U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Deleted]

That's why Civil Service is usually mandated for when someone is young. The people who get their degrees and instantly jump into the magic universe of their dream job are few. Also: many civil service programs take exactly this into account. The general point of civil service as an option is to repay your debt to society, a debt owed due to the education society provided for you. However if you are already doing that through having become a teacher, or finding the perfect economics job, or your rich uncle just paid off your debts, then you're in the clear.

Why not let just people pay "their debt to society" through taxes like we're supposed to? Or is this some sort of extra tax on people who can't pay enough in taxes because they're unemployed? "If you can't cough enough up enough dough in income taxes we're going to force you into slave labor".

Right because forcing people to work for private industry is a better option than forcing people to work for their own nation.

What? You completely missed the point.

Only if you believe the government can't pull it's head out of it's ass for two seconds. There's no guarantee that the perfect private sector opening for your skills will exist, however, the government can always invent a new position for you and not give a damn about the costs because it doesn't need to make a profit. A private company will not do that. If they don't need you, they won't hire you.

Inventing a position specifically for you without really caring about the costs or the need of someone performing that job is the same as putting your head up your ass. So I don't think that's a solution for government to pull it out.

Which a good Civil Service program wouldn't be doing anyway.

Ofcourse they will be. That's how all civil services work. The governments need for employees does not match the overall labour structure at all. Those who aspire to become teachers will have no trouble finding suitable work, while those who are going to work in fields like manufacturing are going to be shafted.

You're essentially forcing people to take a one-year internship at a job they most likely have no interest in doing. People who would rather be studying or working in their actual field. They'll be much better at "repaying their debt to society" if you allow them to graduate one year earlier and pay income taxes one additional year in their life.

[oblivionx]

All this civil service nonsense is why these people and people that think like them are the worst thing that can ever happen to America.

[Grizzly Willy]

I think we should have compulsory hop on one leg for a year service.

It's about as likely as compulsory civil service.

Oh hey, you're back. So, you want to tell us how you know when people have been reporting you? And address the point of Manifest Destiny and its tie to genocide?

[belfpala]

You're essentially forcing people to take a one-year internship at a job they most likely have no interest in doing. People who would rather be studying or working in their actual field. They'll be much better at "repaying their debt to society" if you allow them to graduate one year earlier and pay income taxes one additional year in their life.

Most people don't have an actual field when they're 18. Heck, many (most?) people don't work in anything directly related to their college degree, even years after graduating college.

Also, there's nothing stopping you from doing school while doing your civil service. Think of it as work-study, something that colleges already do, just in a different way.

[Sunseeker]

Why not let just people pay "their debt to society" through taxes like we're supposed to? Or is this some sort of extra tax on people who can't pay enough in taxes because they're unemployed? "If you can't cough enough up enough dough in income taxes we're going to force you into slave labor".

Being forced into a crappy job is better than being left homeless and in poverty while debt collectors garnish any wages you might make in order to pay off the astounding costs of even a basic education.

What? You completely missed the point.

Then clarify.

Inventing a position specifically for you without really caring about the costs or the need of someone performing that job is the same as putting your head up your ass. So I don't think that's a solution for government to pull it out.

No, but my point is you can't force someone into the private sector if there's no job opening.

Of course they will be. That's how all civil services work. The governments need for employees does not match the overall labour structure at all. Those who aspire to become teachers will have no trouble finding suitable work, while those who are going to work in fields like manufacturing are going to be shafted.

I'm not sure fields like manufacturing really need civil service since they don't really use the social systems that bring a societal debt about.

You're essentially forcing people to take a one-year internship at a job they most likely have no interest in doing. People who would rather be studying or working in their actual field. They'll be much better at "repaying their debt to society" if you allow them to graduate one year earlier and pay income taxes one additional year in their life.

Assuming they actually get employed in their field.

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

Of course the interesting side note to all of these discussions is that it begs the question of: why do we need to pay people, or charge people at all?

If we assume that all goods/services used result in some level of debt to society, and all goods/services provided repay that debt and by extension indebt others, we're essentially looking at a society that doesn't need a physical representation of that debt(money).

[belfpala]

If we assume that all goods/services used result in some level of debt to society, and all goods/services provided repay that debt and by extension indebt others, we're essentially looking at a society that doesn't need a physical representation of that debt(money).

Woohoo, Star Trek!

