If one professor is making huge money for not much work, that doesn't add much cost to tuition. If lots of them make huge money, that is a huge driver of cost.

I never said Warren is the only one. She's just the only one hypocritical enough to demand huge money for almost no work, and simultaneously crying about how hard it is for kids to afford to college.

you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?

The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.

People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.

The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.

People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.


Is there only one official definition of unemployment?

There is only one official definition of unemployment—people who are jobless, actively seeking work, and available to take a job, as discussed above. The official unemployment rate for the nation is the number of unemployed as a percentage of the labor force (the sum of the employed and unemployed).

Where is your evidence that professors are The driving factor in the increased cost of college? All the evidence I see is that they are a contributing factor, but not the largest.
You also did not rebut her views on Congress, I would say that you cannot agree with anything a "liberal" says but....:deadhorse:

There is this peculiar notion that if private business entities charge so much that not everyone can afford their product it is because they are too greedy. But if public entities are "unaffordable" for all, it is because everybody isn't paying enough.

That's simple isn't it?
From The Grumpy Economist
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/
Single payer sympathy?
A July 30 2018 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled "The tax and spend health care solution"
Why is paying for health care such a mess in America? Why is it so hard to fix? Cross-subsidies are the original sin. The government wants to subsidize health care for poor people, chronically sick people, and people who have money but choose to spend less of it on health care than officials find sufficient. These are worthy goals, easily achieved in a completely free-market system by raising taxes and then subsidizing health care or insurance, at market prices, for people the government wishes to help.
But lawmakers do not want to be seen taxing and spending, so they hide transfers in cross-subsidies. They require emergency rooms to treat everyone who comes along, and then hospitals must overcharge everybody else. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full amount their services cost. Hospitals then overcharge private insurance and the few remaining cash customers.
Overcharging paying customers and providing free care in an emergency room is economically equivalent to a tax on emergency-room services that funds subsidies for others. But the effective tax and expenditure of a forced cross-subsidy do not show up on the federal budget.
Over the long term, cross-subsidies are far more inefficient than forthright taxing and spending. If the hospital is going to overcharge private insurance and paying customers to cross-subsidize the poor, the uninsured, Medicare, Medicaid and, increasingly, victims of limited exchange policies, then the hospital must be protected from competition. If competitors can come in and offer services to the paying customers, the scheme unravels.
No competition means no pressure to innovate for better service and lower costs. .....
...

As usual, I have to wait 30 days to post the whole thing. It synthesizes some of my earlier blog posts (here here here) on how cross subsidies are worse than straightforward, on budget, taxing and spending.

Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.

"So she was wrong or misspoke, haven't we all?"

That is a fair point, I sure have been wrong and have mis-spoke. But I admit it when I do. Has she? And I'm not asking to get elected to a position where I am writing federal law.

"Does that also make them (conservatives) Morons?"

Nope. Conservatives believe that to make something cheaper, you actually have to somehow reduce the cost of that something. Liberals believe you can make something free, by having the feds provide it. One of those two ideas is, in my opinion, moronic. The other is completely in line with mathematical reality.

"Where is your evidence that professors are The driving factor in the increased cost of college?"

If you looked at the financial statements of a typical college, what do you really think the biggest expenses are? It will be faculty tuition & expenses, and building construction.

"All the evidence I see is that they are a contributing factor, but not the largest."

Too bad you didn't share any of that evidence.

"You also did not rebut her views on Congress"

I haven't seen her views on Congress. She's an admitted socialist who has made huge promises of freebies with zero ideas of how to pay for it, she doesn't know what unemployment is (but she'll say anything to make the GOPs unemployment rate sound like it's a bad thing), she thinks Israel invaded Palestine, and she was at a rally with Bernie Sanders where a shout out was given to a convicted cop killer, and as far as I know, she didn't speak against it.

I don't know every single detail of her platform. But I know more than enough. And I want her right where she is, getting invited to make speeches all over the country, I want the DNC to convince voters in purple states that she is the future of the party.

