From Laurie: Here is an article that might interest you:
Real World Economics: Busting the Social Security myths we choose to believe
Laurie, Yes I thought it was excellent!!! Especially the point that the systems are already very progressive. And that a lot of people who think they "earned it", are probably getting a LOT MORE than they paid for. :-)
Real World Economics: Busting the Social Security myths we choose to believe
Laurie, Yes I thought it was excellent!!! Especially the point that the systems are already very progressive. And that a lot of people who think they "earned it", are probably getting a LOT MORE than they paid for. :-)
132 comments:
Similar but with graphs :-)
This is kind of interesting
OK, create a spreadsheet with the following assumptions about a proposed SS reform:
Death expectations: from Social Security actuarial tables
Initial Conditions: SSA
Income: present--87% from FICA and associated, assume 100%. NOTE: employee and employer each 6.2%
SS income is assumed equal across each ten-year cohort, at the relative % of each cohort to the total. Wages increase over the years according to the SSA wage index.
SS outgo/benefits is assumed to remain constant forever, but reduced each year according to the SSA actuarial tables (and the reform).
Assumes retirement at age 67 and benefits begin
------------------------------------------------------
The reform assumes that immediately:
-Those 55 and older continue with taxes and benefits unchanged
-those 45-55 move 2% of their pay to private accounts and receive 2/6.2 or 32% less benefit.
-those 35-45 move 4% of their pay to private accounts and receive 4/6.2 or 65% less benefit.
-those under 35 move 6.2% of their pay to private accounts and receive no benefits after retirement.
--------------------------------------------------------
That the number of people who die before the start of benefits will continue to pay in to the system (and receive no benefits) on the same schedule as currently. That is, that their premature death will have no effect on the reform calculations.
We assume the working population remains the same size and has the same salary distribution
Assume the percent of new retirees remains at the historic average over the last five years
Private accounts pay the same 3.2% as SS Trust Fund bonds, or could BE Treasury bonds.
Disability and Survivors benefits are paid from the employer portion, which does not reduce over the life of the reform (~45 years).
At some point the employer portion can be reduced and the employment disincentive it creates reduced-- a policy decision
**Now, you can make the calculations yourself, or you can trust what Excel calculates.
-- The trust fund reaches a low point in 2029, but not zero. It will have $382 billion.
-- By 2081, the "trust fund" will have contributed a cumulative total of $23 Trillion to deficit reduction.
-- By 2074, with the reform complete, the total of the private accounts available to the then-retirees will be nearly $7 trillion, over twice the current trust fund. And that is for only 1/4 the population (the 25-35 age group today)!
Why would I create a flawed model when these folks have done such a nice job?
Or do you think you are smarter than the folks at the Penn Wharton business school?
Which of their scenarios is closest to your dream?
Since SS is actually welfare...
Option B somewhat calls to me...
Amazing how the same people who think the frequently bankrupt Trump is a good businessmen also fancy themselves wizards of Wall Street.
==Hiram
None of those options are anywhere near what I (and many others, BTW) have proposed. I just did the math. Math is math. It all depends on your initial assumptions. Your previous article concedes it is pretty much a bad deal all around, absent the "progressive" (aka welfare) aspects. It's basically a case of government knows best how to spend your money, and should be opposed on principle, in addition to common economic good sense.
BTW, this was first proposed in Congress back in the 90s. It's not a new idea, just made less viable over the years while Congress hid behind the curtains.
Jerry,
I must have missed this...
"previous article concedes it is pretty much a bad deal all around"
It seemed to me that most it agreed SS is a good thing...
Unfortunately people want more of it than what they want to pay for.
It all depends on your initial assumptions
It's why I am not a big fan of logic. Too often, all the good stuff is in the assumptions.
I assume people won't save for their retirement. That's why Social Security is so important.
--Hiram
John, I should have said previous article PROVES...
