Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't know about debt free but we could sure use some more roundly educated people in fields like health care & education, just for starters. check out the back grounds of the people running our major agency's, lots of back ground fighting against the agency's they now run. say what! how could this be true, but it is.

There are plenty of people in education, at least around here. We have teachers waiting patiently to get jobs after they get out of college. People go to college to become teachers because of the three month vacation every year plus all the time off during the year.

Healthcare is another issue. You spend all this money to get into a field of work that can have you working all kinds of shifts you don't want to work. In many cases it requires physical labor as well. Most people who go to college do so because they don't want to get into grunt work. Plus the pay is better in other professions.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The employer is not making a profit off that house.

The employer makes a profit with the machines he uses to create the product, should he pay for the education of the engineers that designed it? He makes a profit off the electricity he uses to make the product, should he pay for the education of the people who created the electric grid?

The Seflfish Are Criminally Anti-Social. Also, They Deprive Themselves Because of Their Jealousy of the Talented.

You're too stupid to understand a sequence of logic. The manufacturer of the machines your fatcat idol buys should pay for the tuition and living expenses of the engineers he freeloads off; he himself should pay for his own employees' educational preparation. Same with the electric company's bosses, or we should pull the plug on all these parasites.

Therefore, the reason you oppose paying students is that you realize that only the smartest would be allowed to go to college and you obviously aren't smart enough. You love this bullying economic system because it puts inferior people like you and the other education sadists on this thread in superior positions.

An employer is not responsible (nor should be) for educating his workers. That's up to the individual. Employers simply offer jobs and people who have the skills the employer needs apply and take them. They are usually paid higher wages than those without an advanced education, and that's all the employer owes.

Now I'm trying to have a discussion with you like an adult; something you seem to lack the capability of. Keep up the insults and I won't respond to your posts any longer.

College Is for Teenagers Who Are Afraid to Grow Up, So How Can You Have an Adult Discussion of It?

On the contrary, we could eliminate schools altogether and have retirees at the corporation stay working and teach the smartest job applicants. Those professionals would know far more than professors what is needed to study in order to do the job. That could even be found out by testing veteran employees on what they still know from what they were taught in the major that got them their jobs.

That's fine after you get a degree in something. I went to electronics school many years ago. It's all math. You can't put somebody on the job who has no aptitude for math and expect to make an electrical technician out of them. If somebody has the training, then you can take that person under your wing and teach them the ropes.

My sister worked for several years in the food sector at a top world renown hospital. In order to keep the job she was doing all that time, she had to get a college degree and become a dietary technician. After she graduated, she did the same job she always did, it's just that the Clinic needed that certificate for liability purposes.

Unfortunately, insurance companies run this country. That's why we have seat belt laws. That's why states had to lower their BAC levels to .08 to receive federal funding for highways. That's why many jobs have a random drug testing policy. That's why you need that piece of paper from a college. Insurance companies insist on it.

Scapegoating Insurance Companies Won't Exonerate Educational Slavers

By refusing to consider who should get the training and what would motivate the talented to go into a desired field, you are being generic. In fact, you have the same impractical and unrealistic view about people that an egalitarian Socialist has.

An "aptitude for math" can easily be tested at an early age. I got 730 out of 800 on the SAT, so you should listen to my logic instead of letting the Plutocratic parasites tell you that brown-nosing sacrificing for them is a sign of intelligence.

Their pushy Low IQ demand, "You have to want it bad enough" only gets us wannabes. It shows how defective our language has become that there is no such word as "shouldntabeen." Because of your parroting attitude towards those economic bullies, that's mostly what we get.

Demands like "We need 30,000 engineers" are dysfunctional and an insult to the intelligent. The only way to put that which will lead to prosperity is, "We need to change the incentives we give so that the 30,000 kids who have the most natural talent for engineering will choose that field."

Don't listen to the lie that your sister had to sacrifice time and money she should have been allowed to use for personal needs "for liability purposes." That is really all about class snobbery, because the university is an obsolete aristocratic institution designed solely for students who have "an independent income" (a high allowance from Daddy). Also, her bosses and the ones in their clique at the insurance company resent having had to go through that indentured servitude themselves and believed she should have to suffer just like they did. Some scribbling flunkie is always around to make up lies that sound like his Masters are just being pragmatic.

 

[Flopper]

Those are the few and far minority. And if an employer is going to pay such a pittance that one can't afford a house they are lucky to find a good employee.

If you think your ability to afford what you want is your employer's responsibility instead of yours, you are lucky to find anyone to employ you at all, and you will NEVER find anyone who considers you "good".

