Mortgage Lenders Bad, Student Loans Good

[Ray From Cleveland]

The reason colleges can charge so much is because we have more kids than ever attending college.

Yeah, kinda--It's not so much that there are so many people attending college. It's that the checkbook is attached to a bottomless pit.

College is a must for many because those good paying monkey jobs went to China or are being replaced by automation.

When I was in school back in the 70's, out of a class of 35, only about six or seven went to collage after that. Today, it's well over 60%.

When anyplace is making 20% profit, you know darn well that the demand must be out of this world.

When there was competition in that market, price did play a factor to attract these kids. Today, there is no competition because there are so many that want to go to your college that you can just about charge anything you want. Your competition isn't worried about what you are charging because no matter what they charge, there are still many fighting to get into their college as well.

What effect has non-profit public college have on price?

None that I can think of. Prices are set due to supply and demand, so I don't know what possible effect non-profit colleges could have on the price.

As i read, demand is at 100 percent for most colleges and has been for some time. Which means that the colleges can be selective in who they let in. By running at 100 percent one would think that the cost of running the college would be less when divided over the student body. But that does not seem to be the case. In other words administers know their capacity and are running at full capacity. Thus, the demand doesn't change it is always 100 percent. So I do not see how this causes the price to escalate.

Think of it like e-bay.

You are going through your attic one day and find a huge box of old Archie comic books in new condition. As a child, you only paid 25 cents for each copy. But you don't want them and put them on e-bay.

The first bidder offers 50 cents for each copy. The next offers you $1.00 for each copy. You come back to e-bay in about three hours, and the bid is up to $15.00 per copy.

Why would anybody pay ten to fifty times more for your comic books than you paid as a child? Because they are rare and people are willing to pay that kind of money for them.

Using my own situation, if I place an ad for one of my apartments for $625.00 per month on CraigsList, and I get 20 responders in the first few hours, I have a product that many people want. So I remove the ad and place another one a few days later asking $675.00. This time I get 10 people responding in the first few hours. Again, I take the ad out, and replace it a few days later with the price of $725.00. This time I get three people responding.

Why would I give them the apartment for $625.00 instead of $725.00? My product is only worth as much as people are willing to pay. So two months later, another tenant moves out, and I place an ad on CraigsList for $725.00 per month because I know that's how much people are willing to pay.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The reason colleges can charge so much is because we have more kids than ever attending college.

Yeah, kinda--It's not so much that there are so many people attending college. It's that the checkbook is attached to a bottomless pit.

College is a must for many because those good paying monkey jobs went to China or are being replaced by automation.

When I was in school back in the 70's, out of a class of 35, only about six or seven went to collage after that. Today, it's well over 60%.

When anyplace is making 20% profit, you know darn well that the demand must be out of this world.

When there was competition in that market, price did play a factor to attract these kids. Today, there is no competition because there are so many that want to go to your college that you can just about charge anything you want. Your competition isn't worried about what you are charging because no matter what they charge, there are still many fighting to get into their college as well.

The need, and the alleged long term financial benefit, are the driving forces. Personally, providing for higher education is one of the few areas I'm happy for government funding to be involved. But really, we don't have government funding higher education very much. We have government bankrolling the cost up front, while squeezing you for 30 years to recoup at a massive profit. It would be better if people were paying out of pocket, because that would force the price down to what people are able to pay on their own.

Only if there is a reduction in applicants.

Colleges don't care how you pay, just as long as you pay. As long as you have more people wanting to attend your college than the classes that you have, the higher price you can charge.

What I mean is that if we took student loans out of the picture, people would have no other option than to pay out of pocket, and that would reduce total demand. Because the price point at which people are even able to pay would be much lower.

Okay, I didn't understand. Yes, you are correct. If we do something to lower the amount of people wanting to attend college, then the prices would have to go down because it would create competition again, and colleges would take measures to attract students to their facility.

 

[SwimExpert]

Can you answer the simple question without making all these hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the scenario, or with what I said for that matter.

