From: sals@random.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: inet
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:16:50 GMT

In article <1il875INN7pe@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike  
Huben) writes:
> In article <SLAGLE.93Jan7184944@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>  
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
> >In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com  
(Mike Huben) writes:
> >
> >> If your family could have afforded to send you to an unsubsidized,  
top-notch
> >> college on the perhaps 20 to 30 percent of their income that is paid  
in taxes
> >> (never mind that some of that money would be needed to buy services  
that you
> >> currently receive from the government), then you clearly place  
yourself into
> >> the "frustrated children of the elite" class so clearly described.
> >
> >Don't be obtuse.  If your family had put away 20 to 30 percent of their
> >income from the time of your birth they would have enough to send you
> >and several brothers and sisters to Harvard.  That's if they had made
> >even very conservative investments.
> 
> Let's do some math.  Let's consider family income to be a unit, a  
savings
> rate of .2 family incomes, and return on investment over inflation of  
about
> 2 percent annually.  Over 21 years, that is a little over roughly 5  
family
> incomes.  For 5 percent, a little over 7.  That means that the cutoff  
point
> for college for two kids is college costs of less than a family income  
per
> year.  Wow, does that sound easy, until you start looking at real life
> expenses.
> 
> Give back the 20-30%, and suddenly you have to pay for grade school  
also.
> Ooops: can't save as much.  Not to mention all those economical state  
and
> community colleges disappear.  Oh, and that's assuming that there's no  
more
> than 2 kids, and that your family income is comparable to college  
expenses,
Of course you're ignoring here how muxh of college expenses are inflated  
by easily avaliable government money. You also fail to consider  
alternative routes to education. The most expensive route to education is  
not the only one. Take a look at how many different private means of  
getting an education there are and consider that in the absence of  
government there would be many people with a wide range of income who want  
some form of an education. It's enough to make an entreperneur drool over  
the profit possibilities found in provinding lower cost education. And  
there's self-education to be considered as well. Whereas it may or may not  
be as feasible as it was in the past many educated people have been  
largely responsible for their own eduications. The free market allows for  
a wide variety of options to evolve to satisfy the needs and budgets of  
different people. 
> A social contract insures the investment of adults in the education of  
the
> young and retirement of the aged.  It reduces the harmful effects of  
accidents
> of birth.
Really. Can you posit a social contract which works better than the free  
market? The collpase of socialism in Eastern Europe makes a fine example  
of social contracts not working.
> 
> >> My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, and I  
could
> >> never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the middle  
class
> >> without substantial government loans and subsidies.
> >
> >Lemme get my violin.
Lemme get mine as well, maybe we can get an orchestra going.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3404 comp.org.eff.talk:8618 soc.culture.usa:9724 alt.activism:20415