Defining Social Justice Warrior

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

raising the minimum wage, while plenty problematic in itself

 

...Why exactly?

 

I mean, seriously, who benefits from having a minimum wage so low, most people on it have to apply for various welfare programs to cover basic necessities? Why is it fair that people indirectly have to pay for services and goods they never use nor want through taxes, because the reason said services and goods are available at such low prices is that the employer is paying minimum wage to its workers?

 

 

Gfted already linked a good article on some of the issues, but I'd add that all employers are different.  It is pretty easy for me to tune out the big chains when they complain about minimum wage.  McDonalds is not going to go under because it pays the fry cook a few bucks more.  They should trim the fat at the top, and given they are a consumer driven business, the consumers should be driving for that.  

 

But small businesses don't have the same profit margin.  The difference of a few bucks and hour may drop them into the red.  We need to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

 

 

I remain skeptical. After all, this isn't the first time the minimum wage was raised, and it was always precluded by much flailing and doomsaying, which generally turned out to be without substance in hindsight.

[Gfted1]

Unless there are some sort of special rules I'm miissing or differing on different provinces some of those minimums  seem to be illegal since minimum wage (at least in Ontario) for sure is over $10 but it shows salaries of as low as 7$ which as far as I know is not legally allowed anywhere in Kanada. Just sayin'. someone should check /report that for accuracy.

In the US, if the employee earns tips then the employer is not bound to pay the Federal minimum wage. For example, my daughter is getting of the age to work and looking into a local restaurant shows that they pay ~$3.75/hour and the rest of the employee income is dependent on the customers tips.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

raising the minimum wage, while plenty problematic in itself

 

...Why exactly?

 

I mean, seriously, who benefits from having a minimum wage so low, most people on it have to apply for various welfare programs to cover basic necessities? Why is it fair that people indirectly have to pay for services and goods they never use nor want through taxes, because the reason said services and goods are available at such low prices is that the employer is paying minimum wage to its workers?

 

 

Gfted already linked a good article on some of the issues, but I'd add that all employers are different.  It is pretty easy for me to tune out the big chains when they complain about minimum wage.  McDonalds is not going to go under because it pays the fry cook a few bucks more.  They should trim the fat at the top, and given they are a consumer driven business, the consumers should be driving for that.  

 

But small businesses don't have the same profit margin.  The difference of a few bucks and hour may drop them into the red.  We need to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

 

 

I remain skeptical. After all, this isn't the first time the minimum wage was raised, and it was always precluded by much flailing and doomsaying, which generally turned out to be without substance in hindsight.

 

the predictions ain't doom.  the predictions is that the minimum wage increase do not actual help.  the quality o' life o' the folks earning min wage doesn't improve when their wage is increased, 'cause costs is passed back onto consumers.  the fact that we is having this same conversation should be proof that all those previous min wage increases didn't help.  is not predictions o' doom.  is predictions o' pointlessness.  is not simple a prediction either.  this is 'bout as close to inevitable as is possible.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Chilloutman]

 

no-one will get rich from working minimum wage, that was my point

 

That is a statement of the obvious.  The goal isn't to make everyone rich, it is make sure people who have jobs have a decent quality of life.

 

 

I mean it doesnt fix your problem, it will just delay it for a while, in time inflation will catch it up again and you will be in same position, only the rich people will be even more rich

[ShadySands]

the predictions ain't doom.  the predictions is that the minimum wage increase do not actual help.  the quality o' life o' the folks earning min wage doesn't improve when their wage is increased, 'cause costs is passed back onto consumers.  the fact that we is having this same conversation should be proof that all those previous min wage increases didn't help.  is not predictions o' doom.  is predictions o' pointlessness.  is not simple a prediction either.  this is 'bout as close to inevitable as is possible.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Couldn't that be because any time we set it at a static value it will eventually lose purchasing power? So it helps for maybe a couple of years and then we're back to where we were?

[Orogun01]

It will be interesting to see what, if any, fallout occurs from the recent minimum wage increases.

 

Four consequences of a $15 minimum wage.

If it's true that the living costs of California require at least a $13.50/hour full time job then it makes sense that they would raise the minimum wage. Particularly when there are employers who refuse to hire full timers just so they don't have to pay benefits.