No I can't. Your questions are fabrications that don't actually exist. You're misusing concept in appropriately. Essentially, your questions are basically jibberish. You may as well be asking for how adding neutrons to dinosaurs will effect noun-verb agreement in Van Gogh paintings.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Left has run education down into the dirt. Even NYC Borough Presidents, who happen to be black, are decrying how horribly the inner city education system has become. It cheats their constituents children of a future, just as benefits the Democrat Party; that was their intent all along

We spent more money per student that any other country on the planet and it all goes to fund a sick, malevolent bureaucracy that practices intellectual pedophilia on school kids

Common Core and No Child Left behind were wonderful Republican ideas. How come you guys take no responsibility for your part in the mess?

I knew Bush was a lying scumbag as soon as he passed the chance to not only dismantle public education but let that fat fucking murderer Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind Bill

Just how on God's green earth do you envisions "dismantling public education"? Are you that looney tunes?

How? Vouchers

Are you proud of your Democrat educational system where 80% of the "graduates" can't function at grade level

Do you have a link to this fantasy of yours?

Vouchers are an epic failure because people do not support them. Every voucher initiative that was left up to the people has been voted down by referendum. Those instituted without public consent are ineffective and wasteful.

What's a "Fantasy"? That Democrat Education is a Planned Failure?

 

[Freewill]

Yeah, kinda--It's not so much that there are so many people attending college. It's that the checkbook is attached to a bottomless pit.

College is a must for many because those good paying monkey jobs went to China or are being replaced by automation.

When I was in school back in the 70's, out of a class of 35, only about six or seven went to collage after that. Today, it's well over 60%.

When anyplace is making 20% profit, you know darn well that the demand must be out of this world.

When there was competition in that market, price did play a factor to attract these kids. Today, there is no competition because there are so many that want to go to your college that you can just about charge anything you want. Your competition isn't worried about what you are charging because no matter what they charge, there are still many fighting to get into their college as well.

What effect has non-profit public college have on price?

None that I can think of. Prices are set due to supply and demand, so I don't know what possible effect non-profit colleges could have on the price.

As i read, demand is at 100 percent for most colleges and has been for some time. Which means that the colleges can be selective in who they let in. By running at 100 percent one would think that the cost of running the college would be less when divided over the student body. But that does not seem to be the case. In other words administers know their capacity and are running at full capacity. Thus, the demand doesn't change it is always 100 percent. So I do not see how this causes the price to escalate.

Think of it like e-bay.

You are going through your attic one day and find a huge box of old Archie comic books in new condition. As a child, you only paid 25 cents for each copy. But you don't want them and put them on e-bay.

The first bidder offers 50 cents for each copy. The next offers you $1.00 for each copy. You come back to e-bay in about three hours, and the bid is up to $15.00 per copy.

Why would anybody pay ten to fifty times more for your comic books than you paid as a child? Because they are rare and people are willing to pay that kind of money for them.

Using my own situation, if I place an ad for one of my apartments for $625.00 per month on CraigsList, and I get 20 responders in the first few hours, I have a product that many people want. So I remove the ad and place another one a few days later asking $675.00. This time I get 10 people responding in the first few hours. Again, I take the ad out, and replace it a few days later with the price of $725.00. This time I get three people responding.

Why would I give them the apartment for $625.00 instead of $725.00? My product is only worth as much as people are willing to pay. So two months later, another tenant moves out, and I place an ad on CraigsList for $725.00 per month because I know that's how much people are willing to pay.

I, apparently wrongly, look at it this way. It is like riding a bus, it doesn't cost more if the bus is full or if it is empty the bus company just makes more money if it is full.

As for you rent example. People responded to the 625 dollars. If you think you can get more then you are just gouging at that point. Much like what the colleges are doing, especially non-profits.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Left has run education down into the dirt. Even NYC Borough Presidents, who happen to be black, are decrying how horribly the inner city education system has become. It cheats their constituents children of a future, just as benefits the Democrat Party; that was their intent all along

We spent more money per student that any other country on the planet and it all goes to fund a sick, malevolent bureaucracy that practices intellectual pedophilia on school kids

Common Core and No Child Left behind were wonderful Republican ideas. How come you guys take no responsibility for your part in the mess?

