Putting an 18 year old into 120k debt should be considered criminal

a reply to: intrepid

It was a time when education was that, educating the future, I went to a major University on my own merits, with full scholarship, but even if I didn't got one the government used to give them and on top of that a job was guarantee after graduation, this was back before the banks found a way to profit from education and education became "affordable" with the right loan, in the many private colleges that sprouted after the 70s.

Yes, my total cost for one semester back in the 70s (18, credits) was no more than 100,00 dollars and books were easy to pick up in the used book store for 10 or 15 dollars even less.

Try to find that now a days, no way in hell.

Is all about making money and keeping young people in debt to the banks for life, this days no even an education will guarantee a job.

At the end we are all paying for it

We may need something better but unions are all we have. And across the board, all states with strong unions have much higher pay and standard of living than states without them (ie the south). For examples of nations without worker representation (unions) see any third world country. They will do that here to given half a chance (which they are forcing through now)

originally posted by: pexx421
We may need something better but unions are all we have. And across the board, all states with strong unions have much higher pay and standard of living than states without them (ie the south). For examples of nations without worker representation (unions) see any third world country. They will do that here to given half a chance (which they are forcing through now)

Unions are now part of the problem. I believe moving from pro-worker unions to neutral 3rd party arbitrators would be better. As it is Employers will generally want what is only in their best interest, and unions only want what is in the worker's best interest, and it becomes a tug of war of who can screw each other more and fosters an Us vs. Them mentality. Much better to work together towards a common good and using a neutral party to arbitrate when an agreement can not be reached.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Both scenarios you described are the same exact thing.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Both scenarios you described are the same exact thing.

No. We have 3 parties. Workers. Employers. Unions.

The union is not a neutral party, they are invested in screwing over the employer. This makes the employer need to screw over the workers, so that things will "even out" as much as possible. This creates a hostile Us vs. Them atmosphere. They do not work together, they work against each other.

Removing unions and making employers and employees work together would foster a culture of togetherness. When a problem arose that was not able to be worked out a NEUTRAL 3rd party who was not invested in either side and rather simply made fair rulings based on industry standards would be called in.

So you want free college education for everyone. That's cool, I can dig that. Sounds really good on paper. But how would we pay for that?

People entering college yearly: 15.9 million to 21.0 million , difficult number to find I used: linky

At $100K a pop, using the amount from the OP, that totals up to $1.59 Trillion - $2.1 Trillion

I would assume that making it "free" would easily double the enrollment rates.

Where exactly do you plan on us getting this money from?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04 You seem to be appealing to the idea it's an equal tug of war. That is not the case. The unions were created to protect people from the obvious power disparity owned by the businesses. I think it's also clear to anyone paying attention that the vast majority of the power still rests with the businesses, and they exploit it to is fullest while at the same time working to eradicate any power the unions (workers) still have. The problems in our country lie overwhelmingly at the fault of greedy corporations, big oil, big pharma, military industrial. Not caused by greedy powerful low wage working class. The poor in our country never declared wars for profit. The poor never crafted mortgage backed securities to destroy the economy. The poor never dumped stocks to cause bank runs so they could buy up all the smaller banks at foreclosure prices. The poor never took millions of dollars in bribes in order to pass legislation for pharmaceutical industries so Americans couldn't negotiate prices for meds.

a reply to: XTexan

The military budget.

Ending the war on drugs.

That's a lot of people in college that number is off.

a reply to: onequestion

Military budget would not even come close to making a dent on that number. Even cutting out half our military .. which would destroy our country .. would not make a dent on that number.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: XTexan

The military budget.

Ending the war on drugs.
That's a lot of people in college that number is off.

As Occam said, the entire military budget would account for maybe 1/3 of the lower number. Not sure on the War on Drugs, though even ending that and using taxes from any legalized products would still make it tough. Besides those funds should be focused on substance abuse and mental illness items.

Those numbers are the best I could find, feel free to find a better set. That said, your making college "free", enrollment will skyrocket to some obscene number. Why go to community college if UT, Notre Dame, Harvard and the likes are free?

a reply to: XTexan

How do countries in Europe manage?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: XTexan

How do countries in Europe manage?

They don't believe a college degree is a right. They do not funnel everyone into a 4 year college. They have more people getting 1 or 2 year profession specific credentials. The US has a culture that says that is "lesser" and we need 4 or 6 year degrees.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04 they don't believe a degree is a right. They believe an education and gainful employment is. And if education was no longer for profit it's cost would go down. Just like healthcare would. Look at its actual cost in Europe.

a reply to: pexx421
As to why do community college.....ivy league schools have standards to get into. Do people only go to ivy league schools in Europe?

originally posted by: beezzer
Who said that college had to be completed in 4 years right out of high school?

