was the economic demand that specifically made specializing in these trades important.  I'm all for people pursuing trades if that's what they want to do, but I don't think it should be purely an economic decision and I do still think that there's room for some amount of higher academic instruction, even if it's just an associate's degree.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I'm in favor of the DIY route, I'm just not taking it to the extreme of Yusuke.  I think people should be more knowledgable when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when they own a home or a car, and that a necessary consequence of that would be that demand for professionals would drop.  I just don't think they'll ever disappear entirely, nor should they.

MrGeezer

If they have the knowledge then there's no need to ask for help.  I'm not advocating for people to grab a wrench and just start pulling nuts off their car (I actually did that once, did not end well), I'm advocating for people to have more and better knowledge of the things they own.

If we're simply talking about immediate consequences then I agree, there's not a whole lot of problem with going to pros.  My issue, however, is with the principle of being completely oblivious of how the things you own work and completely unable to care for them.  That, to me, is a larger issue and a part of the throwaway mentality in our society.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Remember, plumbers just do not unclog drains and install toilets.

 

 

mmwmwmmwmwmm

Yeah I know.  I don't want plumbers to disappear, I just don't like the normative/economic equivalence I see in claims like Bloomberg's.  That there's an economic demand for plumbers, to me, shouldn't automatically mean that it's a good thing for more people to become plumbers.

It's training me to think critically and answer people like you, in addition to creating new ways of addressing problems such as environmental degredation, litigious issues, rights, global resource management, etc.  My entire issue is that economic value does not always translate to real value, there are things that have value outside of economics but no real value within economics.  You're simply bypassing this issue by assuming the validity of your viewpoint, namely that economic considerations should take priority over everything else, and then acting snidely to those who don't agree with you.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I'm in favor of the DIY route, I'm just not taking it to the extreme of Yusuke.  I think people should be more knowledgable when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when they own a home or a car, and that a necessary consequence of that would be that demand for professionals would drop.  I just don't think they'll ever disappear entirely, nor should they.

WhiteKnight77

Remember, plumbers just do not unclog drains and install toilets.

If they have the knowledge then there's no need to ask for help.  I'm not advocating for people to grab a wrench and just start pulling nuts off their car (I actually did that once, did not end well), I'm advocating for people to have more and better knowledge of the things they own.

If we're simply talking about immediate consequences then I agree, there's not a whole lot of problem with going to pros.  My issue, however, is with the principle of being completely oblivious of how the things you own work and completely unable to care for them.  That, to me, is a larger issue and a part of the throwaway mentality in our society.

theone86

It's true as far as I know. People are always going to need plumbers, and they get to choose their work.

Gas fitters are in a similar veign. Nearly everybody has a water boiler, and all of them will need replacing or maintaining at some point. The pay is supposed to be above average.

[QUOTE="mmwmwmmwmwmm"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Yeah I know.  I don't want plumbers to disappear, I just don't like the normative/economic equivalence I see in claims like Bloomberg's.  That there's an economic demand for plumbers, to me, shouldn't automatically mean that it's a good thing for more people to become plumbers.

theone86

It's training me to think critically and answer people like you, in addition to creating new ways of addressing problems such as environmental degredation, litigious issues, rights, global resource management, etc.  My entire issue is that economic value does not always translate to real value, there are things that have value outside of economics but no real value within economics.  You're simply bypassing this issue by assuming the validity of your viewpoint, namely that economic considerations should take priority over everything else, and then acting snidely to those who don't agree with you.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

If they have the knowledge then there's no need to ask for help.  I'm not advocating for people to grab a wrench and just start pulling nuts off their car (I actually did that once, did not end well), I'm advocating for people to have more and better knowledge of the things they own.

If we're simply talking about immediate consequences then I agree, there's not a whole lot of problem with going to pros.  My issue, however, is with the principle of being completely oblivious of how the things you own work and completely unable to care for them.  That, to me, is a larger issue and a part of the throwaway mentality in our society.

MrGeezer

It depends on what we're talking about.  Obviously, more involved jobs and harder diagnoses should always go to pros.  I don't expect everyone to own an alignment machine for their car obviously, but to know the basics of how it works?  I think that should be par for the course.  I think people should be fairly comfortable repairing their own property and once they leave their skill level it should be taken to a professional.  As for convienence, that's a huge part of my problem is that people don't (or can't, but that raises other issues) spare the time to maintain their own property.

