Here's my take on your bit about education. Haven't read the rest yet but will do so later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Education - Manufacturing jobs are not coming back. This directly impacts the middle class and their ability to contribute to consumer economy that has developed. New skills and new jobs are required to keep the middle class healthy. To address this and continue to maintain any economic edge the United States still has it will be in the research and development areas and where intellectual property is created. This requires an educated workforce and a lot of specialization. Without access to education the middle class will continue to shrink and the economy become that much weaker. Without the investment in education, and making education inexpensive or free, the United States will continue to see the economy weaken and ultimately crash.
Eliminating student debt is a heavy lift, but it is actually cheaper than the tax cuts Trump just gave the rich. The benefit is the middle class gets an immediate boost to their disposable income, meaning more spending and more demand for goods and services - more homes, more cars, more appliances, etc. Since blue collar jobs are directly linked to spending this raises that segment of the economy as well. This also opens up the possibility for many more people to go to school and get the education they need to improve their lives.
This is where education is a real game changer to the state of the entire nation. Education is not just about learning facts and figures or getting some training to twist a screw. It's about changing people and opening their minds to new ideas and ways of thinking. It is about experiencing things and people in ways you had never imagined before, and breaking down stereotypes. The common refrain in education circles is that education changes lives. Yes, it does. But more importantly, it changes entire communities. When you lift up one family through the opportunity education provides there is a ripple effect. It lifts the others who have relationships with that student and their family. It drives those others to change as well. The entire community is affected, and positively. This is why access to education is so important, as it is a change agent and means to transform communities as a whole. This is a worthwhile investment and has potential for massive returns in the long run.
|
I have quite a few issues with the opinions that you have stated above. In no particular order, here they are:
- I am 32 and graduated back in 2010 in Ontario. Perhaps things in Ontario are different than in the US. Perhaps I live in a sheltered middle-class bubble. With those possibilities acknowledged, I can't think of a single person that I grew up with that was unable to attend post-secondary education because it cost too much. I know many of them were unable to afford it outright, which required them to get student loans, but if they were accepted into university, they managed to get that loan. Poor grades were much more prohibitive to attending post-secondary education than poor finances. So who are these people that want to attend university and are getting turned down for student loans? How many more individuals will be able to attend post secondary education if it were free? Since you are here extolling the virtues of free tuition, I am sure you have this answer, so if you could share it with me, it would be appreciated.
- Simply attending university does not guarantee one a better living. No doubt you could post statistics that demonstrate that university grads earn more than non-university grads, but that does not speak to the earning power of someone that obtained a degree in something that has little value in the job market. Some of the most visible Sanders supporters are recent grads that are unable to earn a decent living and pay off their student loans. While free tuition would release them of the burden of paying their debt, it would not change their position in the job market.
- Many people attend university when, if they were acting in the best interests of their personal finances, probably wouldn't. Taking courses that you find to be interesting but possess virtually no transferable value in the job market will not serve you well. For some, university is a period of 4 years of self-discovery and fun that is not particularly concerned with coming out on track for a high earning career. Even with the weight of heavy tuition costs, these people still exist. Perhaps these are people that come from well off families that can afford to pay for their own education. Do you think that by removing all financial skin in the game that people would be more or less likely to take their education seriously?
- I would be very interested to see what the correlation is between the cost of post secondary education and the level of government financial assistance with tuition. It would make sense to me that as government sponsored loans become more available, the cost of tuition would also increase, no? What happens when tuition is paid for entirely by the government? What stops universities from raising the cost of tuition? Would that be regulated too? Surely you understand the economic implications from enacting price ceilings?
- Certainly there is need for education, but all types of education are not equally needed. If you are obtaining an education so that you can work in a field where it would be nearly impossible for you to pay off the loan that you took to get that education, I would say that would be a poor financial decision. At that point, I don't understand why the government should be actively encouraging this kind of poor financial decision making. Alternatively, if government got out of the business of guaranteeing student loans, people would have to get regular loans from a bank. Banks would only give such loans to those that are pursuing an education that will allow them to get a job well paying enough to pay back the loan. This would naturally lead to much fewer student loans, but it would also force the costs of tuition to come down, making it less financially prohibitive. If we want the cost of tuition to fall and for people to engage in more meaningful education that has higher value to the economy, it seems to be that the government should be less involved, not more.