...
Tuition is an odd one, because it isn't being driven by any normal economic force.The college I went to was quite clear that they were raising tuition because they wanted to be priced similar to a certain set of other schools. It wasn't that they needed the revenue, and it wasn't inflation, it was purely a goal of appearing as exclusive (economically, at least) as a set they wanted to be compared to.
....
As long as loans are available to every potential 'student', the 'you must go to college to succeed, or else you are a looser' movement keeps trolling along, as well as diversity trumping academic meritocracy, tuition will rise at an exponential rate.
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt. "There are two types of people in the world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets." - Unk. "Before you can 'think outside the box' you need to understand where the box is."
That's true. In fact, I'm not even sure what the tuition means at that institution I looked at. I seem to remember (and I really don't care enough to go looking again to check it out) that the "average amount paid" per student was FAR lower than the full tuition. It was still pretty much insane, and probably twice what I paid per year, but not four to five times what I paid.
I'm not sure how much of that student aid is loans and how much is grants, but I got the impression that most of it was grants. In other words, they may be saying "Tuition is $55,0000/year, but we'll give you a grant of $20,000/year." That would mean that the sticker price is meaningless. It would be one of those stores where there is a price, but everything is on perpetual sale, so you NEVER pay the listed price. In other words: It might be just a psychological game.
That would mean that the sticker price is meaningless.
Not so much at state schools, but that's the dirty little secret of college tuition. If you want the best deal apply to many different schools. The more the better. You can then play them off one another and depending on how badly they want you this strategy can get you quite a good deal. Often better than the state schools with the cheaper "sticker" price.
"Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is temporary. Glory is forever." - Robert Craig "Evel" Knievel
“Leave me alone, I know what I’m doing.” - Kimi Raikkonen
It sure seems like everybody is running away from this one like it was a live grenade.
I don't really understand why people are steadily bowing out after the referendum? I read Farage is in no way an elected official just a guy riling people up. IMO, the UK should put themselves and their priorities first and do what is best for them and their people but I don't know whether that is in or out of the EU (I guess that is what is being debated).
I don't really understand why people are steadily bowing out after the referendum? I read Farage is in no way an elected official just a guy riling people up. IMO, the UK should put themselves and their priorities first and do what is best for them and their people but I don't know whether that is in or out of the EU (I guess that is what is being debated).
I think it's because every move is political suicide. The choices that can be made are:
Declare "it's best for the UK to ignore the vote and continue onward in the EU". That is literally defying a vote, and even if done for a good reason it's an extremely risky political maneuver. It's very likely whoever does this will never win another election, it's hard to campaign against "Why vote for a person who ignored YOUR vote?"
Go through with leaving the EU as quickly as responsibly possible. This has very high potential to continue the economic backslide that even suggesting it'd be done has prompted. Any politician who does this will be held fully responsible for everything that doesn't go swimmingly. And there's practically no evidence that any part of it will turn out well for a long time.
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,900
Re: Brexit
I have the feeling that in the UK they can resign and then show up a couple of years later and re-enter the fray.
Absolutely. Our politicians tend to do that a lot. Farage, for example, has already resigned twice. One of those resignations lasted less than a week. He's in good company, though, Churchill did it a few times too.
I read Farage is in no way an elected official just a guy riling people up
Yes and no. He doesn't held a parliamentary seat but his party elected him as their leader and that party does hold seats. And he is directly elected in his capacity as an MEP (European Parliament rather than domestic). Speaking as a bit of a leftie liberal I despise him but you can't deny that he lead a movement that gained significant public support and without whom we would almost certainly still be in Europe.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
Andrea Loathsome just dropped out of the leadership race leaving just one candidate. This means that a protest vote about unelected officials has resulted in a new prime minister who nobody at all has voted for, not eventhe membership of her own party.
Andrea Loathsome just dropped out of the leadership race leaving just one candidate. This means that a protest vote about unelected officials has resulted in a new prime minister who nobody at all has voted for, not even the membership of her own party.
I am not sure whether this makes me happy or sad. Much as i dislike Andrea Loathsome, part of me thinks she is highly unelectable which would have been a good thing, another part of me worries that if we can vote for Brexit maybe we could have even voted for her.
In any event it looks like we will now have the Gray Lady in charge. I cant think of a more boring and uninspiring person to be in charge of our country.
If you took the most boring person you know, created a cardboard cutout of them and then added a tape recording of all their blandest sayings you would get Theresa May
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,900
Re: Brexit
You probably mean John Major. He first became PM when Thatcher was ousted. History repeating?
edit>Crossed over with NSA.