That is exactly the claim I am making, is that people should be jacks of all trades.  I don't expect them to excel in everything and I don't expect them to put a ton of time into getting good at everything, I simply think they should be acquainted with as many basic skills as possible.  To me, the idea that someone can't cook is simply ridiculous.  Perhaps you can't cook well, but everyone should at least be able to cook.  Also, I don't mind if people who don't own cars don't know how cars work, but I believe that if it's something you own and use then you should have some familiarity with it.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="mmwmwmmwmwmm"] yeah people should be training for jobs where there isn't an economic demand. like whatever your pseudo-philosophy degree is training you for.mmwmwmmwmwmm

It's training me to think critically and answer people like you, in addition to creating new ways of addressing problems such as environmental degredation, litigious issues, rights, global resource management, etc.  My entire issue is that economic value does not always translate to real value, there are things that have value outside of economics but no real value within economics.  You're simply bypassing this issue by assuming the validity of your viewpoint, namely that economic considerations should take priority over everything else, and then acting snidely to those who don't agree with you.

One, it has economic value.  Two, I'm not learning arguments for anything specific, I'm learning critical thinking in general.  Three, if you want to generalize and poison the well then go ahead, but my arguments are nuanced.  Sometimes I believe in public ownership of resources, sometimes I believe in welfare programs, sometimes I believe in less government intervention, sometimes I believe in letting the market take its course.  To simply generalize that as socialist is extremely fallacious.  Four, welfare provides for people who can contribute to society but never received the resources to learn how.  Five, as I've said, economic value does not always translate to real value, do you want to actually dispute that or are you content to pontificate?

It depends on what we're talking about.  Obviously, more involved jobs and harder diagnoses should always go to pros.  I don't expect everyone to own an alignment machine for their car obviously, but to know the basics of how it works?  I think that should be par for the course.  I think people should be fairly comfortable repairing their own property and once they leave their skill level it should be taken to a professional.  As for convienence, that's a huge part of my problem is that people don't (or can't, but that raises other issues) spare the time to maintain their own property.

That is exactly the claim I am making, is that people should be jacks of all trades.  I don't expect them to excel in everything and I don't expect them to put a ton of time into getting good at everything, I simply think they should be acquainted with as many basic skills as possible.  To me, the idea that someone can't cook is simply ridiculous.  Perhaps you can't cook well, but everyone should at least be able to cook.  Also, I don't mind if people who don't own cars don't know how cars work, but I believe that if it's something you own and use then you should have some familiarity with it.

theone86

[QUOTE="theone86"]

It depends on what we're talking about.  Obviously, more involved jobs and harder diagnoses should always go to pros.  I don't expect everyone to own an alignment machine for their car obviously, but to know the basics of how it works?  I think that should be par for the course.  I think people should be fairly comfortable repairing their own property and once they leave their skill level it should be taken to a professional.  As for convienence, that's a huge part of my problem is that people don't (or can't, but that raises other issues) spare the time to maintain their own property.

That is exactly the claim I am making, is that people should be jacks of all trades.  I don't expect them to excel in everything and I don't expect them to put a ton of time into getting good at everything, I simply think they should be acquainted with as many basic skills as possible.  To me, the idea that someone can't cook is simply ridiculous.  Perhaps you can't cook well, but everyone should at least be able to cook.  Also, I don't mind if people who don't own cars don't know how cars work, but I believe that if it's something you own and use then you should have some familiarity with it.

MrGeezer

In order to gain a fundamental respect for the things you own, in order to keep in touch with that part of human experience and maintain a diverse perspective, in order to save money.  When we're getting to more universal skills like cooking I'd also say that the ability to be self-sufficient comes into play, as well as being able to maintain a diverse perspective.  I'm also not advocating that this cut into the things people enjoy doing normally.  For cooking it could be as simple as cooking one meal a week, or a month.  The skill could be at a very basic level, I simply think that maintaning a skill like that even at a basic level has value for people.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="theone86"]

It depends on what we're talking about.  Obviously, more involved jobs and harder diagnoses should always go to pros.  I don't expect everyone to own an alignment machine for their car obviously, but to know the basics of how it works?  I think that should be par for the course.  I think people should be fairly comfortable repairing their own property and once they leave their skill level it should be taken to a professional.  As for convienence, that's a huge part of my problem is that people don't (or can't, but that raises other issues) spare the time to maintain their own property.