You cannot embrace socialism in a huge, heterogeneous country, if you've given it two seconds of rational thought. It's just not possible. Socialism can maybe work in a tiny country with rich natural resources, and very strict immigration, say Norway, where everyone has an oil well in their backyard, so everything can be provided, as long as they don't let too many people in. If we tried that here, we'd be Venezuela within ten years.

You could say that, and once again, you would be demonstrably wrong. I agree with liberals on some of the big issues...I am opposed to the death penalty, I support gay marriage, I'm in favor of banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines.

On the economy in particular, liberals are impervious to arithmetic, observable results, empirical evidence, and common sense. They try an idea, it fails spectacularly, and that doesn't EVER cause them to re-think anything. Here in CT, we have been an experiment in pure economic liberalism for 40 years, it's been a disaster. What do the dems propose? Higher taxes, bigger spending. They aren't capable of responding to empirical evidence. It's mind-boggling. Can you explain it?

I already did. She said unemployment was low because people were taking multiple jobs. I already said she was wrong about that. She then said low unemployment doesn't necessarily indicate things are great for everyone. Same thing trump said and Bernie said and pretty much every candidate said.

You said she said low unemployment is bad, which is a straight up lie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She was desperately putting a negative spin on low unemployment, because the left hates Trump more than they like everyone to thrive. And the GOP was guilty of some of that during the Obama years, obviously.

When the stock market soared under Obama, liberal said that was great. When it spars under Trump, liberals complain it only helps the rich.

I'd appreciate some consistency, that's all.

No, but it is moronic to lie about what someone said either intentionally or because you didn't take the time to listen to what said said and said your nonsense anyway.

I bet you are o.k. with a guy who writes federal law also pulls his pants down, yells America! and rushes his naked back end at an "Isis terrorist."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do use hyperbole and sarcasm in many of my posts. Sorry for the confusion.

Let me be literal here if it helps. If a democrat was president, we all know she'd be talking about how great low unemployment is. But she wants to get elected (because despite her claims of socialism, a job p aying almost 200k a year is attractive to her)more than she wants to speak the truth (that the economy is pretty healthy), so she came up with an idiotic negative spin about why unemployment is so low, and that it's not a good thing. I can't prove that, it's my opinion, but I am certain I'm right, and so is everyone else who is honest

My preference would be a good person who implements policies I like. That wasn't a choice in 2016. The choice was between 2 morally bankrupt reptiles. One would do things I like, one would do things I hate. It wasn't a pleasant choice, but it was an easy choice.

I didn't elect him to date my mother or to be a role model. I elected him to help the economy, to kill terrorists, and to nominate judges who understand that they aren't supposed to advocate for causes they believe in, but rather abide by the constitution even when they don't like that outcome.

Last I knew none of my relatives in Norway had an oil well, all worked and made a living. None have been bankrupted by failing to have great health.

"Should Israel get a free pass"

No, but we shouldn't say they invaded Palestine either.

Funny, you are more critical of my mistakes, than you are of hers. And she wants to write federal laws, I'm not someone who impacts your life.

You claimed I make mistakes because I'm prejudiced against liberals. Using your logic, do you presume she's lying about Israel because she doesn't like the Jews? You have fun wrestling your way out of that.

"Wrong rally"

She was at a rally to stump for a candidate, and a convicted cop killer received a shout out at that rally. Is that true, or is that false?

Your party has made cop killer Abu Mumia Jamal a hero. Good for you.

"Last I knew none of my relatives in Norway had an oil well"

Again, it's called hyperbole. They have a lot of oil, and they have mostly white people. If you moved Mexico to the southern border of Norway, and made it an open border, Norway would look a lot different in a few years.

I am talking about the congressman from Georgia. You say you don't want ocasio writing law , but you probably are fine with Spencer. And your evaluation of how conservative judges work is novel, but b.s. That isn't how it goes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I am talking about the congressman from Georgia"

I don't know who you mean. SO whoever you are referring to, he's not the face of the GOP.

"You say you don't want ocasio writing law "

Correct.

"but you probably are fine with Spencer."

I am sorry, I don't know who you mean.

