• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?
Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and
That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.
It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money
Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.

and how it balances directly and not if you disregard the benefits realized not merely for the student borrower but for society in general—because of the services provided directly by the ability of the student to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, whatever —and benefit in the increase in taxes the student borrower will pay as they earn more money than without a degree.
You are very confused. You are counting the value of the education as a benefit in favour of forgiving the debt. But the value of the education has already been realised when the person got it.
Wrong. The value of the education appears when the person receiving the education goes on to do things that are beneficial to the community he or she is part of, like inventing a cure for a disease, or developing technology that makes our lives better, or designing a new road that provides access to an isolated rural community, or writing a book that entertains millions, or becoming a teacher or stay home mom/dad who teaches their children how to be good citizens of the planet. Education is the fertilizer that allows people to achieve their potential towards making the world a better place.
The value of the education is not taken away by not forgiving debt. It is a category error to rabbit on about the value of education, as Toni did, as if the education would evaporate if you had to pay for it.
Forgiving debt does not cause the value of the education to appear.

Harder to quantify directly but real nonetheless is the benefit to society of having a more educated population. One of the most concrete benefits in recent times is the differences in voter behavior depending on level of education. Another is differences in behavior with regards to mask wearing and vaccination.
Again, you are confused. If you want to talk about the value of education and why society should make it free to end users, you can have that conversation, but I am talking about the forgiveness of debts with taxpayer money.
See above. The role of government is to better the lives of the community, and education is a big part of accomplishing that goal.
The education has already happened, with students who entered into a debt with the promise to pay it back.

You cannot talk about debt forgiveness without the broader context of the value of education.
Why can I not? Are you of the opinion that the education will evaporate if people who promised to pay for it continue to pay for it?

And we shouldn't be engaging in the practice of forcing young people to remain in debt for decades simply because that is how it has been done in the past. "We should continue to punish people by making them stay in debt because that is how we have always done it" is a piss-poor argument. And downright stupid.
What a strange argument. Who do you think made such an argument?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,054
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I'll tell you what's toxic to society: fucking Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas and everyone else from sun and sundry being a ignorant fucking idiot about shit that they should damn well know as functional adults.

I WANT my tax dollars to go toward that.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,331
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Asimov wrote a story called Profession (in the book Nine Tomorrows) that is staged in the far future where humans have the ability to educate people almost instantaneously by downloading information directly to their brains. Children show up at their local education center twice, once for Reading Day, where they are programmed to read, and then again on Profession Day where they are taught a skill. There is a huge demand among youngsters to get programmed with the most lucrative subjects that will give them well-paying jobs in the off-world colonies. And then we discover what the cost of this convenience (of getting educated instantly) is. Its a good read, and very relevant to the argument you are trying to make here, and you should check it out if you can. Its also an excellent story.

Education is not about creating programmed robots to run our factories and stores, or produce things, it is much, much bigger than that. Education is about teaching people how to think and solve problems, along with a foundation in the fundamentals of some aspect of reality that they find interesting. Education is about liberating the mind and giving it the wings to fly. You are so focused on making sure that every dollar is paid back and nobody gets a "free ride" that you fail to see the bigger picture.
Yeah, I've read it.

That doesn't address the issue of spending a lot of effort on a skill for which there is not adequate market demand. Yes, there may be secondary benefits from that education but that doesn't make the primary "benefit" not basically useless. A lot more benefit would have been obtained had that primary benefit been something useful.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,168
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?
Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and
That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.
It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money
Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.
That is simply untrue. A number of posters have made such an argument. Just because you are either unconvinced by it or have forgotten their arguments or did not understand them does not mean it has not been made.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,168
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Asimov wrote a story called Profession (in the book Nine Tomorrows) that is staged in the far future where humans have the ability to educate people almost instantaneously by downloading information directly to their brains. Children show up at their local education center twice, once for Reading Day, where they are programmed to read, and then again on Profession Day where they are taught a skill. There is a huge demand among youngsters to get programmed with the most lucrative subjects that will give them well-paying jobs in the off-world colonies. And then we discover what the cost of this convenience (of getting educated instantly) is. Its a good read, and very relevant to the argument you are trying to make here, and you should check it out if you can. Its also an excellent story.

