I work as a musician, composer and arranger.

I have degrees in two fields, one of them music theory/composition. So yes, my job utilizes part of my education.

Re the comments about people making 80k per year struggling, it can be a challenge to live on that income in some parts of the U.S., especially in metro San Francisco and metro New York City. That's because real estate is pretty outrageous in both locales. You can find cheaper accommodations further from the main urban areas, but then commuting costs (and time/stress/etc.) kill you.

But it's not punishment, it's a fairer method of being able to implement a policy which will be a benefit to society. — Sapientia

Why is it fair?

No, that's a terrible idea. That would be elitist. Decisions should be made in the interest of those who will be effected by them, not in the interest of a privileged class at the expense of the less well off. — Sapientia

I never said decisions shouldn't be made in the interest of those who are affected by them. They should. But those who make decisions should know what they're doing. How do they prove they know what they're doing? By their track record. If you're paying millions in tax, clearly you have a clue what's going on economically, while the person paying £5,000 has less of a clue (generally - of course it doesn't always hold true).

So? These things are obviously of great benefit to society as a whole, and they're essential for most. The needs of the many outweigh the interests of a privileged minority who don't have to rely upon these vital public services. — Sapientia

I agree.

The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. We've had higher taxes in the past, and we were still raking it in. Yes, there will probably be some who will take their wealth elsewhere, but there won't be a mass exodus, and we can manage without them. The way we're currently headed is a race to the bottom, which will only benefit those at the top at the expense of the rest of society. This wealth doesn't trickle down to those who need it most. — Sapientia

I agree with your general gist. Wealth never "trickles down". The problem is that people are largely uneducated about money, how to make wise financial decisions, and the like. Making wise financial decisions alone will not make you a millionaire, but it will help you build up a nice and comfortable savings for you and your family, so that if a tragedy strikes - illness, car accident, etc. - you can get through it more easily.

There's a lot of "fake" advice around money and finance, lots of dead end roads about how to become a millionaire in a year or less and other shit. There's also many people who just have no clue what to do with the money they have, no understanding - they are tricked by banks to purchase dream homes mortgaged to the hilt, etc. That's a large part of the reason why common people, and even upper-middle class people end up poor. A college degree isn't sufficient to be financially educated. But this is an essential thing that everyone should be taught. How not to lose the money that you do make - even if it is little money.

The problem is that if politicians and the general public understood wealth better, then you'd understand that everyone would profit more by collaborating with, instead of fighting the most wealthy. The most wealthy typically get there by systems which allow repeatedly selling items/services at little additional costs as they scale up. Everyone is interested that they keep the profits in the country - and not take them outside. Because they always have the option of forming a company in, say, Cyprus, and then charging their company in Britain, effectively eliminating the profit in Britain, and moving it to Cyprus (where it will be taxed). So why should you throw away this tax money when you could keep it?

No, it isn't, it's called fairness. What possible alternative are you suggesting? Equal tax for all, regardless of income, assets, status, and so on? — Sapientia

A flat tax for income over whatever level (corresponding to everyone else's tax), IF that income is reinvested into the British economy. Otherwise, if that income isn't reinvested, then the usual progressive tax.

No, it isn't, it's called fairness — Sapientia

Well I don't think it's fair. There's a reason why they make £1 million and the rest of us make 20K. They impact a much greater number of people through their economic activity than we do, probably create jobs for many more, and probably undertake a lot more stress than the common person. It's not fair to take stuff away from a person who does that - they could be an asset to the economy.

Re the comments about people making 80k per year struggling, it can be a challenge to live on that income in some parts of the U.S., especially in metro San Francisco and metro New York City. That's because real estate is pretty outrageous in both locales. You can find cheaper accommodations further from the main urban areas, but then commuting costs (and time/stress/etc.) kill you. — Terrapin Station

£80,000, so $103,744.

Also, in context the claim was that it's better to earn £80,000 and pay a high tax rate than to earn £11,000 and not pay any tax.

