Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 04-26-2019, 11:51 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Itís also okay to acknowledge the objectively true, undebatable fact that the Republican Party needs to be eradicated (or annihilated, whatever it takes to make it not exist anymore), for the good of the country planet species.
That's a cute opinion, but there's nothing even remotely factual about it.
  #252  
Old 04-26-2019, 11:57 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
No, I do not want my kids or future grandkids burdened by high college debt.

This is why my wife and I and the kids grandparents started a college fund for them when they were born. I will do the same for future grandkids.

Its what families do.
It's what families do when they have sufficient excess money to do so. When you're just making enough to get by, or even still struggling to pay off your own student loans, that's a lot trickier to navigate.

In a 2014 survey by the Federal Reserve, 47% of the respondents indicated they would be unable to cover a $400 emergency expense without borrowing money or selling something, including 14% who simply wouldn't be able to cover it, period. A 2017 survey by CareerBuilder had more than half of the respondents (56%) admitting they saved less than $100/month; that's retirement, their emergency fund, their kids' education, and any other savings account.
  #253  
Old 04-27-2019, 01:05 AM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 4,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
If you can actually show that higher education is in the diseconomies of scale region of the cost curve, hie thee to thine nearest high-impact journal with that discovery. Just be ready to address the existing literature on the topic.
Ummm . . . I'm pretty sure you missed the entire conversation. Ultra said the program would be massively expensive and most students would leave the program. I pointed out that if most students left the program the cost would drop dramatically. You jumped in saying attendance numbers had nothing to do with cost. I showed you why that was stupid so now you're talking about economies of scale?

In case you were unaware economies of scale apply to per item cost not to total cost. For instance i have to buy a mold to make children's toys. The mold costs $10k and the plastic for the toy costs $0.10. If I only make 1 toy they toy costs 10,000.01 if I make 10,000 toys they each cost $1.10 that is where economies of scale come into play but my total project cost to make 1 toy was $10,000.01 while to make the 10k toys it was $11,000. So I spent more money to make more toys.

Why don't you explain why you think large colleges don't have smaller budgets then small colleges? Here I'll start you off the total CU Boulder FY18 budget was $1.8 billion while the Colorado School of Mines budget was 304 million
  #254  
Old 04-27-2019, 07:31 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
In case you were unaware economies of scale apply to per item cost not to total cost.
And reducing the number of students going to public school is going to raise the cost to educate each of those students. And if we're "right back where we started" then we still have a loan program for everyone else plus more expensive education for each public school student.
  #255  
Old 04-27-2019, 09:02 AM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
2. On your #2 post, some for profit colleges are terrible about this. I have a friend who spent about $80,000 going to Devry because they promised him a 6 figure job after graduation. I know another person who spent about $40,000 for a court reporter course and found out there were no jobs in that area. Even regular colleges back in the day would lie about employment opportunities or say things like "follow your dreams" to get students into worthless programs. This is why I like colleges like Lake Area Tech who actually can show a. how many students graduated 6 months ago b. where they are working, and c. how much they are making. Granted most colleges are way too big to allow this.
Lake Area Tech is one of those for-profit colleges required to show those statistics, at least until Devos gets her way.

Incidentally, the agency that gives their accreditation (Higher Learning Commission) is under fire from the Office of the Inspector General for how they monitor for-profit colleges.

Quote:
In 2009, the Office of the Inspector General of the US Department of Education (OIG-ED) criticized the Higher Learning Commission's oversight of for-profit colleges and recommended that the agency consider "limiting, suspending, or terminating the organization's status."[5]
In 2010, the OIG reaffirmed their recommendation that the department consider sanctions for the HLC. It also critically reviewed the accreditation status of American InterContinental University and The Art Institute of Colorado, two for-profit colleges.[6]
In 2015, the OIG-ED issued a critical audit on the review process the HLC used while considering collegesí proposals for competency-based credentials.[7]
  #256  
Old 04-27-2019, 04:39 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
Lake Area Tech is one of those for-profit colleges required to show those statistics, at least until Devos gets her way.

Incidentally, the agency that gives their accreditation (Higher Learning Commission) is under fire from the Office of the Inspector General for how they monitor for-profit colleges.
Well maybe sort of but its under the South Dakota state technical education commission. Incidentally they won the Aspen prize for #1 2 year college in 2017

Also Barak Obama go there to give the 2015 commencement address?

the school was also profiled in the Harvard Business Review.

