Post New

If the tribes could stop being the tribes for a milli second.


For argument's sake - take out extremes like someone dirt poor or handicapped.

But....

They say the national debt is around $95k per person. What would happen if, presto - every American is taxed 95k and it can be paid back from ages 20-70.

50 years, around $2K PER YEAR.

So less smartphones are bought. Less tattoo parlors are patronized. Maybe the average price of a new car that people buy reduces a bit.

I dunno.... $100k for a lifetime of living in America?

If I had to I'd probably take that deal. Consider it "streaming service" or something.

I'm in. Heck, double my proportion to $4k so I can be done in 25 years.

WiltonKnight: For argument's sake - take out extremes like someone dirt poor or handicapped.

People living in poverty, the handicapped, and children make up about 47% of Americans. Removing them from your equation would raise your magic number from about $95,000 to about $206,000. For argument's sake, say $1,000 a month. I'll make a WAG and say that most Americans could not come up with an extra $1,000 a month every month for twenty straight years.

First question: what happens with the remaining debt of people who die before paying off their portion of the debt? Is their debt shifted to their families?

Yes, we do have a plurality of people who don't have a lot of money.

I'm not saying my idea is perfect heck it's not even spelled out.

In spirit, as a big picture, moonshot kind of thing.....

$2000 per year.....every man woman child, starting now.

Yeah, it'll suck - for some more than others. Maybe some exemptions. Maybe some surcharges.

I'm just saying, $2k per year to be in America.....I'd take the deal.

4k per year on 50% of Americans?

That's a tough sell. But "The American Consumer is great!" -- yeah it is. Sadly, maybe I need to spend $4k a year and erase my country's debt.....versus going on more vacations, or eating out as much. Maybe a few less features on the next car. How many Americans hav e $4k+ in discretionary income? Many do.

Will it hurt? Yeah. 30 trillion hurts.

But who knows, will "interest" being one of my country's biggest expenditures hurt too? Perhaps.

Fair shared sacrifice.

We all look at the man in the mirror: "Hey buddy. You'll pay more. And Get less. Have a nice day sign here"

I'm just saying - we can argue every 4 years over who pays a higher top rate or who is a welfare queen or Joe the Plumber or whatever.....

I'm just talking about a blunt, universal, everyone pay the piper.

Yes, S and p 500 earnings go down, Americans would buy less shit they don't need with money they don't have.

Hey, I love living off the fat of the American consumer - believe me believe me I do. But I just see this tact as blunt force to pay the bill off. And maybe everyone can play board games and eat sandwiches....and yeah, restaurant business and streaming business suffers.

Shit, happens.

WiltonKnight: I'm just saying, $2k per year to be in America.....I'd take the deal.

$2000 per year.....every man woman child, starting now.

Yeah, it'll suck - for some more than others. Maybe some exemptions. Maybe some surcharges.

4k per year on 50% of Americans?

Umm, did you not understand that your math is wrong?

It's more like $10,000+ per year or about $900-$1,000 per month for 50% of Americans?

And you didn't answer my question: what if someone dies before paying off his or her full share?

I'm just saying, $2k per year to be in America.....I'd take the deal.

Yeah, but it wouldn't be that, for sure.

The national debt is about $32.7 trillion. If we were to pay that off like a mortgage, over 30 years and assuming about an average 4% interest rate, we'd need to pay down about $1.87 trillion per year. The national deficit is currently about $1.6 trillion per year. So to keep the debt from rising, and pay it off over thirty years, we would need to raise federal taxes by about $3.47 trillion per year.

There are about 131 million households in the U.S. So to raise $3.47 trillion more dollars per year, you'd need to collect about $26,000 from each household in extra taxes. Which is obviously impossible - the limit for the lowest quintile of U.S. income by household is only about $28,000. You can't raise more in taxes than people actually earn, and if you take all their money in taxes they'll starve to death absent social services (which digs you deeper in the hole). It literally can't be done.