A civil engineer isn't a construction worker mate... — Agustino

"Civil engineering is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the design, construction, and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment, including works like roads, bridges, canals, dams, and buildings."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I'm probably one of the best educated people on the planet actually in terms of schooling. I was always the very top of the class, in both school (I was valedictorian) and university (apart from first year when I almost failed). — Agustino

Best educated? I thought your education was shite?

My complaints don't stem from "my" failed education. My complaints stem for the fact that education just isn't helpful - despite me receiving some of the best education out there, I was still incapable to do useful work for others. — Agustino

????????? >:O

It did get me a job, but I soon realised that in a job you are like a slave for the most part - at the mercy of others, since you simply haven't been adequately trained to provide real value to people. There's very little creativity, freedom to choose when you work, how you come dressed to work, etc. And I don't like that. So I absolutely didn't choose to quit engineering because of necessity - it's not because I wasn't making enough money. — Agustino

So you went through with your "education" with the idea that you would never be taken advantage of or that you'd never have a shit boss?

That's not the point. The point is that you have so many advantages which you're throwing away. — Agustino

This is easy for you to say over the internet.

Ehmmmm no. The system isn't supposed to ensure your success at all. — Agustino

Yes, it does. Success doesn't mean perfection, though. Remember that the baddies in power used the same system to get where they are now.

It's nothing but your arrogance and inflamed sense of self worth that makes you think degradingly of working at McD's. — Agustino

Really, this is your reply? Fine, Agu, go volunteer in Somalia and work with the poor and dying. If you don't, this makes you an arrogant, narcisistic prick, :D

Just like losing weight, making money doesn't involve secrets. Just hard work. — Agustino

And there is NOTHING wrong with me putting in hard ass fucking work completing one or more degrees in order for me to be trained to work a job I got that education for, a job that I also plan to work my ass off doing.

Supposing that the world doesn't need anymore doctors (there's too many) why the fuck would you become a doctor? It's your fault for going into something that the world doesn't need anymore. You keep throwing the blame, but it's not anyone's fault. — Agustino

The world always needs good doctors, persons who have the passion to treat and operate on those in need. Blame not the profession in itself, but those who fail to live up to the standard that is still being upheld by those commendable individuals who are doing a great job.

So I'm not telling you to be a slut at all - I'm telling you to do something that is useful and helpful for others (and obviously legal) - as far as I see, I'm telling you to stop being a selfish bastard (I want I want) and start being an unselfish and upstanding man (what can I give to the world?). — Agustino

As far as I'm concerned, my plan to become a licensed counselor and clinical therapist is perhaps the least selfish career path I can take. And getting a proper education to facilitate this, my career aspiration, is not egotistical, or bastardly, or whatever else. Don't lecture me about not being a good person merely because I don't want to work retail or be in the restaurant business. My character and expertise would be wasted flipping burgers. Period.

Why is it fair? — Agustino

It's shocking that you'd need to ask that question. If you have greater wealth, then you can make a greater contribution with less of an overall cost than this would have if applied to those with less wealth. If you can - if you can weather it much better than others - then you should. And if you can't, you shouldn't. Greater wealth, greater contribution. Less wealth, lesser contribution. That's fair.

I never said decisions shouldn't be made in the interest of those who are affected by them. They should. — Agustino

But giving more power to those who pay a higher rate of tax, which means giving more power to those who earn more, which means giving more power to those with greater wealth, would almost inevitably skew the system in their favour, at the expense of the rest, which is unfair. More power should go to those who are capable of working towards creating a fairer society, not be dished out on the basis of how much tax one pays, with those who are already privileged enough as it is ending up with greater power, and therefore yet more privilege.