But Hiram is right. If the government ASSUMES you won't save, and if government ASSUMES it owes everybody a retirement income, and if government ASSUMES that taxes must be progressive, and government ASSUMES that the unsustainable can be sustained by magic, then yes, heckuva deal. Any competing plan which vastly increases national and personal wealth, keeps the promises that SS cannot and still cuts the deficit, must automatically be dismissed, because we ASSUME SS is the ultimately best policy.
"...if government ASSUMES it owes everybody a retirement income..."
I'm sure you meant to say..."...if we as a society ASSUME it's immoral to let the sick and elderly die in poverty and/or on the streets..."
But what do I know, right? I'm just a Christian.
Moose
Moose, if you are a Christian, why would you let the sick and elderly die in poverty and/or on the streets? Do YOU have the obligation? do I? Do WE have the obligation, as Christians, to demand that everybody else pay to discharge our obligations for us? That's one heck of an assumption, there.
Jerry,
No magic required...
Wharton gave us many solutions...
None of them nearly as good. What do you have against the better solution?
A. It is poorly defined...
B. Likely filled with wishful thinking...
But Hiram is right. If the government ASSUMES you won't save, and if government ASSUMES it owes everybody a retirement income, and if government ASSUMES that taxes must be progressive, and government ASSUMES that the unsustainable can be sustained by magic, then yes, heckuva deal.
That's why Social Security is a heckuva deal.
--Hiram
An Interesting Read
"Wharton gave us many solutions..."
A very limited set of options.
Sean,
Not you to... What solution do you like?
Just raise the taxes on the rich and give it directly to those who did not save for retirement?
For jerry-
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. 36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Moose
Wonderful, Moose. The power of private charity and communism (in tiny groups). Contrast that with a huge and coercive government program for 300 million people. Look, if you want to chip in to keep your Grams in her home and pay for her nursing care, God love ya. If you expect or even want to force me to pay for it, don't expect a lot of gratitude for the privilege.
A. It is poorly defined...
B. Likely filled with wishful thinking...
John,
A. It is fully defined, I have fully defined it for you, then done the math.
B. It is not wishful thinking, it is simple math proving that the plan works and has substantial financial benefits (such as never going broke) that SSA does not have.
These were the things claimed for the plan as originally proposed to the Senate in the 90s, and they are still, surprisingly, valid today.
Moose
I think you just supported Jerry's "it should be dealt with by charity belief".
Here are some regarding laziness...
This is interesting
Jerry,
Do you have any reputable source who has evaluated your dream?
"What solution do you like?"
I would envision moving the Taxable Maximum much higher than what it shown there. If you were to remove the cap completely, you could solve a high percentage of the problem without tweaking the other pieces.
So you want to turn our very progressive social security system to almost a pure welfare system? (ie paid for by the people with income, instead of paid for by the recipients)
How will this help encourage people to work, save, invest, etc?
Social Security is social insurance, not an investment program.
"The power of private charity and communism (in tiny groups)."
ALL THE BELIEVERS. I know your ability to understand things is practically non-existent, but whatever. I'm not surprised a Trumper like you can twist scripture into something unrecognizable, though. It's page one of the Republican playbook.
Moose
'I think you just supported Jerry's "it should be dealt with by charity belief".'
Yes, of course. But for that to work, Christians would actually have to be Christian.
Moose
Sean, it sounds like welfare, rather than what it was sold as, as an investment program. Not a very good welfare program, and a terrible investment.
John, it has been evaluated thoroughly by ME and by Excel, both of whom you should trust. But I posted all the assumptions underlying the math, and defined the reforms exactly as they were described to me 20 years ago, by one of the original authors who made the same claims. I have now verified those claims mathematically. Now unless you want to quibble with the assumptions or do the math yourself, I can state with your same certainty that you are wrong.
Moose, I want to know how much Christian charity resembles a giant, coercive, soulless government program?
You tell me. Why do Republicans like to say we're a Christian nation and become (err...remain) irrational when such idiocy is challenged? A Christian nation would take care of its poor and elderly and widowed and orphaned.
Using the wealth and power of the community (Government) to care for ALL is exactly Christian.
Moose
"A Christian nation would take care of its poor and elderly and widowed and orphaned."
