[nightski]

I feel like the value of adversity is lost sometimes on HN. We should be especially familiar with it. Earning a high level of income makes life extraordinarily comfortable, to the point where it is easy to become complacent and stop trying to really contribute to society in a meaningful way.

Some times a struggle is not a bad thing. Not to the point where one should be homeless or starving of course, but having everything handed to you (even if you have worked hard in the past) doesn't always result in the best of outcomes.

[wojcech]

This sentiment is so bizarre from a European perspective. So the only thing that stops people from getting an education willy nilly is student debt? Or American engineers are all better in some respects than German engineers because of their debt?

[usrusr]

What I (as a fellow European who considers the American student loan craze equally bizarre) read into the "struggle" part of nightski's post is that people approach a given education opportunity very differently knowing that it is costing them (or, probably even stronger in most cases: their parents) a lot of money, vs. knowing that it is free. I sure hope that I would have crunched harder during that time knowing that it was a crazy expensive bet and not just the opportunity cost of not entering the workforce early.

What I am not so sure is wether that hard crunch would have actually been better. I suspect that without the more freewheeling approach of European universities, I would have gone even deeper into the pointlessness of learning for the grade instead of learning for the education.

Generally speaking, my impression is that many people wildly overestimate the per-head cost of low intensity university education. Without artificially inflated budgets (driven by the misuse of tuition height as an indicator of academic quality), a few lecture halls, some professors and the usual lower echelons of academia who are basically donating their time for peanuts and the chance to occasionally publish seems to be an absolute bargain compared to other programmes designed for keeping people off the streets.

[nightski]

I never really said any of that.

The reality is that you can get a really good college education for rather cheap in the U.S. if you are smart about it. I could of gone to a local state college for 1/10th the tuition of a private school and received an education at a very similar level.

I just feel that a free for all education system (ala Bernie Sanders) would be detrimental. Having things be somewhat exclusive and require some amount of effort is not necessarily a bad thing. Germany itself imposes exams for example (although I don't know how difficult they actually are personally).

[DasIch]

Germany doesn't impose any exams at all. The only limiting factor is that you qualify for university and maybe your grade, if the number of applicants requires it.

There are no exams that need to be passed, no essays need to be written or anything of the sort.

[lentil_soup]

Depending on the course/university there's limited space, of course. The problem is when this "exclusivity" that you mention is purely based on who can pay, that is what's detrimental.

[cpursley]

I'm really not sure why you're getting downvotes. If I could go back and change my education path, I'd absolutely go the community college route for two years then complete my education at state college.

[dagw]

Having things be somewhat exclusive and require some amount of effort is not necessarily a bad thing.

Getting into your first choice program at your first choice university often requires a lot of effort, and the people who graduate from those programs are often part of a somewhat exclusive group. It's just that the effort required is entirely on your academic and intellectual qualifications rather than financial and persona connections.

[IslaDeEncanta]

Your comment is the typical lack of perspective I expect from HN. Going to college is extremely stressful. Going to college poor (actually poor) is nearly impossible.

[hueving]

>Going to college poor (actually poor) is nearly impossible.

This is not true. If you are poor (actually poor), there are so many government grants and scholarships for low income students that it's much easier financially than if you are middle class.

If you are middle class, your parents frequently have to give up half a year's salary to help pay. Good luck going to college if you're not a top tier student and your parents refuse to help pay tuition.

[enraged_camel]

>>If you are poor (actually poor), there are so many government grants and scholarships for low income students that it's much easier financially than if you are middle class.

Availability doesn't automatically lead to discoverability or accessibility. Most grants require a ridiculous amount of paperwork and the ability to navigate a complex bureaucracy, which poor families have neither the time nor the skill for. A lot of the parents in poor families work multiple jobs. Some barely speak English.

[conanbatt]

Reality doesnt match your expectation.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/college-enro...

And note there are more low-income people than high-income people demographically.

[matwood]

There may be less poor people in college, but it can be easier for poor people to pay. There is sort of this no man's land where a person (or their family) makes just too much for assistance, but not really enough to pay. My family fell into this area while in college, and I worked 20-30 hours/week on top of a normal 12-15 hour course load. To make up when I took 12 hours, I also went to both summer sessions each year. It was a long 4 years as I had maybe 3-4 weeks out of school each year, and zero time out of work.

[conanbatt]

This is a case of middle-class complaining how they dont get the same benefits than a poorer-class. It can be unfair, but secondary to the reality that being poor makes college way more difficult even with that help.

[hueving]

Low enrollment is not because of ability to pay tuition for low income. Many poor people don't enroll because they didn't have encouragement from family or they had other obligations (e.g. taking care of family members).

[mason240]

> Going to college poor (actually poor) is nearly impossible.