Education is not about creating programmed robots to run our factories and stores, or produce things, it is much, much bigger than that. Education is about teaching people how to think and solve problems, along with a foundation in the fundamentals of some aspect of reality that they find interesting. Education is about liberating the mind and giving it the wings to fly. You are so focused on making sure that every dollar is paid back and nobody gets a "free ride" that you fail to see the bigger picture.
Yeah, I've read it.
Reading and reading with comprehension are different.
That doesn't address the issue of spending a lot of effort on a skill for which there is not adequate market demand. Yes, there may be secondary benefits from that education but that doesn't make the primary "benefit" not basically useless. A lot more benefit would have been obtained had that primary benefit been something useful.
Your argument is based on some assumptions that are not empirically verified. For example, your argument requires that the "secondary" benefits are less than the "primary" benefits and that these "secondary" benefits are independent of the actual education.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,054
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Asimov wrote a story called Profession (in the book Nine Tomorrows) that is staged in the far future where humans have the ability to educate people almost instantaneously by downloading information directly to their brains. Children show up at their local education center twice, once for Reading Day, where they are programmed to read, and then again on Profession Day where they are taught a skill. There is a huge demand among youngsters to get programmed with the most lucrative subjects that will give them well-paying jobs in the off-world colonies. And then we discover what the cost of this convenience (of getting educated instantly) is. Its a good read, and very relevant to the argument you are trying to make here, and you should check it out if you can. Its also an excellent story.

Education is not about creating programmed robots to run our factories and stores, or produce things, it is much, much bigger than that. Education is about teaching people how to think and solve problems, along with a foundation in the fundamentals of some aspect of reality that they find interesting. Education is about liberating the mind and giving it the wings to fly. You are so focused on making sure that every dollar is paid back and nobody gets a "free ride" that you fail to see the bigger picture.
Yeah, I've read it.
Reading and reading with comprehension are different.
That doesn't address the issue of spending a lot of effort on a skill for which there is not adequate market demand. Yes, there may be secondary benefits from that education but that doesn't make the primary "benefit" not basically useless. A lot more benefit would have been obtained had that primary benefit been something useful.
Your argument is based on some assumptions that are not empirically verified. For example, your argument requires that the "secondary" benefits are less than the "primary" benefits and that these "secondary" benefits are independent of the actual education.
In some ways the elective degree is the carrot to take the core curriculum.

I also disagree with the orderings of "primary" and "secondary". Having someone who has learned well how to do some task they can learn on the job is less important to my day to day life than having neighbors and peers who can understand that birds are, in fact, real, that contrails are not a chemical distribution conspiracy, and that vaccines are effective preventative treatments.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?
Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and
That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.
It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money
Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.
That is simply untrue. A number of posters have made such an argument. Just because you are either unconvinced by it or have forgotten their arguments or did not understand them does not mean it has not been made.
You're right. I revise my statement.

No remotely convincing case has been made that forgiveness of student debt by the American gov't is beneficial to society.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.
+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,175
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.
+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.
Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.
+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.
Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?
It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,175
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.
+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.
Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?
It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.
I find many of your posts difficult to believe--full stop.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,168
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?
Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and
That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.
It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money
Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.
That is simply untrue. A number of posters have made such an argument. Just because you are either unconvinced by it or have forgotten their arguments or did not understand them does not mean it has not been made.
You're right. I revise my statement.

No remotely convincing case has been made that forgiveness of student debt by the American gov't is beneficial to society.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.
+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.
Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?
It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.
First, it is possible that Toni's response was also satirical.

Second, given the selfishness/narcissism in your posts, it is plausible you might think it is good idea to be paid for your education by the Australian gov't (since you did not mention the US gov't) even if it is inconsistent with your other positions since no one is consistent 100% of the time.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.
+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.
Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?
It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.
I find many of your posts difficult to believe--full stop.
I'm sure you've never said anything sarcastically.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?
Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and
That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.
Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.
It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money
Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
The case has absolutely not been made that forgiving the debt is beneficial to society.
That is simply untrue. A number of posters have made such an argument. Just because you are either unconvinced by it or have forgotten their arguments or did not understand them does not mean it has not been made.
You're right. I revise my statement.