OK, find me the Biblical quote that charged the GOVERNMENT with care of the poor.
"A Christian nation" only exists to the degree that its inhabitants are Christian and practice (we presume) INDIVIDUAL Christian charity. Governments have no religion, no soul, no ability to care. Why are you so willing to dump off your Christian obligations to an organization with no ability to discharge them without taking from the unwilling and giving to the ungrateful?
Furthermore, you are arguing against a reform that would BETTER serve all concerned. Why?
The Government is not an organization separate from the People.
Moose
Jerry and Moose, Did you ever read this one. It seems to speak to both sides of the issue...
Sean,
Whether it is insurance or an investment program...
You want the learners, workers, savers, investors, etc to pay the premiums...
So the non-learners, non-workers, non-savers, non-investors, etc can collect benefits far exceeding what they contributed...
Otherwise know as a big government handout that rewards the wrong behaviors.
Jerry,
So your answers are no source, trust me or calculate it yourself.
Yeah... I don't think so.
As Sean noted, this is Insurance with many benefits... It is not a savings account.
I keep thinking about my family.
~130 years of learning, working, saving and investing...
And many think that is an excellent reason to tax us at a significantly higher rate than others...
I suppose if we want to punish the above behaviors and reward the opposite... I guess that makes sense.
"~130 years of learning, working, saving and investing..."
And how was land upon which your family's wealth was founded purchased? Or was it given to them?
Moose
If you don't work, you don't get Social Security.
Moose,
Good question... Does moving to somewhere with no buildings, stores, developing the land, hoping for a crop, etc seem like payment or a gift?
And thankfully they turned those 2 quarter sections into a lot more... Where as many families squandered the wealth gained through the work and sacrifices of their ancestors.
"The Homestead Acts had few qualifying requirements. A homesteader[18] had to be the head of the household or at least twenty-one years old. They had to live on the designated land, build a home, make improvements, and farm it for a minimum of five years.[19] The filing fee was eighteen dollars (or ten to temporarily hold a claim to the land).[20]
Immigrants, farmers without their own land, single women, and former slaves could all qualify. The fundamental racial qualification was that one had to be a citizen, or have filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen, and so the qualification changed over the years with the varying legal qualifications for citizenship."
Sean,
Did you not study Laurie's post regarding how progressive this system already is?
And your answer is to make it even more so.
Or the one I posted
"And your answer is to make it even more so."
Yes, for once, you are accurately describing my position.
"Immigrants, farmers without their own land, single women, and former slaves could all qualify. The fundamental racial qualification was that one had to be a citizen, or have filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen, and so the qualification changed over the years with the varying legal qualifications for citizenship."
As a practical matter, though, blacks were effectively locked out of the Homestead Act -- which is one reason why to this day, black wealth is so dramatically less than that of whites.
That all sounds like a great way to offer people a chance to build wealth.
Funny...that's what we think of college education these days. Time for a "Homestead Act" that offers people the chance to earn a college degree where all they have to do is the work.
Moose
Sean,
I agree that it is one reason, but not the biggest reason.
Moose,
What risk and effort would one have to take to get that resource from other tax payers? What is the consequence if they fail to make the investment worthwhile?
Millions of students and their families are squandering our investment in free public education... Why should we double down on it?
Poverty Food for Thought
Same consequence as those who failed to keep their land. They don't have it.
The best part about your comment is your equivocating on the idea of giving other people access to something that you have already benefited from...a government handout.
Moose
Moose,
If you equate building and living in a sod home, risking starvation, fighting snow storms, breaking the land open and farming it to going to college. I think you need to spend more time living in a tent, making your own food and doing physical labor.
The Homestead acts were like the ultimate in "sweat equity". In essence, the government provided the land which had no real value sitting idle, and the participants offered the blood, sweat and tears. In the end both parties benefitted.
For curiosity I looked up the value in today's dollars.
$18 then = ~$500 today
It was a good deal if you did not mind 7 miles from the closest town...
With only a horse for transportation...
And almost no medical facilities...