I knew Bush was a lying scumbag as soon as he passed the chance to not only dismantle public education but let that fat fucking murderer Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind Bill

Just how on God's green earth do you envisions "dismantling public education"? Are you that looney tunes?

How? Vouchers

Are you proud of your Democrat educational system where 80% of the "graduates" can't function at grade level

Do you have a link to this fantasy of yours?

Vouchers are an epic failure because people do not support them. Every voucher initiative that was left up to the people has been voted down by referendum. Those instituted without public consent are ineffective and wasteful.

Education Bombshell: 80% NYC High School Grads Can't Read at Grade Level

Education Bombshell: 80% NYC High School Grads Can't Read at Grade Level | Fox Business

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

College is a must for many because those good paying monkey jobs went to China or are being replaced by automation.

When I was in school back in the 70's, out of a class of 35, only about six or seven went to collage after that. Today, it's well over 60%.

When anyplace is making 20% profit, you know darn well that the demand must be out of this world.

When there was competition in that market, price did play a factor to attract these kids. Today, there is no competition because there are so many that want to go to your college that you can just about charge anything you want. Your competition isn't worried about what you are charging because no matter what they charge, there are still many fighting to get into their college as well.

What effect has non-profit public college have on price?

None that I can think of. Prices are set due to supply and demand, so I don't know what possible effect non-profit colleges could have on the price.

As i read, demand is at 100 percent for most colleges and has been for some time. Which means that the colleges can be selective in who they let in. By running at 100 percent one would think that the cost of running the college would be less when divided over the student body. But that does not seem to be the case. In other words administers know their capacity and are running at full capacity. Thus, the demand doesn't change it is always 100 percent. So I do not see how this causes the price to escalate.

Think of it like e-bay.

You are going through your attic one day and find a huge box of old Archie comic books in new condition. As a child, you only paid 25 cents for each copy. But you don't want them and put them on e-bay.

The first bidder offers 50 cents for each copy. The next offers you $1.00 for each copy. You come back to e-bay in about three hours, and the bid is up to $15.00 per copy.

Why would anybody pay ten to fifty times more for your comic books than you paid as a child? Because they are rare and people are willing to pay that kind of money for them.

Using my own situation, if I place an ad for one of my apartments for $625.00 per month on CraigsList, and I get 20 responders in the first few hours, I have a product that many people want. So I remove the ad and place another one a few days later asking $675.00. This time I get 10 people responding in the first few hours. Again, I take the ad out, and replace it a few days later with the price of $725.00. This time I get three people responding.

Why would I give them the apartment for $625.00 instead of $725.00? My product is only worth as much as people are willing to pay. So two months later, another tenant moves out, and I place an ad on CraigsList for $725.00 per month because I know that's how much people are willing to pay.

I, apparently wrongly, look at it this way. It is like riding a bus, it doesn't cost more if the bus is full or if it is empty the bus company just makes more money if it is full.

As for you rent example. People responded to the 625 dollars. If you think you can get more then you are just gouging at that point. Much like what the colleges are doing, especially non-profits.

Correct, that's exactly what they are doing and that's exactly what property owners are doing in the rental market today.

 

[SwimExpert]

Okay, I didn't understand. Yes, you are correct. If we do something to lower the amount of people wanting to attend college, then the prices would have to go down because it would create competition again, and colleges would take measures to attract students to their facility.

I don't know. I think that at the end of the day there's actually a lot of competition. There are over 1800 private four year institutions in the country. Add in private and public 2 year institutions and we have more than 4000 choices. That's a whole lot of choices for something that only some people do, and only for a relatively small duration. Meanwhile, how many different toilet paper brands are there? And everyone uses toilet paper for nearly their entire lives.

But I do 100% agree that we need to reduce reliance on college. Half of the time spent in college for most degree programs is general education. If we restructured our system so that high school focused on the kind of technical training that is typically found in 1 - 2 year community college programs, and left college for the 2 - 3 years of specialized education, the costs would drop dramatically. That might make too much sense, though.

 

[Norman]

Can you answer the simple question without making all these hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the scenario, or with what I said for that matter.