Also covered in Time magazine.

so I dont think they are the greedy for profit school your thinking.
  #257  
Old 04-27-2019, 06:49 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Well maybe sort of but its under the South Dakota state technical education commission. Incidentally they won the Aspen prize for #1 2 year college in 2017

Also Barak Obama go there to give the 2015 commencement address?

the school was also profiled in the Harvard Business Review.

Also covered in Time magazine.

so I dont think they are the greedy for profit school your thinking.
You seem to think Irishman is attacking Lake Area Tech. You might want to reread what you quoted.
  #258  
Old 04-28-2019, 11:10 AM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,479
Urbanredneck, I can see how you might have read my post as a criticism of Lake Area Tech's quality.

My point was touched upon previously in this thread by the discussion on oversight of for-profit colleges, and how Obama instituted the requirements that they maintain and publish the performance statistics that you are lauding Lake Area Tech for showing. It's unlikely they would be doing so otherwise. And Besty Devos is busy trying to undo that policy.

As an aside, I mentioned the accreditation issue. I'm not sure what the "South Dakota state technical education commission" is supposed to be. The school is managed by the South Dakota Department of Education Board of Education, but that is not an accrediting institution. Accrediting is a separate oversight.


Incidentally, that Wikipedia page states that the primary culprits for accrediting standard looseness with for-profit schools is via the national accrediting agencies, not the regional ones set up by the DoE. So that puts a better light on Lake Area Tech, being overseen by a regional accreditation agency. Of course, as cited, that agency has come under criticism for how it oversees for-profit schools, so while overall regional accreditation is seen as more stringent, there is still weakness in the for-profit area.

Lake Area Tech seems like a quality technical school. However, the two biggest names in technical school from a few years ago (ITT Tech and DeVry) both had major issues with overstating their employment rates and student loan practices. Thus the scrutiny on for-profit tech schools.
  #259  
Old 04-28-2019, 11:36 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Donít be silly. Free things donít cost money. Thatís why they call it ďfree.Ē
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I truly cannot tell if you believe this or are being sarcastic.
Just clowning around, there.
  #260  
Old 04-29-2019, 06:42 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
Urbanredneck, I can see how you might have read my post as a criticism of Lake Area Tech's quality.

My point was touched upon previously in this thread by the discussion on oversight of for-profit colleges, and how Obama instituted the requirements that they maintain and publish the performance statistics that you are lauding Lake Area Tech for showing. It's unlikely they would be doing so otherwise. And Besty Devos is busy trying to undo that policy.

As an aside, I mentioned the accreditation issue. I'm not sure what the "South Dakota state technical education commission" is supposed to be. The school is managed by the South Dakota Department of Education Board of Education, but that is not an accrediting institution. Accrediting is a separate oversight.


Incidentally, that Wikipedia page states that the primary culprits for accrediting standard looseness with for-profit schools is via the national accrediting agencies, not the regional ones set up by the DoE. So that puts a better light on Lake Area Tech, being overseen by a regional accreditation agency. Of course, as cited, that agency has come under criticism for how it oversees for-profit schools, so while overall regional accreditation is seen as more stringent, there is still weakness in the for-profit area.

Lake Area Tech seems like a quality technical school. However, the two biggest names in technical school from a few years ago (ITT Tech and DeVry) both had major issues with overstating their employment rates and student loan practices. Thus the scrutiny on for-profit tech schools.
Ok, I see your point now.

Due to the fact that tech schools dont offer traditional coursework you see at the university level, accreditation is trickier. For example at Mitchel Tech, their HVAC program is accredited by somebody called the Esco Group. Their culinary department by the American Culinary Association.Here is a link to their accreditation page.

Interestingly, Lake Area Tech, plus several others in South Dakota like Southeast Area Tech, located in Sioux Falls actually started out as traditional high school vo-tech programs. STI still is under the Sioux Falls School Board. A few years ago the state of South Dakota decided to push and promote their programs, making them full adult technical schools while still having high school students.

It has worked out well for South Dakota. They get a talented workforce with skills in demand by employers in the state also like 70% of graduates stay in South Dakota.

BTW, Any school like Devry which spends so much money on commercials and gives their recruiters bonus money should not be trusted.
  #261  
Old 04-29-2019, 10:43 AM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,360
A few notes I'd like to point out, in no particular order:

First, even when I was a college student, I viewed my education as an investment. I had a football scholarship at one point (pre-blown out knee) and I didn't really care what the college cost. When I had to pay for it, I then cared a lot. Was the expensive Boston college worth the debt I'd have to carry, or was the small, state school almost as good and not worth the cost. I chose wisely and went to the small state school. College is an investment like anything else. If the stock isn't worth the price, don't buy it. If the college isn't worth the cost that you'll pay, don't go.