I think those folks were crazy. It would have been much easier to stay in the cities. But they were willing to risk their lives for something more.
You are beyond tone deaf.
Moose
"So your answers are no source, trust me or calculate it yourself." Yes, that is exactly correct. If you cannot prove mathematically that the suggested reform I have detailed is NOT better than the current system in one or more ways, then I have done the math correctly, and math is math. If I prove something mathematically, how do you prove me wrong? Not by saying that somebody else has to have done it first, and published same (on the Net). [The reform was vetted and approved by the CBO at the time.) As my Daddy would say, "get your nose out of the book."
Moose,
And you want people given something for nothing.
And worse yet you are afraid to hold them accountable.
Jerry,
I'll stick to verifiable sources.
“And you want people given something for nothing.”
Like your ancestors and their land.
Moose
Moose,
So as noted above, there was a lot demanded of the homesteaders in exchange for that raw unbroken land. And the country gained a lot by making that land fertile and productive. (ie food, economic growth, etc) And as you noted above, the land would go back to the government if the homesteader failed to deliver on their end of the deal.
Now let's try this with your "free college" concept:
- What specific benefit(s) to the country do you see occurring?
- How would you measure if a recipient earned their "investment" from the government?
- If they fail, how will the government recoup its "investment"?
Thoughts?
"I'll stick to verifiable sources."-- John
I rarely use LOL, but this has to be one of those times. Mathematics IS a verifiable source, all you have to do is run the calculation I describe. I'll even give you the starting numbers, directly from the SSA, if you want. Or you could go look up the CBO analysis and discover the same thing. Or just assume I am correct about the results and compare that with the current situation, which you seem determined to defend at all costs, or with any of those supposed "alternatives" of raising taxes or cutting benefits, none of which are sustainable indefinitely, merely postponing the inevitable.
When we are already drawing from the "Trust Fund" and increasing the deficit thereby, why would we NOT want a plan that would actually REDUCE the deficit within ten years and forever thereafter? Without raising taxes or reducing benefits? You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Math is a fact that you seem strenuously working to avoid.
I'm not sure why you're questioning spending money on education. An un-educated citizenry is a drag on the country. People with college degrees earn more on average than those without. The benefits to the country really go without saying.
They earn their investment by doing the work to attain their degree. (Just like land-grabbers had to do the work to attain the land for themselves.) I'm sure a system could be devised that includes a fee paid by those who fail, but ultimately, the benefit from the successes will outweigh any potential drag by those who fail. And you must note that this isn't a situation where we'd be requiring people to attend college, unlike elementary and secondary education. The estimate for "free" college is less than $100B/yr. Not insubstantial, but hardly unaffordable.
Someday, perhaps, you'll be FOR something that evens the playing field between the have-way-more-than-they-can-spend-in-many-lifetimes and the average American living paycheck to paycheck.
Moose
Jerry,
Obviously something is wrong about your assumptions or calculations... Or you would not be the only person proposing it. Especially with these miraculous results.
"why would we NOT want a plan that would actually REDUCE the deficit within ten years and forever thereafter? Without raising taxes or reducing benefits?"
Moose,
Sorry. I don't want tax payers paying for degrees that do not support advancement of the USA. Maybe we could limit the funding to technical, medical, and educational fields...
"Maybe we could limit the funding to technical, medical, and educational fields..."
A class system. Sure. Why not? We're almost there anyway.
Moose
Moose, the point you miss in the analogy is that, after the capital expense of government giving the homesteader land and the homesteader investing his own labor, there is a vast INCREASE in the value of the land and an ongoing return in terms of agricultural production, among other things. Earning a degree produces NOTHING, in and of itself. For example, how many graduates in "ethnic studies" does the world need?
Yes, obviously something is wrong with my assumptions and calculations. Can you find that error, and explain to me how YOU found it and the CBO did not?
"Or you would not be the only person proposing it. Especially with these miraculous results." Just look at how stridently you oppose this new (not really) idea, and imagine why no one else wants to bring it forward, especially our cowardly Congress. It is an obvious idea, proposed here only because supposedly rational people will give it an honest look.