This isn't true at all. I speak from personal experience.

[nightski]

You assume way too much.

[Pyxl101]

> Earning a high level of income makes life extraordinarily comfortable, to the point where it is easy to become complacent and stop trying to really contribute to society in a meaningful way.

Earning a high level of income in general already signifies that a person is contributing to society in a meaningful way. Their income is reflective of the service provided to others.

All corporations exist to better the lives of people. Their purpose is to earn profit for shareholders (ultimately, people), but how do they accomplish that? Mostly, by making useful goods or selling useful services. A consumer will then buy one of these goods or services because that consumer has decided the value of the good/service to them is greater than the value of the dollars they'd need to pay for it. E.g., If you have decided to buy a car for $10k cash, then you have decided that having the car now is more valuable to you than having $10K USD now. The fact that the car exists and is available for sale has thus enriched your life, by giving you the option to buy it. The car's makers are providing a service to others.

As a result of each purchase, both sides ends up with greater total value than they had before. When people trade, both are better off.

A tremendous income generally comes from delivering tremendous value in the world to others. There are many layers of indirection involved, so it's difficult to see for one's self how one's job (like an office job or financial job) improves the lives of others in the general case, but through trickle-down effects it always does if you follow cause and effect through enough steps.

Or for a clear and notable example, consider the game of Minecraft. It was largely developed by a single individual, Markus Persson aka Notch. He sat down and used his game development skills to produce something marvelous. Many people came along and each decided to pay Markus $X for his game Minecraft, and since over 100 million copies have been sold, Markus became a billionaire. Many people found great enjoyment in the game, and Markus gained a great number of dollars.

In general, tremendous income results from delivering tremendous value. Our society is working correctly and incentivizing the right things if this is the result of ethical business dealing. Sometimes people get rich through scams, fraud, theft, and other shady dealings, but in a society with law and order, this is the exception rather than the rule.

[ssalazar]

> Earning a high level of income in general already signifies that a person is contributing to society in a meaningful way. Their income is reflective of the service provided to others.

Yeahhh no, income is a laughable measure of one's contribution to society. Labor is a market as any other, and salary is a function both of the value provided as well as supply vs. demand. In the Valley, VC-funded technology companies can afford to pay exorbitant salaries but are a gamble as to whether they will provide any net value, as evidenced by their ability or inability to develop a sustainable business. Other distortions exist like rent-seeking or manufactured demand require serious mental gymnastics to see as a contribution to the world but can support high incomes.

> All corporations exist to better the lives of people. Their purpose is to earn profit for shareholders (ultimately, people), but how do they accomplish that? Mostly, by making useful goods or selling useful services.

Taking a page out of Ayn Rand? Corporations exist to enrich their owners, which is great; however providing a useful good or service is a sufficient but not necessary condition of doing so.

[Super_Jambo]

> income is a laughable measure of one's contribution to society.

Whilst you're currently correct I think we should be constraining our markets so that you are not.

[oblio]

> Sometimes people get rich through scams, fraud, theft, and other shady dealings, but in a society with law and order, this is the exception rather than the rule.

How about inherited wealth? Large groups of people are excluded from your wonderful vision of society.

[douche]

I don't understand the hate inherited wealth gets here sometimes. It is the only realistic way to improve your family's lot in life over the generations.

[pjc50]

It's not at all compatible with the view that wealth reflects your contribution to society (expressed upthread). Or individualist meritocracy which HN is so fond of.

[kbart]

"A tremendous income generally comes from delivering tremendous value in the world to others"

So, you want to say that Kim Kardashian[0] provides more value to the world per year than ~1230 paramedics[1] combined?

0. http://moneynation.com/kim-kardashian-net-worth/ 1. http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/emergency-medical-...

[pjc50]

Or one Trump being worth about 116,000 paramedics?

[farright]

It's hilarious that the one thing that is consistently down voted on hn is economic orthodoxy.

This is absolutely no different to the anti vaccination movement.

People are simply too lazy and arrogant to listen to what the economics profession has to say, and ignore that fact that the methods, organization and incentives of the economics profession are identical to the rest of academicia.

[pjc50]

Which side of economics, the "freshwater" or "saltwater" side? There isn't the kind of consensus in economics that there is in, say, climate change. And economics is much more susceptible to funding-based distortion.

[farright]

Both freshwater and saltwater would agree with the comment I replied to. freshwater and saltwater econ differ in their approach to macro models. Both sides broadly agree on general equilibrium theory as kind of first order approximation, and the post was a summary of general equilibrium theory.

Which side do you think would disagree or are you just trying to bluff me out with technical terms you don't fully understand?

As to funding, can you point to major sources of funding for academic econ research that would introduce bias?