Hacker News Reader

Comment by EpicEng | Hacker News Reader

"the incoming class is regulated to be approximately in line with the annual demand for new lawyers"

Our system has problems, serious problems, but I don't think that the government telling us what we can and can't do for a living is the solution.

View on HN

The government already does tell you what you can and can't do for a living in regards to classical professions. You can't just hang up a shingle and call yourself a lawyer, an engineer, or a doctor (or other healthcare professional).

The only difference with the Danish example is that the government refuses to write a blank check (student loans) to law schools who want to take advantage of the naivete of students.

The US system would be vastly improved if the government stopped subsidizing the education industry's market distortions, or if the government actually regulated the education market. Right now it is the worst of both worlds with the government helping the education industry to fleece students and other tax payers.

The refusal to write blank checks is more of an exception than the rule. For at least a couple of decades, politicians have begged young people to take any university education, any at all, with many nominally highly educated graduates out of work.

The government pays a $1000/month (pre tax) stipend to all students for up to six years, and offers a similar sized amount in loans on very generous terms. As tuition is free, this is only to cover living expenses and study materials such as books. Taxes are high, even at that income level and so are living expenses, but it's still not a trivial sum.

Those aren't blank checks though. The problem with the US system is that the government is backing loans with no regulation of what the universities charge, with the result that tuition costs have increased to the point where most middle-class people couldn't afford to send their kids to school if it wasn't for loans.

Government paying education costs and regulating the price can work. Government paying education costs and not regulating the price is just corporate welfare.

It's only telling you what you can do in the state-supported tuition-free university. You're free to become a lawyer on your own dime if your grades don't meet the quota for that.

Of course, Denmark has a whopping 60.2% income tax rate for those making over 55k / year, so their "dimes" are far fewer than my own, but your point is taken.

Yes, but they get child care, schools, university, healthcare, social security that actually works and a few other things for those taxes.

Also, New Yorkers making >$400k are paying 52% (39% federal + 13% state), and those making just $100K are already paying over 40%. Californians are in a similar positions, although some states are cheaper to live in.

Yes, Europeans pay more in taxes, but they get more in taxes. If anyone is fleeced, it's actually the americans - the government is going into larger and larger debt, and at some point, the people will have to pay one way or another.

Nitpick, but the income tax rate has been legally capped at 50% for some time now, notwithstanding any other legislation, so you can never actually hit something like 60%, even if a combination of other taxes would theoretically produce that in certain cases.

The government telling you what to do? The government is running/financing these schools, and are limiting the funding/size of classes to the apparent demand. Wouldn't you be complaining that the government is wasting your tax dollars on bloated law classes if they were giving the schools too much funding?

Apparently (from reading another comment), who gets into the schools is determined by their "high school" grades. That isn't the government deciding your faith; that is merit.

If you still want to get this kind of education, there seems to be private schools that you can attend (judging from the other comments).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com