Anyone for the Introduction of Fee's?

TDOie

Not FULL Fee's for everyone but like I think that the rich should pay for education (People with an income of over 150,000 or 100,000 or some set number around that). I dont think the average tax payer (Who Earns about $43,000 I think) Should pay for the Rich. Anyone feel the same?

Tom65

The argument against that is that the rich already pay a higher rate of tax because they can to fund things like education (well, that's the idea, but not exactly how it works...). So to make 'the rich' pay would be like charging them twice, i.e. not very fair.

Me, I'm pretty on the fence about fees. I can see the need for them, but I can also see that education is woefully underfunded in this country, and I don't trust this government to organise a well structured, fair, system of fees.

TDOie

Tom65 wrote: »

The argument against that is that the rich already pay a higher rate of tax because they can to fund things like education (well, that's the idea, but not exactly how it works...). So to make 'the rich' pay would be like charging them twice, i.e. not very fair.

Me, I'm pretty on the fence about fees. I can see the need for them, but I can also see that education is woefully underfunded in this country, and I don't trust this government to organise a well structured, fair, system of fees.

It is true they pay more tax and in an ideal situation education should be free for everyone but I think that the introduction of fee's should start with people on high incomes that can afford it although they pay more tax they still earn a large amount more than the average person and If your earning that amount of money 6,000 a year less to someone on 200,000 shouldnt be seen as grossly unfair. Also the way the SU is going about it is wrong.

You cant just say "eh please no fee's guys. k thanks." it makes us seem like idiots imo. The SU should offer some sort of alternative for example , people earning huge incomes paying or something more fair. All the SU is doing is saying "NO CUTBACKS! I DONT CARE WE NEED TO CUT SPENDING!" The SU should offer a proposal to be taken seriously.

Stabshauptmann

TDOie wrote: »

It is true they pay more tax and in an ideal situation education should be free for everyone

I disagree

but I think that the introduction of fee's should start with people on high incomes that can afford it

They decided to work harder and/or longer hours and you want to punish them for this?

The idea of marginal utility is why we have 2 tax bands. In essence you want to increase tax on one section of the economy but not on another, doesnt sound fair to me at all.

although they pay more tax they still earn a large amount more than the average person and If your earning that amount of money 6,000 a year less to someone on 200,000 shouldnt be seen as grossly unfair.

Who constitutes wealthy is very subjective, but heres some facts from the latest available figures:

A)Over a quarter of all income tax paid in the state is paid by the wealthiest 1.5%
B)40% of income earners at the lower end of the income scale pay no income tax.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/printer_1000article_1011252.shtml

Your entire point is that, yeah the wealthy pay more tax, but they dont pay enough. I disagree, they pay more than enough.

Also the way the SU is going about it is wrong.

You cant just say "eh please no fee's guys. k thanks." it makes us seem like idiots imo. The SU should offer some sort of alternative for example , people earning huge incomes paying or something more fair. All the SU is doing is saying "NO CUTBACKS! I DONT CARE WE NEED TO CUT SPENDING!" The SU should offer a proposal to be taken seriously.

Their stance might be stupid, but there are a lot of ill founded opinions.

graduate

Not FULL Fee's for everyone

Persons without a grasp of the use of the apostrophe should be charged extra.

Het-Field

The argument that "those who can pay, should pay" is totally flawed.

The money that would be created would be a drop in the ocean in comparison to what would be needed. Furthermore, it would only go towards further fleecing of the PAYE worker, who is already paying more than their fair share. While Denis O Brien and Anthony O Reilly may be capable of shelling out all the money in the world for Education, the average PAYE worker couldnt afford to put 3 Kids through University at one time. Two Civil Servants on reputedly decent salaries would be expected to stump up at least 15,000 between the three kids. If that is only for one year, then over £50,000 will be expected of them. It would be unsustainable in many families, so those who have a faux social democratic attitude could sleep easier at night.

I would consider the likes of O Reilly and O Brien as the first ports of call when seeking greater corporate sponsorship. Encourage them to stump up the cost of building new structures, buying lab equpiment, donating large sums to the Library etc. Then the University must continue working with the likes of exon to continue the great flow of corporate sponsorship into the University.