[Volourn]

"In the US, if the employee earns tips then the employer is not bound to pay the Federal minimum wage. For example, my daughter is getting of the age to work and looking into a local restaurant shows that they pay ~$3.75/hour and the rest of the employee income is dependent on the customers tips."

 

Same in Kanada but that doesn't apply to McD because they don't get tips.

 

 

That said, the whole 'tipping is mandatory' is bull****z and is one of the things I am  more to leaning towards what Europe views.

 

 

To me, it should be up tp the employer to pay a fair wage not the customer  via 'tippi9ng' which is both random and arbitrary. Tips should be a 'bonus' not a requirement. And,m the gov't/law shoiuld be ASHAMED they allow it. EVIL.

[Bartimaeus]

The thing is, though, waiters/waitresses who earn their tips don't want tipping to go away, because they generally get paid at least a little better to often times a lot better via tips than they would get from the minimum wage. Depending on how the establishment handles tips, they may also not feel like reporting tips on their taxes because they feel like they can get away with it - even better for them. I think there was an experiment within the last year or so where an establishment expressly prohibited tips but guaranteed their wages - not because they wanted to eliminate tipping entirely, I'm sure, but because it's such a normalcy to tip that they wanted to make sure customers didn't feel obliged for no reason (presumably, after our tipping culture has changed to only tip for exceptional service, they would've let customers tip if they really wanted to again). There was a huge outrage by the waiters/waitresses, a lot of whom apparently quit. I'm not sure if they reverted back to allowing tips or not - I never got an update on the story.

 

All that said, I hate our tipping culture and would prefer they be only given for exceptional service at worst (in reality, I don't even much like this - I feel like paying employees should be the employer's job, not the customer's - but this would be such a huge step up that it's not a big deal). I would also prefer that all full time employees be guaranteed a living wage in conjunction with this, so that it isn't so much of a moral dilemma in regards to younger, unskilled workers who simply can't make enough money elsewise. Such is life.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

 

the predictions ain't doom.  the predictions is that the minimum wage increase do not actual help.  the quality o' life o' the folks earning min wage doesn't improve when their wage is increased, 'cause costs is passed back onto consumers.  the fact that we is having this same conversation should be proof that all those previous min wage increases didn't help.  is not predictions o' doom.  is predictions o' pointlessness.  is not simple a prediction either.  this is 'bout as close to inevitable as is possible.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Couldn't that be because any time we set it at a static value it will eventually lose purchasing power? So it helps for maybe a couple of years and then we're back to where we were?

 

unfortunately, history is clear opposed to such a belief.  the majority o' folks living at poverty levels is unemployed-- over 60%.  so you just raised their cost o' living w/o any corresponding increase in income.  also, and this is another guarantee, teen jobs decrease dramatically when min wage is increased.  600,000 teen jobs were lost in the 6 months following the 2009 fed min wage increase. so, low income families who is most likely to genuine need teens making extra income is gonna lose out, and lose in a big way.  and again, min wage doesn't create money.  the business owner who needs must pay more for labor must find a way to cut cost or pass along such costs to customers.  raise minimum wage necessitates a corresponding cost of living increase just as does increase in basic utility costs or food prices.  the folks making the least amount o' income is always the folks hurt most by such increases. the poor is the folks who has the least disposable income, so raise costs o' basic needs disproportionately affects the poor.  minimum wage increases actual hurt the poor, particularly the mostest poor. 

 

am understanding that the economics is counterintuitive.  if bob is getting paid $15 instead o' $10, he has more money to spend on pay day, yes?  seems so obvious that bob is benefitting.  unfortunately, bob, as representative o' poverty and low-income earners, is actual losing Every time we see a minimum wage increase.  