Thinking about it, you could also have meant Gordon Brown... who became PM without being elected when Blair quit. We seem to have a habit of installing grey uninteresting people rather than electing them.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,900
Re: Brexit
Ha! Lots of the press have picked up on the fact that May was one of the loudest voices calling for an election when Brown took over from Blair. Reckon she'll call one?
Actually, it's probably a good time. It's not like Labour are going to put up much of a fight at the moment.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
Not a Chance, she is far to risk averse. I bet she hasn't had an impetuous thought in her life. Also like anyone new to power she will want to enjoy it and entrench herself first.
What will be interesting is when it becomes clear exactly what our negotiating hand with the EU looks like (and i am predicting right now it will be fairly bad) will she call an election then??
It actually might be in her interests then because if she make a bad fist of it, she can say well you all voted for it.
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
Maybe they should elect Gordon Ramsey... "Are you shtewpid? Donkey bawls! You voted out of the EU, and then complain about it? OUT! GIT OUT! GIT OUTTA MY KITCHEN!"
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,900
Re: Brexit
Well, Corbyn's on the ballot. Labour party implosion in 3... 2... 1...
I'm really swinging back and forward on what I think about what Corbyn's doing. As I see it, his job is to represent the Parliamentary Labour Party. He's clearly failing to do that. On the other hand, the Parliamentary Labour Party's job is to represent the membership and they've clearly been failing to do that for a very long time. So both are in the wrong but the PLP have been in the wrong for a lot longer - it was just less obvious.
The rhetoric is that they would be unelectable under Corbyn but I'm not actually seeing the evidence for that. Labour dropping away was certainly what I expected to see when they elected him but they've actually gained ground in every local election that there has been since the last GE and the massive growth in membership does speak of a genuine appetite for the leftist socialist politics Labour abandoned in the 90s. I've heard the growth in membership characterised as an invasion by hard left but I think you can just as easily characterise it as a return to Labour's roots. And if that doesn't sacrifice electability then that could be a good thing.
On the other hand, his intransigence is almost certainly going to destroy the party which will in turn hand government to the right for at least a decade. That's going to be hard to forgive.
I guess, as I look at this, I think we'd all be better off at this point if he quit but I also think the PLP shouldn't have rebelled without at least contesting a general election under him. Half of them had the knives out for him from the start and he still delivered gains.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
So - the somewhat convoluted process to choose a new leader of the Conservative party has concluded and, as a side effect the United Kingdom is now going to invoke Article 50 and leave the European Union.
Since the original vote seems to have caught a lot of people off guard I think a good deal more planning should be put into how we deal with the Article 50 invocation and it's after-effects.
(Hoping it does not get invoked is a very long shot so it would be imprudent to base your plans on that outcome)
1. What will happen
In order to "secure the borders" and do away with the free movement of people the UK will lose it's financial services passporting arrangements. This means that it will no longer be possible for banks based in the UK to transact EU financial services. Non UK banks will have to respond by moving some or all of their operations out of the UK (not just London - financial services are the main employer in Bournemouth and a major employer in Birmingham) and UK banks will have to sell (or hive off) their EU business arms.
This has probably already started, as the 2 year timescale in Article 50 means banks can't wait until the actual letter is delivered to start their processes.
Where they go depends on whether Scotland can secure independence and promise of EU membership in very short order. My feeling is they can't so I'd say 50% will go to Frankfurt, 30% to Paris and 20% to Dublin. If you work in financial services (directly or indirectly) you need to be prepared to follow them.
The impact of this on the UK economy is going to be dramatic. There will be a recession (obviously) and the consensus seems to be that it will be between 10 and 20 years before the economy recovers if manufacturing can expand to fill that gap. The lower exchange rate will not do as much to accelerate this as commentators have suggested, as the cost of the raw materials (which are nearly all imported) will rise due to that same exchange rate change.
2. What should you do?
What you should do really depends on your personal circumstances - but you should definitely start planning along the following lines:
If you are under 18 - stay in school in the UK. You probably don't have any choice unless you can escape your parents anyway, but the free secondary education in the UK is a benefit worth hanging on for.
If you are university age, go abroad for university (Europe though - not US) as the cost will be comparable to UK and the extra life experience and contacts you can make will be a significant factor in your future employment chances.
