KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Wouldn't it be better to make college less expensive so that people don't have to go deep in debt in the first place?
That is a good idea, but unfortunately it leaves behind those who have already paid ridiculously high tuition using student loans. How do we help those people?
Sure those people who work for Harry Bosch can pay back their student loans with the money they are making from being employed. Unfortunately, not everyone can be employed by Harry Bosch. Unfortunately, some graduates have a very hard time finding any job immediately after college, much less a good, high paying job. A lot of people my age are in debt up to their eyeballs because of the ease of obtaining credit, so they are working longer before they retire. And those aging workers spent a lot less money on their college educations. Unemployment has also gone through the roof since the pandemic. Anyone who is graduating this year, or who graduated in the last year or two are going to be severely impacted by that. Implying that these graduates are not responsible because they are unable to find employment after graduating, is wrong headed, and does nothing to solve the problem.
Fine if you want to speak for me, but then you should read my posts more carefully.
I was not speaking for you except to say that you cannot employ everyone. If I am incorrect in that assumption, why the hell haven't you solved the problem yet by hiring everyone?
The comments at the end were more directed to Metaphor who was implying that graduates who are not paying back their student loans are not responsible. Sorry, I did not quote him directly, and kind of tacked it on after referencing you. In general I loathe discussing things with Metaphor, so I did not necessarily want to draw his attention to it. I also misunderstood your position initially, and likely a bit of that is my fault due to not reading carefully. I will try to do better.
I favor helping people where there need is. I think that we should help people with a cash flow need. Pay is relative. $20 an hour to a person with no debt and no dependents living in Baker City Oregon is not living a bad life. $20 an hour to a single mom in NYC is deep poverty level. Higher Ed is too expensive. Over the years, conservative governments have consistently cut higher ED spending. We should reverse this.
I agree with much of the above.
Secondly, I do believe that people should have an investment in their assets. And an education is an investment. People should have an equity into it. Habitat for Humanity doesn't just give it's homes away. They know that if people are vested to an asset, they will maintain it and grow it. People who receive homes from Habitat still have to pay for their home, but at a reduced cost. Greatly reduced. But they have skin in the game.
I get what you are saying, but I think there is a difference between home ownership and education. For one thing education is more of a use it or lose it proposition. With an education, it requires more maintenance to keep it up if you don't use it. With a home, the more you use it, the more maintenance you are likely to need. That is why if you just live in a home and don't own it, you are less incentivized to maintain it, and that is how "having skin in the game" works. With education, if you get it and you use it daily in your job, there is little to no cost to maintain it. What are you incentivizing by having someone pay for it to begin with?