 

also, keep in mind that Gromnir is the guy always complaining that the single biggest problem facing America is income disparity.  the reason why we advocated bernie sanders for President is not necessarily 'cause we thinks he would be the most effective executive, but we believe that bernie gots the correct priorities.  we don't always agree with sanders' conclusions, but the President's most important role is actual setting the national agenda.  if the impossible were to happen and sanders were elected, then Congress and the media would also be talking 'bout income disparity.  nevertheless, in spite o' our seeming obsession 'bout income disparity, we absolute hate mandated min wage increases.  seeing as how we is opposed to policies that hurt the poorest segments o' an already polarized society, our aversion to min wage is predictable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps many small business owners, 'ccording to department of labor, is actual in favor of small and gradual increases in min wage.  'course were only 3 of 5 in favor and from a limited study.  even so, incremental, small and predictable increases make far more sense to us.  keep up with cost o' living ?  is reasonable arguments in favor o' such.  unfortunate, that ain't actual how min wage gets increased.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Gromnir

[Enoch]

Indeed, the minimum wage is a not a particularly great policy tool at achieving what it aims to address.  But it remains in the public conversation because it's easy to pitch to voters (conceptually simple, and you get a dedicated core of supporters who see it as a potential windfall), and because voting for it requires no hard decisions (budget trade-offs or tax increases) by legislators.  Also, alternate poverty-alleviation programs come with their own problems (e.g., means-tested programs like EITC are hugely susceptible to fraud) or look suspiciously like handouts to non-workers, which American public opinion frowns upon greatly.  If you want to be seen as "doing something" for poor folks, and don't have sufficient support to actually sway some budgetary resources or tax policy changes, a minimum wage increase is a safe pitch to make. 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Enoch

[Leferd]

unfortunately, history is clear opposed to such a belief.  the majority o' folks living at poverty levels is unemployed-- over 60%.  so you just raised their cost o' living w/o any corresponding increase in income.  also, and this is another guarantee, teen jobs decrease dramatically when min wage is increased.  600,000 teen jobs were lost in the 6 months following the 2009 fed min wage increase. so, low income families who is most likely to genuine need teens making extra income is gonna lose out, and lose in a big way.  and again, min wage doesn't create money.  the business owner who needs must pay more for labor must find a way to cut cost or pass along such costs to customers.  raise minimum wage necessitates a corresponding cost of living increase just as does increase in basic utility costs or food prices.  the folks making the least amount o' income is always the folks hurt most by such increases. the poor is the folks who has the least disposable income, so raise costs o' basic needs disproportionately affects the poor.  minimum wage increases actual hurt the poor, particularly the mostest poor. 

 

 

am understanding that the economics is counterintuitive.  if bob is getting paid $15 instead o' $10, he has more money to spend on pay day, yes?  seems so obvious that bob is benefitting.  unfortunately, bob, as representative o' poverty and low-income earners, is actual losing Every time we see a minimum wage increase.  

 

also, keep in mind that Gromnir is the guy always complaining that the single biggest problem facing America is income disparity.  the reason why we advocated bernie sanders for President is not necessarily 'cause we thinks he would be the most effective executive, but we believe that bernie gots the correct priorities.  we don't always agree with sanders' conclusions, but the President's most important role is actual setting the national agenda.  if the impossible were to happen and sanders were elected, then Congress and the media would also be talking 'bout income disparity.  nevertheless, in spite o' our seeming obsession 'bout income disparity, we absolute hate mandated min wage increases.  seeing as how we is opposed to policies that hurt the poorest segments o' an already polarized society, our aversion to min wage is predictable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps many small business owners, 'ccording to department of labor, is actual in favor of small and gradual increases in min wage.  'course were only 3 of 5 in favor and from a limited study.  even so, incremental, small and predictable increases make far more sense to us.  keep up with cost o' living ?  is reasonable arguments in favor o' such.  unfortunate, that ain't actual how min wage gets increased.

 

 

That's the best case I've read in support of Sanders from here. Ultimately, I'm anticipating my November vote as going to Clinton but I may now go for Sanders on June 7th.

[Sweet_Sadie]

 

no-one will get rich from working minimum wage, that was my point

 

 

That is a statement of the obvious.  The goal isn't to make everyone rich, it is make sure people who have jobs have a decent quality of life.

Is that what people really want? I don't care what my quality of life is, if I am working on a thing I love to do.

 

On the other (my hipocracy) side, if I am doing what I love to do, once I complete my schooling, I will have more money than I need. My needs are not small, but they are managable. Given that scenerio, what would an altruistic person do with their extra money? In my case, the same thing that selfish me would do, use it to enhance learning for those who want to learn.