If you are post graduate but not encumbered by property debt, join the "bright flight" to whichever country suits you best - for example Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Dubai, Canada, US etc. There is still a residual premium for being a native English speaker you can enjoy and the currency differential will make your student debts lower.
If you are a home owner with reasonable positive equity (for example if you bought your house more than a decade ago or in the South East) sell up and downsize - the equity released should see you through the lean times and you could probably move to somewhere with a better standard of living per level of income.
If you are in Scotland, join the SNP and encourage independence. You need to get back in the EU as soon as possible and that will not be possible as part of the UK.
If you aren't listed above, you're screwed. I think you're just going to have to weather the storm - but there have been much worse storms weathered by UK citizens so there's always that.
Well, Corbyn's on the ballot. Labour party implosion in 3... 2... 1...
I'm really swinging back and forward on what I think about what Corbyn's doing. As I see it, his job is to represent the Parliamentary Labour Party. He's clearly failing to do that. On the other hand, the Parliamentary Labour Party's job is to represent the membership and they've clearly been failing to do that for a very long time. So both are in the wrong but the PLP have been in the wrong for a lot longer - it was just less obvious.
The rhetoric is that they would be unelectable under Corbyn but I'm not actually seeing the evidence for that. Labour dropping away was certainly what I expected to see when they elected him but they've actually gained ground in every local election that there has been since the last GE and the massive growth in membership does speak of a genuine appetite for the leftist socialist politics Labour abandoned in the 90s. I've heard the growth in membership characterised as an invasion by hard left but I think you can just as easily characterise it as a return to Labour's roots. And if that doesn't sacrifice electability then that could be a good thing.
On the other hand, his intransigence is almost certainly going to destroy the party which will in turn hand government to the right for at least a decade. That's going to be hard to forgive.
I guess, as I look at this, I think we'd all be better off at this point if he quit but I also think the PLP shouldn't have rebelled without at least contesting a general election under him. Half of them had the knives out for him from the start and he still delivered gains.
I don't think Labour has actually been tested very much under Corbyn, yes it has won some smaller contests, but there has been nothing to show that he can attract voters who are not on the left (and there is ample evidence that the UK is more right or centre than left when it comes to voting) and there is just no way he will win a General election without attracting swing voters.
The main problem with Corbyn is not his policies and that is the big problem his challengers are going to have to face. How do they articulate the fact that he is not a good leader with out sounding petty. How do they show an alternative vision. There are clearly problems with how he deals with the PLP, it seems to me from what i have read that he isn't exactly as willing to listen to other voices as he has made out. He has stuck very hard to his core principles which is both a positive and a negative, and refuses to even entertain those with different views. Also he doesn't appear to even care if he takes the other MP's with him in his arguments.
Whoever comes to the fore between Eagle and Smith and it is by no means a forgone conclusion who that might be, needs to not fall in of the trap of those in the last leadership election. They need to not overly attack Corbyn but instead show there suitability for the job.
Show that they can deliver an anti-austerity agenda but also lead and provide an alternative that could actually get elected.
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
There is no point in pre-judging what the outcome of the brexit negotiations, there is still hope that the government decide that they absolutely have to have access to the single market and therefore get stuck with free movement which would means banks keep there EU passport. I am not saying that will happen but it could so lets not be to hasty and jump to conclusion until we know more.
No absolute promises where made during the referendum for good reason, we cant guarantee what the EU's negotiating position will be.
Yes keeping free movement would screw over many who voted Brexit but hey they already screwed us over so they will get to see how it feels!!
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
It's not that bad - I'm deciding on should I spend the EUR 1000 in order to take up Irish citizenship.
However, that said - I really can't see that retaining free movement of people would be politically survivable and when it comes to putting party first or country first, party wins hands down.
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,900
Re: Brexit
Hey, Merrion, wanna get married? I could use a European passport
Actually, I may be entitled to a European passport as my Mum's Irish (hence the name Declan) and I'm fairly sure she retained her citizenship despite coming over here as a kid. I really ought to investigate that.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
I predict a whole new approach to foreign diplomacy based entirely on distraction and buffoonery.
Boris will either manage to insult everybody and cock it all up, or make them laugh so much (mainly at him rather then with him) that they forget what they were negotiating in the first place.
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
I predict a whole new approach to foreign diplomacy based entirely on distraction and buffoonery.
Boris will either manage to insult everybody and cock it all up, or make them laugh so much (mainly at him rather then with him) that they forget what they were negotiating in the first place.
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,900
Re: Brexit
I really can't see that retaining free movement of people would be politically survivable
Thing is, I'm not sure losing access to the free market is politically survivable either.
