From reading about the Occupy Wall Street protesters, it seems that many are upset that they spent large sums of borrowed money on degrees that are essentially worthless, in the sense that they don't increase employability in the private sector, don't in any way increase the degree-holder's ability to produce things of value to consumers. So, for the protesters to get any use from their expensive degrees, wouldn't it be rational for them to desire the expansion of the State, since the State is the only entity willing to remunerate them for the qualifications they hold (such as Gender Studies, Political Science, etc)?
If you think even a majority of those protesters have college degrees, you haven't read enough.
Hah, fair enough. It seemed like the majority of those "we are the 99%" things made some mention of college debt, so I was going by that.
You can be in debt without a degree. I'm sure a lot of them are in debt and still in college, or simply stopped going or dropped out. Luckily I paid for all my classes myself without loans or anything, which makes me debt free when I decided to stop going because it would have been a waste of my time to get a degree I'm not 100% content with (engineering). I'm the other percentage of people, who probably like some here, just wants to work a job without a chunk of money taken out of my checks. Simple solution: government stop taking people's money so they can actually afford things themselves.
MadMiser:Hah, fair enough. It seemed like the majority of those "we are the 99%" things made some mention of college debt, so I was going by that.
A lot of people make mention of poor, starving persons in Ethiopia to make their case with more pathos, but that doesn't mean they are one.
From Today's Mises Daily: "Half the protesters are aged 20–29, highly educated, in hock up to their ears in student-loan debt, and unemployed." (http://mises.org/daily/5794/The-Market-Stars-in-Margin-Call) If they're highly educated and yet lack jobs, wouldn't it be fair to assume that they're educated in fields that don't increase their marketability; degrees that don't increase their ability to generate value for consumers? In which case, their only option for getting remuneration for their degrees would be employment by the State, since working for the State doesn't require the creation of value for consumers. Hence, it'd be rational for them, from a purely self-interested perspective, to support expansion of the State, no?
The illusion is that it is rational. This is precisely how social democracy is sold to the masses: "You're poor, so if you lend your support to the State - which will tax the rich and redistribute to all alike - you're going to win out. Support the State!" The reality is much different than the illusion.
Clayton -
Well, in this case it'd be possible to work out exactly how rational it was for a given individual. If their productivity on the free market was only $20k per year, whereas they could expect $60k per year in a government job, an expanded State (and thus a State job for them) would increase their purchasing power by $40k. Hence for it to be rational for them not to support an expanded State, you'd have to show them that the benefits from living in a free market were equal to $40k per year in purchasing power. Many State employees are extremely overpaid, compared to what they'd get on the free market; you really think they could be convinced to give this up?
You're neglecting the deleterious effects of the government putting all these people on what is really The Dole. A government "job" might look like a job but it really isn't in the ordinary sense of the word... they're not producing something that consumers demand. The Useful Idiots can hold out as long as they like but they're never going to realize their dream of transferring the wealth of the wealthy to themselves through a cushy government job - or, at least, precious few of them will. You will find that every last one of those who think this way cannot conceive of the idea of the government simply going bankrupt. Government, by definition, has unlimited resources in the minds of these people. It has fairy tale powers. It can create wealth from nothing through "spending multiplier".
Eventually, you become Greece. America is already Greece and worse except that we are propped up by the imperial status of our dollar. So we really can print our way out and the bondholders know this and they'll continue to lend as long as we managed to maintain our privileged, imperial status. Now you know why the Pentagon has a $2T+/yr. budget... it's an investment! But empires don't last forever... in fact, they never last very long at all and the US empire appears to be crashing faster than any other in history. Then we will see how "rational" these OWS protesters really are.
Very true. Well, then it all depends on how long the US empire lasts. If it manages to drag on for a few more decades, those statists could still do well living off the government teat - much like the statists who got cushy government jobs a few decades ago (at the expense of the rest of the population, of course). If on the other hand the American Empire collapses soon, then they're screwed, haha! Then again, if it's a hyperinflationary collapse, that doesn't necessarily spell the end for American Statism; Weimar Germany had an inflationary collapse, and that didn't exactly result in the ultimate weakening of the German State, did it? :P