That doesn't mean that we couldn't pay off the national debt in 30 years. It just means that you can't possibly do it with a tax that is the same for every person or household, rich or poor. You can't pay off the debt if you only charge someone like Warren Buffett an extra $26K while charging his secretary that same $26K - there aren't enough people who make enough money to cover $26K to let Buffett bear so little tax burden.

Instead, you'd have to tax people more if they make more - someone who makes a million dollars per year will have to pay more in "debt tax" than someone who makes $10K per year. Federal tax receipts are roughly about $3.67 trillion, so basically you're talking about doubling everyone's taxes. Every year, for the next 30 years, you'll pay about double what you pay now. Even that's probably absurd, since there will be plenty of people who can't afford to pay double their FICA today - but still, that's kind of the order of magnitude level of taxes to pay down the national debt in 30 years.

The national debt is about $32.7 trillion. If we were to pay that off like a mortgage, over 30 years and assuming about an average 4% interest rate, we'd need to pay down about $1.87 trillion per year. The national deficit is currently about $1.6 trillion per year. So to keep the debt from rising, and pay it off over thirty years, we would need to raise federal taxes by about $3.47 trillion per year. - albaby

------------------

Too bad it violates the laws of physics that reducing spending, even by a symbolic amount, cannot be part of a solution.

A person is a corporation currently, no? Plus other entities, and the 1-2% So we've been doing just the opposite from what you propose so far.

Just a wag, but I'll bet since Citizens United was done away with, the extra influence has accrued money to Corps, etc., as the debt increased. The good news is that it doesn't seem to hurt us as much as we thought it would, but the bad news is that this continues. So if we leave the money pot open where people can get it, people behave like people. Everything gets corrupted, and the messaging system gets corrupted too. So if we follow this principle...

The scheme you are proposing is already corrupted if you didn't include corporations and other entities, and you didn't as far as I can see. So why didn't you Wilton? Why did you make a proposal that left out corporations, etc., who are the ones who most benefited from making that debt. Why leave out the ultra wealthy who shifted the burden of tax down?

Too bad it violates the laws of physics that reducing spending, even by a symbolic amount, cannot be part of a solution.

Symbolic amounts don't affect the payment levels. Non-symbolic amounts require cutting Medicare, Social Security, or national defense - which given the current shift in the GOP to a populist party are now so unlikely that they might as well violate the laws of physics.

So in an exercise to try to figure out how much it would cost in new taxes to pay down the national debt in thirty years, it's probably accurate to ignore as trivial the likelihood of spending cuts from current levels.

Albaby

So in an exercise to try to figure out how much it would cost in new taxes to pay down the national debt in thirty years, it's probably accurate to ignore as trivial the likelihood of spending cuts from current levels.

Albaby

-------------------

I would thrilled if they could tread water for thirty years and not pay down anything. Heck, I would be thrilled if the trend line is half the incline it has been on. Instead, the readily accepted excuse is the problem is just too big to try to solve, so keeping spending and let the good times roll.

Instead, the readily accepted excuse is the problem is just too big to try to solve, so keeping spending and let the good times roll.

It's not that the "problem" (government spending at high levels) is too big to solve. It's that the electorate generally doesn't want to solve it, or even that it's a problem.

Materially reducing spending requires cutting either Medicare, Social Security, or national defense (and probably all three). Voters don't want the government to do that. Oh, sure - there's some constituencies for cutting each of those programs. But they're small and they don't overlap. On the whole, voters don't want those things cut.

Budget hawks like to imagine the government spending tons of money on things that voters dislike or find wasteful. But the truth is that most government spending is on things voters generally like. Giving voters things they like and then passing the bill to future voters is not just something that politicians like - it's something that voters really, really like. Especially older voters, who are higher-propensity voters. Fiscal conservatives can (and do) get elected by convincing voters that a lot of federal spending is on stuff they hate - but then once they're in office, they can't materially cut the federal budget because the pitch they ran on simply isn't true.