"Earning a degree produces NOTHING, in and of itself."
Owning land produces NOTHING, in and of itself.
Moose
Your point? Is it that investing in land has the POTENTIAL for payback, with the strings that were attached. Having a degree has the POTENTIAL for payback. So how about college is "free" but you must pay back the cost out of your future earnings?
We know that investment in education has a positive ROI. No need for each individual to also pay a premium on it.
Moose
Jerry,
I am not against your solution, if it worked the miracles you say...
But I do want an "expert" analysis with the pro / cons listed.
Moose,
There are degrees that payback well, and
there are feel good degrees that do not.
Tax payers should not be used for the latter.
What's a "feel good degree"?
Moose
Those that do not lead to a good paying job?
Or at least one where the person can pay back their school loans...
Here is an interesting take on it.
Or this one
This concept kind of leads to G2A A Government's Purpose…
When a government spends money it should be to help the nation be more competitive, so the country can stay an excellent place to live...
With this in mind... What careers should the government invest in?
"...so the country can stay an excellent place to live..."
What are the hallmarks of such a place?
Moose
We sure as hell could use a lot more early education teachers than we need a lot more amoral Wall Street creeps. Maybe the definition of "value" is off here.
"When a government spends money it should be to help the nation be more competitive"
This is essentially endorsing a national industrial policy, which is more socialist than anything any Democrat is proposing.
Moose,
Kind of what the USA looks like today...
That is why I love political gridlock...
Sean,
I think you took a leap from my comment.
- Public education should be an excellent investment. Yet we have a lot of parent(s) and public employees who lessen the societal benefits by failing the kids.
- I agree that training up excellent teachers would be a good investment, however since we do not hold Teachers accountable enough. It also may be wasted money.
- Training people to fulfill shortages and lower the wages in those areas may benefit many?
Or should government policy bring in more people to compete with our most challenged legal workers?
"We know that investment in education has a positive ROI. No need for each individual to also pay a premium on it." -- Moose
You seem to be confusing public versus private investment. If I go to college and pay for it myself, I expect that to increase my future earnings enough to pay back that investment. So why, if the taxpayers invest in a given student, should they NOT only expect but demand a return on that investment? Suppose I just barely scrape by in college, with a degree in Old French Literature, and the best job I can find is flipping burgers? /I/ would not make that investment, and neither should the taxpayers.
"Jerry,
I am not against your solution, if it worked the miracles you say...
But I do want an "expert" analysis with the pro / cons listed."-- John
But John, since I have conducted the rigorous analysis, posted both the assumptions and the pros and cons, am I not the "expert" on my own analysis? I posted it here because I expected that someone would actually either quibble with the assumptions or, even better, run the analysis themselves and see that it is as I have said... or not. If all you are going to do is call me names or say that I cannot possibly be correct, well, I guess we could just change the subject.
"So why, if the taxpayers invest in a given student, should they NOT only expect but demand a return on that investment?"
An educated citizen IS the return on the investment. Whatever they add beyond that is a bonus. It's not all about the Benjamins (Not an anti-Semitic trope).
Moose
What do you suppose is the correlation between a college education and common sense? The snowflakes we now seem to graduate are largely unemployable in any productive capacity. We need LESS of that.
It's funny. I travel in professional circles where most people have a degree in some type of Art or Art Education. I've never met a snowflake among the bunch. Many work in fields NOT related to their degree as well, so they seem to have plenty of capacity. I guess we just need to be teaching more Arts.
Moose
Moose,
I have to ask... If you may be a snowflake??? Would you recognize other snowflakes?
I always smile at those who work as a buyer or planner at the companies I work for. Often they have the most unique degrees. Usually because they could not get a good job in their field of study and settled.
And it is good that they can use their Liberal Arts degree to read, write, organize, communicate, negotiate, etc. However sometimes I think a business degree may have prepared them better for the field they are working.
Jerry,
"posted both the assumptions and the pros and cons"
I must have missed those "cons"... And I looked again...
So again... There is NO ONE out there proposing what you are?