That is exactly the claim I am making, is that people should be jacks of all trades.  I don't expect them to excel in everything and I don't expect them to put a ton of time into getting good at everything, I simply think they should be acquainted with as many basic skills as possible.  To me, the idea that someone can't cook is simply ridiculous.  Perhaps you can't cook well, but everyone should at least be able to cook.  Also, I don't mind if people who don't own cars don't know how cars work, but I believe that if it's something you own and use then you should have some familiarity with it.

theone86

In order to gain a fundamental respect for the things you own, in order to keep in touch with that part of human experience and maintain a diverse perspective, in order to save money.  When we're getting to more universal skills like cooking I'd also say that the ability to be self-sufficient comes into play, as well as being able to maintain a diverse perspective.  I'm also not advocating that this cut into the things people enjoy doing normally.  For cooking it could be as simple as cooking one meal a week, or a month.  The skill could be at a very basic level, I simply think that maintaning a skill like that even at a basic level has value for people.

I agree with that. How to change a tyre and vehicle maintenance should be one imo.

It's true as far as I know. People are always going to need plumbers, and they get to choose their work.

Gas fitters are in a similar veign. Nearly everybody has a water boiler, and all of them will need replacing or maintaining at some point. The pay is supposed to be above average.

Leejjohno

I think water heaters still fall in the plumber's realm although the line to the gas main may not be. I used to do periodic maintenance on water heaters which consist of making sure the pressure relief valve works properly and replacing heating elements that quit working because of lime buildup.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

If we're talking subsidization, then college is a public good which benefits the entire country and I'm 100% in favor of it.  As I said, though, I still think the discrepancy is too large.  Subsidization accounts for some of that discrepancy, but I also think that a tenfold increase in the cost is far too much to simply be explained away by that.  Community colleges are a good example.  Yes, they are subsidized, but they do run on smaller budgets and still produce an education that is competitive with many four-year schools.  Furthermore, many states don't pay the full amount of money that community colleges are expecting, so even if subsidization accounts for all of the discrepancy (which I'm sure it doesn't) they're still used to running on smaller budgets.

I also don't think we should be talking about professors having to put food on their tables when they have a degree that guarantees them at least steady pay.  Yes, cutbacks could negatively impact them, but I really doubt they'd be out panhandling.  That sort of rhetoric should be reserved for people who really are struggling to put food on their own table.  Also, part of the cost of professors' salaries is how much they paid for their own degree, which I think is too much in the first place, so we're arguing in a bit of a loop here.

Renovations, if a building needs it then fine, but I'm talking about new buildings going up simply to raise the appeal of the university.  Besides, necessary renovations should be planned for.  I stick by my statement that educational programs should come first, then construction.  To expand on that slightly, education, then necessary construction, then vanity projects.

theone86

Even a twofold increase would be be surprising.  Hell, state schools are already subsidized considerably.  Anyway, I agree that to the extent that students need assistance that they should receive it.  That said, considering the benefits that college students receive, I don't think that expecting them to contribute to the cost of their education, if they are able to, is problematic.

Having formerly attended a community college and now that I currently attend a state school, I don't think that a direct comparison on costs is quite fair for a few reasons.  The first is that state schools, at least the one I attend, would need slightly more in the way of facilities as it is not located near where most of the people attending it lived prior to moving on campus.  Likewise, having health facilities and a gym makes sense as the place is somewhat of a home away from home, where attending community college was much more of a "go to class and leave" sort of thing.  It also more or less is responsible for the busing system for off-campus students (its a college town - wouldn't exist otherwise - but all things considered, definitely useful).  Things can get a little out of hand, sports comes to mind, and simply charging students for what facilities they use could be done, but overall, I don't feel like my school is spending money outright frivolously.  The idea of a four-year community college really makes sense to me, though.  I really haven't noticed anything in the way of vanity projects, but I suppose that is situational, and analyzing the issue at the macroscopic level would take a bit more information.

My point was that with the the amount of money you were talking about, one tenth of the price of a current state tuition, being a professor could not be a profession.

