Sanders just submitted college for all bill.

[Unkotare]

If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.

Because most likely, the "adult" in question is 18 and just graduated high school and has little or no job experience and is still living at home and being otherwise supported by their parents.......

If the adult in question is an adult he should support himself.

Irrelevant and tangential. Support himself or not, that's between him and his family. The operative point is that, either way, I shouldn't be paying to send him to college.

Why should anyone be if he is an adult?

......

Dense.

Not much of an answer.

 

[OldLady]

wow

Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them. If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.

A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
John Donne explained it much better than I can:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.

The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping. The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing. I don't owe someone else's kid college. That's their parents job. If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.

I understand your position. Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help their kids get to college if they attend. It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works. Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax. The bill won't make it.

If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed. If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things. Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?

My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them? You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist. You can claim it MIGHT do this or that. What about those who get help and aren't successful. What happens for those who don't graduate? Do they have to pay back the money?

First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did. College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future. This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all? How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back. No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth. The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore. But that's a different thread. Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all. I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group. It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

......

I guarantee you that the asswipes out there screeching and shouting are NOT the ones paying out of their own pockets, nor are they at all likely to graduate college with a useful degree and obtain gainful employment. They're a lot more likely to spend the rest of their lives screeching and protesting and being a nuisance, either for fun or profit.

The ones who are actually going to benefit society are in their dorm rooms, studying and wishing the protesters would shut the hell up so they can concentrate. They're also taking responsibility for their own educations.

I believe you. Now show the proof (since you gave a guarantee and all).

If common sense doesn't work for you, I can't help you. People who are personally on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars for a college degree don't waste their time hanging around in mobs for days on end, whinging about "microaggressions". Likewise for people who've worked to earn scholarships and need to maintain a GPA to hold onto it.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks mobbing the administration and posturing for the media is a productive use of their college time clearly doesn't have a mindset that lends itself to being a hardworking, productive member of society. Maybe they'll grow out of it, more likely they won't (given the evidence that our society in general is becoming a dumbed-down bunch of slackers). I personally don't wish to bet my tax money on them doing so, particularly when we always return to the fact that THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead. Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.

Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.

You really can't work this one out for yourself?

The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?

No, I'm really going to need some help here.

You are confusing college and HS. Read my original post.

No, I'm not. YOU are confusing them by bringing high school into a discussion of free college in the first place. ......

You have to try a little harder to follow along with the discussion.

No, I don't. YOU have to try a little harder to stick to the fucking topic.

 

[Unkotare]

......

I guarantee you that the asswipes out there screeching and shouting are NOT the ones paying out of their own pockets, nor are they at all likely to graduate college with a useful degree and obtain gainful employment. They're a lot more likely to spend the rest of their lives screeching and protesting and being a nuisance, either for fun or profit.

The ones who are actually going to benefit society are in their dorm rooms, studying and wishing the protesters would shut the hell up so they can concentrate. They're also taking responsibility for their own educations.

I believe you. Now show the proof (since you gave a guarantee and all).

If common sense doesn't work for you, I can't help you. ......

You gave a guarantee. Were you lying about that?

 

[Unkotare]

You really can't work this one out for yourself?

The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?

No, I'm really going to need some help here.

You are confusing college and HS. Read my original post.

No, I'm not. YOU are confusing them by bringing high school into a discussion of free college in the first place. ......

You have to try a little harder to follow along with the discussion.

No, I don't. .......

That's why you keep getting confused.

 

[Conservative65]

Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them. If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.

A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
John Donne explained it much better than I can:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.

The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping. The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing. I don't owe someone else's kid college. That's their parents job. If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.

I understand your position. Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help their kids get to college if they attend. It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works. Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax. The bill won't make it.

If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed. If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things. Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?

My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them? You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist. You can claim it MIGHT do this or that. What about those who get help and aren't successful. What happens for those who don't graduate? Do they have to pay back the money?

First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did. College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future. This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all? How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back. No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth. The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore. But that's a different thread. Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all. I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group. It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.