Those two college costs today? $10,000 for the year in one and $55,000 per year for the other. If you want to go to school in Boston and pay an extra $180,000 that's your call. Just don't complain about it later. There are less expensive options.

I had a bunch of college roommates. Some stayed, some went home. There's close to a direct correlation between daddy paying for school and quitting on the one hand, and having skin in the game and finding a way to persevere.

Lastly, and this should be apparent. Last time I checked, we are running HUGE deficits and the national debt is skyrocketing. Social security can't meet all of it's current obligations in less than 20 years. Shouldn't we be concerned about giving everyone another free ice cream cone, especially when we haven't paid for all of the other goodies yet?
  #262  
Old 04-29-2019, 11:59 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
Lastly, and this should be apparent. Last time I checked, we are running HUGE deficits and the national debt is skyrocketing. Social security can't meet all of it's current obligations in less than 20 years. Shouldn't we be concerned about giving everyone another free ice cream cone, especially when we haven't paid for all of the other goodies yet?
If only there were a way to pay for the deficit. Hmmm, let me ponder this some. I'm sure smarter people than me have figured this out and have made the proper steps in the past few years.....hmmm, no, looks like we've gone in the opposite direction.
  #263  
Old 04-29-2019, 12:56 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
I'm still not convinced this is the huge problem people say it is.

Yes, I can read stats too. However talking to college recruiters and parents out there from what I can tell is most students go into a college experience with eyes wide open and they dont rack up $200,000 in debt unless a. they are incredibly naive and rack up $100,000 on getting an art degree or b. they are going into a career like medicine where they should* make the money to pay off those loans.

At my sons school for example, they are graduating about 400 kids and most of them are starting at a community college for the first 2 years.

A more realistic number is about $20,000 to $40,000 (its actually about $32,000) in loans and if a person can get into a job making $40,000 (for example in Kansas a first year teacher makes about $42,000) AND they go hard in knocking out that loan, they can pay it off in 2-4 years or so. Granted, they might have to continue the pauper college student lifestyle during those 4 years (ex. live with parents, drive a clunker, eat ramen) but it can be done.

So instead of having "free college", which will create more problems than it solves, we need to do more to help families save for college (ex. better tax incentives for 529 plans), encourage more people to create scholarships, and get colleges to hold the line on costs. For example, why is the University of Nebraska paying $328,000 for an ASSISTANT basketball coach?


*unfortunately many people in "fancy" careers like doctors, dentists, and some lawyers, when they get out of college, instead of living cheap and paying off their college loans, suffer from "doctor-itis" and go out and buy a house, a BMW and such so they incur even more debt and make it harder to pay off those loans.
  #264  
Old 04-29-2019, 01:15 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
If only there were a way to pay for the deficit. Hmmm, let me ponder this some. I'm sure smarter people than me have figured this out and have made the proper steps in the past few years.....hmmm, no, looks like we've gone in the opposite direction.
We can cut taxes even more, then the resultant economic explosive expansion will result in even MORE taxes collected.
  #265  
Old 04-29-2019, 01:34 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
We can cut taxes even more, then the resultant economic explosive expansion will result in even MORE taxes collected.
Heh we can laugh all we want, but this debt is ours, close to $70,000 for every man woman and child in the US.

And crap on Trump all you want. But each President since Kennedy (and to Roosevelt depending on how you want to count it) had increased the debt, both liberal and conservative. So point fingers all you'd like but they are all guilty.

The only constant is the American people who won't vote for someone who says they will cut programs and raise taxes.
  #266  
Old 04-29-2019, 01:35 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,936
Or we could make college free, and then tax revenues go up automatically because going to college is always a good investment for everyone and no matter what you major in. Why, I bet the Womyn's Studies department will pay for itself in a few years! Not to mention the massive, unfilled demand for art teachers.

Or maybe Elizabeth Warren isn't trying for the economics majors' votes.

Regards,
Shodan
  #267  
Old 04-30-2019, 01:25 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
If only there were a way to pay for the deficit. Hmmm, let me ponder this some. I'm sure smarter people than me have figured this out and have made the proper steps in the past few years.....hmmm, no, looks like we've gone in the opposite direction.
Print trillion dollar bills?
  #268  
Old 04-30-2019, 06:00 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
A more realistic number is about $20,000 to $40,000 (its actually about $32,000) in loans
The mean is skewed by the few with monster debts. The median undergrad-only debt is even lower.
  #269  
Old 04-30-2019, 06:17 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
Heh we can laugh all we want, but this debt is ours, close to $70,000 for every man woman and child in the US.