IMHO, education as well as health insurance should be the responsibility of the employee, not the employer because it is the employee who benefits most. Job turnover is far to fast to expect employers to provide such benefits. Remunerations should be in the form of wages, not retirement, healthcare, or education.

I mostly agree, although I will point out that every employer I've ever encountered that had tuition reimbursement had it written into the agreement that they only paid in full if you remained employed by them for X number of years. Otherwise, you became responsible for some or all of the tuition costs. My sister is studying for her Master's in Hospital Administration right now under a plan like that, because the hospital would prefer to promote from within if they can.

I have not work anywhere that did tuition reimbursements in over 30 years. At that time contracts were not common. Of course costs were a lot less. I can understand an employer paying for courses leading to certification which you mentioned or for that matter any course work which allow an employee to do better job. However, paying for a four year degree for an employee seems to be a real loser for the employer. No matter what job a employee might have, most of the course work will not be specific enough to that job to make it of value to employer.

 

[Flopper]

Don't know about debt free but we could sure use some more roundly educated people in fields like health care & education, just for starters. check out the back grounds of the people running our major agency's, lots of back ground fighting against the agency's they now run. say what! how could this be true, but it is.

There are plenty of people in education, at least around here. We have teachers waiting patiently to get jobs after they get out of college. People go to college to become teachers because of the three month vacation every year plus all the time off during the year.

Healthcare is another issue. You spend all this money to get into a field of work that can have you working all kinds of shifts you don't want to work. In many cases it requires physical labor as well. Most people who go to college do so because they don't want to get into grunt work. Plus the pay is better in other professions.

I think most young people go into education today because they want a steady job and don't want to be dealing with the uncertainly of employment in the private sector.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'd rather see them get tax credits.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't know about debt free but we could sure use some more roundly educated people in fields like health care & education, just for starters. check out the back grounds of the people running our major agency's, lots of back ground fighting against the agency's they now run. say what! how could this be true, but it is.

There are plenty of people in education, at least around here. We have teachers waiting patiently to get jobs after they get out of college. People go to college to become teachers because of the three month vacation every year plus all the time off during the year.

Healthcare is another issue. You spend all this money to get into a field of work that can have you working all kinds of shifts you don't want to work. In many cases it requires physical labor as well. Most people who go to college do so because they don't want to get into grunt work. Plus the pay is better in other professions.

I think most young people go into education today because they want a steady job and don't want to be dealing with the uncertainly of employment in the private sector.

When things slow down, most everybody is hit. However people who get into careers in need of higher education have less of a chance a machine will take over their job. As long as we keep advancing technology, more blue collar jobs will be lost.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those are the few and far minority. And if an employer is going to pay such a pittance that one can't afford a house they are lucky to find a good employee.

If you think your ability to afford what you want is your employer's responsibility instead of yours, you are lucky to find anyone to employ you at all, and you will NEVER find anyone who considers you "good".

IMHO, education as well as health insurance should be the responsibility of the employee, not the employer because it is the employee who benefits most. Job turnover is far to fast to expect employers to provide such benefits. Remunerations should be in the form of wages, not retirement, healthcare, or education.

I mostly agree, although I will point out that every employer I've ever encountered that had tuition reimbursement had it written into the agreement that they only paid in full if you remained employed by them for X number of years. Otherwise, you became responsible for some or all of the tuition costs. My sister is studying for her Master's in Hospital Administration right now under a plan like that, because the hospital would prefer to promote from within if they can.

I have not work anywhere that did tuition reimbursements in over 30 years. At that time contracts were not common. Of course costs were a lot less. I can understand an employer paying for courses leading to certification which you mentioned or for that matter any course work which allow an employee to do better job. However, paying for a four year degree for an employee seems to be a real loser for the employer. No matter what job a employee might have, most of the course work will not be specific enough to that job to make it of value to employer.

You've just defined a big part of why not a lot of companies offer it now. And understandably, a lot of places are more interested in helping you acquire certification or a higher degree that's more specialized to their field.

I have known some employers who will help out with a bachelor's degree, but that was because they hired a lot of college-aged kids, and they were trying to entice them to come in and stay on for that four years. They also didn't pay for the full ride.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those are the few and far minority. And if an employer is going to pay such a pittance that one can't afford a house they are lucky to find a good employee.

If you think your ability to afford what you want is your employer's responsibility instead of yours, you are lucky to find anyone to employ you at all, and you will NEVER find anyone who considers you "good".