"However sometimes I think a business degree may have prepared them better for the field they are working."
Or it may have completely pigeon-holed them and stifled their intellect. You sure seem to think you know what's best for everyone.
You denigrate Liberal Arts degrees, but fail to grasp that a person with a well-rounded education is employable in many fields and may gravitate towards a career they never could have had if they were required to be as narrow-minded as you.
Moose
And you pivoted to talk about Liberal Arts rather than the Arts. Likely because you have no concept of their importance.
Moose
If the student / recipient is paying / taking on the debt, they are free to study whatever they want.
If the tax payers are paying / taking on the debt, they should have some say.
Or maybe you think the homesteaders should have been able to squat on any land they liked... Not have been required to move out to the middle of no where and risk their lives for a parcel of land...
Moose,
You are correct... I have little time for Arts or Liberal Arts unless the person is pursuing on their own dime.
The USA is not going maintain world dominance and a higher quality of life than almost every other country because we funded people pursuing their dream of being an artist, musician, historian, archaeologist, etc.
If we keep creating the Microsofts, Googles, Caterpillars, Boeings, Intels, Apples, GEs, John Deeres, etc we may stand a chance.
The question comes back to "adding value" to the country...
Value when it comes to global competition usually comes back to what is someone from another country willing to pay American's for?
"The USA is not going maintain world dominance and a higher quality of life than almost every other country because we funded people pursuing their dream of being an artist, musician, historian, archaeologist, etc."
Then you are a moron. It would serve you well to have a better understanding of, in your words, of what makes a country "an excellent place to live."
Moose
Excellence is apparently in the eyes of the beholder. I enjoyed the AHS Band concert last night. Not sure that means I need to help finance someone getting a college degree in Music History.
Maslow HONs
I suggested you educate yourself, not persist in your ignorance.
Moose
Please provide a source that will teach me learn what you think I am missing.
Interesting story. I came out of college with an engineering degree and started work for a large corporation that hired 1000 people/year. They gathered us all together and one of the first questions was "how many have an engineering degree" and the second was "how many of you plan to work in engineering" and half the hands went down! They wanted to do sales or marketing or BA. In fact, when I was hired, the recruiter told me "you've proven two things: that you can stick at something for four years, and that you understand the language of engineering. We can teach you everything else." And they did.
Then, when I had been working for several years, doing computer modelling (you know, like "climate scientists" do) I noticed that the best computer programmers tended to be music majors! Something about an organized mind. The obvious conclusion is that a college degree means very little, except for learning the self-discipline and honing a natural skill, neither of which actually require a 4-year degree that will be largely irrelevant when you (hopefully)start work. Again, if you pay for it yourself or get some sort of scholarship, study anything you like. Or take out a student loan and study anything you like, but pay it back. If you expect the taxpayers in general to pay for you, then you need to pay that back, say in exchange for 4 years of public service in your field (e.g. as a doctor or military engineer).
Back on topic: Apparently my scheme has been offered more than once and considered advantageous: Bush
And here is somebody that has DONE it: Chile Apparently some 30 other nations now have similar plans.
The difference in the latter is that Chile spent a lot of money on "transition costs." By phasing in the private accounts, the transition costs are actually lower than what we are doing today. That is, the "trust fund" bottoms out two years earlier, but doesn't go to zero.
jerry, I think your example just shows that many kinds of thinking/learning are important, and thus should be supported by the government (John's point about adding value). You say that certain degrees are largely irrelevant, but are you taking into account that such an education can be valuable outside of the narrow focus of the degree?
Moose
What I am pointing out, Moose, is that having the degree adds no value at all, despite how that might influence one's job prospects or success in some unrelated field. I can get government to pay for everyone to have a "healthy diet," but there is no guarantee that one of those kids won't become a lowlife drug dealer. We should pay only for proven results. Free tuition, BUT, you give up a few years of public service mostly without pay, in the field of the degree we paid for. FAIL, either to get the degree or to work off the cost, and we attach your wages wherever you land.