No I can't. Your questions are fabrications that don't actually exist. You're misusing concept in appropriately. Essentially, your questions are basically jibberish. You may as well be asking for how adding neutrons to dinosaurs will effect noun-verb agreement in Van Gogh paintings.

Except my question was so simple that 5-year old could spell the answer... while not even Einstein could answer your question. False equivalency much?

Damn post-modernists...

 

[Indeependent]

Not of nobody is willing to pay the higher price.

The likelihood which is:

0.

Especially when considering the whole sector in an aggregate.

Which you base on nothing more than your assumptions that your previous assumptions are correct.

Of course, it's very likely that 10 million people are going to buy education priced at 50 K, but every single one of them is going to drop out of the market at 51K. Completely realistic assumption... About as realistic as the leftist regressivist assumption that everyone is the same.

Thankfully, these assumptions have been empirically verified, so that's that...

See, your problem is that you think that this all boils down to linear mathematical relationships, and you're trying to appeal to statistical interpretations to justify your assumptions in the absence of any ability to actually justify your claims.

I get the impression that you're the kind of person who likes to be in control of everyone and everything using simplistic measures, and probably even believes that it's possible. Guess what....you're wrong. It's just not as simple as you would like it to be. I understand, you feel entitled to whatever easy answers you want. But you're not.

The really ironic thing is that you're desperately trying to support your interpretation that demand equates to volume, and in doing so your "best" attempt is to posit that volume implies willingness to buy. Your very own argument relies on the very premise that you are trying to disprove.

So let's imagine that you're right for a moment. Let's assume that more people wanting a product will result in all of those people being willing to pay more for that product (an absolutely ridiculous assumption, obviously, but we'll indulge you for a moment). The underlying mechanism is still the willingness to buy. Thanks for proving my point.

Before continuing, I just want you to answer the following question:

If university is offering an education for 50K a year and decides to hike prices to 55K, are:
a) Less people going to attend
b) More people going to attend
c) The attendance going to remain the same.
after the price hike?
(provided all else equal).
You can find the answer here if the question is too difficult: Law of demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are trying to make something that is extremely simple, extremely complicated. At this point I would honestly start wondering, why is such a simple concept so difficult for you to understand? Were you beaten to the head with the Marxist text-books or what? You certainly understand language just fine so why is this so difficult!!

And no, the result is not only theoretical, but also empirical (barring some extreme cases called "giffen goods" - which education certainly isn't).

Corporate America convinces the up and coming generation that an advanced degree is required in order to secure financial success.
In response to these Corporate Memes, people actually go to college.
At the same time, Corporate America is becoming Corporate ex-America and sponsoring bullshit legislation such as House Bill HR633 and Senate Bill S744 to ensure that only low wage Indian Business Visas will get the lion's share of career opportunities.

Any other questions?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, I didn't understand. Yes, you are correct. If we do something to lower the amount of people wanting to attend college, then the prices would have to go down because it would create competition again, and colleges would take measures to attract students to their facility.

I don't know. I think that at the end of the day there's actually a lot of competition. There are over 1800 private four year institutions in the country. Add in private and public 2 year institutions and we have more than 4000 choices. That's a whole lot of choices for something that only some people do, and only for a relatively small duration. Meanwhile, how many different toilet paper brands are there? And everyone uses toilet paper for nearly their entire lives.

But I do 100% agree that we need to reduce reliance on college. Half of the time spent in college for most degree programs is general education. If we restructured our system so that high school focused on the kind of technical training that is typically found in 1 - 2 year community college programs, and left college for the 2 - 3 years of specialized education, the costs would drop dramatically. That might make too much sense, though.

What you are talking about is advanced education in our high schools. Hell, we had that when I was a teen. We had one facility that several suburbs funded called Vo-Ed. Each school would bus so many people to the Vo-Ed school and you could use your school time to learn a trade. Back then, they had computer training (which was nothing like it is today) welding, auto body, small engine airplane mechanics and so on. A friend of mine teaches at a similar school. He's a printing teacher.