Then, the Government must consider all the alternatives to the current status. In the times we face, it is unclear whether the money will be there to keep our University's running at any level which could be deemed internationally competitive. Furthermore, to ask the taxpayer to stump up another 3-5% in taxation to fund somebody to take a lax attitude to education is unsustainable, and will continue to depress the economy. It is time that Interest Free Repayable loans, top up fees, or a graduate tax is considered. The Irish State is no longer in a position to fund thousands of students each year, some of whom never get beyond first year, and walk away. Notwithstanding the intrinsic and extrinsic (see The Agreement of Lisbon, and the importance of the Knowledge Based Economy" of third level education, it can no longer go on in the current situation.

However, the immediate return of 3rd level fees, where people must had over a cheque of roughly 5,000 per year, cannot occur. It will guarantee to have very bad results.

mloc

I think a graduate tax system is fairer and takes a significant proportion of the cost away from the parents/family and places it on the student. It's his/her future and thus he/she is incentivised to work harder in college.

Unfortunately, our wooly headed government should have acted on this from the start, as the introduction of such a system now would only start generating revenue in 3-5 years. Not ideal in our current climate, but the sooner they get on it the sooner the coffers will start filling.

bnt

I'm also thinking about the possible role of industry in all this, but not in terms of sponsorship of whole universities or departments. In other countries, some large businesses offer bursary/scholarship schemes, funding a student's tuition, and (as part of the deal) the graduate works for them for a few years afterwards.

I imagine that it could also be offset against tax, as an incentive, and it would give industry more input in to what is offered at university. I'm not "for" fees, personally, but I do think the Irish system - blanket coverage of fees, regardless of what's being studied - has led to a workforce lacking graduates with the technical skills that industry needs.

HeLlDoItHeCrAzY

Just A Hypothetical Case:

Dairy farm, medium sized.

2 men working on it, one living on farm with wife and 3 sons. Wife stay at home wife. So only one incoming wage. Lets say roughly 30-35,000 then for this family a year take home... fair enough house is old and theres no mortgage, but the 3 boys now in college.. fees introduced.. 8,000 euros roughly for a year in college (not including 4,000 accommodation each, and living expenses and books etc, plus the inevitable going out pushing it up to 6-8000 each(optomistically)) if all 3 in at same time, thats over 20 grand on fees alone.. plus another 20 grand on accomodation, living, travelling, books etc!!.... thats 40,000+ euros, a year!!.. 10,000 more than they make a year.. multiply by average course length of 4 years, and you begin to see my point..

by the way, this is not hypothetical, this is a real situatuion.. and its reality for alot of people.. bring in fees, and people simply wont have a choice, they wont be able to go to college full stop.. we pay our taxes for free education... take away this and many will be left wondering, why am i paying taxes at all??? i see no motorways outside ,my window.. my school building is over a hundred years old, road outside my house hasnt been resurfaced in a decade, health system sucks, guards dont stop boy racers bombing down my road.. <<not my situation, but again, you see my point

HeLlDoItHeCrAzY

graduate wrote: »

Persons without a grasp of the use of the apostrophe should be charged extra.

people who are anal enough to be condenscending on people for things like that should get life '''''''''''!!

papajimsmooth

If fees were brought in for just the wealthy, it would only lead to the eventual payment of fees for every student. Also most wealthy people have ways of hiding there income through business etc, so they people who could afford to pay never really will.

Tayto2000

HeLlDoItHeCrAzY wrote: »

Just A Hypothetical Case:

Dairy farm, medium sized.

Two words - Means testing.

Labreya

I'd care more if people stopped talking such utter garbage about it towards me, and coming up with such backwards ideas of going up against fees. If they come in, I can't pay them, and thats that.

I don't think it's fair, as it cuts people out, but thats life. Sometimes people will do unfair things and throw a wall of crap in your way. You just gotta wade through as best you can.

I'd care more if people didn't try and shove facts about it down my throat when I'm trying to make the most of my cheap-as-hell roll for lunch.

I mean, I was asked to sign a petition to close the college for 24 hours.

Why would I give up a day when it looks like I might be told to stuff it next year because of fees? Get real. To me, that just sounds like people trying to make up an excuse for themselves to get a day off without feeling guilty.

mloc

A lot of it just comes down to the dangerous political wave riding of the left at the moment.

Government:
"I'm sorry, we don't have enough money to pay you guys as much any more. There will have to be cutbacks."

Opportunist left-wing:
"They're lying! They have loads of money! Let's all just go on strike, no way are WE taking a cutback!"

Worker:
"Sounds good. What does recession mean anyway?"

Opportunist left-wing:
"It's when the government steals all your money. Don't ask questions... get marching!"