And crap on Trump all you want. But each President since Kennedy (and to Roosevelt depending on how you want to count it) had increased the debt, both liberal and conservative.
I'm alright, Jack. If it's all the same to you I'll take getting something in return for smaller deficits over getting nothing for larger deficits, thanks.
  #270  
Old 04-30-2019, 06:29 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
The mean is skewed by the few with monster debts. The median undergrad-only debt is even lower.
Yes, so again I ask the people pushing for free college, is it REALLY a problem?

As Shodan says, Warren is just pushing for the art and womens studies majors votes who cant figure out why a job at Starbucks wont pay off their $50,000 debt?
  #271  
Old 04-30-2019, 06:48 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I'm a fan of the idea.


How many Boomers and Gen Xers are subsidizing their kids' living expenses because of student debt? Lots of 20-somethings are living at home so they can throw their whole paycheck at their debt. Maybe that's not the worse thing in the world, but I gotta wonder about the opportunity costs on both sides.
So what?

I pointed out that the average student loan is less than $40,000 so if they do keep the pauper student life by living at home, working an extra job, and never seeing the inside of a restaurant or bar (except to work at them), they can easily throw say a thousand dollars a month at the debt and be done with it in less than 4 years.

And most will done done much quicker. I dont think having to live with your parents for 2-4 years will be that big a deal in the long run.
  #272  
Old 04-30-2019, 06:55 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So you actually want your kids and grandkids burdened with ever increasing student loan debt? You do know this problem is getting worse over time right? You do realize you are kicking the can down the road and you are screwing over our subsequent generations simply out of spite right? I'm not arguing that this exact plan is perfect or that we should definitely do this, but the attitude of "well I got screwed, so dammit my kids and grandkids had better get screwed just as much!!!" seems abhorrent to me.
Yeah, college screwed me over.

Thats why I am careful to warn kids not to waste time on nonsense degrees and to seek out the best college scholarships and finance options AND to lower the debt by doing things like living cheap or going to a cheaper school.

Finally when they get out, I tell them knock out their loans right away by living at home, keeping their expenses low, working a second job, and throwing extra money at the loan and get it paid off quickly.
  #273  
Old 04-30-2019, 07:18 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 22,641
nm

Last edited by Monty; 04-30-2019 at 07:20 AM.
  #274  
Old 04-30-2019, 07:48 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Yes, so again I ask the people pushing for free college, is it REALLY a problem?
Well I've been expressing skepticism of the proposal, so I'm probably not the person to change your mind.

I think it's a problem for some individuals. If you borrow money just to find out you can't hack it, your being stuck in perpetual penury doesn't strike me as all that good for society. But that obviously doesn't describe everyone.
  #275  
Old 04-30-2019, 09:16 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,542
I think I'd like to see the Federal government subsidize the universities directly for tuition, but with certain performance requirements- a higher % have to graduate WITHOUT dropping admission standards, for example.

I'm not opposed to the idea of free or much cheaper tuition and fees, but I don't think it's any kind of inalienable natural right that everyone gets to go to college. I'd actually argue that we should approach this in a multi-pronged fashion, at least for public colleges and universities.

1. Incentivize schools to tighten admission requirements and number of people admitted to degree programs, so that we don't have 65% of people not finishing, and being saddled with debt for that fractional college degree. Nor do we need people who can't pay for their own philosophy degree at SW Podunk State. Part of this would be clearly articulating the overall cost and what you actually DO with various degrees. That's something that was nearly non-existent when I was in college.
2. Subsidize schools directly for tuition in certain targeted degree programs- I don't agree with the idea that we need to subsidize tuition for something as unproductive overall as getting a BA in philosophy from a second or third tier school. Ideally this would be taken care of as part of #1 though.
3. Pass legislation to require licensing in many of the trades- no more unlicensed, possibly illegal immigrant tradesmen. Everyone's got to have some kind of training and basic license/certification to practice trades- even basic carpentry. Of course we'd grandfather in any existing people who are citizens or legal residents, and enforce the tar out of these regulations.
4. Subsidize trade school tuition and/or incentivize the states to adopt something more akin to the German system- non-college bound students would end up with the training and the basic license upon graduation. Maybe it would be like a "Apprentice construction worker" or something that would set them up to specialize from there.

That way, we aren't using college as some sort of high school version 2, and we aren't saddling people who aren't going to finish with a lot of debt. And, we're not throwing the people who might start, but not finish college to the wolves- hopefully they'd be directed into the skilled trade track, rather than encouraged to go to college, when they're not actually likely to finish.
  #276  
Old 04-30-2019, 12:02 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I think I'd like to see the Federal government subsidize the universities directly for tuition, but with certain performance requirements- a higher % have to graduate WITHOUT dropping admission standards, for example.