No remotely convincing case has been made that forgiveness of student debt by the American gov't is beneficial to society.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.
+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.
Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?
It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.
First, it is possible that Toni's response was also satirical.
I considered that, but I doubt it, given Toni's history of responding to my posts. Or perhaps Toni has been a master troll the entire time, pretending to take literally every single thing I utter, and I am the sucker being played.

Second, given the selfishness/narcissism in your posts, it is plausible you might think it is good idea to be paid for your education by the Australian gov't (since you did not mention the US gov't) even if it is inconsistent with your other positions since no one is consistent 100% of the time.
No, I did not mention the US gov't, but that didn't stop Toni suggesting that's what I meant.

Whether or not you think I am selfish or narcissistic, my extension and elaboration of Trausti's satirical suggestion should have been obvious. And I think it was obvious to you. Just not Toni.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,175
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
With all due respect and complete sincerity, I think that it is inappropriate for me and my posts to be the subject of discussion by anyone other than mods amongst themselves or in private feedback. It’s not flattering to be used as a proxy in a discussion point between two posters whatever their motivations.

For one thing, I’m just not that interesting—not by a long shot. It’s boring and annoying. If someone wants me to clarify something, they can ask me directly and respectfully. I’m busy these days and my participation may be very spotty so some patience is advisable. Or just ignore me! My feelings won’t be hurt in the least.

For another, it’s a massive derail.

The topic at hand is The Biden Administration Announces Partial Student Loan Forgiveness.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,175
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.
+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.
Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?
It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.
I find many of your posts difficult to believe--full stop.
I'm sure you've never said anything sarcastically.
Sarcasm is often dependent on vocal tone and inflection. It seems to fall flat just as often as not on line.

I was not being sarcastic. If you were, you should just say so. I’ll reply with a big D’oh, sorry for being an idiot.
 

Worldtraveller

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,724
Location
Layton, UT
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Asimov wrote a story called Profession (in the book Nine Tomorrows) that is staged in the far future where humans have the ability to educate people almost instantaneously by downloading information directly to their brains. Children show up at their local education center twice, once for Reading Day, where they are programmed to read, and then again on Profession Day where they are taught a skill. There is a huge demand among youngsters to get programmed with the most lucrative subjects that will give them well-paying jobs in the off-world colonies. And then we discover what the cost of this convenience (of getting educated instantly) is. Its a good read, and very relevant to the argument you are trying to make here, and you should check it out if you can. Its also an excellent story.

Education is not about creating programmed robots to run our factories and stores, or produce things, it is much, much bigger than that. Education is about teaching people how to think and solve problems, along with a foundation in the fundamentals of some aspect of reality that they find interesting. Education is about liberating the mind and giving it the wings to fly. You are so focused on making sure that every dollar is paid back and nobody gets a "free ride" that you fail to see the bigger picture.
Yeah, I've read it.
Reading and reading with comprehension are different.
That doesn't address the issue of spending a lot of effort on a skill for which there is not adequate market demand. Yes, there may be secondary benefits from that education but that doesn't make the primary "benefit" not basically useless. A lot more benefit would have been obtained had that primary benefit been something useful.
Your argument is based on some assumptions that are not empirically verified. For example, your argument requires that the "secondary" benefits are less than the "primary" benefits and that these "secondary" benefits are independent of the actual education.
Why are we even letting LP frame this argument as if the fucking 'market' should drive what people do for an education. Fucking hell, he's got a bad case of capitalism, and it's fully metastasized.

If we let the 'market' determine what people should do, all we get are fucking sportsball players and bad autotune.

No. Just fucking no. We need art, as a civilization. We need dance and music and teachers (there's one the market really fucked up) and nurses and all kinds of professions that the market drastically under values.

Fuck. Capitalism.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
Cancelling student debt is good but we could do more. The government should also tax non-college grads in order to fund a $5,000 annual gift for all college grads as a way to show appreciation for how smart and productive we are.
+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.
Why should you benefit from American policies about student debt forgiveness?
It's difficult for me to believe you believe my post was something other than satire. That, given the other positions I have espoused in this thread, that you can possibly believe I believe the government should pay university graduates a stipend for merely existing, or that the American government should pay Australians for same.
I find many of your posts difficult to believe--full stop.
I'm sure you've never said anything sarcastically.
Sarcasm is often dependent on vocal tone and inflection. It seems to fall flat just as often as not on line.