The same people that say you shouldn't be able to afford to live if you work at McDonalds.

originally posted by: TonyBravada
I don't know where everyone is coming up with these numbers. Do you all forget that most states and the federal government offer subsidies?

Go to community college in PA, you will get $4500 a semester. If the tuition is $2,000 and books are $500, you have $2,000 either for living expenses or to put away for your 4 semesters at a University. And none of my considerations count federal student aid of any kind... or scholarships... or other financial options for those willing to work for them.

You really have no clue what college costs do you? Community College in my area which is southeastern Ohio which happens to be the cheapest area in the entire country is $4000 a semester, and that's if you take 12 credit hours. Most programs are based around 16 credit hours which bumps the cost up to $5500. Actual college at a state school runs double that at a minimum. Most colleges are more along the lines of $20,000 per semester with 80% of that going to tuition and the other 20% to rent and books.

Grants do not cover it, scholarships do not cover it, work study does not cover it (and requires jobs to exist in the first place).

originally posted by: TurtleSmacker
The only irresponsible lending I've seen in recent years were the subprime mortgages of the 90s and the ridiculous student loans post-millenium. (That certainly doesn't mean what I've seen is evidence to the larger picture).

I still say responsibility for putting more debt on your plate than you can handle ultimately falls to the 18yr old seeking the loan, it's his or her job to fix his debt problems. Certainly not the taxpayer.

Wouldn't you say the responsibility of being sure you can be repaid should be on the lender? If they had to worry about things like credit worthiness the loan amounts would be more stingy. Instead we gave college loans something no other loans have. They can't be discharged by bankruptcy (which btw has gone through the roof since we enacted this reform). Put the lenders on the hook, so they assume some risk of one day not being paid back and they'll make more responsible loans.

originally posted by: TurtleSmacker
The only irresponsible lending I've seen in recent years were the subprime mortgages of the 90s and the ridiculous student loans post-millenium. (That certainly doesn't mean what I've seen is evidence to the larger picture).

I still say responsibility for putting more debt on your plate than you can handle ultimately falls to the 18yr old seeking the loan, it's his or her job to fix his debt problems. Certainly not the taxpayer.

Wouldn't you say the responsibility of being sure you can be repaid should be on the lender? If they had to worry about things like credit worthiness the loan amounts would be more stingy. Instead we gave college loans something no other loans have. They can't be discharged by bankruptcy (which btw has gone through the roof since we enacted this reform). Put the lenders on the hook, so they assume some risk of one day not being paid back and they'll make more responsible loans.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: TonyBravada
I don't know where everyone is coming up with these numbers. Do you all forget that most states and the federal government offer subsidies?

Go to community college in PA, you will get $4500 a semester. If the tuition is $2,000 and books are $500, you have $2,000 either for living expenses or to put away for your 4 semesters at a University. And none of my considerations count federal student aid of any kind... or scholarships... or other financial options for those willing to work for them.

You really have no clue what college costs do you? Community College in my area which is southeastern Ohio which happens to be the cheapest area in the entire country is $4000 a semester, and that's if you take 12 credit hours. Most programs are based around 16 credit hours which bumps the cost up to $5500. Actual college at a state school runs double that at a minimum. Most colleges are more along the lines of $20,000 per semester with 80% of that going to tuition and the other 20% to rent and books.

Grants do not cover it, scholarships do not cover it, work study does not cover it (and requires jobs to exist in the first place).

The tuition at the 4 year college I went to is $4,000/year.

originally posted by: TonyBravada

originally posted by: pexx421
one more thing.... to those who grew up in the 60s-80s saying they worked minimum wage jobs to get though college, and others saying that's what real hard working people do. Minimum wage back then went way further than it did today. To say you can work full time at a entry level position and still go full time to school....its much harder than it used to be. And its only going to get worse for your children. Entry level jobs in 1970 paid the equivalent of 18 dollars an hour in todays society. If we still got the same purchasing power from entry level jobs, yes, it might be feasible. At todays rates....its just not.

Wow, that is a lie. In 1970 the minimum wage was $1.60. According to the BLS, that is the same purchasing power as $9.81 in 2014 BLS Inflation Calculator

Of course there wasn't free healthcare and the food stamp program was much smaller. Education was much cheaper then too, but still. You have almost doubled the 1970 equivalent value.

LOL, and you're praised for your made up 'facts' too.

You're confusing CPI with changes in purchasing power. CPI doesn't accurately track inflation since 1982 due to how it's calculated. Putting aside that it's done in secret with no publishing of what goods are being tracked it tracks what goods people buy. If you buy 3 meals a day that cost $2 each, but the price goes up by 50% so that they're not $3 each, and you cut back to 2 per day. CPI sees this as no change as you're still spending $6/day to eat where as in reality your food went up by 50% and you're eating 33% fewer meals.