But those who make decisions should know what they're doing. How do they prove they know what they're doing? By their track record. If you're paying millions in tax, clearly you have a clue what's going on economically, while the person paying £5,000 has less of a clue (generally - of course it doesn't always hold true). — Agustino

How can we tell they know what they're doing?
Yes, by looking at their track record (what they've done) and also by looking at their plan (what they intend to do); not by how much tax they pay. Clement Attlee left behind an exceptional track record, and is widely praised, but looking at how much tax he paid rather than what he actually did, or what he proposed, would be a foolish way to asses his credibility.

The problem is that if politicians and the general public understood wealth better, then you'd understand that everyone would profit more by collaborating with, instead of fighting the most wealthy. — Agustino

Ideally, collaboration should always be the first option. But in reality, there are situations where it would be naive to expect collaboration to work out, because the other party simply won't cooperate, or won't cooperate unless it's on their terms, so sometimes it will be more efficient, and will bring about better results, to simply skip that step and intervene by force. Do you really think that asking the Phillip Greens of the world nicely to do what's right is going to bring about the best results?

Everyone is interested that they keep the profits in the country - and not take them outside. Because they always have the option of forming a company in, say, Cyprus, and then charging their company in Britain, effectively eliminating the profit in Britain, and moving it to Cyprus (where it will be taxed). So why should you throw away this tax money when you could keep it? — Agustino

The status quo isn't working, so more must be done. And like I said, a race to the bottom, which is what you get when you compete to be more of a tax haven than your neighbours, is not going to generate more wealth for those who are most in need of it. That will just mean that share holders will get to keep hold of even more of their wealth rather than that wealth being spent on public services which, over here at least, are in crisis and in dire need of more funds.

Ideally, collaboration should always be the first option. — Sapientia

I would like the 5% of the population who have sucked up a hideously disproportionate share of the wealth from the working classes to collaborate in paying for a guaranteed minimum income. I do want to soak the rich ever so much (for their own good, of course -- a thorough fleecing would improve their moral condition) but I have several fish to fry...

One of the reasons for having a guaranteed minimum income is to free usually immature adolescent individuals from the tyranny of deciding what they want to do with the next 60 years of their lives. People need time and freedom from immediate starvation and homelessness to work out what kind of lives they want to lead.

Let's face it: There isn't enough bad work to go around; hence, there are high levels of real unemployment, underemployment, and part-time employment. There is even less good work to go around (because a lot of "good work" isn't profitable).

I also want to give people a margin of safety so they can risk occupational adventures without "ruining" their futures with debt. Perhaps they would like to try being a musician, a comic, a truck farmer, a cabinet maker, an upholsterer... (Obviously one doesn't just become a musician or a cabinet maker overnight--one has to learn how to do it. A guaranteed minimum income would enable one to take the risk of trying to learn.)

People also need time to experiment with education. Do you really want to be a high school teacher JUST BECAUSE you parents think that is a good idea? Maybe you would rather learn how to run a hotel. Maybe you will decide that the problems of running a large urban sanitary sewer system is what turns you on (there definitely are people who manage sewers and like it). But if you start with the idea that you must decide now, incur the large debt, only to find out it was a bad idea, that's a total waste.

I work as a musician, composer and arranger. — Terrapin Station

I thought you were a philosophy professor!

I would like the 5% of the population who have sucked up a hideously disproportionate share of the wealth — Bitter Crank

Why do they suck up so much wealth? They do very different activities than the working class. When you're working, for example, to teach a class of 100 students every year, how can you possibly earn as much as someone who creates a product that is then manufactured, sold, and distributed to millions of people? Bigger risk = bigger rewards, that's only normal and fair. It's not easy to make 100 sales calls every single day. You try it, you'll see by the 10th consecutive rejection you'll feel like giving up 1000 times. The sheer emotional stress involved coupled with the financial risks involved justify the POSSIBILITY of outstanding gains - because there is no certainty.

The fact is that these 80K/yr people struggle to make ends meet... — Agustino

Nope. That's about what my Brother has been earning in the most expensive part of the UK (London) over the past 10-15 years and he's saved enough to buy several houses and flats in Ireland which he now rents out. He's not even remotely struggling.