IMHO, education as well as health insurance should be the responsibility of the employee, not the employer because it is the employee who benefits most. Job turnover is far to fast to expect employers to provide such benefits. Remunerations should be in the form of wages, not retirement, healthcare, or education.

I mostly agree, although I will point out that every employer I've ever encountered that had tuition reimbursement had it written into the agreement that they only paid in full if you remained employed by them for X number of years. Otherwise, you became responsible for some or all of the tuition costs. My sister is studying for her Master's in Hospital Administration right now under a plan like that, because the hospital would prefer to promote from within if they can.

I have not work anywhere that did tuition reimbursements in over 30 years. At that time contracts were not common. Of course costs were a lot less. I can understand an employer paying for courses leading to certification which you mentioned or for that matter any course work which allow an employee to do better job. However, paying for a four year degree for an employee seems to be a real loser for the employer. No matter what job a employee might have, most of the course work will not be specific enough to that job to make it of value to employer.

You've just defined a big part of why not a lot of companies offer it now. And understandably, a lot of places are more interested in helping you acquire certification or a higher degree that's more specialized to their field.

I have known some employers who will help out with a bachelor's degree, but that was because they hired a lot of college-aged kids, and they were trying to entice them to come in and stay on for that four years. They also didn't pay for the full ride.

When I went to school my company paid for it based on my grades. Grand A they paid for the entire thing. B, they paid for 70%. C, they paid for half.

 

[John Shaw]

School cannot and should not be free. But it should be a helluva lot less expensive than it is.

 

[Weatherman2020]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a ******* gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is ******* next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

Call me when universities no longer have Directors of Lesbian Diversity making $165K and a support staff of 30 employees.

 

[Rambunctious]

Free education is like a free hamburger....fatty greasy smelly and no damn good for you....

 

[Rambunctious]

School cannot and should not be free. But it should be a helluva lot less expensive than it is.

Another thing we can thank the Magic Kenyan for.....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a ******* gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is ******* next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

It is simply the government, once again, seeking to mitigate a problem they created.
The sky-rocketing tuition rates is a direct cause of government policies to throw every kid in college no matter what.
Well..who would have guessed that didn't work?
But in reality, this is just the Democrats being Democrats. Winning votes by carrying signs saying "More free stuff if you vote for me".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

School cannot and should not be free. But it should be a helluva lot less expensive than it is.

Part of the problem is we have campuses loaded with anti-capitalist professors and administrators that make well into six figures a year. We spend billions of taxpayer dollars a year on these places and they use the money for research so they can come up with more global warming nonsense, or to tell us how bad eggs are to eat.

It's simply the rule of supply and demand. The more demand and less supply, the higher the price. The lower the demand and more supply, the lower prices go.

 

[Flopper]

Don't know about debt free but we could sure use some more roundly educated people in fields like health care & education, just for starters. check out the back grounds of the people running our major agency's, lots of back ground fighting against the agency's they now run. say what! how could this be true, but it is.

There are plenty of people in education, at least around here. We have teachers waiting patiently to get jobs after they get out of college. People go to college to become teachers because of the three month vacation every year plus all the time off during the year.

Healthcare is another issue. You spend all this money to get into a field of work that can have you working all kinds of shifts you don't want to work. In many cases it requires physical labor as well. Most people who go to college do so because they don't want to get into grunt work. Plus the pay is better in other professions.

I think most young people go into education today because they want a steady job and don't want to be dealing with the uncertainly of employment in the private sector.

When things slow down, most everybody is hit. However people who get into careers in need of higher education have less of a chance a machine will take over their job. As long as we keep advancing technology, more blue collar jobs will be lost.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Back over 60 years ago when it became clear automation would claim more and more jobs as time passed, the government developed a propaganda campaign to assure Americans that their future was save. Displaced workers would be retrained to do more interesting and better paying jobs. What a load of crap!

Years before that, writers portrayed the 21st century as a time of leisure with Mom playing with the kids while Dad engages in his favorite hobby as machines did all the work, a utopia that man had dreamed of for decades.

Things didn't quite work out as expected.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't know about debt free but we could sure use some more roundly educated people in fields like health care & education, just for starters. check out the back grounds of the people running our major agency's, lots of back ground fighting against the agency's they now run. say what! how could this be true, but it is.

There are plenty of people in education, at least around here. We have teachers waiting patiently to get jobs after they get out of college. People go to college to become teachers because of the three month vacation every year plus all the time off during the year.