 

I don't have an altruistic bone in my body, I am a very selfish woman. The reason I want to enhance learning in others is that will benefit the world I live in, thus benefitting me. I plan on tending my garden very well.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

the predictions ain't doom.  the predictions is that the minimum wage increase do not actual help.  the quality o' life o' the folks earning min wage doesn't improve when their wage is increased, 'cause costs is passed back onto consumers.  the fact that we is having this same conversation should be proof that all those previous min wage increases didn't help.  is not predictions o' doom.  is predictions o' pointlessness.  is not simple a prediction either.  this is 'bout as close to inevitable as is possible.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Couldn't that be because any time we set it at a static value it will eventually lose purchasing power? So it helps for maybe a couple of years and then we're back to where we were?

 

unfortunately, history is clear opposed to such a belief.  the majority o' folks living at poverty levels is unemployed-- over 60%.  so you just raised their cost o' living w/o any corresponding increase in income.  also, and this is another guarantee, teen jobs decrease dramatically when min wage is increased.  600,000 teen jobs were lost in the 6 months following the 2009 fed min wage increase. so, low income families who is most likely to genuine need teens making extra income is gonna lose out, and lose in a big way.  and again, min wage doesn't create money.  the business owner who needs must pay more for labor must find a way to cut cost or pass along such costs to customers.  raise minimum wage necessitates a corresponding cost of living increase just as does increase in basic utility costs or food prices.  the folks making the least amount o' income is always the folks hurt most by such increases. the poor is the folks who has the least disposable income, so raise costs o' basic needs disproportionately affects the poor.  minimum wage increases actual hurt the poor, particularly the mostest poor. 

 

am understanding that the economics is counterintuitive.  if bob is getting paid $15 instead o' $10, he has more money to spend on pay day, yes?  seems so obvious that bob is benefitting.  unfortunately, bob, as representative o' poverty and low-income earners, is actual losing Every time we see a minimum wage increase.  

 

also, keep in mind that Gromnir is the guy always complaining that the single biggest problem facing America is income disparity.  the reason why we advocated bernie sanders for President is not necessarily 'cause we thinks he would be the most effective executive, but we believe that bernie gots the correct priorities.  we don't always agree with sanders' conclusions, but the President's most important role is actual setting the national agenda.  if the impossible were to happen and sanders were elected, then Congress and the media would also be talking 'bout income disparity.  nevertheless, in spite o' our seeming obsession 'bout income disparity, we absolute hate mandated min wage increases.  seeing as how we is opposed to policies that hurt the poorest segments o' an already polarized society, our aversion to min wage is predictable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps many small business owners, 'ccording to department of labor, is actual in favor of small and gradual increases in min wage.  'course were only 3 of 5 in favor and from a limited study.  even so, incremental, small and predictable increases make far more sense to us.  keep up with cost o' living ?  is reasonable arguments in favor o' such.  unfortunate, that ain't actual how min wage gets increased.

 

 

I'm not that well versed in the living conditions and socio-economic situations for various classes in the US, but this write-up certainly enlightened me quite a bit. From what I've been following about the presidential candidates over there, I'd pick Bernie Sanders as well, for the reasons Gromnir put forth here.

Edited May 18, 2016 by IndiraLightfoot

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

The reason I want to enhance learning in others is that will benefit the world I live in, thus benefitting me. I plan on tending my garden very well.

 

 

Although, to be fair, you're fairly unlikely to get a tangible return on your investment.

[BruceVC]

 

 

The reason I want to enhance learning in others is that will benefit the world I live in, thus benefitting me. I plan on tending my garden very well.

 

 

Although, to be fair, you're fairly unlikely to get a tangible return on your investment.

 

I'm not with you, are you saying helping others get a better education is not a good investment?

 

I doubt Sadie means she will get a personal benefit, like someone she indirectly helps get educated is going to give her money

 

But an educated and skilled society is one of the requirements to achieve economic transformation, people with jobs contribute towards the tax base and are critical to the basic spending power of any society

 

So this then benefits everyone..so yes its not tangible but its still an expected positive outcome of a progressive society

Edited May 18, 2016 by BruceVC

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

The reason I want to enhance learning in others is that will benefit the world I live in, thus benefitting me. I plan on tending my garden very well.