Oh, does my job utilize my education? Sort of.

Any additional thoughts? Any academic job will probably suck out your insides to such an extent that when you finally die (of boredom) they'll be able to fold your corpse up and bury you in a matchbox.

+I kind of agree with some of the less crazy things @Agustino has said in the discussion.

Well, I'm a lawyer. I went to law school. Doing that is a condition precedent to being a lawyer where I practice, and in most jurisdictions in our Glorious Republic. In a sense, then, being a lawyer "utilizes" the education, such as it is, received in law school. Personally though, I think law school has little to do with being a practicing lawyer. There are those who get a law degree and don't practice law. They call themselves lawyers, but are not. I can't speak for them.

I was a philosophy major (why "major"?) in college, and at that place and time analytic philosophy was taught for the most part. I've found the emphasis on use and meaning of language and analysis of argument taught in those philosophy courses to be quite useful in practicing law.

The 1% to 5% of the population that controls, owns, takes in so much of the wealth isn't out on the sidewalk peddling vacuum cleaners, or flogging a new idea. There are several mechanisms by which their wealth has been accumulated and is protected.

#1 is tax law. The rich are protected by a variety of laws which allow, enable, and encourage them to evade taxation.

#2 is finance. The rich are able to benefit from the manipulations of currency, stock, interest rates, etc.

#3 is the control their wealth enables them to exercise over economies; the rich get richer because they are running the show.

Entrepreneurs who are aiming for the "original accumulation" might walk the concrete trying to find people to buy their ideas. Yes, some do, and a few become colossally rich -- like Bill Gates. Most of them succeed on a much, much more modest scale, or they fail and try something else.

One of our problems is that the extreme disproportionate distribution of wealth hurts young, gifted, and greedy entrepreneurs as well as low-wage workers. The rich and the super-rich have tied up so much money that the masses of wage earning workers, small businesses, and institutions do not have access to enough cash to buy some of these great new ideas some people are trying to peddle.

The issue with many people is that they get a degree, but truth be told, you don't actually learn much practical and valuable skills in University - even if you do a technical degree. But they brainwash you to think you have. So when you go to a job, you expect to be able to do lots of things, but the rude awakening is when you find out that you're mostly incapable to do anything of real value (how frustrating - you spent 4-5 years, and you're still not a professional...). That's what I found as an engineer. — Agustino

The fact is, most people (no matter their performance in most degree programs) require, receive, and learn their trade in On-the-Job-Training (OJT). High schools, trade schools, and colleges can give you some, a moderate supply, or lots of basic skills, but in the end you have to learn how to use what you have got doing the job

I've been receiving dental care at the U of MN College of Dentistry for about 30 years, and have had everyone from first year dental students to post docs working in my mouth, From what I've seen and heard, it's pretty clear that once they learn some head and neck anatomy before they start trying to anesthetize, say, the lower left jaw (they practice on each other before they practice on patients); it's pretty much OJT from then on. What the teachers are telling the first year students is not theoretical, it's how to do the job. Then the instructor comes round every 20 minutes or so to see how they are doing. At the end of the very long appointments, the job is done well, but slowly. Students at the end of their training (third year) are much faster, more confident, and get little supervision. Post docs get consultations more than supervision. OJT.

The same is true in less technical fields too.

Philosophy is the other field in which I have degrees, and I did some student teaching when I was a grad student, but that's it.

Nope. That's about what my Brother has been earning in the most expensive part of the UK (London) over the past 10-15 years and he's saved enough to buy several houses and flats in Ireland which he now rents out. He's not even remotely struggling. — Baden

Well that obviously also depends on the person. Maybe your bro is financially shrewd and focuses on keeping his costs down (not many people are). But there are people who're making that income who are struggling.