More people my age finished college than their parents. That's a fact. Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it. If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?

So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially. So much for selling your idea of an investment. Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?

 

[OldLady]

A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
John Donne explained it much better than I can:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.

The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping. The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing. I don't owe someone else's kid college. That's their parents job. If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.

I understand your position. Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help their kids get to college if they attend. It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works. Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax. The bill won't make it.

If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed. If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things. Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?

My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them? You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist. You can claim it MIGHT do this or that. What about those who get help and aren't successful. What happens for those who don't graduate? Do they have to pay back the money?

First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did. College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future. This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all? How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back. No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth. The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore. But that's a different thread. Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all. I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group. It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.

More people my age finished college than their parents. That's a fact. Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it. If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?

So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially. So much for selling your idea of an investment. Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?

How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job? Have you tried that lately?
And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.

 

[Conservative65]

The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping. The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing. I don't owe someone else's kid college. That's their parents job. If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.

I understand your position. Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help their kids get to college if they attend. It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works. Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax. The bill won't make it.

If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed. If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things. Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?

My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them? You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist. You can claim it MIGHT do this or that. What about those who get help and aren't successful. What happens for those who don't graduate? Do they have to pay back the money?

First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did. College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future. This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all? How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back. No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth. The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore. But that's a different thread. Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all. I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group. It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.

More people my age finished college than their parents. That's a fact. Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it. If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?

So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially. So much for selling your idea of an investment. Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?

How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job? Have you tried that lately?
And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.

Not my problem. You don't seem to care that those of us responsible enough to pay for our own kids have to pay more because someone else's parents won't do what we do.

I graduated 3x, two of which are advanced degrees, in order that I didn't have to work a low skilled job. That I did doesn't mean, by default, it's my responsibility to do for a kid what his/her own parents won't do.

If you say more could have or would have, provide the verifiable, valid, and reliable statistics. Until you can, nothing you say is anything more than a bleeding heart thinking someone that doesn't have something should have it handed to him/her simply because they want it.

 

[Unkotare]

You really can't work this one out for yourself?

The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?

No, I'm really going to need some help here.

You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s? Remarkable.

It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist. Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.

Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college? Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?

If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.

Well?

Well?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping. The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing. I don't owe someone else's kid college. That's their parents job. If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.

I understand your position. Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help their kids get to college if they attend. It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works. Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax. The bill won't make it.

If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed. If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things. Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?

My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them? You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist. You can claim it MIGHT do this or that. What about those who get help and aren't successful. What happens for those who don't graduate? Do they have to pay back the money?

First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did. College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future. This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all? How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back. No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth. The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore. But that's a different thread. Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all. I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group. It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.

More people my age finished college than their parents. That's a fact. Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it. If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?

So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially. So much for selling your idea of an investment. Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?

How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job? Have you tried that lately?
And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.

If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college? Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?

 

[Arianrhod]

I understand your position. Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help their kids get to college if they attend. It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works. Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax. The bill won't make it.

If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed. If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things. Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?

My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them? You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist. You can claim it MIGHT do this or that. What about those who get help and aren't successful. What happens for those who don't graduate? Do they have to pay back the money?

First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did. College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future. This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all? How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back. No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth. The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore. But that's a different thread. Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all. I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group. It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.

More people my age finished college than their parents. That's a fact. Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it. If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?

So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially. So much for selling your idea of an investment. Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?

How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job? Have you tried that lately?
And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.

If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college? Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?

Is it common in your experience for people to get their dream job right out of college?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed. If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things. Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?

My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them? You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist. You can claim it MIGHT do this or that. What about those who get help and aren't successful. What happens for those who don't graduate? Do they have to pay back the money?

First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did. College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future. This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all? How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back. No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth. The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore. But that's a different thread. Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all. I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group. It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.

More people my age finished college than their parents. That's a fact. Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it. If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?

So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially. So much for selling your idea of an investment. Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?

How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job? Have you tried that lately?
And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.

If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college? Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?

Is it common in your experience for people to get their dream job right out of college?