But these programs are expensive. One of the reasons our Vo-Ed school didn't do so well is because they couldn't keep up with the newest technology and equipment coming out. A kid could graduate from the school and still have a hard time finding a job because what he was taught was seven year old stuff. So it's all a matter what the taxpayers are willing to contribute.

 

[SwimExpert]

Except my question was so simple that 5-year old could spell the answer... while not even Einstein could answer your question. False equivalency much?

Damn post-modernists...

We could also ask any grade schooler what effect two positive charges have on each other, and they'd be able to tell us that they repel each other. But that wouldn't justify using two magnets to substitute an understanding of the strong nuclear force, or to confuse color charge with light passing through a prism.

 

[SwimExpert]

Okay, I didn't understand. Yes, you are correct. If we do something to lower the amount of people wanting to attend college, then the prices would have to go down because it would create competition again, and colleges would take measures to attract students to their facility.

I don't know. I think that at the end of the day there's actually a lot of competition. There are over 1800 private four year institutions in the country. Add in private and public 2 year institutions and we have more than 4000 choices. That's a whole lot of choices for something that only some people do, and only for a relatively small duration. Meanwhile, how many different toilet paper brands are there? And everyone uses toilet paper for nearly their entire lives.

But I do 100% agree that we need to reduce reliance on college. Half of the time spent in college for most degree programs is general education. If we restructured our system so that high school focused on the kind of technical training that is typically found in 1 - 2 year community college programs, and left college for the 2 - 3 years of specialized education, the costs would drop dramatically. That might make too much sense, though.

What you are talking about is advanced education in our high schools. Hell, we had that when I was a teen. We had one facility that several suburbs funded called Vo-Ed. Each school would bus so many people to the Vo-Ed school and you could use your school time to learn a trade. Back then, they had computer training (which was nothing like it is today) welding, auto body, small engine airplane mechanics and so on. A friend of mine teaches at a similar school. He's a printing teacher.

But these programs are expensive. One of the reasons our Vo-Ed school didn't do so well is because they couldn't keep up with the newest technology and equipment coming out. A kid could graduate from the school and still have a hard time finding a job because what he was taught was seven year old stuff. So it's all a matter what the taxpayers are willing to contribute.

Yeah, they're expensive. But is what we're doing now cheaper?

 

[Norman]

Except my question was so simple that 5-year old could spell the answer... while not even Einstein could answer your question. False equivalency much?

Damn post-modernists...

We could also ask any grade schooler what effect two positive charges have on each other, and they'd be able to tell us that they repel each other. But that wouldn't justify using two magnets to substitute an understanding of the strong nuclear force, or to confuse color charge with light passing through a prism.

But they could still conclude that positive attracts negative. Which is enough to solve this "problem". You even admitted the answer yourself and now you are backing again.

If price is hiked less people will buy. The demand curve is downward sloping. It really is this simple. Come on...

(Or perhaps you are the type that when price is increased - you will buy more! I can assure you, this is not common behavior.)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, I didn't understand. Yes, you are correct. If we do something to lower the amount of people wanting to attend college, then the prices would have to go down because it would create competition again, and colleges would take measures to attract students to their facility.

I don't know. I think that at the end of the day there's actually a lot of competition. There are over 1800 private four year institutions in the country. Add in private and public 2 year institutions and we have more than 4000 choices. That's a whole lot of choices for something that only some people do, and only for a relatively small duration. Meanwhile, how many different toilet paper brands are there? And everyone uses toilet paper for nearly their entire lives.

But I do 100% agree that we need to reduce reliance on college. Half of the time spent in college for most degree programs is general education. If we restructured our system so that high school focused on the kind of technical training that is typically found in 1 - 2 year community college programs, and left college for the 2 - 3 years of specialized education, the costs would drop dramatically. That might make too much sense, though.

What you are talking about is advanced education in our high schools. Hell, we had that when I was a teen. We had one facility that several suburbs funded called Vo-Ed. Each school would bus so many people to the Vo-Ed school and you could use your school time to learn a trade. Back then, they had computer training (which was nothing like it is today) welding, auto body, small engine airplane mechanics and so on. A friend of mine teaches at a similar school. He's a printing teacher.