I was not being sarcastic. If you were, you should just say so. I’ll reply with a big D’oh, sorry for being an idiot.
When I said "I'm sure you've never said anything sarcastically", I was being sarcastic.

When I said:
+1 to this idea.

I can't benefit from student debt cancellation, but I would like a permanent stipend for merely existing with my education. I think the stipend amount should be set higher than $5k though, to recognise my achievement in attaining first class honours in two separate degrees.

And since women earn two thirds of bachelor degrees, I think I ought get further compensation as a minority male.
I was being sarcastic.

You don't need to hear me say it to understand the content was satirical and not an utterance of my actual beliefs. The content and context ought have been enough. My actual beliefs are the complete opposite of what I literally wrote. I think it would be a stupid and terrible idea for a gov't to pay people on an ongoing salary merely for having had a tertiary education, and I conveyed that it was a stupid and terrible idea by mockingly endorsing it and elaborating on it.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,168
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Whether or not you think I am selfish or narcissistic, my extension and elaboration of Trausti's satirical suggestion should have been obvious. And I think it was obvious to you. Just not Toni.
To put it kindly, I did not see sarcasm but massive failures at attempted cleverness.

However, when readers are misunderstanding their message, a writer interested in effective communication does not jump at blaming the audience .
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Whether or not you think I am selfish or narcissistic, my extension and elaboration of Trausti's satirical suggestion should have been obvious. And I think it was obvious to you. Just not Toni.
To put it kindly, I did not see sarcasm but massive failures at attempted cleverness.
Yet you were under no illusion that I actually meant the literal words I had typed.

However, when readers are misunderstanding their message, a writer interested in effective communication does not jump at blaming the audience .
I suspect the vast majority of readers would have understood it was satire, as you did.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,175
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I was being sarcastic.
D'oh! As promised.

You don't need to hear me say it to understand the content was satirical and not an utterance of my actual beliefs. The content and context ought have been enough. My actual beliefs are the complete opposite of what I literally wrote. I think it would be a stupid and terrible idea for a gov't to pay people on an ongoing salary merely for having had a tertiary education, and I conveyed that it was a stupid and terrible idea by mockingly endorsing it and elaborating on it.

Here's the thing. People do often write surprising things that seem to contradict what they've ever written/how they've ever presented themselves and mean those contradictory things.

And on the internet, people read with various degrees of interest, attention to detail, distractions, alertness, etc. I often do not think you could possibly be sincere yet this is the first time you've ever said that it was obvious you were being sarcastic. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future but it might be nice if you made it much more obvious and actually stated: sarcasm for those of us who often read in a distracted, sleep deprived or time pressured state.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,168
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Whether or not you think I am selfish or narcissistic, my extension and elaboration of Trausti's satirical suggestion should have been obvious. And I think it was obvious to you. Just not Toni.
To put it kindly, I did not see sarcasm but massive failures at attempted cleverness.
Yet you were under no illusion that I actually meant the literal words I had typed.
To be fair, it seems you rarely mean the literal words you type. But a reader who is either unfamiliar with your posting history, or unattentative or even just plain tired might easily take you at your word. If you desire readers to get your point, it is really up to you to make sure they get it. Blaming them for your poor communication is not an effective mechanism.
However, when readers are misunderstanding their message, a writer interested in effective communication does not jump at blaming the audience .
I suspect the vast majority of readers would have understood it was satire, as you did.
Apparently you did not read or understand the italicized and bold-faced part.
 

Canard DuJour

Veteran Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,181
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
dunno
Metaphor said:
No remotely convincing case has been made that forgiveness of student debt by the American gov't is beneficial to society.

No case whatsoever has been made that future tax payers will get less.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,331
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Why are we even letting LP frame this argument as if the fucking 'market' should drive what people do for an education. Fucking hell, he's got a bad case of capitalism, and it's fully metastasized.

If we let the 'market' determine what people should do, all we get are fucking sportsball players and bad autotune.

No. Just fucking no. We need art, as a civilization. We need dance and music and teachers (there's one the market really fucked up) and nurses and all kinds of professions that the market drastically under values.

Fuck. Capitalism.

People value watching sports. We shouldn't be deciding that it's not appropriate entertainment for them, however stupid it seems to us.