 

 

Although, to be fair, you're fairly unlikely to get a tangible return on your investment.

 

I'm not with you, are you saying helping others get a better education is not a good investment?

 

I doubt Sadie means she will get a personal benefit, like someone she indirectly helps get educated is going to give her money

 

But an educated and skilled society is one of the requirements to achieve economic transformation, people with jobs contribute towards the tax base and are critical to the basic spending power of any society

 

So this then benefits everyone..so yes its not tangible but its still an expected positive outcome of a progressive society

 

 

Education is such a long term investment that the likelyhood of feeling the effects of that investment before you hit retirement age is low. I think thats what he means. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

The reason I want to enhance learning in others is that will benefit the world I live in, thus benefitting me. I plan on tending my garden very well.

 

 

Although, to be fair, you're fairly unlikely to get a tangible return on your investment.

 

I'm not with you, are you saying helping others get a better education is not a good investment?

 

I doubt Sadie means she will get a personal benefit, like someone she indirectly helps get educated is going to give her money

 

But an educated and skilled society is one of the requirements to achieve economic transformation, people with jobs contribute towards the tax base and are critical to the basic spending power of any society

 

So this then benefits everyone..so yes its not tangible but its still an expected positive outcome of a progressive society

 

 

 

Well, paraphrasing Constantine: "Let me tell you the secret of science... any **** could do it."

 

Scientific progress is largely built on soul-crushing drudgery. Sure, some will be better at it than others, but if you educate someone decently enough, they will be able to contribute to some extent - the problem is that for any given person, this is going to happen exceedingly slowly, and will only have an exceedingly minuscule impact on the total body of knowledge accumulated by mankind.

 

My point is that the likelihood of any given person funding the education of a world-changing genius whose work will then have a tangible benefit on their lives in return is astronomically small.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

The reason I want to enhance learning in others is that will benefit the world I live in, thus benefitting me. I plan on tending my garden very well.

 

 

Although, to be fair, you're fairly unlikely to get a tangible return on your investment.

 

I'm not with you, are you saying helping others get a better education is not a good investment?

 

I doubt Sadie means she will get a personal benefit, like someone she indirectly helps get educated is going to give her money

 

But an educated and skilled society is one of the requirements to achieve economic transformation, people with jobs contribute towards the tax base and are critical to the basic spending power of any society

 

So this then benefits everyone..so yes its not tangible but its still an expected positive outcome of a progressive society

 

 

Education is such a long term investment that the likelyhood of feeling the effects of that investment before you hit retirement age is low. I think thats what he means. 

 

It depends on you what define as " positive return on education " 

 

So for example ( and I'm simplifying  these points )

 

• If you contribute towards getting getting 100  people educated at University and these people get jobs they contribute towards the tax base for government. When government allocates yearly budgets to municipalities it now has more money so your region could get more money that the local municipality needs to manage to improve the area. Suddenly the dirt road  you use to go to work on everyday that has existed for the last 60 years get tarred and is immediately improved. This is a benefit you could see 6-8 years after the initial investment in the education of others
• If you help fund a persons costs to study medicine  and become a GP and once they qualified they open a clinic in the rural area you live, where there has never been a clinic, this is a benefit you  could see 8-10 after the initial investment

 

But if your definition of  " positive return on education " is government raising the minimum wage this could take much longer and is much more complex objective to achieve that is influenced by other factors outside of education 

Edited May 18, 2016 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

The reason I want to enhance learning in others is that will benefit the world I live in, thus benefitting me. I plan on tending my garden very well.

 

 

Although, to be fair, you're fairly unlikely to get a tangible return on your investment.

 

I'm not with you, are you saying helping others get a better education is not a good investment?

 

I doubt Sadie means she will get a personal benefit, like someone she indirectly helps get educated is going to give her money

 

But an educated and skilled society is one of the requirements to achieve economic transformation, people with jobs contribute towards the tax base and are critical to the basic spending power of any society

 

So this then benefits everyone..so yes its not tangible but its still an expected positive outcome of a progressive society

 

 

 

Well, paraphrasing Constantine: "Let me tell you the secret of science... any **** could do it."