Austerity is unpopular. Borrowing money to spend on things voters like is popular. That's one reason why Donald Trump was President and Paul Ryan wasn't.

But the truth is that most government spending is on things voters generally like.

----------------

I particularly like those hundreds of FEMA employees who have descended on Maui to help and are staying at four or five of the plush 5 star resort hotels that go for $1,000 or more per night or and meanwhile there are $250 rooms at the Days Inn that are setting empty.

I just wish government would stop wasting money regardless of how insignificant it is in the overall debt picture. They sort of exude an in your face ethos that is an insult to taxpayers.

bighairymike: FEMA spokesperson Darrell Habisch said reports of personnel staying in rooms for $1,000 a night are not true. FEMA is paying hotels the government rate of $345, he said.

'FEMA personnel and responders are not here on vacation,' said Habisch. 'We're all here for the residents of Maui and the survivors of this terrible, this terrible incident.'


Umm.

FEMA spokesperson Darrell Habisch said reports of personnel staying in rooms for $1,000 a night are not true. FEMA is paying hotels the government rate of $345, he said.

'FEMA personnel and responders are not here on vacation,' said Habisch. 'We're all here for the residents of Maui and the survivors of this terrible, this terrible incident.'

'And if these larger resorts have the capacity, they're the ones who agreed to it to say, yeah, we want to help; they want to help as much as everybody else,' said Habisch.

'So, they're saying we will take a dramatically reduced government rate that you can get at any hotel on the island, and we'll agree to that.'

2,000 evacuees are also staying in hotels and other housing. I haven't seen anything about Days Inns with empty rooms but suspect that's false, as well.

That took 3 minutes of research. Try it next time.

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/08/24/anger-gro...

I would thrilled if they could tread water for thirty years and not pay down anything. Heck, I would be thrilled if the trend line is half the incline it has been on. Instead, the readily accepted excuse is the problem is just too big to try to solve, so keeping spending and let the good times roll.

You can read all sorts of plans and explanations on the internet, but it isn't politically viable. Increasing taxes and decreasing spending make catchy political slogans, but no poly is really serious. The economists have discovered they were wrong about how much debt we can incur without seriously hurting the economy. ( One study they relied on had a spreadsheet that wasn't footed correctly). Look at Japan. Japan's National Debt is ~263% of GDP. I'm not sure what is happening with Venezuela. The US is ~130%. Trump increased it a lot with his tax cut for the better off. But there was also a pandemic. Reluctantly, I finally agreed that Reagan really hurt us.

Whatever we do we can be sure that the haves will watch out for themselves.

FEMA is paying hotels the government rate of $345, he said.

-----------------

And I say, show me a receipt. I would also find it interesting what else had been charged to the room that receipt would show.

BTW, the Days Inn is still $250 a night, but there is no golf course.

The economists have discovered they were wrong about how much debt we can incur without seriously hurting the economy.

-----------------------

And we are hell bent on experiencing whatever that threshold is.

The economists have discovered they were wrong about how much debt we can incur without seriously hurting the economy.

Uh, huh. Which ones?

Not these guys?
https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theor...

Modern monetary theory (MMT) is a heterodox macroeconomic supposition that asserts that monetarily sovereign countries (such as the U.S., U.K., Japan, and Canada) which spend, tax, and borrow in a fiat currency that they fully control, are not operationally constrained by revenues when it comes to federal government spending.

And we're living in the proof that this theory is full of it, as more dollars sloshing around in the system = higher prices felt by all.

I just wish government would stop wasting money regardless of how insignificant it is in the overall debt picture.

Waste is, by definition, bad. One of the main reasons that budget hawks like to point to waste when trying to advocate for reduced spending is that no one can argue in favor of waste.

But it is indeed insignificant in the overall debt picture. The things that actually matter to the debt are the things that voters generally support, like spending on Medicare, Social Security, and national security.