I really like having access to a lot of these facilities, but when I think about costs I have to ask myself if I would be paying for these if they weren't included in my tuition and my answer is no.  I'm a little conflicted, I think health facilities and gyms are good for students, but in the end it just comes down to price.  If local gyms or perhaps optional membership fees for a university gym could provide the same service and also lower tuition then I have to ask myself if it's really worth it.

Part of my issue is also that I think a lot of these things should be public services with or without the college.  My college includes a cheap healthcare plan in my tuition, but I basically have to use their facility (which is new and expensive, the facility not the service itself).  If we had a more comprehensive national healthcare system it wouldn't really be necessary to build a huge facility just to service students.  Public transportation is another thing that I think should be a huge priority nationwide.  Yes, I like that students get access to cheap public transportation, I don't like that it would be non-existent if not for the college.

From the professors I've talked to, a lot of this money colleges are making doesn't see their way to them.  I think that's part of my issue, is that if tuition is going up then why aren't professors or academic programs seeing more of that money?  I am saying, though, that I think professor salaries can be part of this conversation, even if it turns out they're really not one of the primary problems with college costs.

Accessibility is an issue for students living on campus, particularly those without vehicles (neither of those traits describe me, but w/e).  That returns us to public transport.  Public transport in Va. is essentially nonexistent in areas far, far more populated, so I doubt this place would have it otherwise.  As to whether or not these should be public services without college, perhaps, perhaps not, but these colleges operate in an environment where they are not.  Even if they were, medical facilities probably would be built on college campuses, but the cost burden would shift.

Supposedly administration costs have been rising, whatever that means.  Given what college professors actually make, I am perplexed as to why you think that should be part of the conversation.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

I'll be the outsider here and just say that is absolutely horrible advice to give. Learning a trade is only good if that trade is going to continue to be valuable into the future. I agree that the job market is becoming saturated with college graduates ,but societal expectations and employers are entirely to blame. Nobody goes to school wanting to be a plumber because its hard to make a career doing a trade anymore. If the demand for that trade disappears you're screwed.

Yusuke420

The demand for plumbers isn't going to go away anytime soon.

If you mean maintenance, sure. Plumbing is a pretty broad area though. There's outdoor/street plumbing, structural maintenance which encompasses what you're talking about, construction plumbing as in residential homes and business establishments, and gas lines. For some areas, you'll need additional certification such as backhoe and sewer truck operation, knowledge of building codes, and certification to work on gas lines.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I'm in favor of the DIY route, I'm just not taking it to the extreme of Yusuke.  I think people should be more knowledgable when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when they own a home or a car, and that a necessary consequence of that would be that demand for professionals would drop.  I just don't think they'll ever disappear entirely, nor should they.

Yusuke420

Remember, plumbers just do not unclog drains and install toilets.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

I can't say for sure, but I believe his point is to learn a trade and not just become a plumber. Trades can encompase carpenters, welders, millwrights, plumbers of course, boilermakers, etc. You could even say what I do (NDT inspector) is a trade. Someone said something about work being hit or miss. It really depends. Plants shut down during certain times of the year for maintenence. They are scheduled so you know you will have work during the spring, fall and winter (depending on where said plant is). I know welders making 6 figures and only work 8 months or so out of the year. People with degrees work 5 days a week, 50-51 weeks a year.

I may work long hours and for long periods of time, but I typically take a week off without having to worry about bills falling behind if I take that week off. To me those are pluses since OT pays pretty good.

theone86

Then perhaps I agree a bit in principle, but I still dislike his rhetoric.  I think the entire population is under-educated on average and discouraging education doesn't seem like a good idea to me.  you can even take my case as an example, I used to work as a mechanic because I never really excelled in middle or high school.  Once I went back to college, though, I learned I loved it.  I wonder how many plumbers there are who aren't aware of how successful they might be in an academic setting.  The way our primary and secondary education is now I at least think everyone should get an associate's degree, though I could change my mind if our public education became more comprehensive.

That being said I think the opposite holds true for academics, they shouldn't just get wrapped up in books and should have some proficiency in manual labor.  When I talk about primary and secondary education being more comprehensive I think that applies to this sort of thing as well, I think everyone should have some experience in a shop class, which is part of what I was saying with the whole DIY thing.  I also don't have any problem with people getting bachelor's degrees and then going off and doing a trade, I think it's great to have a more educated workforce even if that education isn't being used in their everyday work.  