"And your evaluation of how conservative judges work is novel, but b.s. "

Not in my opinion.

"That isn't how it goes"

You say so. Again, you made an accusation, but chose not to provide any examples. If your goal is to show me that my side isn't perfect, let me save you the trouble...there are all kinds of liars, jerks, hypocrites, crooks, weirdos on my side. But on policy, I obviously believe it's far superior to liberalism, and in terms of economics, I think you have to be absolutely clueless to embrace liberalism.

You deny that Ocasio was at a rally that paid a tribute to a cop killer.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/23/co...-cortez-rally/

Your party loves Abu Mumia Jamal. What's one more cop killer to adore?

Your statistic to show that their borders are more open than ours, is a joke. Are the requirements more strict? Do your numbers include illegals?

You like Norway? Let's be like them. Let's make our nation 90+% white, and drill for every drop of oil we have.

I understand you feel that way. These discussions with you repeatedly reinforce to me that a large number of people who are voting the way you do do it based and misinformation and lies just like the kind you spew on here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"his other crime that really pisses you off is that he is a virulent writer"

He can write all he wants. Couldn't care less. What bothers me, is raising money for him, bestowing him with credibility, pretending he's something other than what he is. Claiming that he's innocent. Another issue where liberals can't accept the reality because it doesn't match their ideology. So they create a new reality where he deserves sympathy, not the victim's widow.

"then lets look at who some republicans have called great lately: Putin, Dutarte, Kim, all of whom have killed a lot more people than one police officer"

Well I can walk and chew gum at the same time, so I can say those guys are evil and so is Abu Mumia Jamal. There are no meaningful numbers of conservatives who defend Putin (but Obama sure as hell did, when he mocked Mitt Romney), Dutarte, or Kim.

Jason Spencer is (was) a member of the Georgia House of Representatives

Ocasio Cortez is running for the US House of Representatives for NY's 14 Congressional District

you guys are arguing Apples and Oranges.

1 is making federal law and the other is making State law

Very incriminating, where is Abu Mumia Jamal in this? "One even praised the strength and dedication of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur — while Ocasio-Cortez (who was waiting in the wings) and Bush nodded along."
Here's your line, Jim
I left the rally with a photo — in part to remind myself of that time I crashed a rally headlined by a socialist, but also in part to remind myself that there, but for the grace of God, go I.

OK, not even a federal legislator. I don't know who Jason Spencer is...

Just one, our current leader and this is far from the only example of Kowtowing to authoritarian leaders.
President Donald Trump's 13-day trip to Asia included meetings with a host of world leaders, and while he praised many of his international counterparts, his interactions with some of the world's best-known strongmen have raised consternation.

Trump's kind words for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the apparent softening of his language toward North Korean leader Kim Jong Un came in contrast to the concerns others have expressed about those leaders.

"where is Abu Mumia Jamal in this? "

He is, using that liberal logic you defend, a sympathetic figure to your side, a cold blooded murderer to my side. On my side, the widow is the victim. Not every single person agrees with that naturally.

"Very incriminating"

I made zero claims to the degree of incriminating. I said Ocasio attended a rally where a cop killer was given a shout out. You denied it. I have no idea what Ocasio's opinions are towards the cop killer. But she attended the rally where he got a shout out.

Yeah you are right about Spencer. Also true that one is a candidate, one was an elected official. I always like to comment on your analogies, so I would say we are arguing lemons to limes 👹
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am sure you have checked him out by now, but if not check him out. He is right up your alley 🤘
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll make it easy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k4pMTsa1Kw

"You still are allowed to do that in this country"

Yes of course you are. And I am allowed to say it's bonkers to sympathize with a cop killer, to invite him to speak (via video) at college graduations, etc.

"Trump's kind words for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the apparent softening of his language toward North Korean leader Kim Jong Un came in contrast to the concerns others have expressed about those leaders"

True, and I said that his words at the press conference were the low point of his presidency for me. While his words towards Russia are too friendly, his policies are more adversarial than Obama's. I give Trump criticism for the words (shameful), and credit for his actions.

Yes, I am just like that.