I'm not opposed to the idea of free or much cheaper tuition and fees, but I don't think it's any kind of inalienable natural right that everyone gets to go to college. I'd actually argue that we should approach this in a multi-pronged fashion, at least for public colleges and universities.

1. Incentivize schools to tighten admission requirements and number of people admitted to degree programs, so that we don't have 65% of people not finishing, and being saddled with debt for that fractional college degree. Nor do we need people who can't pay for their own philosophy degree at SW Podunk State. Part of this would be clearly articulating the overall cost and what you actually DO with various degrees. That's something that was nearly non-existent when I was in college.
2. Subsidize schools directly for tuition in certain targeted degree programs- I don't agree with the idea that we need to subsidize tuition for something as unproductive overall as getting a BA in philosophy from a second or third tier school. Ideally this would be taken care of as part of #1 though.
3. Pass legislation to require licensing in many of the trades- no more unlicensed, possibly illegal immigrant tradesmen. Everyone's got to have some kind of training and basic license/certification to practice trades- even basic carpentry. Of course we'd grandfather in any existing people who are citizens or legal residents, and enforce the tar out of these regulations.
4. Subsidize trade school tuition and/or incentivize the states to adopt something more akin to the German system- non-college bound students would end up with the training and the basic license upon graduation. Maybe it would be like a "Apprentice construction worker" or something that would set them up to specialize from there.

That way, we aren't using college as some sort of high school version 2, and we aren't saddling people who aren't going to finish with a lot of debt. And, we're not throwing the people who might start, but not finish college to the wolves- hopefully they'd be directed into the skilled trade track, rather than encouraged to go to college, when they're not actually likely to finish.
On #2.

At Wichita Tech they have just such programs. HERE is an example promoted by the band Metallica. Free tuition. Free daycare. Guaranteed job interview.

Wichita is the home of several aircraft manufacturers and they were facing a shortage of workers so therefore they setup a program to get new people into aircraft manufacturing. So they set up free college programs for those thru spirit Aerosystems.


On #3. I disagree because many things like electrical and carpentry can be learned so if say I want to remodel a bedroom or run power to some new outlets, I should and can do it myself. Now I know in other countries with "free college" like Denmark they require what you say.

On #4. Free trade school is already part of the vo-tec system. I agree on more apprenticeship programs.
  #277  
Old 04-30-2019, 03:24 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
On #3. I disagree because many things like electrical and carpentry can be learned so if say I want to remodel a bedroom or run power to some new outlets, I should and can do it myself. Now I know in other countries with "free college" like Denmark they require what you say.
The point of #3 wasn't to ensure a properly trained workforce or to cut out DIYers, but rather to cut out the sketchy, half-trained guys working on commercial construction sites.

For example, here in Texas, licensed tradesmen have a harder time finding work than you'd think, because so many new construction jobs are filled by unlicensed illegals. As many as half the total workers are illegal, and there aren't any guarantees that the rest would be licensed or trained.

https://www.fosterglobal.com/news/re...ion2212013.pdf

So if you offered vo-tech stuff with minimal certification, and REQUIRED it for commercial construction, you could cut all those illegals out of the equation and provide jobs for native workers.
  #278  
Old 04-30-2019, 03:27 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
I can go along with that. Years ago I was employed as an "electrician" but in reality we were all new to this and only our boss was a certified electrician who i guess was supposed to certify our work. But then we were WAY cheaper than real electricians.

This project (an apartment complex) was so built cheaply.
  #279  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:10 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Some editorials have been written about the unfairness of the Warren plan:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...426-story.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ff-their-loans

https://www.yahoo.com/news/should-st...162242687.html
  #280  
Old 05-03-2019, 08:38 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
I think those are all valid points as well as people on this board who go against the plan. I especially like where someone wrote that this was a slap to the face for the people who chose a cheaper college or to live at home so as to have fewer loans down the road while it rewards those who took the most expensive options.
  #281  
Old 05-04-2019, 08:23 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,150
What about people who have already paid their loans? A lot of people could have a lot more in net wealth if their loans had been subsidized, so what about those who actually played by the rules and paid off their debts? See, this is the kind of trap that the far left of the party is potentially walking into. Where do we draw the lines when it comes to fairness?