I think a lot of folks don't really understand the implications of not being in the free market. Most people seem to think we'll just pay a few more tariffs and have done with it but the real impact is going to be around the lack of shared legislation. At present, if I manufacture widgets, I can freely sell them in France because the legislation that governs how widgets should be manufactured has been handed down by the EU. That means I don't need to do any further checking because I know that both I and France are bound by the same legislation.
But once you're outside of that market and no longer bound by EU legislation, you must become an independent expert of the legislation that applies in each country you sell to. That is a massive amount of red tape and will be a burden that prevents a great many small companies from branching out. Far from freeing ourselves from European interference, we've simply added massively to the complexity we will have to handle.
It's this legislation that is the reason that trade agreements can take up to a decade to negotiate. There are a huge amount of permutations to deal with.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
I'd prefer the term "world market" to "free market". I think history shows few civilizations survive access to the philosophy of "the free market".
But making it more difficult to enter trade agreements with the most convenient large economies in your neighborhood seems pretty daft. From what I gather, many banks are already starting to relocate, because the additional regulations of having major facilities in a non-EU country represents too much risk for them.
Then again, the USA's budget stunts also cost them a credit rating downgrade and here we are, still chomping on paint chips like they're Corn Flakes.
Thing is, I'm not sure losing access to the free market is politically survivable either.
I think a lot of folks don't really understand the implications of not being in the free market. Most people seem to think we'll just pay a few more tariffs and have done with it but the real impact is going to be around the lack of shared legislation. At present, if I manufacture widgets, I can freely sell them in France because the legislation that governs how widgets should be manufactured has been handed down by the EU. That means I don't need to do any further checking because I know that both I and France are bound by the same legislation.
But once you're outside of that market and no longer bound by EU legislation, you must become an independent expert of the legislation that applies in each country you sell to. That is a massive amount of red tape and will be a burden that prevents a great many small companies from branching out. Far from freeing ourselves from European interference, we've simply added massively to the complexity we will have to handle.
It's this legislation that is the reason that trade agreements can take up to a decade to negotiate. There are a huge amount of permutations to deal with.
Yes and no... you don't need to become an expert for all countries... only one... the EU Market ... that was supposed to be part of the benefits... one set of regulations... doesn't matter if the Widget is made in London, Cork, Bristol or Paris... all Widgets would be made to the same specifications... now that the UK isn't part of the EU doesn't absolve them from following the EU Regulations... because in order to access the EU Market, the Widget will still need to conform to the EU specs... if they don't then the EU can ban the Widget from being sold.
You don't need to be an expert in the country, it's the market you need to be an expert in... but you need that anyways...
Only difference is that now the ability to sell the widget will come under greater scrutinity before it can enter the EU Market... previously it was already on the inside...
I'd prefer the term "world market" to "free market". I think history shows few civilizations survive access to the philosophy of "the free market".
But making it more difficult to enter trade agreements with the most convenient large economies in your neighborhood seems pretty daft. From what I gather, many banks are already starting to relocate, because the additional regulations of having major facilities in a non-EU country represents too much risk for them.
Both free market and trade agreement are double-speak for very shady things that damage working people in higher-cost markets. Economy is almost such a thing as well, and worker productivity surely is.
You can't use the dictionary definitions of these expressions because that isn't what they mean anymore.
Economy is the fun one. If it "belongs to" anyone, it belongs to the group of people it encompasses. Business and trade are by nature predatory activities that exist outside of the economy and suck sustinence from it. They are not something you can live without once you leave a hunter/gatherer existance, so a society has to work out rules to manage the predation at beneficial levels.
That's what is gone in "Free Market Capitalism," "Free Market Communism," and "Free Trade" in general. The system is all positive feedback loop with little regulation. What did people think would happen?
Both free market and trade agreement are double-speak for very shady things that damage working people in higher-cost markets.
You say that but in my opinion it not the agreements that damage the working people it is the way the money is distributed.
Global Trade undoubtedly makes countries richer, the system just doesn't share around that money as much as it should.
Some economies notably in Germany (which while not perfect) have a much more even spread of the money and have managed to maintain manufacturing even in face of cheap competition, essentially by specialisation and increased focus on items that are less easier to mass produce just by throwing more people at the problem.
I am far from a free marketeer but you have to have global trade now you can't unpick it we are all too interconnected trade and finance wise, so the only way to make things work for more people is to tweak the system and it is possible.
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you