Albaby

But it is indeed insignificant in the overall debt picture. The things that actually matter to the debt are the things that voters generally support, like spending on Medicare, Social Security, and national security.

Which brings us back to increasing revenues. Which is not generally accomplished with tax cuts (despite the tortured interpretations of the Laffer curve).

Taxes need to go back up at least to the Reagan levels, with emphasis on the 1%. And no favorable treatment of cap gains, and probably no stepped-up basis for inheritance (which, honestly, affects me this year since mom died in June...but it shouldn't be, even if it benefits me).

But it is indeed insignificant in the overall debt picture. The things that actually matter to the debt are the things that voters generally support, like spending on Medicare, Social Security, and national security.

Albaby

-----------------

True, but there is such a thing as setting example. ie the US should go green and sacrifice its economy even though China is still yada yada yada....

And this such a thing as culture. Companies strive to establish a corporate culture of Customer Service for example.

So why not set a good example of minimizing cost even if it pissing in the ocean? What not set an example of frugality with taxpayer money? Maybe it will catch on. It might even restore some of the luster on the highly tarnished image our government has earned.

Taxes need to go back up at least to the Reagan levels, with emphasis on the 1%. And no favorable treatment of cap gains, and probably no stepped-up basis for inheritance (which, honestly, affects me this year since mom died in June...but it shouldn't be, even if it benefits me). - 1pg

---------------------

I could agree with you easier if not for the reputation of profligate spending. Collect an extra dollar, spend an extra $1.25. And why not, since Debt as a percent of GDP says we can.

Mike, CO found $345 a night, not $1,000, using different combinations of search words. This is a common propaganda technique. Here, any reporter could have inquired, but this is sensationalism that gets clicks. Clicks = revenue. It used to be called yellow journalism. That's why Tucker Carlson got paid the big bucks.

People remember the sensation and not the correction. It works.

And we are hell bent on experiencing whatever that threshold is.

You say this after seeing Japan? We aren't even close to them, and they manage it.

bighairymike: I would also find it interesting what else had been charged to the room that receipt would show.

I specifically gave you reporting by a local news outlet but I guess it was too much effort for you to actually read the article. Here, let me help: FEMA personnel are not taking rooms from local displaced residents, FEMA personnel get a standard per diem, and that per diem cannot be used for alcohol or amenities (like golf).

You're welcome.

Modern monetary theory (MMT) is a heterodox macroeconomic supposition that asserts that monetarily sovereign countries (such as the U.S., U.K., Japan, and Canada) which spend, tax, and borrow in a fiat currency that they fully control, are not operationally constrained by revenues when it comes to federal government spending.

This actually agrees with what I said, Dope. In the past, there was a forecasted limit of 120% of FDP, where disaster was invited if you went over that threshold.

Mike, CO found $345 a night, not $1,000, using different combinations of search words. This is a common propaganda technique. Here, any reporter could have inquired, but this is sensationalism that gets clicks. Clicks = revenue. It used to be called yellow journalism. That's why Tucker Carlson got paid the big bucks. - Lapsody

---------------

CO found somebody who said that, true. I wonder if they get discounts on golf, spa services, room service, meals in their choice of several five-star on resort restaurants. I wonder if the these public servants live on a per diem. I sure would like to see their room bill when they check out. Do they have any incentive to take it easy with the expense account?

And $345 a night is still more than the $250 at Days Inn, but no golf course or spa.

>>And we are hell bent on experiencing whatever that threshold is.<<

You say this after seeing Japan? We aren't even close to them, and they manage it. - Lapsody

----------------

Yep, Let's go for it.

So why not set a good example of minimizing cost even if it pissing in the ocean?

Mostly because (again) it won't actually help you reduce the deficit or debt. You'll never "set an example" of frugality with taxpayer money - most people will form their opinions of government spending through their partisan prism, which can always find examples of waste and then broadcast those examples far and wide.

