BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

DesertFox- wrote:

The only people under 40 I know supporting Trump are from little BFE towns in the Midwest, that is to say, tiny, white bubbles surrounded by corn. I am unsure if demographic breakdowns of votes have come out yet this election, but I expect there will be an age gap as well as the education gap.

I think you'll find the 18-30s just didn't vote.

Such a cliche

that sentence is grammatically fine. i could have used a comma on the adjectival phrase 'loser, white lower-middle class' because they are technically coordinate and not cumulative, but other than that it doesn't need any more punctuation.

are you really going to try and tell an editor how to punctuate?

Last edited by uziq (2016-11-23 02:32:28)

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

If the subsidies go away colleges will be forced to lower tuition. Amazingsauce

A lot of them would just close too. Colleges need subsidies.

No, they just need to cut all the superfluous administrative positions they've staffed during this bubble.

who likes facts? I like facts! this paper by the NBER is a very informative read.  It's 60 pages but it's not TOO difficult to get through.  Some key points (bolding mine):

From 1987 to 2010, sticker price tuition and fees ballooned from $6,600 to $14,500 in 2010 dollars. After subtracting institutional aid, net tuition and fees still grew by 78%, from $5,790 to $10,290. To provide perspective, had net tuition risen at the rate of much maligned healthcare costs, tuition would have only reached about $8,700 in 2010.

Overall education spending has GONE DOWN on a per student basis, mostly because of the increase in attendees-

state and local funding for higher education fell from $8,200 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student in 1987 to $7,300 in 2010, all while underlying costs and expenditures were rising. Several studies, including a notable study commissioned by Congress in the 1998 re-authorization of the Higher Education Act, attribute a sizable fraction of the increase in public university tuition to these state funding cuts.

So although overall Education spending has risen, more people attending college means the ratio of funding:student has gone down. Interest rates for student loans have also fallen, making it more attractive (which bolsters the point above).

Also, non-tuition costs have risen by over 50% since 1987-

we also cast light on the tuition impact of the 53% rise in non-tuition costs (such as those arising from the greater provision of student amenities), which has the effect of increasing subsidized loan eligibility.

It's not just administrative costs that are increasing - loans are covering more student amenities, and those amenities are increasing in cost, which leads to overall costs being higher.

Here's the summary:

1. The combined effect of the aforementioned shocks generates a 106% increase in equilibrium tuition. This result compares to a 78% increase in the data.

2. The rise in the college earnings premium alone causes tuition to increase by 24%. With all other shocks present except the college premium hike, tuition increases by 87%.

3. The demand-side shocks by themselves cause tuition to jump by 102%. With all other changes except the demand-side shocks, tuition only increases by 16%.

4. The supply-side shocks by themselves cause tuition to decline by 6%. With all other changes except the supply-side shocks, tuition increases by 122%.

I was genuinely intrigued by the question "what is the major cause of college tuition hikes" so I looked into it.  It looks to be complicated, but generally speaking, admin costs are not a key contributing factor.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

A lot of them would just close too. Colleges need subsidies.

No, they just need to cut all the superfluous administrative positions they've staffed during this bubble.

who likes facts? I like facts! this paper by the NBER is a very informative read.  It's 60 pages but it's not TOO difficult to get through.  Some key points (bolding mine):

From 1987 to 2010, sticker price tuition and fees ballooned from $6,600 to $14,500 in 2010 dollars. After subtracting institutional aid, net tuition and fees still grew by 78%, from $5,790 to $10,290. To provide perspective, had net tuition risen at the rate of much maligned healthcare costs, tuition would have only reached about $8,700 in 2010.

Overall education spending has GONE DOWN on a per student basis, mostly because of the increase in attendees-

state and local funding for higher education fell from $8,200 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student in 1987 to $7,300 in 2010, all while underlying costs and expenditures were rising. Several studies, including a notable study commissioned by Congress in the 1998 re-authorization of the Higher Education Act, attribute a sizable fraction of the increase in public university tuition to these state funding cuts.

So although overall Education spending has risen, more people attending college means the ratio of funding:student has gone down. Interest rates for student loans have also fallen, making it more attractive (which bolsters the point above).

Also, non-tuition costs have risen by over 50% since 1987-

we also cast light on the tuition impact of the 53% rise in non-tuition costs (such as those arising from the greater provision of student amenities), which has the effect of increasing subsidized loan eligibility.

It's not just administrative costs that are increasing - loans are covering more student amenities, and those amenities are increasing in cost, which leads to overall costs being higher.

Here's the summary:

1. The combined effect of the aforementioned shocks generates a 106% increase in equilibrium tuition. This result compares to a 78% increase in the data.

2. The rise in the college earnings premium alone causes tuition to increase by 24%. With all other shocks present except the college premium hike, tuition increases by 87%.