#1 is tax law. The rich are protected by a variety of laws which allow, enable, and encourage them to evade taxation. — Bitter Crank

This is true, but the small business owners could have the same ways to avoid taxes. For example, someone like me is free to hire lawyers + accountants to form an entity somewhere like Cyprus, and help me pay lower taxes. But what's the use? My income isn't big enough, so in absolute terms I'd end up paying more for the whole procedure than I would make by not paying taxes. This is an advantage similar to the advantage brought on by economies of scale. Scale always brings leverage.

#2 is finance. The rich are able to benefit from the manipulations of currency, stock, interest rates, etc. — Bitter Crank

This is true - the rich are able to make "dirty" money using financial instruments too easily. It's not hard with 100 mil to make 10 mil relatively easily.

#3 is the control their wealth enables them to exercise over economies; the rich get richer because they are running the show. — Bitter Crank

I've seen this in anyone who manages to have some sort of control over the means of production. That gives them leverage to dictate terms, but then it's natural to be that way. Us smaller entrepreneurs just have to be smarter, and more hard working to survive.

Entrepreneurs who are aiming for the "original accumulation" might walk the concrete trying to find people to buy their ideas. Yes, some do, and a few become colossally rich -- like Bill Gates. Most of them succeed on a much, much more modest scale, or they fail and try something else. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but Bill Gates is a whole different level of rich. Most of the rich are just millionaires.

One of our problems is that the extreme disproportionate distribution of wealth hurts young, gifted, and greedy entrepreneurs as well as low-wage workers. The rich and the super-rich have tied up so much money that the masses of wage earning workers, small businesses, and institutions do not have access to enough cash to buy some of these great new ideas some people are trying to peddle. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure. That's certainly the popular idea, but, for example, my business is nothing "innovative" in terms of services, and I did quite well this year. I find it's a lot less about idea, and more about execution (which really means mainly marketing combined with providing a good enough service). It's obviously true though that it takes a different sort of skill set to succeed as a small business than to succeed as a large company.

I think many businesses can be started with little to no money, and on no "special" ideas - just hard work and perseverance.

The fact is, most people (no matter their performance in most degree programs) require, receive, and learn their trade in On-the-Job-Training (OJT). High schools, trade schools, and colleges can give you some, a moderate supply, or lots of basic skills, but in the end you have to learn how to use what you have got doing the job

I've been receiving dental care at the U of MN College of Dentistry for about 30 years, and have had everyone from first year dental students to post docs working in my mouth, From what I've seen and heard, it's pretty clear that once they learn some head and neck anatomy before they start trying to anesthetize, say, the lower left jaw (they practice on each other before they practice on patients); it's pretty much OJT from then on. What the teachers are telling the first year students is not theoretical, it's how to do the job. Then the instructor comes round every 20 minutes or so to see how they are doing. At the end of the very long appointments, the job is done well, but slowly. Students at the end of their training (third year) are much faster, more confident, and get little supervision. Post docs get consultations more than supervision. OJT.

The same is true in less technical fields too. — Bitter Crank

Right, I wish college/university was replaced straight by this OJT. It would be much quicker, and better that way. In fact, in the old days, a doctor who finished University was already a professional. Today it takes him many years after university to become a full doctor. That's fucked up - it means the condition of our schools is terrible at teaching real world.

But there are people who're making that income who are struggling. — Agustino

And these people are not typical, and not struggling in anything like the same way, and do not deserve anywhere near the same amount of sympathy.

And these people are not typical, and not struggling in anything like the same way, and do not deserve anywhere near the same amount of sympathy. — Sapientia

:s

Sympathy should be saved for those suffering from some form of privation. And there are plenty of those about. That's also how I would define "struggling". What possible privation would you attribute to someone earning 80K a year?

What possible privation would you attribute to someone earning 80K a year? — Baden

The privation of freedom. The privation of time.

By that definition pretty much everyone is "struggling" just by virtue of having to work, so it's not particularly helpful.

Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward them for what they have done. - Proverbs 19:17

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. - Luke 12:33

Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same. - Luke 3:11

Be a good Christian, @Agustino.

