Stickybuffalo.com

My BFF MS shares a familiar theory, today, over at The Economist:

KEVIN DRUM worries that the high cost of college tuition is driven by the very large value of lifetime earnings gains derived from a college degree. [...] As long as we keep giving people whatever student loans they need to attend college, and absent any regulatory price controls, colleges will hike tuition to the very limit of what it’s worth in higher wages.

Well, that’s a novel and insightful concept, no? I took a shot at the issue of spiraling tuition inflation last September; let’s look back at what I came up with:

Basically, as I see it, colleges are selling would-be graduates their own potential, future enhanced earnings (not to mention prestige, quality of life, etc.) at a discount; of late the amount of the discount seems to keep getting smaller and smaller. Which, realistically, should not come as a surprise, given the nature of humanity and the systems we create, as well as the many “market failures” which probably apply to a college education and minimize the potential for competition to push prices toward the seller’s cost rather than toward the buyer’s ability to pay.

Apologies for self-quoting but, ahem. And being four months ahead of the curve is really a very modest claim on my part; this situation has seemed obvious to me for years. I could probably prove it, too, if I fished around in e-mails or chat transcripts long enough…

…but, obviously, no one would care, for the same reason that Democracy in America is linking to Kevin Drum instead of me. I’m not brave, ambitious and/or well-connected enough (take your pick) to push and shove my way in front of an actual audience. No one reads this stuff.

But, in light of actual evidence in support of what my colossal vanity has believed all along, maybe they should.

ENVY

Let me start things off by taking my own whack at the now well-thrashed piñata of Mitt Romney’s latest pronouncement, that complaints of widening inequality are simply “envy.” I think that to some extent, in the current political climate, this attempt by Romney to claim the crown for “most out-of-touch presidential candidate since George Bush, Sr.” needs no real rebuttal; by all means let him self-destruct. Those taking the occasion to make or repeat useful points about inequality, meanwhile, have already done a fine job.

But I thought of one more point, yesterday, which I think is interesting enough to record here; I think this might be a good response if one were in a debate with Romney (and actually wished to contest his dismissal of inequality). A bit long for a genuinely good sound-bite, probably, but oh well. Here goes:

Think about it this way, Mitt. Imagine you have a friend who plans to start a company. He’s going to need a lot of start-up capital for this enterprise, say $200 million. So you and, say, 98 other friends all go in as investors; not necessarily in equal shares but all 100 people have contributed something to this project. The $200M total is reached, the company is launched, and huzzah! your investments produce a success. Or, that is, they produce growth, but not for 99% of those who made that growth possible, you included. Certainly, the amount of initial contributions varied so one would likewise expect investors’ shares of the growth to vary, but everyone should receive something. Except that 99% are receiving absolutely nothing, with all of the growth going to the enrichment of just 1 in 100, the CEO having through some chicanery or other arranged to keep all the company’s growth to himself. This is entirely contrary to how things were supposed to work, themes of “a rising tide lifts all boats” and “everyone in this together” having been constantly repeated when money was being collected. And so, naturally, you and the rest of the 99% intend to protest this outcome, vocally and aggressively. Asked to respond to your charges, the CEO shrugs disdainfully, waves his hand and pronounces them “just envy.”

And undoubtedly, Romney’s warped corporations-are-people perspective would find various reasons why this is an invalid parallel. He still insists that Romneycare and Obamacare are completely different, after all. But I’m not sure he convinces anyone else. (more…)

A friend has been reading about the astronomer William Herschel, recently, and was prompted to muse briefly on the increased scarcity, and subsequent prohibitive cost, of domestic servants in most of the industrialized world:

I surmise from the details of his life related in the book that after some point he was able to spend virtually all of his time on astronomy, to a degree that would be difficult for modern people of similar means—something which was apparently made possible by hiring inexpensive household staff. It makes me wonder if one of the things we’ve lost in our egalitarian modern world is the ability for (some, largely arbitrarily-selected) brilliant people to concentrate on their work without distraction. It seems like it would have been a waste of Herschel’s (and his sister, Caroline’s) time to cook dinner or sweep the floor, but a modern-day Herschel would likely be unable to afford to hire a maid and a cook.

Thinking upon this myself, perhaps domestic service is due for a revival. Our hyper-productive economy seems to be struggling to find a use for all of these surplus layabouts who were silly enough to be born without money and connections. Eating them remains taboo for the time being, and major infrastructure renewal or re-tooling of our energy sector, e.g., would unacceptably burden the income streams of the wealthiest.

Whereas housekeeping, and preparing a fresh-cooked individualized meal, seem to be relatively resistant to automation for the time being, and what’s more, directing a larger portion of the working population into a (preferably uniformed) servants’ class would in contrast with other solutions probably win the enthusiastic support of plutocrats and Masters of the Universe. Out of Zuccotti Park and into a French maid’s uniform; that will get this country on track again.

I should get my Senator working on some serious tax incentives for domestic staff as soon as possible, in fact. Alfred, fetch me the telephone, and have Claudette bring me another glass of port while you’re at it.

(Honestly, why I haven’t been appointed to a Cabinet position yet is beyond me.)