4 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/24/12 9:00pm)
The barbecue was quite tasty, but that wasn’t the most memorable part of lunch. On a Sunday afternoon this summer, I sat down to share a meal with my family in a restaurant back home in Chattanooga. As often happens when I’m with my brother in public, he struck up a conversation with someone he’d never met – in this case our waiter, a pretty typical looking guy in his mid-20s who was outgoing, mannerly, and competent.
We found out that he had recently graduated from Auburn with an engineering degree and had been unable to find a good job – so he was forced to take a job waiting tables to make ends meet, with the hope that the labor market would eventually turn around and he’d be able to find something better. He wasn’t complaining in the slightest, but you could tell that he was frustrated. And justifiably so.
Our generation has been told consistently that college is the highway to success, the key to a good job, and the path to a better life. We’ve seen tons of charts that would lead us to believe that we will almost certainly make more money with a college education – that it is the “sure thing” among investments in life. But surely my server felt that he had been served a big lie.
Of course his story is just an anecdote, and an individual case should not be used to paint the picture of outcomes experienced by all college graduates in our society; maybe his grades weren’t the best. But he does serve as a perfect example to illustrate an idea that has recently gained greater attention and footing within our society – that a college education is not as sound of an investment as we have been led to believe, and, that, in fact, some students on the margin might be worse off as a result of stepping foot on campus.
As current college students, we know friends who have struggled to find good jobs after graduation, and we hear murmuring about people moving back in with their parents.
But many academics are claiming that the problems higher education faces are much greater and systematic in nature. They are predicting that higher education will be the next big bubble to follow real estate and technology – that traditional four-year colleges across our country could be in for some abrupt and unpleasant changes if and when people realize that a college education is not worth the price tag.
To understand what this means and why a growing number of people hold this view, it’s important to look at 3 major sources of evidence that academics generally cite to support their claims: The steep rise in college tuition costs, the increasing burden of college loan debt, and labor market outcomes for college graduates.
First, the costs of attending college have risen at an undeniably unprecedented rate over the past 30 years. Publicly available data from the National Center for Education Statistics shows that, since the mid-1980s, tuition rates have risen at an average rate of 3 to 4 percent per year, adjusting for inflation.
During the past decade alone, the price of attending four-year public institutions has increased by 42 percent and the price of attending private institutions has increased by 31 percent. For our parents, it was a perfectly feasible option to work during college in order to pay for tuition; in today’s world, that’s a laughable notion for us.
Second, as a result of rising costs, college loan debt has risen dramatically.
Promotional literature for colleges and student loans typically markets debt as an excellent “investment in yourself,” but investments are, by definition, supposed to generate income in order to pay off the debt. Increasingly, we are finding that this isn’t true; more people are being saddled by huge loan balances and debilitating monthly payments.
Roughly two-thirds of college graduates take out loans in order to finance their education, graduating with an average debt of $24,000. Student loan debt carried by households has more than quintupled since 1999, and, last year, student loan debt surpassed credit card debt in the U.S.
Third, the job market prospects for many graduates are disappointing. Many academics claim that there are simply fewer jobs available in the fields related to the disciplines from which students are graduating, and, as a result, many are forced to settle – like my barbecue server – for lower-skilled jobs.
According to Ohio economist Richard Vedder, “Between 1992 and 2008, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded rose almost 50 percent, from around 1.1 million to more than 1.6 million. And 60 percent of those additional students ended up in jobs that have not historically required a degree—waitress, electrician, secretary, mail carrier.”
Certainly, there are plenty of folks on the other side of the issue who vehemently disagree with claims that college is no longer a good investment and that higher education faces impending doom.
As with all good debates, there are almost certainly no clear conclusions to be drawn, and calculating the value of a college education is a complex and subjective task – largely because so many of the benefits we derive from the college experience are immeasurable. Ultimately, we should realize what is obvious: No one knows the future, and the only thing that is certain is uncertainty.