All institutions have waste and inefficiency - it's unavoidable. And it has to be worse for the federal government. The federal government is exceptionally large, is virtually perpetual, is subject to public inspection, has (by design) frequent and constant turnover in leadership, is governed by a body (Congress) that intentionally gives departments and agencies multiple and sometimes conflicting goals (which people disagree on the merits of), and is subject to rules that no private institution has to follow.

This all drives up the cost of administering the federal government in ways that make fighting waste expensive. There are direct costs, of course -for example, there are managerial costs to monitoring employees and agencies. But there are also indirect costs - civil service protections make it harder to fire any single employee, for example, but eliminating those protections would increase the risk (nay, likelihood) of returning to a patronage system where even low-ranking government jobs are allocated as political spoils rather than more professional criteria. The power to cut costs is exactly that: a power. And in the context of government we have a lot of disagreements over who should get to have power.

And of course, you run the risk of pursuing a political agenda rather than a budgetary agenda. For example, the budgetary impact of reducing federal spending by 0.001% through eliminating waste across the board would be trivial - but if you got to choose which part of the government that 0.001% got cut from, you could accomplish all kinds of political goals under the guise of fiscal prudence. You could zero out a program that you don't like, or cripple a function of a larger department.

Here, let me help: FEMA personnel are not taking rooms from local displaced residents, FEMA personnel get a standard per diem, and that per diem cannot be used for alcohol or amenities (like golf). - CO

----------------

Good to know, really, How do we know what the local reporter was told is how it is?

And $345 a night is still more than the $250 at Days Inn, but no golf course or spa.

Probably not a lot of meeting room space or business center facilities, either. Things that are amenities to hotel guests but can be used to facilitate an emergency response function.

These government officials are emergency responders - they get shuttled in to work intensely on disaster response in the immediate aftermath. They won't have the time to take in a round of golf, and certainly aren't in a position to afford the prices for a spa treatment or greens fees at places like those.

You could zero out a program that you don't like, or cripple a function of a larger department. - albaby

----------------------

What do think about the Department of Education? If we cut their budget and staff by say 90%, do you think the governors of the various states would run amok for lack of federal interference? And to the extent some do, the voters have a say in that governors tenure whereas they have about zero influence on the dug in bureaucrats at the Department of Education.

What do think about the Department of Education? If we cut their budget and staff by say 90%, do you think the governors of the various states would run amok for lack of federal interference?

Of course not - but that's another example of what I'm talking about. Because virtually none of the DoE's money goes towards "federal interference."

Most of the Department of Education's budget (about 60%) is income-based student loans (FDSLE) and grants (Pell) for college. Nearly all the rest is giving money to poor schools (Title I grants) and paying for special education needs for disabled kids (about 31%). Not on oversight of the states. The DoE is a favorite target of budget hawks because they can create the perception that it's primarily federal bureaucrats messing around with matters of state control, but in reality nearly all of their budget is just transferring money to poor school districts, special education programs, or college loans/grants. The entirety of everything else they do is just 9% of their budget - which itself is the smallest of any federal agency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Depart...

So things like NCLB, Common Core, "Race to the Top," and other efforts to influence local school policies draw a lot of attention - but again, that's not where the money goes. So you can't get any material savings - and certainly not 90% - by getting them to stop "interfering" with governors. Almost all the DoE dollars are just transferred to state and local schools and colleges. As noted above, only about 9% of the DoE budget goes to everything else.

Objections to the DoE are political objections, not budgetary objections - the exercise of DoE's regulatory power and influence over state government educational system constitutes an insignificant amount of their budget.

Albaby

So things like NCLB, Common Core, "Race to the Top," and other efforts to influence local school policies draw a lot of attention - but again, that's not where the money goes. So you can't get any material savings - and certainly not 90% - by getting them to stop "interfering" with governors. Almost all the DoE dollars are just transferred to state and local schools and colleges. As noted above, only about 9% of the DoE budget goes to everything else. - albaby

------------------

All good points and I ease off on my criticism to some degree. Their generosity with student loans is problematic by making it too easy for anyone who wants to get into college, people who stand little chance of graduating or if they do earn a degree, that knowledge offers little hope of a career or even the ability to pay back their debt. But the worst part is, it allows colleges to keep raising their tuition rates far above the inflation rate year after year after year with the assurance their customers can get all the credit they need to buy their product at any cost. Thus the colleges become overpriced and bloated.