I do agree the market for teachers is fucked up--that's what happens when you have basically a sole source for hiring them.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,168
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule

I do agree the market for teachers is fucked up--that's what happens when you have basically a sole source for hiring them.
That makes no sense. There is a basically a sole source for hiring any professional hockey, basketball, football or baseball player in the USA.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,331
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

I do agree the market for teachers is fucked up--that's what happens when you have basically a sole source for hiring them.
That makes no sense. There is a basically a sole source for hiring any professional hockey, basketball, football or baseball player in the USA.
They can make the various teams bid against each other. A sufficient portion of teachers of kids are hired by the government that the government pretty much controls the market.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,168
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule

I do agree the market for teachers is fucked up--that's what happens when you have basically a sole source for hiring them.
That makes no sense. There is a basically a sole source for hiring any professional hockey, basketball, football or baseball player in the USA.
They can make the various teams bid against each other. A sufficient portion of teachers of kids are hired by the government that the government pretty much controls the market.
Teachers can make different school districts (there is no single "government" purchaser of teaching services) bid against each other or go into more lucrative professions (as many end up doing).

Your argument is long on ideology and short on economic thinking.
Th
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
It is not forgivness. It is taxpayers paying off personal loans.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
21,898
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I'll tell you what's toxic to society: fucking Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas and everyone else from sun and sundry being a ignorant fucking idiot about shit that they should damn well know as functional adults.
What in particular do you think Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas are so ignorant about and how will that state of affairs be helped by forgiving loans to people who took six figure loans to study art history or underwater basket weaving at some pretentious private liberal arts college?

I WANT my tax dollars to go toward that.
You want taxpayer funded courses for Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas in what exactly?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
21,898
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Why are we even letting LP frame this argument as if the fucking 'market' should drive what people do for an education.
Because people usually get a degree in order to pursue a particular career.
If too many people pursue say PhD in French Poetry or Medieval Art History not for personal edification but to pursue a career in those fields, you get an oversaturation of the market and people taking adjunct professor gigs for $20k per year like in this thread:
Professors in Poverty

Fucking hell, he's got a bad case of capitalism, and it's fully metastasized.
Would you rather have a bad case of stage IV socialism?
Do you think in actually existing countries you could get any degree you wanted for free? No, who was allowed to pursue higher education, in what field and at what institution was carefully regulated to conform to the current five year plan.

If we let the 'market' determine what people should do, all we get are fucking sportsball players and bad autotune.
Hardly. These professions get to make big bucks because most of the audience wants to see the games in the top league in a particular sport, which offer very limited employment. NBA has just over 500 players, NFL just under 1,700 and MLB is in the middle - just under 1000. That's a laughably small fraction of US workforce, and to suggest that "all we get are sportsball players" is laughable.
Yes, there are minor leagues, but they are not paid well. And things are even worse for individual sports. There are probably less than hundred active American professional tennis players, only 22 of them being top 100 ranked (11 men, 11 women as of 2018).
Same goes for popular musicians. A few thousand can actually make a living making music at any given time, whether autotuned or not.

No. Just fucking no. We need art, as a civilization.
Ok, we do, to some extent. But do we need government funded/subsidized art? And who then decides what is art worth funding/subsidizing?
The art world is largely a scam these days anyway. A lot of tax dodging and money laundering.

We need dance and music
And we do have those.

and teachers (there's one the market really fucked up)
The median salary for teachers in the US is ~$60k. That's not bad for a job with Summers off and is better than median income for minor sportsball leagues like MiLB or G-League. Median household income is ~$67k so a median teacher is just under that. Two median teachers have a household income of about 3rd quartile. Does not really correspond well to the memes about how teachers are the poors.

and nurses and all kinds of professions that the market drastically under values.
Nurses make ~$75k median. More for higher level like nurse practitioners.

Fuck. Capitalism.

Really? You think teachers and nurses were valued higher under actually existing socialism? I grew up in an actually existing socialist country and let me tell you, they were not.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,054
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It's interesting that when someone brings up the existence of individuals within the classes of "barista" and "Uber drivers" who are idiots on the basis of immediate interactions with such idiots, that others immediately jump to thinking this describes or is intended to describe all baristas and Uber drivers.

it's almost as if some folks have some stereotypes on their minds... Or operate in the realm of stereotype in general.