But what does all of this mean for us as current college students? I think we ought to examine where we are individually and ask ourselves two difficult, important questions: Why am I here and should I be here?
To be clear, I love this school. I can’t imagine having attended college anywhere other than Mercer, and I know that the benefits from my time here extend far beyond whatever income I may earn in the future. However, I also realize that, depending on your individual goals and where you hope to be at the end of the day, attending Mercer might not be in your best interest.
If you aren’t the most academically gifted student and your overarching goal is simply to get a good job, I think you should at least consider the possibility that you could end up like the guy who served my barbecue this summer and research other options that might be better for you.
Though I’m scared to say it, your Mercer education – as excellent as it is – may not be worth what you are paying. Ultimately, I am convinced that, for many students, other paths, such as attending community college and then transferring to a bachelor’s program – would be more beneficial.
Comments on this opinion can be sent to david.a.lockwood@live.mercer.edu
(10/10/12 4:00pm)
Two weeks ago, a Colorado man won a $7.2 million verdict against microwave popcorn company Gilster Mary-Lee Corp., as well as food distributors the Kroger Co. and Dillon Companies Inc., to compensate him for rare health problems caused by his consumption of popcorn.
After eating two bags of popcorn each day for 10 years – and inhaling massive amounts of a diacetyl, the artificial chemical that gives popcorn its buttery taste, over time – Wayne Watson developed a severe respiratory condition known as “Popcorn Lung,” which essentially cut his lung capacity in half.
At first glance, we might view Watson’s case as being ridiculous. It seems like he is trying to take advantage of the court system – to engage in legal theft from the deep pockets of business – when he is actually the one responsible for causing his own injury. We are terribly tempted to say, “Suck it up. You brought this on yourself buddy.”
And these societal sentiments can be clearly seen by looking at the comments posted in response to a recent online ABC news article: One person says, “So he ate 2 bags of popcorn for 10 years and blames the popcorn company. Wow, no wonder everyone thinks us Americans are stupid. We will pay a guy like this $7 million dollar for being an idiot.”
Others ask, “Why are we rewarding gluttony?” or question how this is different from suing Pepsi for developing diabetes or call Mr. Watson a “shameful clown.”
Many people see this headline and conclude that the system which allows this outcome to occur must be fundamentally flawed. And an army of folks who call themselves “tort reformers” proclaim just that.
They say that both businesses and our courts are overburdened by “frivolous” cases that lack merit – that the tremendous volume of such cases leads to inefficiency in the legal system and inflates the costs that businesses must pay towards insurance premiums in order to protect themselves from unsubstantiated legal issues.
To deal with these problems, they actively lobby to place caps on the amount of damages that can be awarded (so as to avoid “excessive” verdicts) and initiate legislation, often in the form of loser-pay-all laws, which would provide disincentives for injured parties to initiate “frivolous” cases.
Certainly “reform” sounds like a pleasant, promising word and $7 Million seems excessive, but we should not be led to believe that the civil justice system is fundamentally broken because that simply isn’t the case.
First, it is vitally important to understand the ends toward which the civil liability system works.
The 7th Amendment to the Constitution gives individuals the right to a jury trial in civil disputes.
Practically, this helps keep businesses accountable for their actions and ensures that the products and services that they produce do not compromise consumer health or well-being in an unexpected manner.
Businesses must constantly be vigilant about issues concerning liability because they know that any individual who is adversely affected by their actions has a right to a day in court. As consumers, this should provide us comfort.
Second, when we actually take more time to look at the facts surrounding many “frivolous cases” – like Mr. Watson’s – our perspective should dramatically change.
Mr. Watson’s case has merit. He did not intend to injure himself, and no one would reasonably expect his popcorn consumption – even as copious as it was – to cause intense respiratory problems, which will severely limit his mobility and require costly medical care for the rest of his life.