They already do. That's why we have decisions like Kitzmiller v Dover. And that's just one of the ones that made it to SCOTUS. Lots never go that far.

They already do. That's why we have decisions like Kitzmiller v Dover. And that's just one of the ones that made it to SCOTUS. Lots never go that far. - 1pg

-------------------

I am not getting what your point is. In that case the aggrieved parents used the court system and the DOJ to make their case with no role for the US Dept of Education. Ultimately the resolution was made as it should be, by the voters,

In the November 2005 elections, eight of the nine members of the Dover school board were voted out of office.[15] None of the members of the Dover School Board who voted for the intelligent design policy were re-elected, and a new school board, which rejected the policy, took office. This effectively precluded the possibility of an appeal to a higher court.

My point was that governors and school boards do run amok without federal oversight, and even sometimes with it.

But you're correct, it never made it to SCOTUS. My error.

My point was that governors and school boards do run amok without federal oversight, and even sometimes with it. - 1pg

-------------------

At least if it happens, the aggrieved voters can vote out the governors and the school boards unlike the unaccountable career bureaucrats at the Department of Education. The power of the people is happening to school boards across nation for inserting themselves between parents and their children.

I could agree with you easier if not for the reputation of profligate spending. Collect an extra dollar, spend an extra $1.25. And why not, since Debt as a percent of GDP says we can.

Don't vote for Trump.

But the worst part is, it allows colleges to keep raising their tuition rates far above the inflation rate year after year after year with the assurance their customers can get all the credit they need to buy their product at any cost. Thus the colleges become overpriced and bloated.

Maybe? Again, it's worth looking at the actual numbers involved. DoE's budget for student loans is about $52 billion - and some amount of that is going to be "appropriate" (not bloating) financing for college education. Meanwhile, total college expenditures in the U.S. are about $670 billion per year. Even if some federal lending is too permissive, it's going to be a percentage in the low single digits of annual college spending. More significantly, that number is much lower than it used to be - back in the early 2000's, it was closer to $100 billion per year (though skewing more towards loans than grants), and federal student financial aid peaked in around 2011-2012.

So if colleges are overpriced and bloated, federal student lending is not likely to be a very significant factor.

As I recall, in Arizona they reduced the subsidization of the state universities, and tuitions went up (A LOT). More than doubled, IIRC, in one year. That doesn't address any increases in private schools like Stanford, but it could be more about state budgets than federal budgets.

You say this after seeing Japan? We aren't even close to them, and they manage it. - Lapsody

----------------

BHM: Yep, Let's go for it.

Me: Nope. Ain't going there. Keynes wrote to even out the economic cycles the Government should spend to support the economy, whereas Hayek the Austrian school preferred austerity and to do nothing. During the GFC the papers were full of articles about shrinking the US Gov, drowning it in a bathtub, and industry leaders and bankers were "job creators", etc. Then Lehman went down, we teetered, and out of the woodwork came the Keynsian economists and talk of a "soft landing" abounded. We discovered the great bankers had screwed us, and I forget the piece of legislation we did away with that would have helped prevent it. We got saved by Keyns, but were supposed to pay back during the good times and we never do that.

So our pattern seems to be we recognize a crisis, erect a legislative solution, then over the years tear down that legislative solution, then another crisis. And the crisis are different each time and no one wants to deal with the pain so we spend to get a soft landing, etc.

...I forget the piece of legislation we did away with that would have helped prevent it.

Glass-Steagall.

We should reinstitute it.