That kind of behaviour in non-recession times is irresponsible. In a recession, its plain dangerous.

HeLlDoItHeCrAzY

Labreya wrote: »

I'd care more if people stopped talking such utter garbage about it towards me, and coming up with such backwards ideas of going up against fees. If they come in, I can't pay them, and thats that.

I don't think it's fair, as it cuts people out, but thats life. Sometimes people will do unfair things and throw a wall of crap in your way. You just gotta wade through as best you can.

I'd care more if people didn't try and shove facts about it down my throat when I'm trying to make the most of my cheap-as-hell roll for lunch.

I mean, I was asked to sign a petition to close the college for 24 hours.

Why would I give up a day when it looks like I might be told to stuff it next year because of fees? Get real. To me, that just sounds like people trying to make up an excuse for themselves to get a day off without feeling guilty.

mloc wrote: »

A lot of it just comes down to the dangerous political wave riding of the left at the moment.

Government:
"I'm sorry, we don't have enough money to pay you guys as much any more. There will have to be cutbacks."

Opportunist left-wing:
"They're lying! They have loads of money! Let's all just go on strike, no way are WE taking a cutback!"

Worker:
"Sounds good. What does recession mean anyway?"

Opportunist left-wing:
"It's when the government steals all your money. Don't ask questions... get marching!"

That kind of behaviour in non-recession times is irresponsible. In a recession, its plain dangerous.

yeah ah mloc?? this is what labreya was gettin at.. stop throwing crap our way!!.... we DONT care.. simple fact>> I CANNOT afford college if they bring fees back!.. And Im NOT POOR!.. That shud be the end of the argument.. if anyone else still feels like they want to argue for throwing away my and thousands more future, please be my guest.. i hope you wrot in Hell

mloc

HeLlDoItHeCrAzY wrote: »

yeah ah mloc?? this is what labreya was gettin at.. stop throwing crap our way!!.... we DONT care.. simple fact>> I CANNOT afford college if they bring fees back!.. And Im NOT POOR!.. That shud be the end of the argument.. if anyone else still feels like they want to argue for throwing away my and thousands more future, please be my guest.. i hope you wrot in Hell

Well put sir, but I imagine it won't be an issue for you as by the sounds of things you might still have secondary school to go through first.

HeLlDoItHeCrAzY

mloc wrote: »

Well put sir, but I imagine it won't be an issue for you as by the sounds of things you might still have secondary school to go through first.

again your missing the point.. If I did have to go through 'secondaey school' and then went to college, I wouldnt be able to pay?.. and to set the record straight, I am FINISHED secondary school.. I deffered a year to earn some money, and with the points I got in the LC, I'll have no problem getting into virtually any course next year, and then I 'WILL BE' a college student! so dont jump so quicly with your conclusions..

Phosphorus

And what about a system based on merit?

Everybody pays fees. If you reach a certain level of performance at the end of the year, you get your money (or at least a portion of it) back. Whether you are poor or not doesn't matter, what matters is if you actually put the time at the uni you have to good use.

Just my 2c.

Jammyc

Tayto2000 wrote: »

Two words - Means testing.

If fees are reintroduced, are they gona be means tested?

Donald-Duck

Labreya wrote: »

I'd care more if people stopped talking such utter garbage about it towards me, and coming up with such backwards ideas of going up against fees. If they come in, I can't pay them, and thats that.

The worst are the retards applying for SU positions

bnt

What I would say about protests is: they are already "factored in" to the equation. The powers-that-be are expecting them already, and already know what their responses will be (if they need to respond at all). They won't affect the decisions that have been made and will be made.

So what could change the decision to introduce fees? The same thing that caused it to come up in the first place: numbers. It's all about the figures in the government budgets, revenue incoming (tax etc.) and outgoings.

I think some folks are taking it personally, as if someone in government made a decision to attack students and universities, as if they don't like us. But it's not personal: it's just government. They already know we're not going to like fees - duh! - but how do we tell them something they don't already know?

Stabshauptmann

bnt wrote: »

What I would say about protests is: they are already "factored in" to the equation. The powers-that-be are expecting them already, and already know what their responses will be (if they need to respond at all). They won't affect the decisions that have been made and will be made.

So what could change the decision to introduce fees? The same thing that caused it to come up in the first place: numbers. It's all about the figures in the government budgets, revenue incoming (tax etc.) and outgoings.