By that definition pretty much everyone is "struggling" just by virtue of having to work, so it's not particularly helpful. — Baden

No, don't misrepresent what I mean. Some of those people earning 80K/year struggle because of excessive job stress (compared to their earnings), lack of time for family or themselves, increasing job associated costs (rent/car/clothes/food, etc.) and lack of overarching meaning. They are struggling - whereas some people who earn 20K/year don't stress so much at their work, and have a lot more free time, even though, their smaller income doesn't give them as many possibilities.

Be a good Christian, Agustino. — Michael

Who said I don't give to the poor? I've always given to the poor.

Us smaller entrepreneurs just have to be smarter, and more hard working to survive. — Agustino

That's not your only recourse. The government can intervene in helpful ways. For example, it recently came to light that Tesco deliberately and repeatedly withheld money owed to suppliers to boost its sales performance artificially, in a serious breach of supermarket regulations. In response, Labour has come up with a plan to crackdown on late payments. (See here for more info).

There are those who get a law degree and don't practice law. They call themselves lawyers, but are not. I can't speak for them. — Ciceronianus the White

I can. I chose not to venture down the legal profession because I see no glory in this Republic of yours or any country that values profit over human life. My efforts to finish a masters in human rights law was a requisite to work in the field that I desire(d), which is in international human rights and development with a particular focus on children. I currently earn mediocre pay with a national NGO that supports disadvantaged children and doing so intentionally to develop experience to pursue my career objectives in this field. But, I am also profoundly happy.

For me, it has always been a dream of mine to study the classics, ancient history and languages, but the utility of a degree is to enable the prospect of working in the field you desire. Not sure what compelled you to become a lawyer. :-$

And no, I don't call myself a lawyer. It's just painful having to explain the difference between having a law degree and being a practicing lawyer to those who don't know the difference.

That's not your only recourse. The government can intervene in helpful ways. For example, it recently came to light that Tesco deliberately and repeatedly withheld money owed to suppliers to boost its sales performance artificially, in a serious breach of supermarket regulations. In response, Labour has come up with a plan to crackdown on late payments. — Sapientia

Yeah, but the number of times that happens.... if small entrepreneurs were to wait for the government to act, we'd be dead. The government is very slow. I've worked recently with a bakery who make some products they sell through supermarkets - and they've had a lot of problems with delayed payments, etc. But you can't do much - the distributor has significant leverage. For example:

• You can't spread your products and sell them at scale without distributors (too much investment required otherwise).
• It's not an easy process to get your products into a supermarket, so once you're kicked out, it's not easy to go to another supermarket.
• You can't sue them, because the court case takes long, and they will stop working with you completely (not to mention not paying anything else) - that's tons of money lost for you.
• Appealing to the government is very slow. By the time the government acts (not to mention that large distributors have a plethora of lawyers, etc. which can delay government intervention) it's too late.

So yes, they will treat you like shit, because they can afford to. Nothing the government can ever do can stop this. They'll always have power, and they will use that power over you when they can.

It's like with the police as well. Many times the police just can't intervene quickly enough. Matters are still left largely in your own hands. Say I write a book, and you plagiarise most of it and start selling it as well. I can sue you, and I will, but that's not going to stop you easily, because you're in a different part of the world, and a court case isn't settled immediately + it costs money and time for me to stop you. So especially when you're small, and don't have access to a lot of resources - the government can't do much for you. Sure, there's programs for food, shelter, etc. but not much else. That's the real truth. People are still on their own for the most part.

I'm not saying that, but government can help, and depending on which party is in government, they'll likely do more to help or less. Voting for what's in your best interest as a small business would be a start.

I'm not saying that, but government can help, and depending on which party is in government, they'll likely do more to help or less. Voting for what's in your best interest as a small business would be a start. — Sapientia

Yes of course, but it's like me not having any food or job, and getting food for one single day of the month. Sure, it's something - but still, it's so small compared to what would be needed. Clearly you can see that that's not what will solve the problem. It will help - but it's not a real solution.