Still, it would be a better world if ZERO of the baristas and Uber drivers I encountered asked me whether chemtrails were real.

I'm sure some such have been to college, and that the majority aren't dumb or uneducated.

What is clear is that if everyone were more able to pursue education, fewer baristas and Uber drivers would be uneducated and less likely to spout off crazy shit like chemtrails and flat-earth.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,479
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I'll tell you what's toxic to society: fucking Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas and everyone else from sun and sundry being a ignorant fucking idiot about shit that they should damn well know as functional adults.
What in particular do you think Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas are so ignorant about and how will that state of affairs be helped by forgiving loans to people who took six figure loans to study art history or underwater basket weaving at some pretentious private liberal arts college?
Because most college students didn't major in art history or went to some pretentious private liberal arts college. Why is it necessary to demonize everyone? We have a generation of college grads struggling with loans because college (even state) got real expensive and the '08 crash led to extraordinary tightening on resources, which led to fewer people working and completing the same amount of work. There are positions that have either disappeared or multiple positions have become one job now.

The American Dream had been contingent on "going to college". That was a major rung in 'making it'. The US is developing into a different nation, with a surplus of people that went to college, and a college degree does not maintain the value it had. But no one told these kids that. And none of them are responsible for how corporations squeeze the amount of production they get these days out of fewer workers.

These kids were told to go to college. They did. Some of them majored in Liberal Arts because they no good math and science. Had they not, you'd be whining about paying their welfare payments because they stopped after high school. "Why didn't they go to college?!" But to complain about caricatures in order to be able to handwave the students as fools is nothing but blind character assassination. You don't know these people, you don't know how hard they did or didn't work, you just want to laugh at them drowning in the ocean when you could easily pass them a life saver.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,168
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Why are we even letting LP frame this argument as if the fucking 'market' should drive what people do for an education.
Because people usually get a degree in order to pursue a particular career.
That is untrue. There are degree program that are designed for particular careers (education, accounting, and some engineering degree come to mind), but most degree are not.

Your observation is an extensive of the mono- utilitarian view of education.



 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,054
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Why are we even letting LP frame this argument as if the fucking 'market' should drive what people do for an education.
Because people usually get a degree in order to pursue a particular career.
That is untrue. There are degree program that are designed for particular careers (education, accounting, and some engineering degree come to mind), but most degree are not.

Your observation is an extensive of the mono- utilitarian view of education.
If ever I pursue a deeper degree it will explicitly not be in my career path. I want to learn how to do things I enjoy and do them very well for my own sake.

I would, for my career, do something I hate so as to not despoil the things I love with labor for base purposes.

If the labors of my love are enjoyed by others, this is nice, but I will not be enslaved to that which I love for my basic needs.

Maybe I get enough money to quit my job from my job from my hobbies, but even then, they will not be my job and I will treat them as hobbies. If ever they cease to do the thing for the sake of supporting myself, I will always have a job I can do that I hate.

And even if I somehow also learn to love my job, I will only ever do it "for a job" because I know I can hate it.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,175
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I'll tell you what's toxic to society: fucking Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas and everyone else from sun and sundry being a ignorant fucking idiot about shit that they should damn well know as functional adults.
What in particular do you think Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas are so ignorant about and how will that state of affairs be helped by forgiving loans to people who took six figure loans to study art history or underwater basket weaving at some pretentious private liberal arts college?
Because most college students didn't major in art history or went to some pretentious private liberal arts college. Why is it necessary to demonize everyone? We have a generation of college grads struggling with loans because college (even state) got real expensive and the '08 crash led to extraordinary tightening on resources, which led to fewer people working and completing the same amount of work. There are positions that have either disappeared or multiple positions have become one job now.

The American Dream had been contingent on "going to college". That was a major rung in 'making it'. The US is developing into a different nation, with a surplus of people that went to college, and a college degree does not maintain the value it had. But no one told these kids that. And none of them are responsible for how corporations squeeze the amount of production they get these days out of fewer workers.