 

Scientific progress is largely built on soul-crushing drudgery. Sure, some will be better at it than others, but if you educate someone decently enough, they will be able to contribute to some extent - the problem is that for any given person, this is going to happen exceedingly slowly, and will only have an exceedingly minuscule impact on the total body of knowledge accumulated by mankind.

 

My point is that the likelihood of any given person funding the education of a world-changing genius whose work will then have a tangible benefit on their lives in return is astronomically small.

 

Yes I agree, Scientific progress is much harder to measure in most countries that have functional  governments that are doing there jobs and ensuring good governance  

 

But imagine in an impoverished  African country where you dont even have electricity or running water  in some parts of the country and now through science and the implementation of scientific progress suddenly electricity grids get created this is an immediate advantage of Scientific progress 

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

 

The reason I want to enhance learning in others is that will benefit the world I live in, thus benefitting me. I plan on tending my garden very well.

 

 

Although, to be fair, you're fairly unlikely to get a tangible return on your investment.

 

I'm not with you, are you saying helping others get a better education is not a good investment?

 

I doubt Sadie means she will get a personal benefit, like someone she indirectly helps get educated is going to give her money

 

But an educated and skilled society is one of the requirements to achieve economic transformation, people with jobs contribute towards the tax base and are critical to the basic spending power of any society

 

So this then benefits everyone..so yes its not tangible but its still an expected positive outcome of a progressive society

 

 

Education is such a long term investment that the likelyhood of feeling the effects of that investment before you hit retirement age is low. I think thats what he means. 

 

It depends on you what define as " positive return on education " 

 

So for example ( and I'm simplifying  these points )

 

• If you contribute towards getting getting 100  people educated at University and these people get jobs they contribute towards the tax base for government. When government allocates yearly budgets to municipalities it now has more money so your region could get more money that the local municipality needs to manage to improve the area. Suddenly the dirt road  you use to go to work on everyday that has existed for the last 60 years get tarred and is immediately improved. This is a benefit you could see 6-8 years after the initial investment in the education of others
• If you help fund a persons costs to study medicine  and become a GP and once they qualified they open a clinic in the rural area you live, where there has never been a clinic, this is a benefit you  could see 8-10 after the initial investment

 

But if your definition of  " positive return on education " is government raising the minimum wage this could take much longer and is much more complex objective to achieve that is influenced by other factors outside of education 

 

 

The economic return is likely to take quite a while, as due to educational inflation, BA's aren't worth as much as they used to be and a lot of those kids are going to be making little more than an uneducated labourer for quite a while. I make around 35k per year as an unskilled labourer, and most university educated people I know don't make much more than that. There is a lot of room to grow, but it takes years of experience, or more education to make much more. I also know in Canada, you can write off much of your tuition on your tax returns. I wasted 20k on a 3d modelling class, and didn't pay taxes for 6 years afterwards (by wasted I mean I did nothing with my training, rather than a dig at the school). In the US much of their income will go towards paying off student debt for years to come, so that income isn't driving any sort of economic activity.

 

Education is essential and shouldn't be neglected, but its an investment in the future.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason I want to enhance learning in others is that will benefit the world I live in, thus benefitting me. I plan on tending my garden very well.

 

 

Although, to be fair, you're fairly unlikely to get a tangible return on your investment.

 

I'm not with you, are you saying helping others get a better education is not a good investment?

 

I doubt Sadie means she will get a personal benefit, like someone she indirectly helps get educated is going to give her money

 

But an educated and skilled society is one of the requirements to achieve economic transformation, people with jobs contribute towards the tax base and are critical to the basic spending power of any society

 

So this then benefits everyone..so yes its not tangible but its still an expected positive outcome of a progressive society

 

 

Education is such a long term investment that the likelyhood of feeling the effects of that investment before you hit retirement age is low. I think thats what he means. 