Moreover, the popcorn manufacturer was well aware of the health risks associated with high exposure to diacetyl; in the past, plant workers had developed the same health complications.
But the company, having weighed the costs and benefits of both silence and disclosure, concluded that no consumer would ever be exposed to enough of the chemical for it to matter. So they rolled the dice and did nothing.
By ruling in favor of the plaintiff, the jury was essentially saying that Gilster Mary-Lee was negligent – that they shirked on their duty to properly warn consumers of the health risks associated with consumption.
A large portion of the amount awarded to Mr. Watson was in the form of punitive damages, meant to punish the company for its inaction and ensure that businesses adjust their policies to properly warn consumers in the future.
Finally, we should take note of the numerous mechanisms that already exist under the current system to dismiss cases that lack merit from the courts.
Defenders of the current system point to the vast array of actions that can be taken throughout the civil trial process to ensure that time is not wasted and justice is served.
The contingency fee framework, under which many civil liability cases are worked, guarantees that lawyers will only take legitimate cases that are likely to win in court, and it also provides greater access to the court system for those who can’t afford representation.
Summary judgment can be used as a tool to quickly and easily dismiss frivolous cases, affording the judge, in many cases, discretion to order the loser to pay the winner’s attorney fees.
In some cases, judges can order directed verdicts, which tell the jury that they must rule in a certain way, preventing one side from winning as a matter of law. And of course, settlement outside of court and the appeals process can reduce the amount of large jury verdicts.
Ultimately, the court system, like any institution that involves flawed people, is not perfect. Certainly it seems unfair that, because the rich can afford better representation via hotshot lawyers, they often enjoy an advantage in the court room – regardless of the facts actually surrounding a case.
Without a doubt, law is a business, and I think it’s totally reasonable to have a healthy distaste for the work that many of our nation’s lawyers engage in for the sole purpose of profit.
Moreover, we must realize that there is always a certain degree of uncertainty when a case goes to trial – a small chance that the jury will get it wrong.
In the end, though, we should rest on the belief that the tiny fraction of cases that actually make it to trial are reasonable, that a jury of 9 adults, with diverse life experiences, will get things right on average, and that the system is structured in a manner that will provide justice 99% of the time.
Comments on this opinion can be sent to david.a.lockwood@live.mercer.edu
(08/29/12 4:00pm)
Around this time 4 years ago, several Hollywood heavy hitters - including the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio Jennifer Aniston, and Ellen DeGeneres - joined forces to create a public service announcement that used reverse psychology to convince our generation to engage in politics and vote.
They began by echoing the same message: “Don’t vote!” Jonah Hill comically chimes in saying, “Who cares? The ecomomy’s in the toilet. I don’t care. I’ve got so much money!” Of course, they gradually changed their tune and message to essentially say, “Don’t vote unless you care about a whole slew of issues that affect you. Issues ranging from education to the war on drugs, gun control, and healthcare. Finally, they asked rhetorically, “You know you have to vote, right?”
In an entertaining manner, that video still reflects the societal sentiment that we have heard time and again since grade school: Voting is an integral component of fulfilling our “civic duties,” Democracy doesn’t work unless we are active participants who voice our opinions.
In theory, voting proves that there is some sort of consent between the government and the governed.We are told that voting is a responsibility that we shouldn’t take lightly. Ironically, though, we do take it lightly. For whatever reason – whether it be apathy, disillusionment with politics, or just plain laziness – our generation is usually lousy when it comes to visiting the polls.
According to the last Harvard Institute of Politics poll, only 22% of college students say that they are politically active. And during the 2008 presidential election, only 51% of eligible voters between 18 and 29 casted ballots – a significantly lower percentage than the national average. This gap in generational voting habits is usually even more pronounced in local elections. Despite having been bombarded with the “Voting is your Civic Duty” message, we Millennials consistently lag behind older generations in voter turnout.
