|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
 Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | Why is it so expensive
Teacher salaries
Heating bill
Where's the costs?
Why is it so expensive
What justifies a country causing education to cost more than citizens can logically afford
Does USA require uneducated citizens? |
Example:
Engineering Institution #1
Purchases atomic collider at a cost of $500 million. During their course of study, the students with access to the atomic collider are able to observe 1st hand what happens in reality vs what the theories predict.
Engineering institution #2
Does not purchase an atomic collider and it's students are relegated to exchanging information re theory, but are at the mercy of institution #1 releasing their findings. So it's students aren't as well prepared as are the students from institution #1.
The bottom line is because of the above, institutions are in competition with one another to attract the best and brightest, as well as the money necessary to invest in new technologies. When per student spending goes down, so does the quality of the education. It's a good part of the reason sytems with free tuition produce almost none of the world's leading educational institutions. Their per student spending is constrained by what they're able to get the taxpayer to pay. In a tuitioned system, students are willing to pay more for the perceived increased opportunity, and Universities invest accordingly to attract the highest quality students they can. Those costs are passed on to the student who seeks a benefit.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
How about the other extreme
Business
English
Literature
Mathematics
Computer science
Pol science
History
Teacher salary
Space rent
Heat/AC
Yes they need computer labs and the teachers need their own copy of the course book
They make you buy one..
I understand
Facilities that purchase extremely expensive machinery/equipment needing to recoup the costs
Liberal Arts degrees could easily be free and many science courses etc
I guess if you're willing to kill and die for your country you get a good deal on Tuition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Aussie, here’s what I’m talking about.
| Quote: | The gig economy is now composed of 60 million workers, and it is now an ever bigger slice of the American workforce.
By 2027 the majority of workers in the U.S. will be contract workers. |
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/29/4-gig-economy-trends-that-are-radically-transforming-the-us-job-market.html
These are jobs without any full time benefits at all. Adding additional cost to that, without offering some kind of return, will only accelerate this. Or, companies will just say, oh you have a student loan? Pass. I'll hire this candidate who doesn't have the added cost burden.
The only way to add cost, without offering a return on that cost, and still get your desired outcome is to require it through threat of force. |
Again, legislation deals with these issue easily. Lower the threshold to 5 hours/ week that all employees have to be treated the same, and the incentive for the "gig" economy dissipates. If there is no reward from a company skirting it's responsibilities, then it's behaviour changes. If an employer offers a benefit to some employees, then it should be offered to all employees. Again, the model of American business re labor is in serious need of a reassessment. |
I feel like you are ignoring how business works.
Google already has more contractors than employees. Your new 5 hrs/week law that would result in thousands of Google contractors losing their jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Aussie, here’s what I’m talking about.
| Quote: | The gig economy is now composed of 60 million workers, and it is now an ever bigger slice of the American workforce.
By 2027 the majority of workers in the U.S. will be contract workers. |
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/29/4-gig-economy-trends-that-are-radically-transforming-the-us-job-market.html
These are jobs without any full time benefits at all. Adding additional cost to that, without offering some kind of return, will only accelerate this. Or, companies will just say, oh you have a student loan? Pass. I'll hire this candidate who doesn't have the added cost burden.
The only way to add cost, without offering a return on that cost, and still get your desired outcome is to require it through threat of force. |
Again, legislation deals with these issue easily. Lower the threshold to 5 hours/ week that all employees have to be treated the same, and the incentive for the "gig" economy dissipates. If there is no reward from a company skirting it's responsibilities, then it's behaviour changes. If an employer offers a benefit to some employees, then it should be offered to all employees. Again, the model of American business re labor is in serious need of a reassessment. |
I feel like you are ignoring how business works.
Google already has more contractors than employees. Your new 5 hrs/week law that would result in thousands of Google contractors losing their jobs. |
Losing them to whom?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Aussie, here’s what I’m talking about.
| Quote: | The gig economy is now composed of 60 million workers, and it is now an ever bigger slice of the American workforce.
By 2027 the majority of workers in the U.S. will be contract workers. |
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/29/4-gig-economy-trends-that-are-radically-transforming-the-us-job-market.html
These are jobs without any full time benefits at all. Adding additional cost to that, without offering some kind of return, will only accelerate this. Or, companies will just say, oh you have a student loan? Pass. I'll hire this candidate who doesn't have the added cost burden.
The only way to add cost, without offering a return on that cost, and still get your desired outcome is to require it through threat of force. |
Again, legislation deals with these issue easily. Lower the threshold to 5 hours/ week that all employees have to be treated the same, and the incentive for the "gig" economy dissipates. If there is no reward from a company skirting it's responsibilities, then it's behaviour changes. If an employer offers a benefit to some employees, then it should be offered to all employees. Again, the model of American business re labor is in serious need of a reassessment. |
I feel like you are ignoring how business works.