 

It depends on you what define as " positive return on education " 

 

So for example ( and I'm simplifying  these points )

 

• If you contribute towards getting getting 100  people educated at University and these people get jobs they contribute towards the tax base for government. When government allocates yearly budgets to municipalities it now has more money so your region could get more money that the local municipality needs to manage to improve the area. Suddenly the dirt road  you use to go to work on everyday that has existed for the last 60 years get tarred and is immediately improved. This is a benefit you could see 6-8 years after the initial investment in the education of others
• If you help fund a persons costs to study medicine  and become a GP and once they qualified they open a clinic in the rural area you live, where there has never been a clinic, this is a benefit you  could see 8-10 after the initial investment

 

But if your definition of  " positive return on education " is government raising the minimum wage this could take much longer and is much more complex objective to achieve that is influenced by other factors outside of education 

 

 

The economic return is likely to take quite a while, as due to educational inflation, BA's aren't worth as much as they used to be and a lot of those kids are going to be making little more than an uneducated labourer for quite a while. I make around 35k per year as an unskilled labourer, and most university educated people I know don't make much more than that. There is a lot of room to grow, but it takes years of experience, or more education to make much more. I also know in Canada, you can write off much of your tuition on your tax returns. I wasted 20k on a 3d modelling class, and didn't pay taxes for 6 years afterwards (by wasted I mean I did nothing with my training, rather than a dig at the school). In the US much of their income will go towards paying off student debt for years to come, so that income isn't driving any sort of economic activity.

 

Education is essential and shouldn't be neglected, but its an investment in the future.

 

You raise some very relevant and accurate points based on your own experiences and living in Canada

 

So just to explain in more detail. I am basing my point in this debate around a premise which can broken down into points like ( this is based on how corporations and big business can see this debate )

 

• a person who applies for a job with a university degree is more likely to get the job than someone who does not have the degree
• there are many people who dont have degrees but have real experience due to working for years  in a particular field  and this can be more appreciated and valuable than someone with a degree but no experience in that field 
• a person who joins a corporation straight out of University will generally be seen as someone learning and needs to still be mentored on some levels as they understandably lack practical experience
• Irrespective of things like paying off personal debt due to education loans the person  who gets the job still pays taxes and has spending power and this benefits all of civil society. So yes I am not saying a degree will initially  necessarily offer you personal financial benefit  or even an improvement of your economic reality but just getting the job does help civil society around things like the tax base 

[Hurlshort]

When it comes to teaching, a letter from a former student after they've graduated is far more rewarding than any economic impact.  

 

 

Well, unless it is a death threat.  

[Hiro Protagonist]

Same in Kanada but that doesn't apply to McD because they don't get tips.

 

That said, the whole 'tipping is mandatory' is bull****z and is one of the things I am  more to leaning towards what Europe views.

 

To me, it should be up tp the employer to pay a fair wage not the customer  via 'tippi9ng' which is both random and arbitrary. Tips should be a 'bonus' not a requirement. And,m the gov't/law shoiuld be ASHAMED they allow it. EVIL.

 

I'd have to agree with tipping. It's something that's not done around Asia or Oceania. Never came across it in China, Singapore, or Hong Kong. And we don't do it in Australia. And I don't recall seeing it in countries like Fiji.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Education is essential and shouldn't be neglected, but its an investment in the future.

 

 

And as you say it's subject to educational inflation. A BSc now is worth less than a BSc was thirty years ago because there are- proportionately and absolutely- far more people at university now than then doing degrees. And there's not much point doing that BA for the sake of it and ending up in the stereotypical profession in McDonalds. Education just for the sake of it still has a value, but it isn't an economic one when you can spend 3 years in higher education and end up with a scarcely better job than you'd have without it.

 

A lot of people would be far better off going for a 'polytech' career. In absolute terms by brother in law would probably be better off if he'd stayed an electrician as opposed to switching over to an engineer with its four years of study, being an electrician had studying involved but at least he was paid for it via being an apprentice and the money he was on before and after his degree is near identical though engineers have better conditions such as being salaried by default. And I don't know about elsewhere but we're always being told there are shortages of builders/ electricians/ plumbers etc here while we have hundreds too many (humanities, primarily, there's actually a shortage for science and technical subjects) teachers qualifying for positions that don't exist.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Hurlshort]

But there is actually a pretty big shortage in teaching across the board, even in humanities.  Half of new teachers quit in the first 5 years.  It's not for everyone.

 

Although I agree with you on the degree aspect.  We should be focusing on specialized education at an earlier age, and there shouldn't be a stigma around jobs like plumbing and electrical work, given they can pay exceptionally well.