As the 2012 presidential election moves closer, many people are proclaiming it to be the most important in our country’s history.
You are told, once again, that voting matters more now than ever before. Failure to “make your vote count” by choosing either Obama or Romney is, quite simply, an irresponsible shirking of your civic duty. But many of my buddies who are Libertarians are quite serious and sincere when they argue that voting is a waste of time.
I have to admit that they make a fairly compelling case, especially for larger national elections. They like to call their stance “active non-voting” or “conscientious abstention,” and their logical (though flawed) argument for the irrationality of voting is twofold.
First, from a practical point of view the probability that a single vote could influence the outcome of an election is incredibly slim. Public choice economist Gordon Tulloch claims that many Americans are “under delusions as to the importance of their vote. They think their vote makes a lot of difference, but as a matter of fact, it doesn’t.”
Their second argument is on more of a philosophical level. By and large, Libertarians believe that the federal government carries far too much power, that chronyism and special interests rule the day (Hello there Stimulus and Bailout!), and that career politicians don’t represent their interests. Because they disagree with the current political institutional framework in our country and view most federal government policy as coercion, many Libertarians view non-voting as a means by which they can signal their disapproval with the system as a whole.
To vote, in their eyes, is to explicitly support a system which forces the opinions of some people on everyone. They say, if enough possible voters choose to “actively non-vote,” then government would not have the consent of the governed and a clear message of disapproval would be sent. Their hopes are high, but usually they are just portrayed as lunatics.
The Libertarian view on non-voting is certainly logical, but I have several objections. For starters, the informed non-voter and apathetic non-voter look identical. If the majority of possible voters don’t show up for an election (which wouldn’t be surprising and happens from time to time already), our society would never attribute that outcome to a systematic disapproval of government as a whole.
It’s just not a realistic expectation and is counterproductive for the future growth of the liberty movement within our society. You cannot quantify the number of people who hold libertarian views or gain legitimacy and respect within society if you encourage those with your views to abstain from voting.
On a related note, voting is the mechanism recognized within our society to communicate your opinions, and, in general, the public believes that, “if you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain.” Whether we agree with that sentiment on an individual level or not, we must realize that most people won’t recognize or respect the critical opinions of a person who opts not to vote. If you choose not to vote, don’t expect anyone to give you the time of day.
So, to my non-voting Libertarian friends: I know that it is hypocrisy to abandon principles and hope you don’t disown me, but I want you to reconsider your views and think about writing in a third party candidate, maybe Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.
That vote for smaller government certainly won’t count, but a collection of similar votes is more likely to be reported in the news than the same number of non-votes. Be realistic so that other people will listen to the many insightful and thought-provoking points you have to contribute. And to the rest of you (the overwhelming majority):
When all is said and done, I encourage you to engage in healthy dialogue about government’s proper role in our society. Be skeptical and openly inquire. Go inform yourselves, and actively promote the changes necessary to bring about the society that you deem best. Realize that the democratic ideals you have been spoon-fed are not as grand as you have been led to believe – that your vote carries no sway.
And vote for the person who you feel best aligns with your views – whether that person’s name is on the ballot or not. If you just can’t bring yourself to write in a name, cast your vote for the lesser of the two “evils.”
Comments on this opinion can be sent to david.a.lockwood@live.mercer.edu
(08/15/12 4:00pm)
While paying the tab during my most recent visit to Francar’s, I happened to notice a small stack of business cards that proclaimed, “Clarence Walker Needs a Kidney.” I picked one up as I left and read more. Says Mr. Walker, “I am a married father of 3 beautiful young ladies. Also, I have 2 grandkids that I would like to see grow up, graduate, and get married someday. I pray that someone will step forward and help me.” He desperately holds on to hope that he will get the kidney he needs. But the cards are stacked against him.
Though we might like to believe that the charity in our society is sufficient to save Mr. Walker’s life, the sobering reality is that he is one of thousands of Americans on the growing waiting list for kidneys who don’t stand a chance without a miracle.