I think some folks are taking it personally, as if someone in government made a decision to attack students and universities, as if they don't like us. But it's not personal: it's just government. They already know we're not going to like fees - duh! - but how do we tell them something they don't already know?

There are two things governements are concerned with, running the country, and staying in power.

I am of the opinion that the latter is more important. The governement knows there will be protests, and they have estimates of how it will impact their popularity. What might change their mind is if those estimates are proved wrong.

passive

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

There are two things governements are concerned with, running the country, and staying in power.

I am of the opinion that the latter is more important. The governement knows there will be protests, and they have estimates of how it will impact their popularity. What might change their mind is if those estimates are proved wrong.

I'd be of the opinion that this govt, at this time, wouldn't really worry too much about losing it, since they'll be out soon anyway, and it's in their interests to be out of power for the worst of it, so they can take the reins if/when someone else steadies things a bit, no?

bnt

If anyone's interested in an only-slightly-technical analysis of the current Irish financial situation, I can recommend this article, by a couple of Trinity Professors.

The part that's relevant to this discussion is their description of what the government seems to be doing, and what the authors think they should be doing:

The government’s stated strategy ... has been to undertake fiscal adjustment in a gradualist fashion, with the goal of returning the general government deficit to below the 3% limit by 2013.

Translation: the government isn't planning major changes that quickly, currently.

Accordingly, the most prudent strategy at this point is to front load the fiscal adjustment. Along one dimension, it is now time for the government to increase tax rates and eliminate a host of tax breaks, rather than deferring such moves to next year’s budget. In relation to public spending, more needs to be done in terms of controlling current spending.

Translation: the authors think the government needs to extract and save as much money as they can a.s.a.p. Third Level Fees would be a good example of "public spending" in the sense they use. So, though they don't mention fees explicitly...

Labreya

Donald-Duck wrote: »

The worst are the retards applying for SU positions

OH GODS!!

I HATE the SU. They do bugger all for students in reality! They feed people nothing but empty promises and lies to get the position, and when they get it they prat about and don't even do anything remotely like they promise.

I'm convinced they all just want it so they have something decent on their c.v.

Fad

Labreya wrote: »

OH GODS!!

I HATE the SU. They do bugger all for students in reality! They feed people nothing but empty promises and lies to get the position, and when they get it they prat about and don't even do anything remotely like they promise.

I'm convinced they all just want it so they have something decent on their c.v.

If you could do a better job, then why dont you run for it:pac:

33% God

Labreya wrote: »

OH GODS!!

I HATE the SU. They do bugger all for students in reality! They feed people nothing but empty promises and lies to get the position, and when they get it they prat about and don't even do anything remotely like they promise.

I'm convinced they all just want it so they have something decent on their c.v.

:rolleyes:
I like the SU if for no other reason than without them my home would be enclosed by gates and guards.

But judging by your posts you seem to hate everything anyway.

Fad

33% God wrote: »

:rolleyes:
I like the SU if for no other reason than without them my home would be enclosed by gates and guards.

But judging by your posts you seem to hate everything anyway.

He hates it so much that he dropped out, thus voiding his right to an opinion:)

Antagonist

HeLlDoItHeCrAzY wrote: »

again your missing the point.. If I did have to go through 'secondaey school' and then went to college, I wouldnt be able to pay?.. and to set the record straight, I am FINISHED secondary school.. I deffered a year to earn some money, and with the points I got in the LC, I'll have no problem getting into virtually any course next year, and then I 'WILL BE' a college student! so dont jump so quicly with your conclusions..

I think you missed his point, it is that you are clearly illiterate and unconcerned about it. Unfortunately this means you will probably fit right in.
A good alternative to introducing fees, which this brings to mind, is that you could continue without them but raise the standard across the board, i mean sure it would probably keep the same number from going to college but atleast it wouldn't discriminate based on income. Can't use an apostrophe? Then you don't get to go to college.

The big problem with this proposed not attending college for a day(which there is now apparently going to be a referendum on) is as was pointed out that it sends the message that college students just want to skive off(which might be true for most anyway) but on the other side if the idea is rejected then that sends the message that they don't care very much anyway. Whoever's idea it was, they've really bent us over the fence.

Labreya

Fad wrote: »

If you could do a better job, then why dont you run for it:pac:

I wouldn't run, because I'd probably end up making a load of empty promises I can't keep aswell.

But at least I have the decency to know I'd be crap at the job BEFORE I try and do it!