I agree with making college more affordable, but I don't think free college or loan forgiveness is the way to go. My preference would be to start by restoring bankruptcy protection for people who default on their loans. I think we could expand on some of the loan forgiveness plans that already exist for people who do public service jobs. We could also offer more scholarships for low-income students.
  #282  
Old 05-04-2019, 08:58 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
... each President since Kennedy (and to Roosevelt depending on how you want to count it) had increased the debt, both liberal and conservative....
Let me fight that ignorance for you.
  #283  
Old 05-04-2019, 09:45 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
What about people who have already paid their loans? A lot of people could have a lot more in net wealth if their loans had been subsidized, so what about those who actually played by the rules and paid off their debts? See, this is the kind of trap that the far left of the party is potentially walking into. Where do we draw the lines when it comes to fairness?
The above doesn't offer anything that hasn't been said already, but I'll quote it because it's the last post to mention it. I've already expressed my skepticism of the proposal, but I don't find this fairness issue to be very compelling from a policy standpoint. It may still be compelling from a politics standpoint (if enough people get mad, you may end up with nothing.) But good-to-have social programs that arise from nothing may not be fair to those who would have benefited had they been enacted earlier. I don't think that prevents a program from being, ultimately, good policy.
  #284  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:16 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
The above doesn't offer anything that hasn't been said already, but I'll quote it because it's the last post to mention it. I've already expressed my skepticism of the proposal, but I don't find this fairness issue to be very compelling from a policy standpoint. It may still be compelling from a politics standpoint (if enough people get mad, you may end up with nothing.) But good-to-have social programs that arise from nothing may not be fair to those who would have benefited had they been enacted earlier. I don't think that prevents a program from being, ultimately, good policy.
I don't typically use fairness as a reason to reject an economic policy, but in this case, I use it because I that the affordability of college is an issue for people who have already paid down a heft chunk (or all) of their debt already. They could have put that money toward a house or toward their retirement.

Principle aside, if people want to better themselves, that's fine, but that's a personal choice, IMO, and not necessarily something we should just automatically subsidize for everyone. Moreover, I've seen no evidence that people entering college these days are substantially transformed in ways they couldn't have been otherwise through apprenticeships and their own intellectual curiosity. College doesn't do a particularly great job of preparing individuals for the workforce - internships through college can, but not a college curriculum itself.
  #285  
Old 05-04-2019, 12:55 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Those that speak about unfairness are talking a lot on behalf of many that do not see a problem.

https://www.businessinsider.com/eliz...ut-debt-2019-4
Quote:
57% of Americans who've already paid off their student loans support Elizabeth Warren's plan to cancel 42 million Americans' college debt.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/fir...an-forgiveness
Quote:
I paid off all my student loans. I still support student loan forgiveness.
Boomers like me who paid off all of our student loans need to give millennials a break.
Quote:
I paid off my student loans in full without assistance. Yet when editorialists decry presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren’s student debt forgiveness plan as “unfair” or a “slap in the face” to those who already paid off their loans, they’re certainly not speaking for me.

It’s the kind of argument designed to tug at our most selfish impulses while ignoring the economic and political transformations that have left a generation of college graduates struggling under an unprecedented mountain of student debt.

I graduated college in 1985 with $18,000 in student loans (about $42,500 in 2019 dollars), and then diligently paid them off over the next 10 years. As a father, I saved enough for my daughter’s education to assure that she could graduate college 100 percent debt-free. I’m not rich. I didn’t always make the best financial choices. But I worked hard, played by the rules, and made good on my debts. I could be the poster child for those claiming student loan forgiveness is “unfair.”

But you know what’s really unfair? The huge advantage I enjoyed graduating into the 1985 job market.
Quote:
Whenever an old white guy like me reminds you that “I worked my way through college,” remind them that in the 1981-1982 academic year, the average in-state tuition and fees at a four-year public college or university was just $909 … back when the federal minimum wage was $3.35 an hour. That means I could have paid for my entire freshman year tuition and fees with less than seven weeks of full-time minimum-wage work at just about any shitty summer job. But over the past four decades, average public university tuition and fees have increased more than 11-fold, to $10,230 a year, while the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour has barely doubled.

Do the math: Today, the only way to work your way through college on the typical summer job would be to extend the summer break from June through February.
Quote:
This isn’t the economy we boomers grew up in. Tuition is expensive, wages are stagnant, and housing prices are so outrageous that the only way my daughter will likely ever own a house in Seattle like the one she grew up in is if I die in it. And if my child deserves a debt-free college education, doesn’t every child?

