WTF!!!- Rudd to bring back compulsory Study Unionism in 2009!!!

[Mark]

This isn't a reintroduction of VSU. The provision of student services suffered dramatically due to Howard's introduction of VSU so obviously there was a need to somehow revive them. Instead of making student unionism compulsory, Rudd's introducing this...the fees will NOT be going to student unions, but rather the individual university - which will be expected to provide student services.

And also, the fee is not going to be $250 for the majority of students - that's just the maximum it can be.

I can't believe people are getting so worked up about this, it's a good thing for students!

[cara.mel]

If my $55 went (almost) nowhere, what on earth would $250 get me.


I already pay fees to the individual university (to get a degree), why should I need to pay for things I don't/won't use.

[Mark]

^Same reason we have to pay taxes for roads, libraries, hospitals and other things we may never use. Of course it's ultimately up to you whether or not you utilise the services - the point is that they're made available for those who need them.

[wallah11]

I suppose its like paying your ambulance membership, you may never use it but when you do there are no charges and any fees you have paid over the years go into the service to improve it making it better for you when your in need

[excal]

There's a difference to paying for a service you think you may need in future, and being forced to pay that fee.

I still am of the belief that a voluntary student union fee is the best solution, but to allow students to pay for this through their HELP loan.

[Collin Li]

This isn't a reintroduction of VSU. The provision of student services suffered dramatically due to Howard's introduction of VSU so obviously there was a need to somehow revive them. Instead of making student unionism compulsory, Rudd's introducing this...the fees will NOT be going to student unions, but rather the individual university - which will be expected to provide student services.

And also, the fee is not going to be $250 for the majority of students - that's just the maximum it can be.

I can't believe people are getting so worked up about this, it's a good thing for students!

If it was really such a good thing, then voluntary student unionism would be no problem. I'd voluntarily pay for it.

Excuse me, I think I know what I want to purchase, and I should have the right to spend my money freely. Don't go around imposing onto others what you think is good for them.

[Collin Li]

^Same reason we have to pay taxes for roads, libraries, hospitals and other things we may never use. Of course it's ultimately up to you whether or not you utilise the services - the point is that they're made available for those who need them.

And what is that reason exactly? You do realise that just because we do it, it doesn't make it justified.

There is an immense amount of moral hazard involved in having public insurance on things like healthcare, for example.

[costargh]

This isn't a reintroduction of VSU. The provision of student services suffered dramatically due to Howard's introduction of VSU so obviously there was a need to somehow revive them. Instead of making student unionism compulsory, Rudd's introducing this...the fees will NOT be going to student unions, but rather the individual university - which will be expected to provide student services.

And also, the fee is not going to be $250 for the majority of students - that's just the maximum it can be.

I can't believe people are getting so worked up about this, it's a good thing for students!

It's just a re-branding. Just like Rudd rebraded Workchoice as "Individual Transitional Employment Agreements"

[Mark]

^Same reason we have to pay taxes for roads, libraries, hospitals and other things we may never use. Of course it's ultimately up to you whether or not you utilise the services - the point is that they're made available for those who need them.

And what is that reason exactly? You do realise that just because we do it, it doesn't make it justified.

There is an immense amount of moral hazard involved in having public insurance on things like healthcare, for example.

The reason is to provide a high standard of living for all Australians and not just those who can afford it. Personally when I enter the workforce I'll be happy to pay taxes to ensure the most vulnerable members of society can get basic healthcare and assistance. Fair enough if you disagree, but this is essentially the basis of many healthy and successful liberal democracies worldwide.

[Collin Li]

Actually, the basis of many healthy and successful liberal democracies is a liberalised and deregulated marketplace. A nice example is the USA, where they have a horrible healthcare and education system, because it tries to imitate the policies used in the socialist democracies of Europe. On the other hand, their more liberalised industries are very successful.

I have no problem with helping out the vulnerable members of society, but charity is an act of an individual, not one of coercion.

[Mark]

But the United States is the only developed nation which doesn't provide universal healthcare to its citizens...how is that an imitation of Europe's social democracies (which have some of highest rates of living standards and productivity in the world)?

The USA has a largely market-driven healthcare system, and as you've said, their system is horrible. Clearly, this is an area in which government intervention is appropriate.

As for the charity comment, unfortunately people aren't intrinsically altruistic. Suggesting that if the market were left free from government intervention people would willingly choose to donate to charity or other social causes is flawed, because people are selfish. If this were the case, the consequence would be widespread inequality and disadvantage which is undesirable for an economy.

[Collin Li]

Well then, if no one wants to donate, then why should the government be promoting a cause that steals from those who earned it, to give to those who didn't?

The USA does not have a market-driven system for healthcare or education. The USA has great innovation in healthcare because research is market-based. Their tertiary education is excellent, but it is their lower-end services that fail because of the presence of government - public schooling, for example.

Markets work best when you pay for what you use.

[Collin Li]

Also, this bill does nothing like what you propose. It will not be subsidised by taxpayers, it is just a forced cost onto you. It essentially says: I don't care whether you want this or not, you're going to buy it. This is very unlike socialised healthcare and education, which is paid for by the taxpayer, and not paid for in full by your own cash.

[Mark]

Well then, if no one wants to donate, then why should the government be promoting a cause that steals from those who earned it, to give to those who didn't?

Because there are both economic and social costs associated with high income inequality. I think anyone would agree that it is detrimental to a society to have a massive gap between the rich and poor, which comes to exist when markets are left free from government intervention. For example, when the 'Chicago Boys' took reign of the Chilean economy between 1973 and 1989 average wages plummeted, the minimum wage plummeted and the standard of living steadily decreased and the poverty rate saw a massive increase. Another example is New Zealand, which in the 80s and 90s also saw large scale deregulation (although not to the extent of Chile). Again, there was a massive increase in poverty and economic growth stagnated, despite the rest of the world's economy growing steadily.

As you know from studying economics, markets sometimes fail due to the existence of externalities. That's why the government needs to intervene in issues such as healthcare, education and other social issues to ensure a high standard of living for people. Remember, the economy exists in order to benefit the people - not the other way around.

Also, this bill does nothing like what you propose. It will not be subsidised by taxpayers, it is just a forced cost onto you. It essentially says: I don't care whether you want this or not, you're going to buy it. This is very unlike socialised healthcare and education, which is paid for by the taxpayer, and not paid for in full by your own cash.

I never proposed that the system is subsidised by taxpayers. I was just pointing out that even though there will of course be people who don't utilise the services, the simple existence of the services will fundamentally benefit the majority of students. My example was that just as some people don't use libraries (but still pay taxes), some people will not use student services.

It's certainly an interesting argument. Maybe we should make a thread about government intervention in the economy?

[Eriny]

There are many of those threads.
Oh so many.