News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by toomuchtodo on Monday May 23, 2016 @02:59PM (#11755995)
> Right now, there is no drawback for an employer requiring a bachelor's degree for a job that has no use for it.

Increase an employer's taxes commensurate with the cost of the education for the workers they hire. If you truly need workers with bachelors, masters, PhDs, you pay for the cost. Internalize the externality.

Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by vkou on Monday May 23, 2016 @03:03PM (#11756030)
That's an interesting idea (In that it reduces the amount of zero-training freeloading employers can do), but without other changes, I feel that it would make the problem worse - it would increase the guaranteed fire-hose of money that educational institutions will receive.

Limiting the firehose to departments that add economic value won't fix the other wasteful practices.

Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by toomuchtodo on Monday May 23, 2016 @03:22PM (#11756167)
> but without other changes, I feel that it would make the problem worse

I agree. It must be enacted in concert with the equivalent of single payer education.

Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by SamReidHughes on Monday May 23, 2016 @03:41PM (#11756309)
> In that it reduces the amount of zero-training freeloading employers can do

I'm confused why you think not training employees constitutes "freeloading." Employers are paying wages on an open market for employees that come pre-trained.

Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by rayiner on Monday May 23, 2016 @03:43PM (#11756332)
Because the government subsidizes that training. If it didn't, there would be far fewer trained employees for employers to choose from, wages would go up, and employers would have to shoulder more of the burden of training.
Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by SamReidHughes on Monday May 23, 2016 @04:10PM (#11756532)
I guess that's the sense in which it was meant, and I missed that. On the other hand, that money isn't all pocketed by the employer -- it gets passed on through prices and quality to the employer's customers, and so on. The freeloading is enjoyed by the rest of the economy. (In fact, that freeloading effect is the justification most people give for publicly funding education.)
Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by SamReidHughes on Monday May 23, 2016 @03:01PM (#11756014)
Instead of taxing through their employers, why not just tax higher-educated employees directly?
Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by SixSigma on Monday May 23, 2016 @03:10PM (#11756076)
Maybe through a series of expensive loans for tuition....
Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by maxerickson on Monday May 23, 2016 @03:09PM (#11756075)
What would be the goal of that? If someone has more education than is needed for a job but ends up taking it for other reasons, should they be taxed more than their less educated coworker?

The idea with taxing the credentialed position is that it provides some incentive to not attach a credential to positions.

Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by SamReidHughes on Monday May 23, 2016 @04:13PM (#11756556)
> What would be the goal of that?

You should ask the parent, not me. I do not advocate taxing getting an education, whether you do it directly on indirectly.

Besides, in either case, such a tax would infringe on free speech.

Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by maxerickson on Monday May 23, 2016 @04:24PM (#11756645)
My question is about what you said. The 2 proposals have very different incentives and will likely have different outcomes.

The parent of your post did not propose what you did, your idea has poor incentives for people seeking education and can be expected to have 0 influence on employers. Their idea has little impact on incentives for individuals seeking education and can be expected to encourage employers to consider the necessity of an educational requirement for a given job.

Do you really see them as equivalently arbitrary hurdles to employment?

Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by SamReidHughes on Monday May 23, 2016 @04:33PM (#11756722)
Not at all. The incentives behind an income tax don't change based on whether they're paid on the employee's side or the employer's side. If you're an employee that costs 5% more to hire, you're going to get paid less.

(Unless the idea is that taxes should be based on whether or not a job posting requires a degree. But that would be silly, because employers could omit the education requirement from the job posting but still hire the best candidates, or have the need for a credential be taken for granted via codewords like "engineer.")

Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by maxerickson on Monday May 23, 2016 @04:38PM (#11756755)
The incentives for roles where the credential is reasonable don't change.

The incentives for the roles where the credential is meaningless change because the employer can choose not to pay the tax (by removing the requirement for the credential). Under your proposal the employee can't.

Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by toomuchtodo on Monday May 23, 2016 @04:40PM (#11756776)
> The incentives for the roles where the credential is meaningless change because the employer can choose not to pay the tax.

Which would be illegal, and carry a penalty. Unless they choose not to hire someone with an education, in which case, they didn't need the person to have that costly skill.

Re:The college debt crisis is worse than it seems by maxerickson on Monday May 23, 2016 @04:42PM (#11756788)
I meant by removing the requirement for the credential from the position. I edited in a note about it.

More: But I see that I've misunderstood what you initially proposed. It doesn't make any sense to me to tax the education, I'm not sure taxing the (credentialed) position makes sense, but at least it provides cromulent incentives.