According to recent data available online from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the rate of kidney failure has roughly quadrupled over the past three decades, and the shortage of donated organs has become more pronounced as the need for kidneys has exploded.
In 2010, more than 34,000 people joined the waiting list (which exceeds 100,000), and fewer than 17,000 received a kidney. Because of the shortage, an average of 17 Americans die each day while waiting for an organ – and several more become too sick to receive a transplant, even if it were available. All the while, quality of life for those who remain on the list is seriously impaired. Clarence Walker himself has waited on the list for 3 years and must live with the burden of dialysis 3 times each week.
But wait. How can this be? Millions of Americans have two good kidneys, and only one is necessary for the body to adequately filter blood. In our “civil” society, how can we sit back and watch as people die for no good reason at all? Why, you ask, aren’t enough people giving out of the goodness of their hearts? The answer is obvious: People aren’t willing to bear the costs of donation without compensation. And, since 1984, compensation for organ donation has been against the law in the U.S.
While you and I might feel compelled to do a good deed and donate a kidney to a stranger, it would almost certainly be irrational for us to do so in the absence of compensation. We simply can’t afford to take weeks to a month away from our studies or work, much less bear the burden of the health risks associated with surgery and a future with only one kidney.
It is clear that altruism alone is not enough. Something must be done. In my opinion, we should move to legalize compensation. If we harness aspects of the market mechanism, certainly the kidney shortage will be history. We should learn from Iran (yes, Iran!) – the only nation in the world where kidneys can be bought and sold legally; there, waiting lists are a problem of the past.
Immediately, though, rows of well-meaning but misguided critics line up in outrage to voice their concerns and shout “ethics violation” at the top of their lungs.
Many claim that legalization will result in the “commodification” of human life or that it will undermine the altruism present in our current system. Maybe those claims have some truth to them, but isn’t it a far worse crime to let people die when we could easily save them?
Still other opponents will make the common claim that legalizing would exploit the poorest members of our society – that those who need the money most would be “forced” to sell a kidney.
My response to this objection is two-pronged. First, by criminalizing compensation in the U.S. as we currently do, we are already fueling the exploitation of people …just not in America. The age-old economic truth is that black markets will emerge where the government attempts to stamp out trade.
It really shouldn’t come as a surprise that more and more people are traveling to developing countries to receive organ transplants from the poor through what has been termed “medical tourism.”
If anything deserves to be called exploitation this is it. Secondly, I would suggest that those who advocate restricting the abilities of the poor to sell their kidneys are actually insulting them by inherently claiming that financial need would prevent them from balancing the costs and benefits to make a rational decision on their own (assuming informed consent).
Yes. There are many unanswered questions, and I readily admit that I don’t know exactly what an America with legalized compensation for kidneys would look like.
Of course I realize that many people don’t view completely free markets as a feasible solution. To be more realistic, maybe our society can find compromise and develop a creative solution.
One potential idea is to have a government-run system in which donors are compensated with tax credits, tuition vouchers for children, or contributions to retirement accounts (not immediately accessible cash) and transplants are provided to all people equally on the basis of need.
If it could be shown that the costs associated with this form of government intervention would be less than or equal to the amount that taxpayers already contribute for Medicare to cover the dialysis costs of those remaining on the waiting list, even I might view this as an improvement.
The unequivocal bottom line is that donor compensation of some sort is necessary to fix the problem that we face. If we begin to consider that donors are really not much different than the policemen and firemen whom we praise for taking on risks for the benefit of our communities, then we might start viewing compensation as beneficial.
Maybe just maybe, instead of blaming God for the suffering and pain that persist in the world, we can take some responsibility for the injustice before us and use the brains that God gave us to find a workable solution. The lives of countless Americans like Clarence Walker depend on it.
Comments on this opinion can be sent to david.a.lockwood@live.mercer.edu