We also should restore the National Bank that Jackson destroyed. Private banks didn't like the competition, and Jackson was extremely corrupt, so he shut down the National Bank for them. We're one of the few 1st world nations that don't have a national bank, as a result.

As I recall, in Arizona they reduced the subsidization of the state universities, and tuitions went up (A LOT). More than doubled, IIRC, in one year. That doesn't address any increases in private schools like Stanford, but it could be more about state budgets than federal budgets.

Colleges are faced with a couple of cost drivers: faculty career paths and the arms race of student amenities.

Back in the 90's when college was still kind of affordable (depending on where you went) dorms were still dorms and the "gym" was a pile of rusty iron plates in a smelly basement. Cafeteria food was exactly that and it was a treat to have a pizza oven in ONE of the dorms.

Faculty topped out at full professor with tenure, and that was that.

At some point schools began competing with each other on student amenities, so now there are juice bars, vastly improved campus recreational centers, multiple pools and custom dining options. Faculty needed career paths so there were a raft of Special Assistant Vice Provost for X or Associate Dean of Y to keep them around. Tuitions went up in response.

So it wasn't just easy federal loans, but part of it. An influx of full-freight paying foreign students also didn't help: out of state tuition skyrocketed in many schools just because it could.

...faculty career paths and the arms race of student amenities.

Perhaps it was peculiar to AZ, but a BIG driver was sports because sports brings in money. When I was at the UofA, instead of funding some student-oriented things, they built skyboxes for the football stadium. Sometime in the last decade there was a row about closing the College of Music to fund some other sports thing (I don't recall the details now). It seems everything is subservient to the NCAA. And at the UofA, professors often regarding teaching as a nuisance. They didn't get evaluated on their teaching, they were evaluated on research dollars and publications. As a grad student, I saw a bit more of the inner workings of this than an undergrad student would. Professors need grad students to assist in their research, and "secrets" can be revealed.

One reason I bailed on my PhD. I didn't want to have to chase funding the rest of my life, and play the game of dividing one research paper into three parts so I could claim three publications when it came time to justify my presence. Utter rubbish.

Perhaps it was peculiar to AZ, but a BIG driver was sports because sports brings in money. When I was at the UofA, instead of funding some student-oriented things, they built skyboxes for the football stadium. Sometime in the last decade there was a row about closing the College of Music to fund some other sports thing (I don't recall the details now). It seems everything is subservient to the NCAA.

Depends on the school; in the Big Ten most of the sports facilities are funded through private donations and/or special fees tacked on to tuition. One of the parts of the "arms race" is the rush to joint the conferences with the biggest media footprints (and resulting $$$ contracts from the streaming services and networks). That's the reason why the Big Ten just absorbed a bunch of Pac-12 schools.

And at the UofA, professors often regarding teaching as a nuisance. They didn't get evaluated on their teaching, they were evaluated on research dollars and publications. As a grad student, I saw a bit more of the inner workings of this than an undergrad student would. Professors need grad students to assist in their research, and "secrets" can be revealed.

Graduate School in STEM fields, especially engineering, is today's version of indentured servitude. Over the course of my masters' and Ph.D. programs I worked 7 days a week with very little time off and 80-90 hour weeks were the norm. It's a mentally exhausting grind that was also the greatest learning experience of my life...but boy, do you earn it. I had thoughts of becoming a professor until I saw just how much hustling for research money you had to do...

...becoming a professor until I saw just how much hustling for research money you had to do...

Yeah, that put me off, also. Plus my favorite professor was always under siege because he brought in the bare minimum of research dollars. He actually LIKED to teach, and even started some courses that weren't normally offered (specifically, spectroscopy-related). He was very popular with students. If he didn't have tenure, they likely would have given his lab space to someone else.

My research was done with a non-professor who was affiliated with the University (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatories). But even he had to chase funding.

I opted for a job where I showed up, did my work, went home, and they paid me every other week. No grant proposals. For the first few years they referred to me as "the rocket scientist" (even though I didn't do rocketry).

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.