[Wells]

Yeah Diurdi you're completely missing the point. A program like this would give the government a carrot to entice people into fields we need more people in (like engineering) with the promise of a couple years of employment and the avoidance of a huge amount of debt. Its also not a bad program for the people who are going to have a hard time securing the money to go college.

I don't know about over in Finland, but if you offered people an essentially free education with a job for a while at the end of it you'd see a ton of people following that up.

---------- Post added 2012-07-31 at 06:53 PM ----------

I'm not terribly surprised though that someone from a country where higher education is largely free to the student doesn't understand the realities of trying to pay off a student loan.

[Deleted]

Yeah Diurdi you're completely missing the point. A program like this would give the government a carrot to entice people into fields we need more people in (like engineering) with the promise of a couple years of employment and the avoidance of a huge amount of debt. Its also not a bad program for the people who are going to have a hard time securing the money to go college.

First of all, the free/subsidised education part is completely separate. If you want to give people free education or much cheaper education (subsidised by government) then that's another discussion. Because doing that does not require compulsory civil service, you'd be much better off dropping that part.

Second, let the markets help people decide what fields to go to. Engineers are paid quite well currently, and have a much easier time getting employed. This already pushes people towards it. This isn't some Age of Empires game where bureaucrats know what sort of workers to create next.

I'm not terribly surprised though that someone from a country where higher education is largely free to the student doesn't understand the realities of trying to pay off a student loan.

As I said before, if you want to make education cheaper/free, then it's another discussion.

---------- Post added 2012-07-31 at 07:47 PM ----------

Of course the interesting side note to all of these discussions is that it begs the question of: why do we need to pay people, or charge people at all?

Because there's no other option. You'd need some pretty scifi-type police state to prevent the emergance of a currency.

Capitalism isn't just some invention that the rich have created to exploit the poor. It emerges everywhere where there is trade. And trade is inevitable.

[Sunseeker]

Second, let the markets help people decide what fields to go to. Engineers are paid quite well currently, and have a much easier time getting employed. This already pushes people towards it. This isn't some Age of Empires game where bureaucrats know what sort of workers to create next.

But the markets are fickle, and if everyone went into engineering because there's a lack now, then in 4 years there would be a glut and all the other professions would need things.

It's much better to allow people to choose their own education without attempting to track trends in the market which takes an education all on it's own!

[Deleted]

Most people don't have an actual field when they're 18. Heck, many (most?) people don't work in anything directly related to their college degree, even years after graduating college.

Doesn't matter. The civil service will be an interruption in their career. Due to the Finnish mandatory conscription, I'm one year behind my peers in other countries.

Also, there's nothing stopping you from doing school while doing your civil service. Think of it as work-study, something that colleges already do, just in a different way.

It makes studying harder. Working while you study means you graduate slower, assuming you're studying a serious (and difficult) degree.

---------- Post added 2012-07-31 at 07:51 PM ----------

But the markets are fickle, and if everyone went into engineering because there's a lack now, then in 4 years there would be a glut and all the other professions would need things.

It's much better to allow people to choose their own education without attempting to track trends in the market which takes an education all on it's own!

Yes, of course you allow people to choose their own education. That was my whole point. I hope you didn't understand that I wanted to force people in the different fields through some economic formula. It's simply that the market sends signals that make some people choose engineering instead of other alternatives because there is better employment at the end.

[Wells]

Second, let the markets help people decide what fields to go to. Engineers are paid quite well currently, and have a much easier time getting employed. This already pushes people towards it. This isn't some Age of Empires game where bureaucrats know what sort of workers to create next.

Markets only determine what fields are profitable. Not what people will necessarily go to. Plus the fact that you yourself are aware that there is a large demand for engineers right now makes your last statement kinda stupid.

As I said before, if you want to make education cheaper/free, then it's another discussion.

That's exactly what we're talking about.

[Deleted]

Markets only determine what fields are profitable. Not what people will necessarily go to. Plus the fact that you yourself are aware that there is a large demand for engineers right now makes your last statement kinda stupid.

Well I'm not actually certain of it, but people keep saying it. I'm assuming it's true. And if people don't want to pick up engineering even though there is demand for engineers and their pay is high, then you shouldn't force them there. I'm assuming you want to live in a free society.

That's exactly what we're talking about.

No you're not. Free education doesn't require civil service, and trying to couple them together is a bad idea, because civil service in itself is a bad idea (unless as a punishment). You might as well have free education without civil service then, the results would be better.