Jerry,
Even your WE source indicates that the time has passed for the "Bush solution". And as for Chile...
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Arts Contribute More Than $760 Billion to the U.S. Economy
Moose
Moose,
By the way, my middle daughter is pursing Geography and Secondary Education degrees at U of MN Twin Cities.
I am hoping this works out for her and am happy to foot the bills. However I would never ask Jerry or you to help pay her expenses.
"We should pay only for proven results."
Educated people do better is a proven result.
Moose
Does your daughter know that you think what she's pursuing is unimportant?
Moose
Educated people do produce better results usually. And sometimes they don't.
Not much point in that art history major working at holiday... Not worth the $100,000 in school debt or gift from the tax payers.
She knows of my concerns, and I actually think excellent Teachers are very important. My heart burn is with a system that pays Teachers based on years, not based on performance and results. And she is willing to accept a lower compensation position / lower cost life.
By the way, I am also coaching her to have a variety of on campus jobs to help her develop multiple skills. And to help her firm up her life plan.
My oldest daughter started as a chem engr and switched to accounting.
The middle started undeclared and moved to Geography(ie mapping)which strangely is used by many organizations including Google, Cities, etc. With a plan to also get the 2nd Ed.
My youngest is leaving in the Fall to pursue a Physical Therapy path. It will be interesting to see where she ends up. :-)
I always explain to them that you need a job that you kind of like, but that also can pay the bills for your chosen lifestyle. I am happy to get them launched, but at some point they must fly on their own. :-)
I also remind them that arts, sports, etc make for excellent hobbies...
Hobbies
"The arts added four times more to the U.S. economy than the agricultural sector and $200 billion more than transportation or warehousing."
If the arts are hobbies, what does that make the agricultural sector or transportation or warehousing?
Moose
Moose,
The details behind $763 Billion are interesting.
Government:$101 Bil
Retail Trade: $51 Bil
Broadcasting:$128 Bil
Other Information Services: $43 Bil
Motion Pictures: $99 Bil
Publishing: $78 Bil
Advertising: $33 Bil
Construction: $10 Bil
Photo and Finishing: $10 Bil
Leaving $210 Bil for everyone else...
By the way, just Apples revenues were $256 Bil
The reality for better or worse is that many people in societies enjoy the arts.
Unfortunately they are not willing to pay much for them, therefore many are operated as non-profits and rely on donations.
I dropped about $100 for the 6 of us to see Avengers End Game and stuff our face.
How much of that I wonder went to artists vs business, manufacturing and technical functions.
Orchestra Salaries
Opera Singers
Broadway
Those are a just a few of the most obvious ones. Also, remember that many artists are entrepeneurs and sole proprietors. One would think a business-oriented person like you could appreciate that. I guess I'm wrong.
Moose
Arts and the Student
And of course, many with Arts degrees also teach in those disciplines, which has been increasingly shown to improve student performance in non-Arts disciplines and overall student achievement.
Hobbies, indeed. I think the words you were looking for were "Integral to Humanity".
Moose
GDP Table 5 gives more detail.
Please remember that I am fine with art, music and creativity building classes. I agree that they can help everyone.
And I am happy that some people in the arts make good or okay money. Unfortunately many of them do not and have to have a day job.
I am not okay with tax payers paying for someone to get a major in music history...
Because you are ignorant.
Moose
Does that make you one of those "elites" I keep hearing about? :-)
The reality is that if something is truly valued within a society...
It should not require government and charity to keep going.
I'm not an elite. I just know that having a populace with a broad range of knowledge and interests and careers makes for a better place to live and is a benefit for the entire country.
Moose
Elite: "the socially superior part of society" or "a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence"
I agree with you that having a very diverse population and knowledge is good.
I just disagree with who should pay for some of those studies.
And then you call me ignorant... I think you see yourself as an elite. :-)
The good news is that there are a lot of ignorant folks out here and we live in a democracy. :-)
"there are a lot of ignorant folks out here"
And we have Trump because of it. That does not benefit the country.
"I just disagree with who should pay for some of those studies."