33% God wrote: »

:rolleyes:
But judging by your posts you seem to hate everything anyway.

No.

I freaking love the staff in the SU shop in science. If you ask them to get stuff in, the do!

33% God wrote: »

He hates it so much that he dropped out, thus voiding his right to an opinion

No, I have a right to an opinion. My dropping out just makes it invalid.:D

mloc

Antagonist wrote: »

The big problem with this proposed not attending college for a day.

This proposed "protest" must be some of the most infantile, opportunistic, misguided and pathetic attention seeking behaviour ever seen in UCD.

All it does is give those who have been providing this constant "anti-fees" white noise prattle a day off to tarnish the image of students by more embarassing slogan chanting and still no suggestion of realistic alternatives.

TDOie

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

They decided to work harder and/or longer hours and you want to punish them for this?

You'd take the view that the person who makes the most money is the person who works the hardest and/or longest hours? Thats a very flawed logic dont you think?
Not everyone was born with the oppertunity to go to University or get better job prospects.To take the view that someone busting their ass in Tesco's 60 hours a week on minimum wage doesnt work hard enough or long enough is totally flawed and narrow minded.

Punish people who earn more? Well judging by the government recent decisions it seems to me that the Public sector is getting hit the hardest ( the majority of which are on average or lower pay) THIS doesnt seem fair to me.

mad lad

mloc wrote: »

still no suggestion of realistic alternatives.

A publicly funded education system with tuition fees paid for through a progressive tax system. Combine this with programs aimed at adressing the barriers to education at earlier levels level (like school rentention initatives, proper language support services, an adequately funded National Educational Welfare Board to reduce truancy, the back to education allowance, childcare grants for VTOs, a decent grant system etc).

The only 2 countries in the OECD that have substantially increased the ratio of people from lower socio-ecnomic backgrounds entering tertiary education are Sweden and the Netherlands - they've done it through taxation. It's empiracal, look for any of Clancys stuff in the library on access to education.

If you can provide examples of countries in which the introduction of tuition fees has helped to increase equality of access, I'm all ears.

Stabshauptmann

TDOie wrote: »

You'd take the view that the person who makes the most money is the person who works the hardest and/or longest hours? Thats a very flawed logic dont you think?

No, I think its simplistic logic, but not so simple as to be flawed

Not everyone was born with the oppertunity to go to University or get better job prospects.

True that they may not have had the opportunity to go to college, but not as many high paying jobs at that time required a college education.
I know far too many self made men over the age of 50 who literally started with nothing to believe that there was anyone who couldnt succeed.

To take the view that someone busting their ass in Tesco's 60 hours a week on minimum wage doesnt work hard enough or long enough is totally flawed and narrow minded.

Ive worked in department stores, its not difficult work. Tesco also isnt minimum wage and you wouldnt get a 60 hour week off them.

Tesco is handy work that any monkey can do with half a days training.

Punish people who earn more? Well judging by the government recent decisions it seems to me that the Public sector is getting hit the hardest ( the majority of which are on average or lower pay) THIS doesnt seem fair to me.

You seem completely oblivious to what is going on in the job market at the moment. There have been massive redundancies and pay cuts in the private sector, the public sector are not taking the brunt of things nor are they being treated harsher than their private sector counter parts.

dattley

TDOie wrote: »

Not FULL Fee's for everyone but like I think that the rich should pay for education (People with an income of over 150,000 or 100,000 or some set number around that). I dont think the average tax payer (Who Earns about $43,000 I think) Should pay for the Rich. Anyone feel the same?

I don't know any students who make 100k a year. Do you?

Mini_Moose

dattley wrote: »

I don't know any students who make 100k a year. Do you?

Frankly this is a very good point. I am a student too but am very much in favour of the reintrodution of fees.

The hypothetical argument made about the farmer having three children all needing to go to college at the one time effectively causing their expenditure related to attendance exceeding the family's income is a very poor one.

While some people will be lucky enough to have parents that could pay for them every step of the way many people won't and regardless I think everyone should have to pay fees.

As far as I can see the most effective solution would be for the government to introduce a facility for students to take out interest free loans, much like the system sed in some other EU countries.
And before anyone says it no they won't be crippled by debt once they leave university rendering the the whole process meaningless.