These kids were told to go to college. They did. Some of them majored in Liberal Arts because they no good math and science. Had they not, you'd be whining about paying their welfare payments because they stopped after high school. "Why didn't they go to college?!" But to complain about caricatures in order to be able to handwave the students as fools is nothing but blind character assassination. You don't know these people, you don't know how hard they did or didn't work, you just want to laugh at them drowning in the ocean when you could easily pass them a life saver.
Some kids majored in liberal arts because they are good at writing, art, music, history, economics, sociology, psychology and other subjects which are not math or science or computers. And they enjoyed those subjects and are well employed and self supporting and create all kinds of things we all enjoy.

FFS, as a science major coming from a family of people who were pushed into math and science and did very well in those fields: not everyone in those fields is smart, completed their degree, is employed, is employed in those fields or is a decent human being. Definitely not all are happy in those careers. STEM careers are not the only career paths that are worthwhile, productive, lucrative, essential to society or worth pursuing.

So all of you engineers, computer or otherwise can just stuff it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,054
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
...
So all of you engineers, computer or otherwise can just stuff it.
Hey now, I'm on your side here!
I know I know. I’m a STEM person but I’m also sick of the rhetoric that only STEM careers are worthwhile.
I guess my point was that degrees shouldn't only be "for careers".

There are a lot of creative folks, whose only limitations in the wonders and beauty they can create participate, and do of their own joy are the limitations of their understanding of the world and language and each other.

Consider Bobbie: Bobbie works at McDonalds as manager. It pays the bills, and it's work that, while she kind of hates, she loves her coworkers and community exposure. Even so, the folks at corporate will not promote Bobbie unless she proves she can get a degree, and hold to an accomplishment of that calibre.

So, Bobbie gets a degree.

Does Bobbie need a STEM degree? HELL NO! She is already a master of her trade, in fact, managing teenagers well enough to keep a store fully staffed.

Instead, we should consider that Bobbie may benefit everyone much more if she gets a degree in Art, working on sculptures.

What does that have to do with flipping burgers?

Nothing, of course.

But over the course of it, a great many buildings and spaces will be enriched by Bobbie's contribution not to flipping burgers but by the fantastic sculptures she makes and donates to the community, one or two of which might end up gracing the McDonald's parking lot.

And in the mean time, she gets to learn foreign languages (Spanish, so she is more fluent with some of the team members who happen to have immigrated), technical writing, some psychology, and maybe some philosophy, too.

In the process of getting a degree for personal edification, while it barely changes her JOB much at all, it dramatically increases her happiness with her own life, and increases her involvement with her community.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,175
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Or: Bobbi gets a degree in art, and in the course of her studies, learns Spanish, and becomes conversant in Arabic and Hmong. She begins to have some of her pieces shown in local galleries and does some side gigs in various arts communities. She participates in arts groups for youth, particularly those from immigrant communities. Through this work, she begins to help write grants and becomes a quite accomplished grants writer. Her program is utilized as an intervention/diversion program and helps youth find and express their creative talents and channels their talents into helping their communities. Eventually Bobbi is hired to direct programs at her community’s youth center and she eventually opens and manages her own successful gallery. She quits her gig at McDonalds after creating a mural, along with kids in one of her groups, on the cinderblock wall along the parking lot of her old work place

She is mentioned in the acceptance speech if one of her mentees who is receiving an award for set design. Interest and demand for her work increases. She is the new ‘It’ person in the arts. She endows scholarships for students pursuing careers in the arts. One of her pieces adorns the Libby of the newly constructed performance arts center.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,331
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It's interesting that when someone brings up the existence of individuals within the classes of "barista" and "Uber drivers" who are idiots on the basis of immediate interactions with such idiots, that others immediately jump to thinking this describes or is intended to describe all baristas and Uber drivers.

it's almost as if some folks have some stereotypes on their minds... Or operate in the realm of stereotype in general.

Still, it would be a better world if ZERO of the baristas and Uber drivers I encountered asked me whether chemtrails were real.

I'm sure some such have been to college, and that the majority aren't dumb or uneducated.