But these programs are expensive. One of the reasons our Vo-Ed school didn't do so well is because they couldn't keep up with the newest technology and equipment coming out. A kid could graduate from the school and still have a hard time finding a job because what he was taught was seven year old stuff. So it's all a matter what the taxpayers are willing to contribute.

Yeah, they're expensive. But is what we're doing now cheaper?

Cheaper for the taxpayer? Yes it is.

If you want an advanced education, then it is an investment no different than buying rare coins, stock in the stock market, a commodity in the commodities market.

An investment is where you spend your own money hoping for a profit. That's exactly what college is. If you get a degree in whatever, you will likely spend less time in the unemployment line, you will likely have a higher paying job, you will likely get more promotions to even higher paying jobs.

I look at it this way: half of the property tax I pay go to our schools in which me nor my tenants have children in, yet we are forced to support it. Okay, nothing I can do about that. But we taxpayers also support free school lunch, and free breakfast and dinner in some places. We taxpayers support pre-school vouchers for mothers that work. We support the busses to take kids to and from school, the football stadium, the gym classes and gymnasiums.

I think we've done enough for other people's kids. When those kids get old enough to take care of themselves, it's time for the taxpayers to stop funding them any longer.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

High school diplomas are worthless because the left has destroyed public education.

Really? Who were the ones who insisted on expunging all references to Evolution from the science books?

Right wingers.

Who insisted on cutting funding to education?

Right wingers.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

Who insisted on medicating the shit out of kids with Ritalin?

Rightwingers

Public education is NOT about educating. It is about racketeering...government protects teachers unions and in turn the D party gets tons of campaign donations. Win/win.

again, if you ever got any education, it was a wasted effort.

There are a lot of problems with education. Part of it is because with the parents working four jobs, no one is making sure that kids are doing their homework.

When my children were born, I vowed that they would NEVER walks the halls of a p-school. They never did.

I did not want them turning out like you. A statist loving dunce.

I've got my daughter in private school and I've vowed that she'll never step into a public school.

Good for you! Now, don't ever complain about school choice. You made your choice.

Yes, I've made my choice and still will complain about school choice.

 

[SwimExpert]

But they could still conclude that positive attracts negative. Which is enough to solve this "problem".

No. See, the problem is that you don't actually comprehend the matter at hand. You're trying to force it into the limits of your own ignorance, and attempting to reduce it to something that is in fact nonsense.

 

[SwimExpert]

Okay, I didn't understand. Yes, you are correct. If we do something to lower the amount of people wanting to attend college, then the prices would have to go down because it would create competition again, and colleges would take measures to attract students to their facility.

I don't know. I think that at the end of the day there's actually a lot of competition. There are over 1800 private four year institutions in the country. Add in private and public 2 year institutions and we have more than 4000 choices. That's a whole lot of choices for something that only some people do, and only for a relatively small duration. Meanwhile, how many different toilet paper brands are there? And everyone uses toilet paper for nearly their entire lives.

But I do 100% agree that we need to reduce reliance on college. Half of the time spent in college for most degree programs is general education. If we restructured our system so that high school focused on the kind of technical training that is typically found in 1 - 2 year community college programs, and left college for the 2 - 3 years of specialized education, the costs would drop dramatically. That might make too much sense, though.

What you are talking about is advanced education in our high schools. Hell, we had that when I was a teen. We had one facility that several suburbs funded called Vo-Ed. Each school would bus so many people to the Vo-Ed school and you could use your school time to learn a trade. Back then, they had computer training (which was nothing like it is today) welding, auto body, small engine airplane mechanics and so on. A friend of mine teaches at a similar school. He's a printing teacher.

But these programs are expensive. One of the reasons our Vo-Ed school didn't do so well is because they couldn't keep up with the newest technology and equipment coming out. A kid could graduate from the school and still have a hard time finding a job because what he was taught was seven year old stuff. So it's all a matter what the taxpayers are willing to contribute.

Yeah, they're expensive. But is what we're doing now cheaper?

Cheaper for the taxpayer? Yes it is.

If you want an advanced education, then it is an investment no different than buying rare coins, stock in the stock market, a commodity in the commodities market.