Finally, some of the trades you mentioned are actually in decline because there's not a real economic demand for them, carpenters being one.  I think it's important to preserve crafts like that even if there's not a lot of demand.  His comments, in my reading, seemed to indicate that it was the economic demand that specifically made specializing in these trades important.  I'm all for people pursuing trades if that's what they want to do, but I don't think it should be purely an economic decision and I do still think that there's room for some amount of higher academic instruction, even if it's just an associate's degree.

The trades I mentioned are in economic demand. People want power, they want paper, they want homes (the housing market is picking up again). Many people associate carpenters as just someone who build houses. Not true. Carpenters can build forms for concrete, especially in the road building business. They work with scaffold builders to put decking down in places where normal metal scaffold boards cannot be used. The trades I listed are in use pretty much all year as boilermakers have to build panels for boilers that are getting worked on during shutdowns (which mean some boilermakers are employed year round). Storage tanks need repairs and replacement when one least expects it. Millwrights work on the steam turbines that both paper mills and power plants use for the generation of electricity.

There will always be a demand for trades unless we as a species decide to go back to living in caves, stop using electricity and stop driving. I still predict the day when that happens as we will no longer have people to fix cars, build roads, houses, business parks or any other industrial need we require to keep civilization running.

In order to gain a fundamental respect for the things you own, in order to keep in touch with that part of human experience and maintain a diverse perspective, in order to save money.  When we're getting to more universal skills like cooking I'd also say that the ability to be self-sufficient comes into play, as well as being able to maintain a diverse perspective.  I'm also not advocating that this cut into the things people enjoy doing normally.  For cooking it could be as simple as cooking one meal a week, or a month.  The skill could be at a very basic level, I simply think that maintaning a skill like that even at a basic level has value for people.

theone86

Some of what he said makes sense.

Frankly, many college students are wasting money by going to college. And it does not help that in America (yes, I am generalizing), we pretty much convince every school child that college is where they NEED to get to, and if they don't get to college, they are a failure.

The__Kraken

pretty much this.

If you know what you want to do with your life, and a college degree is necessary, go to college.  Otherwise, wait or don't go.  And don't be afraid of community/junior colleges or trade schools.

Accessibility is an issue for students living on campus, particularly those without vehicles (neither of those traits describe me, but w/e).  That returns us to public transport.  Public transport in Va. is essentially nonexistent in areas far, far more populated, so I doubt this place would have it otherwise.  As to whether or not these should be public services without college, perhaps, perhaps not, but these colleges operate in an environment where they are not.  Even if they were, medical facilities probably would be built on college campuses, but the cost burden would shift.

Supposedly administration costs have been rising, whatever that means.  Given what college professors actually make, I am perplexed as to why you think that should be part of the conversation.

coolbeans90

It's more that I don't want to leave any possibility out of the conversation.

The trades I mentioned are in economic demand. People want power, they want paper, they want homes (the housing market is picking up again). Many people associate carpenters as just someone who build houses. Not true. Carpenters can build forms for concrete, especially in the road building business. They work with scaffold builders to put decking down in places where normal metal scaffold boards cannot be used. The trades I listed are in use pretty much all year as boilermakers have to build panels for boilers that are getting worked on during shutdowns (which mean some boilermakers are employed year round). Storage tanks need repairs and replacement when one least expects it. Millwrights work on the steam turbines that both paper mills and power plants use for the generation of electricity.

There will always be a demand for trades unless we as a species decide to go back to living in caves, stop using electricity and stop driving. I still predict the day when that happens as we will no longer have people to fix cars, build roads, houses, business parks or any other industrial need we require to keep civilization running.

WhiteKnight77

When I read carpenters I actually thought of someone who makes furniture.

Then I guess I'm back to disagreeing, I don't think economic demand should be the driving factor in people deciding what to do.  That essentially turns economic demand into a normative measure in our society, which leads to the loss of many things that have little or no economic value.  Just your rhetoric proves that, all you're able to focus on are things that originate from human construction.  The normative economic claim being made here is that development=good, nature=bad.  You can look at other normative claims that flow from this mentality, such as knowledge of how to build houses=good, knowledge of how to build furniture=bad.  I'm frankly quite scared of what the world would look like if economics ever became the defacto scale for making normative claims.