Healthcare is another issue. You spend all this money to get into a field of work that can have you working all kinds of shifts you don't want to work. In many cases it requires physical labor as well. Most people who go to college do so because they don't want to get into grunt work. Plus the pay is better in other professions.

I think most young people go into education today because they want a steady job and don't want to be dealing with the uncertainly of employment in the private sector.

When things slow down, most everybody is hit. However people who get into careers in need of higher education have less of a chance a machine will take over their job. As long as we keep advancing technology, more blue collar jobs will be lost.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Back over 60 years ago when it became clear automation would claim more and more jobs as time passed, the government developed a propaganda campaign to assure Americans that their future was save. Displaced workers would be retrained to do more interesting and better paying jobs. What a load of crap!

Years before that, writers portrayed the 21st century as a time of leisure with Mom playing with the kids while Dad engages in his favorite hobby as machines did all the work, a utopia that man had dreamed of for decades.

Things didn't quite work out as expected.

I don't think government ever created propaganda for automation, but I do believe they had no idea what kind of environment we would be living in once we got there. So they made assumptions.

I was a child in school during the 60's and I remember our Weekly Reader having articles on it. It was just too Jetson like to believe it would come true in our lifetime. After all, your typical household at the time had one phone, a record player, and perhaps a black and white television. There was only one vehicle per family and back then, a lot of women didn't even drive.

We were warned, but we didn't know what to expect; even the people that were giving us the warning.

I'll be off this planet long before 50 years from now, but it is troublesome what that world will look like with automation and technology being ten times more advanced than it is today. Where are all these people going to work?

 

[22lcidw]

Don't know about debt free but we could sure use some more roundly educated people in fields like health care & education, just for starters. check out the back grounds of the people running our major agency's, lots of back ground fighting against the agency's they now run. say what! how could this be true, but it is.

There are plenty of people in education, at least around here. We have teachers waiting patiently to get jobs after they get out of college. People go to college to become teachers because of the three month vacation every year plus all the time off during the year.

Healthcare is another issue. You spend all this money to get into a field of work that can have you working all kinds of shifts you don't want to work. In many cases it requires physical labor as well. Most people who go to college do so because they don't want to get into grunt work. Plus the pay is better in other professions.

I think most young people go into education today because they want a steady job and don't want to be dealing with the uncertainly of employment in the private sector.

When things slow down, most everybody is hit. However people who get into careers in need of higher education have less of a chance a machine will take over their job. As long as we keep advancing technology, more blue collar jobs will be lost.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Back over 60 years ago when it became clear automation would claim more and more jobs as time passed, the government developed a propaganda campaign to assure Americans that their future was save. Displaced workers would be retrained to do more interesting and better paying jobs. What a load of crap!

Years before that, writers portrayed the 21st century as a time of leisure with Mom playing with the kids while Dad engages in his favorite hobby as machines did all the work, a utopia that man had dreamed of for decades.

Things didn't quite work out as expected.

One other thing. The exodus of manufacturing jobs was supposed to bring in the wonderful rush of service jobs to enrich us all. That did not happen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't know about debt free but we could sure use some more roundly educated people in fields like health care & education, just for starters. check out the back grounds of the people running our major agency's, lots of back ground fighting against the agency's they now run. say what! how could this be true, but it is.

There are plenty of people in education, at least around here. We have teachers waiting patiently to get jobs after they get out of college. People go to college to become teachers because of the three month vacation every year plus all the time off during the year.

Healthcare is another issue. You spend all this money to get into a field of work that can have you working all kinds of shifts you don't want to work. In many cases it requires physical labor as well. Most people who go to college do so because they don't want to get into grunt work. Plus the pay is better in other professions.

I think most young people go into education today because they want a steady job and don't want to be dealing with the uncertainly of employment in the private sector.

When things slow down, most everybody is hit. However people who get into careers in need of higher education have less of a chance a machine will take over their job. As long as we keep advancing technology, more blue collar jobs will be lost.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Back over 60 years ago when it became clear automation would claim more and more jobs as time passed, the government developed a propaganda campaign to assure Americans that their future was save. Displaced workers would be retrained to do more interesting and better paying jobs. What a load of crap!

Years before that, writers portrayed the 21st century as a time of leisure with Mom playing with the kids while Dad engages in his favorite hobby as machines did all the work, a utopia that man had dreamed of for decades.

Things didn't quite work out as expected.

One other thing. The exodus of manufacturing jobs was supposed to bring in the wonderful rush of service jobs to enrich us all. That did not happen.

That's because the service jobs are now being replaced by automation.