So you lied when you said the government should only support those things that have a benefit to the country. Instead, what you meant to say is that we should only support those things which YOU think have benefit.
You'll notice I never scoffed at any field of study the way you have. Trades, Arts, Engineering, Agriculture, etc. etc. ALL have a role to play in making this country the best it can be, and they should ALL be celebrated and supported equally because of it.
I called you a moron because, as usual, you can't see beyond the end of your nose.
Moose
Actually I said...
"This concept kind of leads to G2A A Government's Purpose…
When a government spends money it should be to help the nation be more competitive, so the country can stay an excellent place to live...
With this in mind... What careers should the government invest in?"
Now the nice thing about being in wealthy country is that there are people who can afford to attend and give to the artists.
Where as you seem to want the government to prop up the arts with tax dollars.
I wonder if our enemies and competitors would be impressed that we were a nation of artists... Or if they would take advantage of it for their gain?
Or how we would feed all our poor with proceeds from the plays and concerts we hosted?
I wonder if that's the most idiotic thing I've read on this blog.
Moose
That is not much of an answer... :-)
How much of our governments budget should go to "supporting the arts" vs national defense, law and order, STEM / inventions / manufacturing, etc?
Remember Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
First are: Physiological, Safety, Love / Belonging
Last is: Esteem, Self-actualization
I put the arts into the last 2...
Of course you do.
Yet even in the midst of war or strife, when even the most basic of needs are not being met, people create art. If what you say were true, that would not be the case.
Moose
Creating art in times of trial makes sense.
Spending a lot of money on art is a whole different thing.
Historically artists were supported by wealthy patrons.
Kind of like today.
That ensures that poor artists stay poor...
And good artists are rewarded...
Still being obtuse, I see. So be it.
Moose
So much name calling...
So few answers...
You asked idiotic questions.
"I wonder if our enemies and competitors would be impressed that we were a nation of artists... Or if they would take advantage of it for their gain?
Or how we would feed all our poor with proceeds from the plays and concerts we hosted?"
Since no one in the history of history, much less me in this conversation, have suggested such a thing, there is no reason to answer them.
That said, we ARE a nation of artists, because art is inextricable from humanity. It is essential to human understanding of itself. We don't NEED accountants; we don't NEED Business Administrators; to name two. And perhaps that's the lesson here. Art is part and parcel to humanity and human experience, making it common, which to you makes it unremarkable. I think that aspect makes it remarkable. It is a difference in philosophy. I believe it to be in a class of things that sets us apart as a species.
Art
Science
Technology (Applied Science)
There are others, but I'm unable to distill those thoughts at the moment.
Moose
And because I was certain someone else out there has said it better than me, I did a quick search:
Art and Science
Art and Science 2
Science Friday
Moose
Source #1 says, "except for the case of Chile, the savings accumulation phase (while the worker is active) is not appropriately complemented by a well-functioning payout phase..."
Source #2 says the system is slanted against unions and their desire for massive government handouts at the expense of corporations. Boo-hoo.
Source #3 says that Chile is now introducing reforms that are built into the system proposed for the US, so your anti-reform "sources" actually argue for the reforms.
Sorry if I'm back on topic.
That's fine, I think Moose and I have to agree to disagree. I like the arts, but they have to earn their way also.
I am not going back to the Chile pros/cons.
The reality is that no GOPer contingent is pushing it.
And that is because of attitudes like yours, and the shrieking that inevitably comes from Democrat demagogues wishing for magical solutions.
No magic here. Just math and trade offs.
Just math and trade-offs AND false choices. How about math that shows NO tax increases and NO benefit cuts? Please do your homework and find fault with the system as proposed.
No thanks. No one but you is talking about it.
Definitely not worth my time.
That's OK. I was hoping you would help me convince the next Republican Congress to do something eminently sensible, but you prefer to let the wheels fall off the status quo.
For the last 30 years I have been planning appropriately for there being no SS and/or Medicare... So it really does not matter to me...
I will cash the "welfare checks" if they come, but I am also fine paying my own way. :-)
Post a Comment