Big difference between "not getting your dream job" and "spending tens of thousands on a degree so you can get the same job you could have had right out of high school."

If you graduate college and still can't move out of minimum wage, you did it wrong. Period. Hell, I did better than minimum wage at 20, just out of secretarial school, with no college at all.

 

[Arianrhod]

First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did. College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future. This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all? How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back. No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth. The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore. But that's a different thread. Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all. I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group. It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.

More people my age finished college than their parents. That's a fact. Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it. If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?

So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially. So much for selling your idea of an investment. Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?

How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job? Have you tried that lately?
And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.

If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college? Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?

Is it common in your experience for people to get their dream job right out of college?

Big difference between "not getting your dream job" and "spending tens of thousands on a degree so you can get the same job you could have had right out of high school."

If you graduate college and still can't move out of minimum wage, you did it wrong. Period. Hell, I did better than minimum wage at 20, just out of secretarial school, with no college at all.

Fair enough, but situations vary based on location, market, and your field. The advice used to be "Go into IT; they'll always need programmers"...until they didn't. "There's a nursing shortage; they'll always need nurses." Well, maybe, until that changes.

So unless you plan to live with your parents for years, you take whatever's available to earn some income and build your résumé (some employers are more impressed with a year "flipping burgers," to borrow the cliché, than "So, like, I just hung out with my friends and played WoW until I found something I felt like doing") while you look for something in your field.

I'd also like to see the statistics behind the "spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree in basket-weaving" meme, but none have been forthcoming.

One practical takeaway from your post that I'd pass along to every student: Learn to touch-type. It's a rare job that doesn't involve a keyboard at some point. Your may have the fastest texting thumbs in the Western hemisphere, but on a QWERTY board 85 w.p.m. will get you there faster.

 

[Cecilie1200]

More people my age finished college than their parents. That's a fact. Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it. If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?

So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially. So much for selling your idea of an investment. Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?

How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job? Have you tried that lately?
And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.

If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college? Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?

Is it common in your experience for people to get their dream job right out of college?

Big difference between "not getting your dream job" and "spending tens of thousands on a degree so you can get the same job you could have had right out of high school."

If you graduate college and still can't move out of minimum wage, you did it wrong. Period. Hell, I did better than minimum wage at 20, just out of secretarial school, with no college at all.

Fair enough, but situations vary based on location, market, and your field. The advice used to be "Go into IT; they'll always need programmers"...until they didn't. "There's a nursing shortage; they'll always need nurses." Well, maybe, until that changes.

So unless you plan to live with your parents for years, you take whatever's available to earn some income and build your résumé (some employers are more impressed with a year "flipping burgers," to borrow the cliché, than "So, like, I just hung out with my friends and played WoW until I found something I felt like doing") while you look for something in your field.

I'd also like to see the statistics behind the "spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree in basket-weaving" meme, but none have been forthcoming.

One practical takeaway from your post that I'd pass along to every student: Learn to touch-type. It's a rare job that doesn't involve a keyboard at some point. Your may have the fastest texting thumbs in the Western hemisphere, but on a QWERTY board 85 w.p.m. will get you there faster.

Yes, well, the advice SHOULD be - and it should be obvious to anyone intelligent enough to expect to get a degree - RESEARCH YOUR FIELD. Do not just take someone's word for "they'll always need . . ." Get your happy ass on the Internet and access the jobs data from that field. There's certainly not a shortage of info about any job you can name.

Use your damned head, and then don't come whining to me with these fucking, "It's supposed to be good, and now there are no jobs" excuse bullshit.

And while we're at it, even if you can't find a job in your field, if you have a college degree that's worth a piss into a windstorm, you should NOT be working for minimum wage, whatever else happens. Hell, my ex-husband has a degree in Journalism, and another in Creative Writing, for God's sake, and has parlayed that into I-don't-know HOW many jobs that have very little to do with being a reporter (which was originally his goal), culminating in a job as a correctional officer, of all things.