 

[Flopper]

Don't know about debt free but we could sure use some more roundly educated people in fields like health care & education, just for starters. check out the back grounds of the people running our major agency's, lots of back ground fighting against the agency's they now run. say what! how could this be true, but it is.

There are plenty of people in education, at least around here. We have teachers waiting patiently to get jobs after they get out of college. People go to college to become teachers because of the three month vacation every year plus all the time off during the year.

Healthcare is another issue. You spend all this money to get into a field of work that can have you working all kinds of shifts you don't want to work. In many cases it requires physical labor as well. Most people who go to college do so because they don't want to get into grunt work. Plus the pay is better in other professions.

I think most young people go into education today because they want a steady job and don't want to be dealing with the uncertainly of employment in the private sector.

When things slow down, most everybody is hit. However people who get into careers in need of higher education have less of a chance a machine will take over their job. As long as we keep advancing technology, more blue collar jobs will be lost.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Back over 60 years ago when it became clear automation would claim more and more jobs as time passed, the government developed a propaganda campaign to assure Americans that their future was save. Displaced workers would be retrained to do more interesting and better paying jobs. What a load of crap!

Years before that, writers portrayed the 21st century as a time of leisure with Mom playing with the kids while Dad engages in his favorite hobby as machines did all the work, a utopia that man had dreamed of for decades.

Things didn't quite work out as expected.

I don't think government ever created propaganda for automation, but I do believe they had no idea what kind of environment we would be living in once we got there. So they made assumptions.

I was a child in school during the 60's and I remember our Weekly Reader having articles on it. It was just too Jetson like to believe it would come true in our lifetime. After all, your typical household at the time had one phone, a record player, and perhaps a black and white television. There was only one vehicle per family and back then, a lot of women didn't even drive.

We were warned, but we didn't know what to expect; even the people that were giving us the warning.

I'll be off this planet long before 50 years from now, but it is troublesome what that world will look like with automation and technology being ten times more advanced than it is today. Where are all these people going to work?

My guess is most of those that work will be doing job sharing. Government will probably subsidize either directly or indirectly most of the population. Tax laws will reward employers that hire more people. I don't see how the country will not become more socialized regardless of who runs the country.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/reports/... and Technological Change - Hearings (75).pdf

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are plenty of people in education, at least around here. We have teachers waiting patiently to get jobs after they get out of college. People go to college to become teachers because of the three month vacation every year plus all the time off during the year.

Healthcare is another issue. You spend all this money to get into a field of work that can have you working all kinds of shifts you don't want to work. In many cases it requires physical labor as well. Most people who go to college do so because they don't want to get into grunt work. Plus the pay is better in other professions.

I think most young people go into education today because they want a steady job and don't want to be dealing with the uncertainly of employment in the private sector.

When things slow down, most everybody is hit. However people who get into careers in need of higher education have less of a chance a machine will take over their job. As long as we keep advancing technology, more blue collar jobs will be lost.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Back over 60 years ago when it became clear automation would claim more and more jobs as time passed, the government developed a propaganda campaign to assure Americans that their future was save. Displaced workers would be retrained to do more interesting and better paying jobs. What a load of crap!

Years before that, writers portrayed the 21st century as a time of leisure with Mom playing with the kids while Dad engages in his favorite hobby as machines did all the work, a utopia that man had dreamed of for decades.

Things didn't quite work out as expected.

I don't think government ever created propaganda for automation, but I do believe they had no idea what kind of environment we would be living in once we got there. So they made assumptions.

I was a child in school during the 60's and I remember our Weekly Reader having articles on it. It was just too Jetson like to believe it would come true in our lifetime. After all, your typical household at the time had one phone, a record player, and perhaps a black and white television. There was only one vehicle per family and back then, a lot of women didn't even drive.

We were warned, but we didn't know what to expect; even the people that were giving us the warning.

I'll be off this planet long before 50 years from now, but it is troublesome what that world will look like with automation and technology being ten times more advanced than it is today. Where are all these people going to work?

My guess is most of those that work will be doing job sharing. Government will probably subsidize either directly or indirectly most of the population. Tax laws will reward employers that hire more people. I don't see how the country will not become more socialized regardless of who runs the country.

If we do that, government is going to have to get that money from somewhere. We are currently 22 trillion in debt and I know for a fact nobody will be able to wipe that slate clean in my lifetime.

We may just end up like China; have a restriction on the amount of children people can have. And then what are we going to do with all these foreigners that have been coming here the last 30 years, and more to come if Democrats end up in charge?