An investment is where you spend your own money hoping for a profit. That's exactly what college is. If you get a degree in whatever, you will likely spend less time in the unemployment line, you will likely have a higher paying job, you will likely get more promotions to even higher paying jobs.

I look at it this way: half of the property tax I pay go to our schools in which me nor my tenants have children in, yet we are forced to support it. Okay, nothing I can do about that. But we taxpayers also support free school lunch, and free breakfast and dinner in some places. We taxpayers support pre-school vouchers for mothers that work. We support the busses to take kids to and from school, the football stadium, the gym classes and gymnasiums.

I think we've done enough for other people's kids. When those kids get old enough to take care of themselves, it's time for the taxpayers to stop funding them any longer.

Obviously they're not old enough to take care of themselves. That's why we the taxpayer end up still bankrolling their educations.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, I didn't understand. Yes, you are correct. If we do something to lower the amount of people wanting to attend college, then the prices would have to go down because it would create competition again, and colleges would take measures to attract students to their facility.

I don't know. I think that at the end of the day there's actually a lot of competition. There are over 1800 private four year institutions in the country. Add in private and public 2 year institutions and we have more than 4000 choices. That's a whole lot of choices for something that only some people do, and only for a relatively small duration. Meanwhile, how many different toilet paper brands are there? And everyone uses toilet paper for nearly their entire lives.

But I do 100% agree that we need to reduce reliance on college. Half of the time spent in college for most degree programs is general education. If we restructured our system so that high school focused on the kind of technical training that is typically found in 1 - 2 year community college programs, and left college for the 2 - 3 years of specialized education, the costs would drop dramatically. That might make too much sense, though.

What you are talking about is advanced education in our high schools. Hell, we had that when I was a teen. We had one facility that several suburbs funded called Vo-Ed. Each school would bus so many people to the Vo-Ed school and you could use your school time to learn a trade. Back then, they had computer training (which was nothing like it is today) welding, auto body, small engine airplane mechanics and so on. A friend of mine teaches at a similar school. He's a printing teacher.

But these programs are expensive. One of the reasons our Vo-Ed school didn't do so well is because they couldn't keep up with the newest technology and equipment coming out. A kid could graduate from the school and still have a hard time finding a job because what he was taught was seven year old stuff. So it's all a matter what the taxpayers are willing to contribute.

Yeah, they're expensive. But is what we're doing now cheaper?

Cheaper for the taxpayer? Yes it is.

If you want an advanced education, then it is an investment no different than buying rare coins, stock in the stock market, a commodity in the commodities market.

An investment is where you spend your own money hoping for a profit. That's exactly what college is. If you get a degree in whatever, you will likely spend less time in the unemployment line, you will likely have a higher paying job, you will likely get more promotions to even higher paying jobs.

I look at it this way: half of the property tax I pay go to our schools in which me nor my tenants have children in, yet we are forced to support it. Okay, nothing I can do about that. But we taxpayers also support free school lunch, and free breakfast and dinner in some places. We taxpayers support pre-school vouchers for mothers that work. We support the busses to take kids to and from school, the football stadium, the gym classes and gymnasiums.

I think we've done enough for other people's kids. When those kids get old enough to take care of themselves, it's time for the taxpayers to stop funding them any longer.

Obviously they're not old enough to take care of themselves. That's why we the taxpayer end up still bankrolling their educations.

Yeah, ain't that the truth?

When I was young, we had different people taking care of the kids. I forget what we called them back then.........let me think........OH YES, we called them parents.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yeah, ain't that the truth?

When I was young, we had different people taking care of the kids. I forget what we called them back then.........let me think........OH YES, we called them parents.

Parents can't hardly afford their kids education either. That's why we're in this mess. Personally, I have no problem with government funding education. As far as I'm concerned it's a fundamental function of government. We're already spending ever increasing amounts of money on education. My problem is that we're spending it ineffectively. We're half assing half the funding, and only fully funding programs that are nothing more than happy feel-good bullshit.

I say that we get rid of the happy feel-good bullshit, get back to funding education that actually educates, and save money by having a better educated and trained workforce that doesn't eat up a bunch of welfare dollars.