So, yes, as a late-wave boomer with absolutely nothing to gain from Warren’s plan, I enthusiastically support both student debt forgiveness and debt-free college. Not just because it would be damn good for the economy by giving a whole generation saddled by debt more freedom to build up savings, buy homes, and contribute to the economy. But because I believe in the golden rule: Give unto future generations the same opportunities and privileges my generation enjoyed.
BTW, it is clear that Warren's plan will not cancel all debt, just about 50,000 tops per individual. As mentioned, adding a bit more means testing and I would agree 100% with Warren.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-04-2019 at 12:59 PM.
  #286  
Old 05-04-2019, 01:21 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Those that speak about unfairness are talking a lot on behalf of many that do not see a problem.
I've not seen any articles written by people who couldn't afford college who would be OK with their now college educated peers getting a huge government handout.
  #287  
Old 05-04-2019, 01:27 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Those that speak about unfairness are talking a lot on behalf of many that do not see a problem.

https://www.businessinsider.com/eliz...ut-debt-2019-4


https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/fir...an-forgiveness
Yeah, go ahead and interview boomers who borrowed less money, with lower borrowing costs, and have had plenty of time to pay it off and build up a retirement. I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of scheme that allows people to shave off a portion of their remaining debt, but they agreed to borrow the money and they should pay it off unless there's a really compelling reason not to, like falling ill and being unable to work. That's how lending works.

All that said, I absolutely believe that student debt should be debt that students can discharge if they enter into bankruptcy proceedings. And I'm certainly open to finding ways to give former students more flexibility if they're in financial distress. This would also be an appropriate time to reconsider the role that private financial services companies have in servicing this debt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
BTW, it is clear that Warren's plan will not cancel all debt, just about 50,000 tops per individual. As mentioned, adding a bit more means testing and I would agree 100% with Warren.
That sounds perhaps a little more reasonable, but the hard left of the Democratic party seems to be competing for attention to see who can out-socialist whom. I sincerely hope this isn't what comes out of the primaries because it's just not going to work.
  #288  
Old 05-04-2019, 01:35 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Those that speak about unfairness are talking a lot on behalf of many that do not see a problem.
Your quotes are mostly from boomers who paid off their student debt decades ago. These are certainly not the cadre I referred to as likely to feel unfairly treated.
  #289  
Old 05-04-2019, 03:17 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I've not seen any articles written by people who couldn't afford college who would be OK with their now college educated peers getting a huge government handout.
And that is just, as the boomer said:
"Itís the kind of argument designed to tug at our most selfish impulses while ignoring the economic and political transformations that have left a generation of college graduates struggling under an unprecedented mountain of student debt."
  #290  
Old 05-04-2019, 03:33 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,856
But there's a generation of people struggling under all kinds of economic hardships. Wages are stagnant, home ownership is out of reach for a whole swath of the population, black people still haven't financially recovered from slavery, etc. Nobody's saying that college debt isn't a problem, we're saying, What makes recent college graduates the best recipients of a huge chunk of taxpayer dollars?

You can imagine explaining this to someone from rural Alabama, who's known nothing but generational poverty since their ancestors were liberated by the 13th amendment. You'll say, some Americans are going to win a small lotteries worth of government money, but then just as they start to get hope in their eyes you have to explain that no, you don't mean people like them, you mean people who have recently gotten a very expensive education.

Pointing out the inherent unfairness in this is hardly an inappropriate response.

Last edited by steronz; 05-04-2019 at 03:36 PM.
  #291  
Old 05-04-2019, 03:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Your quotes are mostly from boomers who paid off their student debt decades ago. These are certainly not the cadre I referred to as likely to feel unfairly treated.
The plural of anecdote is not data. And that is why I did check first how people that already paid their bills support a plan like Warren, unless you can demonstrate that the survey avoids all people from the cadre you refer to, then what you pointed out are just anecdotes. The point that stands is that it is not just boomers that think that some form of loan forgiveness is needed.
  #292  
Old 05-04-2019, 05:27 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
They knew damn well what they were doing when they took out those loans. Thats why so many of them did everything they could to NOT take them out. For example, they worked hard for scholarships. They went to community colleges or state schools instead of more expensive ones. They worked part time jobs in college. Plus as I've said above, the average debt is about $32,000. If they keep the pauper student lifestyle, thats an amount easily paid off in 2 years or so.