On a slightly different note there are far too many people going to university who frankly take it for granted and do next to no work. If education is a right at least make the most of it! The introduction of fees may go some way to changing peoples lazy attitudes.

theboat

I'm not completely sold one way or the other, but I do feel that nobody needs 100 grand or more to live on. So, it's not entirely unfair to expect parents earning that kind of money to pay more for their kids' college than those on ~30,000.
It's pretty difficult to say "that job's much harder than this one" etc., but I don't think that, by and large, the highest earners are those who always work the hardest of the longest. To take one example: to be a professional musician, it takes many years of intensive practice, anti-social hours and working in crappy venues, and you still don't make more than an average wage.
The fact is, some jobs just pay more than others. If you're lucky enough to be in one of those (be it through hard work or whatever else) I don't think it's unreasonable to charge fees for your children's education, seeing as the system badly needs more money.

But, as I said at the start, I'm not fully decided on anything...

Stabshauptmann

theboat wrote: »

I'm not completely sold one way or the other, but I do feel that nobody needs 100 grand or more to live on.

Thankfully we dont live in a communist state. People who chose to do what it takes to earn this much money find uses for it.

So, it's not entirely unfair to expect parents earning that kind of money to pay more for their kids' college than those on ~30,000.

They do, they pay far far more.
Lets use the example you choose, 100k vs 30k. The first person earns just over three times what the second does, but pays more than 8 times as much tax. Infact in your example, the rich person pays more tax than the average person earns in a year.

I wish that muppets would stop taking through their ass' about what people can afford to pay when they know nothing about what the current system is.

It's pretty difficult to say "that job's much harder than this one" etc., but I don't think that, by and large, the highest earners are those who always work the hardest of the longest. To take one example: to be a professional musician, it takes many years of intensive practice, anti-social hours and working in crappy venues, and you still don't make more than an average wage.

Not true. My brother, sister, housemate, and several of my close friends are musicians (2 of them full time). A half decent musician in Ireland could earn 200eur a gig. 200eur for one hours work. And Im not talking about people you'd have even heard of, just the random guy in the corner playing his guitar and singing covers. Again, dont talk through your arse.

The fact is, some jobs just pay more than others.

No, its not just random. Its supply and demand. Its basic economics. Those with the most valuable skills are paid more. So either you can do something that not many other people can - like being a really good musician, or you can do something that is badly needed - like construction a few years back.
Its not random.

If you're lucky enough to be in one of those (be it through hard work or whatever else) I don't think it's unreasonable to charge fees for your children's education, seeing as the system badly needs more money.

Eh, more socialist / communist BS? From each according to their ability eh? Whats the point in working twice as hard as your neighbour if you dont get paid more? If people have no incentive to work harder they dont.

But, as I said at the start, I'm not fully decided on anything...

You're not informed on anything.

theboat

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Thankfully we dont live in a communist state. People who chose to do what it takes to earn this much money find uses for it.



They do, they pay far far more.
Lets use the example you choose, 100k vs 30k. The first person earns just over three times what the second does, but pays more than 8 times as much tax. Infact in your example, the rich person pays more tax than the average person earns in a year.

Point taken.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I wish that muppets would stop taking through their ass' about what people can afford to pay when they know nothing about what the current system is.

A little unnecessary. I never professed to be an expert.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Not true. My brother, sister, housemate, and several of my close friends are musicians (2 of them full time). A half decent musician in Ireland could earn 200eur a gig. 200eur for one hours work. And Im not talking about people you'd have even heard of, just the random guy in the corner playing his guitar and singing covers. Again, dont talk through your arse.

My dad's one of those "random guys in the corner", so I'm not actually 'talking through my arse' (nice). He might make 200e for a gig, but he still only makes a just about average week's wages, and the working conditions are often unpleasant, and as I said, it takes much longer than 4 years of college to become properly 'qualified' to work as a musician.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

No, its not just random. Its supply and demand. Its basic economics. Those with the most valuable skills are paid more. So either you can do something that not many other people can - like being a really good musician, or you can do something that is badly needed - like construction a few years back.
Its not random.

Fine, but...

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Eh, more socialist / communist BS? From each according to their ability eh? Whats the point in working twice as hard as your neighbour if you dont get paid more? If people have no incentive to work harder they dont.

I never said anything about working twice as hard. Those who do deserve to get paid more, but that often doesn't happen.I was also going to mention something about job satisfaction and other "yeah-but-not-in-the-real world" 'BS', but you'd probably berate me.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

You're not informed on anything.

That's not quite fair or accurate.:rolleyes:

Also:

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

taking through their ass'

I refer you to an earlier post by graduate...