What is clear is that if everyone were more able to pursue education, fewer baristas and Uber drivers would be uneducated and less likely to spout off crazy shit like chemtrails and flat-earth.
And getting them a useless degree won't change that. Plenty of educated people fall for the quacks.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,331
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
These kids were told to go to college. They did. Some of them majored in Liberal Arts because they no good math and science. Had they not, you'd be whining about paying their welfare payments because they stopped after high school. "Why didn't they go to college?!" But to complain about caricatures in order to be able to handwave the students as fools is nothing but blind character assassination. You don't know these people, you don't know how hard they did or didn't work, you just want to laugh at them drowning in the ocean when you could easily pass them a life saver.
That doesn't mean those liberal arts degrees will be put to any real use. I'm thinking of the daughter of someone I used to know. I don't remember the exact details but there were two degree options in the same basic field. She took the easier one--and then was surprised when nobody would hire her.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,054
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It's interesting that when someone brings up the existence of individuals within the classes of "barista" and "Uber drivers" who are idiots on the basis of immediate interactions with such idiots, that others immediately jump to thinking this describes or is intended to describe all baristas and Uber drivers.

it's almost as if some folks have some stereotypes on their minds... Or operate in the realm of stereotype in general.

Still, it would be a better world if ZERO of the baristas and Uber drivers I encountered asked me whether chemtrails were real.

I'm sure some such have been to college, and that the majority aren't dumb or uneducated.

What is clear is that if everyone were more able to pursue education, fewer baristas and Uber drivers would be uneducated and less likely to spout off crazy shit like chemtrails and flat-earth.
And getting them a useless degree won't change that. Plenty of educated people fall for the quacks.
Still, fewer, and it takes a more persistent quack most times.

Even the exposure to people less likely to fall for Teh Stoopid is a boon in that direction.

And moreover, it's just nice to have things to talk about that aren't the front page of the least scholarly thing seen in the checkout aisle of the local bodega.

The social benefits of having a much larger proportion of the population who have read more than a single digit number of books is quite high
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
It is not forgivness. It is taxpayers paying off personal loans.
So?
The left likes to use euphemisms. Sanders makes liberal ise of the word 'free'.

Why should an average wage earner supporting a family subsidize a degree for which the student has no hope of using it to make a living wage. Loan forgiveness is a euphemism for other people paying for it.

I can not imagine anyone on the left going on TV and saying 'I think taxpayers should support college tuition for everyone'. They say it should be free. The usuakl political bullshit.

Should a PHD in art or musc history from Harvard be paid for by average Americans? I do not think so. As we speak stidents are still taking on debt with no idea or plan on how to pay it back.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,175
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It is not forgivness. It is taxpayers paying off personal loans.
So?
The left likes to use euphemisms. Sanders makes liberal ise of the word 'free'.

Why should an average wage earner supporting a family subsidize a degree for which the student has no hope of using it to make a living wage. Loan forgiveness is a euphemism for other people paying for it.

I can not imagine anyone on the left going on TV and saying 'I think taxpayers should support college tuition for everyone'. They say it should be free. The usuakl political bullshit.

Should a PHD in art or musc history from Harvard be paid for by average Americans? I do not think so. As we speak stidents are still taking on debt with no idea or plan on how to pay it back.
Massive student debt is just a euphemism for society failing to provide basic needs for its citizens.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,175
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
These kids were told to go to college. They did. Some of them majored in Liberal Arts because they no good math and science. Had they not, you'd be whining about paying their welfare payments because they stopped after high school. "Why didn't they go to college?!" But to complain about caricatures in order to be able to handwave the students as fools is nothing but blind character assassination. You don't know these people, you don't know how hard they did or didn't work, you just want to laugh at them drowning in the ocean when you could easily pass them a life saver.
That doesn't mean those liberal arts degrees will be put to any real use. I'm thinking of the daughter of someone I used to know. I don't remember the exact details but there were two degree options in the same basic field. She took the easier one--and then was surprised when nobody would hire her.
OMG. I know people who got degrees in STEM fields who had a hard time finding employment in those STEM fields! Nobody take STEM!
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,408
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
...
So all of you engineers, computer or otherwise can just stuff it.
Hey now, I'm on your side here!
I know I know. I’m a STEM person but I’m also sick of the rhetoric that only STEM careers are worthwhile.
I was a software engineer. Now I drive a bus.

I am happier; And I am damn sure that I am making a lot of other people's lives directly easier, happier, and better.

I am not, however, adding anything like as much value for shareholders, a fact which causes me no loss of sleep whatsoever.
 
Top Bottom