The thing is, people don't have unlimited time. Spending time learning how to do one thing guarantees NOT spending time learning how to do something else. Is learning how to cook badly worth the loss of time that could have been spent doing something else? I don't know, and that's not my call. People spend their money (and their time) in such a way that makes them feel as if they're getting the most value. It's all subjective anyway. One dude will say that you're an idiot if you can't boil an egg, a different person will opine that at the bare minimum everyone should be able to make a good soup. One person will opine that people should cut their own grass, another person will opine that people should do more extensive landscaping. How simple/complex should one's DIY abilities be? That's completely arbitrary. They'll learn how to do it themselves if they think it's worth it.MrGeezer

How hard is it to learn how to cook?  If you cook one meal a week you might be taking an hour, maybe two out of your schedule.  Honestly, if someone can't spare that then that's just part of what I take offense with, is people being too busy to be able to do anything for themselves.  I understand that there are people who are working a ton or taking care of other repsonsibilities, but that's also a part of my problem.

There's subjectivity involved, but that doesn't mean that it's a completely subjective determination.  One of my favorite philosophical terms is "objective relativist," aside from being delightfully paradoxical I also find it to be somewhat truthful.  Yes, different people are going to have different definitions of what the bare minimum should be, but that's where I think personal judgement is more useful.  I'm purposefully making more broad statements that relate more to principle in part because I think personal determination is more fitted to situations like you're mentioning.  I comment on the principle because I believe in its validity, and individuals who ascribe to said principle measure their actions according to it.

How hard is it to learn how to cook?  If you cook one meal a week you might be taking an hour, maybe two out of your schedule.  Honestly, if someone can't spare that then that's just part of what I take offense with, is people being too busy to be able to do anything for themselves.  I understand that there are people who are working a ton or taking care of other repsonsibilities, but that's also a part of my problem.

There's subjectivity involved, but that doesn't mean that it's a completely subjective determination.  One of my favorite philosophical terms is "objective relativist," aside from being delightfully paradoxical I also find it to be somewhat truthful.  Yes, different people are going to have different definitions of what the bare minimum should be, but that's where I think personal judgement is more useful.  I'm purposefully making more broad statements that relate more to principle in part because I think personal determination is more fitted to situations like you're mentioning.  I comment on the principle because I believe in its validity, and individuals who ascribe to said principle measure their actions according to it.

theone86

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

It's true as far as I know. People are always going to need plumbers, and they get to choose their work.

Gas fitters are in a similar veign. Nearly everybody has a water boiler, and all of them will need replacing or maintaining at some point. The pay is supposed to be above average.

jun_aka_pekto

I think water heaters still fall in the plumber's realm although the line to the gas main may not be. I used to do periodic maintenance on water heaters which consist of making sure the pressure relief valve works properly and replacing heating elements that quit working because of lime buildup.

Was the money good?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

How hard is it to learn how to cook?  If you cook one meal a week you might be taking an hour, maybe two out of your schedule.  Honestly, if someone can't spare that then that's just part of what I take offense with, is people being too busy to be able to do anything for themselves.  I understand that there are people who are working a ton or taking care of other repsonsibilities, but that's also a part of my problem.

There's subjectivity involved, but that doesn't mean that it's a completely subjective determination.  One of my favorite philosophical terms is "objective relativist," aside from being delightfully paradoxical I also find it to be somewhat truthful.  Yes, different people are going to have different definitions of what the bare minimum should be, but that's where I think personal judgement is more useful.  I'm purposefully making more broad statements that relate more to principle in part because I think personal determination is more fitted to situations like you're mentioning.  I comment on the principle because I believe in its validity, and individuals who ascribe to said principle measure their actions according to it.

MrGeezer

I'm a human being, human beings make normative claims all the time.  Your claim that I shouldn't be making a normative claim is in itself a normative claim.  Who are you to tell me that I shouldn't be telling others what to do with their time?

I'm not telling anyone they should be spending a certain amount of time on it, I just suggested one hour because it's such a miniscule period of time out of a week.  1/96th of your week dedicated to cooking, if people can't afford to spend that much time then they are definitely too busy.  Anyways, like I said, I'm not trying to say that anyone should spend X amount of time on anything, I just think that in general cooking is a skill that everyone should have.  I also think ideally everyone would take a home ec class during middle or high school and thus everyone would have the basic skill and not need to dedicate the time to it when they're done with school should they choose not to, just like I feel the same about shop and basic repair skills.