Google already has more contractors than employees. Your new 5 hrs/week law that would result in thousands of Google contractors losing their jobs. |
Losing them to whom? |
To no one. If Uber had to pay all of the taxes and costs associated with FT workers to their drivers who drive more than 5 hrs per week, and make loan repayments on top of that, they would have fewer drivers than they do currently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: |
Again, legislation deals with these issue easily. Lower the threshold to 5 hours/ week that all employees have to be treated the same, and the incentive for the "gig" economy dissipates. If there is no reward from a company skirting it's responsibilities, then it's behaviour changes. If an employer offers a benefit to some employees, then it should be offered to all employees. Again, the model of American business re labor is in serious need of a reassessment. |
I feel like you are ignoring how business works.
Google already has more contractors than employees. Your new 5 hrs/week law that would result in thousands of Google contractors losing their jobs. |
The average cost of taxation and benefits per employee in the Tech sector is Base salary * 1.2. ie, a base salary of $100,000 *1.2 = $120,000 so the additional cost to the company in treating a contractor instead as an employee is $20,000 for that worker.
The average profit per employee in the Tech sector is $83,000. If google responded to paying an extra $20,000 per contractor by forgoing a net $63,000 ($83,000- $20,000) in profits it would earn from that converted employee, then it's making a poor business decision. The only way Google would respond by letting those employees go in large scale, and losing their productive capacities to competitors, is if the specific employee in question was engaged in activities outside it's core business that Google simply would not be engaged in if it were not for the cheap labor.
Profit Per Employee
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mhan00 wrote: |
Weird question. Public universities free (or tuition heavily subsidized), obviously private universities charge what they want. Educated citizens should be an investment for States. There are several ideas that could be very interesting to help subsidize education: one is that tuition is not charged until after the student has graduated and found a high paying job (obviously with course and GPA requirements that must be met for continued enrollment), after which a percentage of the salary is deducted and paid to the university for three to five years. |
NPR's Planet Money had a podcast on this, entitled something like "A new way to pay for college." Basically your university gets some amount of "equity" in you in exchange for some reduction in tuition, i.e. they take some percentage of your earnings for some amount of time, capped by a total amount and for a certain number of years. One thing Planet Money noted as controversial which I expressly like about it is that different majors with different earning potentials lead to different discounts -- since it's a private program, they need to make money. So it lays bear something that a lot of 18 year olds don't realize about the expected value of their degree.
I guess in theory the advantage of having such a program government-run is it can run at a loss and be funded by other taxes (in effect subsidizing college tuition for those with small salaries)... but besides that I don't really see it as an alternative to subsidizing college tuition. Fundamentally it isn't really that different than paying X% of your salary to pay off student loans for 10 years... except that this is dischargeable after 10 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: |
Again, legislation deals with these issue easily. Lower the threshold to 5 hours/ week that all employees have to be treated the same, and the incentive for the "gig" economy dissipates. If there is no reward from a company skirting it's responsibilities, then it's behaviour changes. If an employer offers a benefit to some employees, then it should be offered to all employees. Again, the model of American business re labor is in serious need of a reassessment. |
I feel like you are ignoring how business works.
Google already has more contractors than employees. Your new 5 hrs/week law that would result in thousands of Google contractors losing their jobs. |
The average cost of taxation and benefits per employee in the Tech sector is Base salary * 1.2. ie, a base salary of $100,000 *1.2 = $120,000 so the additional cost to the company in treating a contractor instead as an employee is $20,000 for that worker.
The average profit per employee in the Tech sector is $83,000. If google responded to paying an extra $20,000 per contractor by forgoing a net $63,000 ($83,000- $20,000) in profits it would earn from that converted employee, then it's making a poor business decision. The only way Google would respond by letting those employees go in large scale, and losing their productive capacities to competitors, is if the specific employee in question was engaged in activities outside it's core business that Google simply would not be engaged in if it were not for the cheap labor.
Profit Per Employee |
Profit per employee is directly impacted by the gigeconomy trends. If you run a company that sees $100,000 profit annually with one full-time employee and 100 contract workers, your profit per employee would be $100,000. If you had 100 employees and 1 contract worker instead, your profit per employee would be $1,000. So you can (and companies do) boost their profit per employee metrics by using contract workers.
Your article predates the recent trends and is over 12 years old citing data points that are nearly two decades old.
In either case, I don't even disagree with you on your premise. I agree we have to look at people/labor beyond pure financial ROI. Funny enough, being in marketing, I have to make this argument all the time that you can't measure marketing effectiveness using only transactional data.
I just don't agree with you on the solution which is basically make it more expensive than it already is to retain a full-time employee by stacking loan repayments as a legal requirement. So adding cost will only further tip the scales in favor of contract work.
And if your solution to that is to make all contract work of 5 hrs/week = full-time employee, that's a lot of workers that will have nothing. Case in point, I do consulting work on the side and I have a designer that does stuff for me. He probably does around 8 hours of week per work. If I have to pay his student loans, provide him healthcase insurance, offer paid time off, I'll just have to do the design work myself or find two designers who can do 4 hours of work per week each to avoid the 5 hr threshold you propose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