3. The demand-side shocks by themselves cause tuition to jump by 102%. With all other changes except the demand-side shocks, tuition only increases by 16%.

4. The supply-side shocks by themselves cause tuition to decline by 6%. With all other changes except the supply-side shocks, tuition increases by 122%.

I was genuinely intrigued by the question "what is the major cause of college tuition hikes" so I looked into it.  It looks to be complicated, but generally speaking, admin costs are not a key contributing factor.

You should also note that the overwhelming majority of college sports programs lose money. A few major schools like Penn State make money on football but small schools like Montclair State University in NJ don't need football stadiums or make any money off women's swimming. Those things have some value and it doesn't seem bad if it is just relegated to the flagship universities. But smaller schools need to be better regulated on how they spend their money. Especially state schools.

We could replace it with expanded female ROTC and all women's units.

club sports are a thing

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

A lot of them would just close too. Colleges need subsidies.

No, they just need to cut all the superfluous administrative positions they've staffed during this bubble.

who likes facts? I like facts! this paper by the NBER is a very informative read.  It's 60 pages but it's not TOO difficult to get through.  Some key points (bolding mine):

From 1987 to 2010, sticker price tuition and fees ballooned from $6,600 to $14,500 in 2010 dollars. After subtracting institutional aid, net tuition and fees still grew by 78%, from $5,790 to $10,290. To provide perspective, had net tuition risen at the rate of much maligned healthcare costs, tuition would have only reached about $8,700 in 2010.

Overall education spending has GONE DOWN on a per student basis, mostly because of the increase in attendees-

state and local funding for higher education fell from $8,200 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student in 1987 to $7,300 in 2010, all while underlying costs and expenditures were rising. Several studies, including a notable study commissioned by Congress in the 1998 re-authorization of the Higher Education Act, attribute a sizable fraction of the increase in public university tuition to these state funding cuts.

So although overall Education spending has risen, more people attending college means the ratio of funding:student has gone down. Interest rates for student loans have also fallen, making it more attractive (which bolsters the point above).

Also, non-tuition costs have risen by over 50% since 1987-

we also cast light on the tuition impact of the 53% rise in non-tuition costs (such as those arising from the greater provision of student amenities), which has the effect of increasing subsidized loan eligibility.

It's not just administrative costs that are increasing - loans are covering more student amenities, and those amenities are increasing in cost, which leads to overall costs being higher.

Here's the summary:

1. The combined effect of the aforementioned shocks generates a 106% increase in equilibrium tuition. This result compares to a 78% increase in the data.

2. The rise in the college earnings premium alone causes tuition to increase by 24%. With all other shocks present except the college premium hike, tuition increases by 87%.

3. The demand-side shocks by themselves cause tuition to jump by 102%. With all other changes except the demand-side shocks, tuition only increases by 16%.

4. The supply-side shocks by themselves cause tuition to decline by 6%. With all other changes except the supply-side shocks, tuition increases by 122%.

I was genuinely intrigued by the question "what is the major cause of college tuition hikes" so I looked into it.  It looks to be complicated, but generally speaking, admin costs are not a key contributing factor.

I said in a previous post something like "replacing non-obsolete buildings" I think it was in my anti-non profit rant. Anyway, yes, I know it's not just administrators. it was a flip response.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

We could replace it with expanded female ROTC and all women's units.

Why?

anyway

Green Party officials filed Friday for a recount in Wisconsin, following reports of voting discrepancies, and were seeking a deeper investigation into the election results, which handed the state to Donald Trump two weeks ago.

Wisconsin Green Party co-chairman George Martin said that they were seeking a "reconciliation of paper records" -- a request that would go one step further than a simple recount, spurring, he said, an investigation into the integrity of the state's voting system.
"This is a process, a first step to examine whether our electoral democracy is working," Martin said.

The announcement came as Green Party candidate Jill Stein's Thanksgiving fundraising blitz passed $5 million. The money is well beyond the $2 million mark the Green Party initially set, and Wisconsin party officials said that any additional money not used for the recount would be used to train Green Party candidates for local office. The goal as of Friday was to raise $7 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/25/politics/ … l?adkey=bn
This will go nowhere and the green party is just trying to get attention. It is funny though that crazy Jill Stein is now working on recounts that could theoretically get Clinton elected even though Stein spent the whole election criticizing Clinton.

How does everyone feel about the green party anyway? If the U.S. had ranked voting or a proportional system I would vote for the green party even though they are pretty naive when it comes to national security. i would not have voted for crazy jill stein though.

Greens in Aus are Marxists and gay activists who have latched onto a bandwagon.

I'd vote for 'green' policies, but not this lot.

the greens in the uk are equally hopeless which is a shame cause you'd think it's not that hard to make a compelling argument for it nowadays. but rather than making practicable demands they go full patchouli.