[Wells]

Doesn't matter. The civil service will be an interruption in their career. Due to the Finnish mandatory conscription, I'm one year behind my peers in other countries.

Not if the civil service is relevant to their career. We're not saying "hey we'll pay for your degree if you pick up garbage for a year", its more like "we'll pay for your legal education if you work as a public defender for X number of years afterwards". Doesn't disrupt their career and can actually help it as it gets them that all important first job.

---------- Post added 2012-07-31 at 07:57 PM ----------

Well I'm not actually certain of it, but people keep saying it. I'm assuming it's true. And if people don't want to pick up engineering even though there is demand for engineers and their pay is high, then you shouldn't force them there. I'm assuming you want to live in a free society.

Who the fuck said use force? Jesus christ Diurdi.

[Deleted]

Who the fuck said use force? Jesus christ Diurdi.

What's your point then? If some people choose not to become engineers because the higher pay doesn't interest them, then why would you try to use the government to get the to become engineers? Let them increase the wages until they get enough engineers. It's capitalism.

Not if the civil service is relevant to their career. We're not saying "hey we'll pay for your degree if you pick up garbage for a year", its more like "we'll pay for your legal education if you work as a public defender for X number of years afterwards". Doesn't disrupt their career and can actually help it as it gets them that all important first job.

Why not just pay for their legal education, let them choose their employment and tax their income afterwards? Much better than forcing people to work for the government when there might be better opportunities for them.

And again, remember that we're speculating of a scenario where education is essentially free.

[Daelak]

What's your point then? If some people choose not to become engineers because the higher pay doesn't interest them, then why would you try to use the government to get the to become engineers? Let them increase the wages until they get enough engineers. It's capitalism.

What about subsidizing medical school right now? It makes sense due to the 10,000 people that retire everyday here in America.

[Wells]

What's your point then? If some people choose not to become engineers because the higher pay doesn't interest them, then why would you try to use the government to get the to become engineers? Let them increase the wages until they get enough engineers. It's capitalism.

Who cares why they choose not to. If you offer a carrot to get people into engineering where we need people there is no force. You're still letting people choose.

People choose their field of study for many, many things other than wages.

[Deleted]

What about subsidizing medical school right now? It makes sense due to the 10,000 people that retire everyday here in America.

No it doesn't. Med school has it's own problems of why there aren't enough doctors even though they're earning double wages compared to their European peers. Can't be bothered to go through the same discussion again though.

---------- Post added 2012-07-31 at 08:05 PM ----------

Who cares why they choose not to. If you offer a carrot to get people into engineering where we need people there is no force. You're still letting people choose.

You're letting them choose but you're fucking up the markets to the advantage of the employer and the disadvantage of the taxpayer. Let the employer raise his wages.

People choose their field of study for many, many things other than wages.

Sure, but I'm pretty sure the carrot you're thinking about will be financial and not free blowjobs by supermodels.

[Daelak]

No it doesn't. Med school has it's own problems of why there aren't enough doctors even though they're earning double wages compared to their European peers. Can't be bothered to go through the same discussion again though.[COLOR="red"]

What discussion? Sorry I guess I missed that. My understanding is if you subsidize medical school then more people will go into primary care, the occupation that has the biggest demand right now.

[Wells]

You're letting them choose but you're fucking up the markets to the advantage of the employer and the disadvantage of the taxpayer. Let the employer raise his wages.

The public employment is how the tax payer recoups. We absolutely need more public defenders in this country. We clearly can't attract enough professional established lawyers into the job. So lets kill two birds with one stone by alleviating the crippling student debt we have while also recruiting more public defenders.

Employers used to pay for their employees to get educated all the time, same thing here.

[Deleted]

The public employment is how the tax payer recoups. We absolutely need more public defenders in this country. We clearly can't attract enough professional established lawyers into the job. So lets kill two birds with one stone by alleviating the crippling student debt we have while also recruiting more public defenders.

Employers used to pay for their employees to get educated all the time, same thing here.

The biggest reason to be against this is politicians (and people like you) starting to decide what sort of people we need. The economy is a complex system and trying to centrally plan the labor structure would be a disaster.

Also, the tax payer doesn't recoup through public employment unless the civil serviceman works pretty damn long for the government for no/low wages. Assuming are you saying that the person who takes the education then has to work for free/low wage until his work (minus wages) has paid of the entire cost of the loan? I don't see how that'd change anything from the current system, except people who would forced to work for a specific employer instead of any employer to pay off their debt on the education.