Finally debt forgiveness will do nothing about the staggering cost of college in the first place. If they start doing debt forgiveness that amount will certainly go up. Easily over the $50,000 amount Warrens plan gets rid of.
  #293  
Old 05-04-2019, 05:29 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And that is just, as the boomer said:
"Itís the kind of argument designed to tug at our most selfish impulses while ignoring the economic and political transformations that have left a generation of college graduates struggling under an unprecedented mountain of student debt."
"Unprecedented"? I dont know when college was totally free. Its always been a struggle. They need to do more to look at why it costs so damn much.
  #294  
Old 05-04-2019, 05:49 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
They knew damn well what they were doing when they took out those loans. Thats why so many of them did everything they could to NOT take them out. For example, they worked hard for scholarships. They went to community colleges or state schools instead of more expensive ones. They worked part time jobs in college. Plus as I've said above, the average debt is about $32,000. If they keep the pauper student lifestyle, thats an amount easily paid off in 2 years or so.
That amount is getting higher. And harder to pay.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...0-student-debt

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Finally debt forgiveness will do nothing about the staggering cost of college in the first place. If they start doing debt forgiveness that amount will certainly go up. Easily over the $50,000 amount Warrens plan gets rid of.
Now that is an ignorant bit that can not be ignored.

As the subject is Warren's plans, they do include a part about college costs.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/22/185091...t-free-college
  #295  
Old 05-04-2019, 06:21 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,886
So, if college is free, what's to stop colleges from simply doubling tuition? Or offering more watered-down useless subjects to capture the rent from the larger population of students who will go to 'free' college but can't handle the curriculum in fields that would land them good jobs? What would stop them from inventing reasons to bloat administration even more?

The only answer to that would be price controls on college admission, or wage controls on staff. Which would be a terrible idea.

A better 'fix' to the student loan crisis would be to make colleges have some skin in the game. If they were on the hook for a percentage of student loan money that defaults, they'd be a lot more careful about their finances, tuition, and which programs they offer.

Ideally, student loans should not exist at all. They have caused tuition inflation which basically makes student loans mandatory for people who are not wealthy, and they have encouraged the growth of useless faculties offering useless degrees that will not pay enough for the student to comfortably pay back the loans.

Better answers would involve co-op education programs, apprenticeships, more of a focus on 2-year colleges as transfer programs into 4-year universities, and online education.

Also, cut all funding and tax breaks to schools sitting on massive endowments. Harvard's 2018 endowment is 38 billion dollars.

If we are going to have student loans, they should be targeted at skills are in short supply. You want to be a doctor or an engineer? You'll be making lots of money one day, so sure, we'll give you a student loan. You want to go to college to 'find yourself' and take a bunch of liberal arts programs? Find a way to pay for it yourself. Or go to a two year college and learn somethiung useful, then indulge your desire for other learning online, at night school, or with a sabbatical.

No one owes you four years of partying while taking a light schedule of watered down 'breadth' courses.
  #296  
Old 05-04-2019, 06:30 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And that is just, as the boomer said:
"Itís the kind of argument designed to tug at our most selfish impulses while ignoring the economic and political transformations that have left a generation of college graduates struggling under an unprecedented mountain of student debt."
I don't disagree that an argument over whether it is fair or not doesn't necessarily rebut the economic merits that such a proposal might have -- it's admittedly somewhat tangential, although it becomes an economic argument when we start talking about moral hazard. What's the incentive for colleges to maybe take a look at reducing their administrative and construction costs? Moreover, who's going to pay for it all?
  #297  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:25 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If we are going to have student loans, they should be targeted at skills are in short supply. You want to be a doctor or an engineer? You'll be making lots of money one day, so sure, we'll give you a student loan. You want to go to college to 'find yourself' and take a bunch of liberal arts programs? Find a way to pay for it yourself. Or go to a two year college and learn somethiung useful, then indulge your desire for other learning online, at night school, or with a sabbatical.
This is exactly what "Build Dakota" scholarships do in South Dakota. Target fields in high demand in the state. Fields like Engineering, energy, and healthcare.

Now if a person WANTS to study philosophy, art, music, or gender studies - thats what books from a library are for.
  #298  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:28 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post

Now that is an ignorant bit that can not be ignored.

As the subject is Warren's plans, they do include a part about college costs.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/22/185091...t-free-college
I didnt read anything in that article about reducing what colleges charge.
  #299  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:47 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I didnt read anything in that article about reducing what colleges charge.
Since the subject is what students pay, yes that is what debt-free college for students is.
  #300  
Old 05-05-2019, 06:35 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
This is exactly what "Build Dakota" scholarships do in South Dakota. Target fields in high demand in the state. Fields like Engineering, energy, and healthcare.

Now if a person WANTS to study philosophy, art, music, or gender studies - thats what books from a library are for.
People should study the humanities. A university education should encourage exploration of subject matter that we might not be otherwise exposed to, and there's a lot more to being educated than just studying math or computers. I would gladly support efforts to make college more affordable precisely so that more people could study these things.

But individuals will probably value their education more if they have to pay for at least some of it themselves.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017