I stand by what I said: if you got a college degree and you're working for minimum wage, you did it wrong. I don't even care which "it" you choose; it was wrong. And college was clearly a waste of time and money in your case.

As for "degree in basket-weaving", this isn't actually a hard one. Most universities have a College of Arts, and it is certainly possible to get a Fine Arts degree with a course emphasis on weaving and textiles, if that's your artistic focus. How useful it is you may judge for yourself. The "underwater" that's usually attached to that actually refers to the fact that many materials used in basket-weaving are woven while wet, sometimes even actually submerged in a shallow container of water, to keep them supple while they're worked.

 

[Arianrhod]

And of course between the time you declare a major and 3-4 years later when you graduate, the goalposts may have shifted.

As for the "basket-weaving" meme, I was referring to its overuse anytime the topic of college education comes up, as if that's all college kids are studying. Just anecdotally, frat boys are far more interested in majoring in beer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And of course between the time you declare a major and 3-4 years later when you graduate, the goalposts may have shifted.

As for the "basket-weaving" meme, I was referring to its overuse anytime the topic of college education comes up, as if that's all college kids are studying. Just anecdotally, frat boys are far more interested in majoring in beer.

Well, if you want to do research that limited and shallow, that's certainly your choice. Again, don't come crying to me about how you "have" to work as a bagboy at the local market afterward.

First of all, there are scads of sources that track such trends over time and provide projections for the future. Second of all, if you pick a course and then don't bother to keep up on trends and projections while attending classes, you're a fucking idiot. Third, none of this changes the fact that it's not an either-or situation: EITHER you get the exact job you want, OR you flip burgers for jack shit. If you have a college degree in anything even remotely useful, and you can't parlay it into a better job than you can get right out of high school, your time and money in college might as well have been flushed down the commode.

Most people use "underwater basket weaving" as a pejorative for a useless college major, probably because it largely IS useless. However, people who say that don't mean they ACTUALLY think lots of college kids are ACTUALLY studying basket weaving of any sort, Captain Literal. What they mean is that many college students are wasting their time in classes and degree programs that have little to no value in terms of future employment. Which is true.

 

[Arianrhod]

And of course between the time you declare a major and 3-4 years later when you graduate, the goalposts may have shifted.

As for the "basket-weaving" meme, I was referring to its overuse anytime the topic of college education comes up, as if that's all college kids are studying. Just anecdotally, frat boys are far more interested in majoring in beer.

Well, if you want to do research that limited and shallow, that's certainly your choice. Again, don't come crying to me about how you "have" to work as a bagboy at the local market afterward.

How "limited and shallow"? Did I post anything so specific that you can make that assessment of all undergraduates? Fascinating.

First of all, there are scads of sources that track such trends over time and provide projections for the future. Second of all, if you pick a course and then don't bother to keep up on trends and projections while attending classes, you're a fucking idiot.

So how many times would you recommend changing majors?

Third, none of this changes the fact that it's not an either-or situation: EITHER you get the exact job you want, OR you flip burgers for jack shit.

Nor did I say it was.

If you have a college degree in anything even remotely useful, and you can't parlay it into a better job than you can get right out of high school, your time and money in college might as well have been flushed down the commode.

This of course presupposes a uniformity of job markets nationwide. I'm sure your one-size-fits-all answer will be "Then move where the jobs are," amiright?

Most people use "underwater basket weaving" as a pejorative for a useless college major, probably because it largely IS useless. However, people who say that don't mean they ACTUALLY think lots of college kids are ACTUALLY studying basket weaving of any sort.

Precisely.

 

[baileyn45]

Wrong The Fed is part of the government.

Nonsense

"The Federal Reserve consists of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, with boards of Directors, under an umbrella direction of the 7 member Federal Reserve Board in Washington, with the power to determine major aspects of banking activity, such as setting interest rates, and the reserve and other operational requirements. There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus). The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.'.

Read the second sentence again,

"There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus)."

Try this
Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

"The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt."

Do you have any idea how dumb that is? The fed is the last resort lender to the fed govt ( Now carries 12% of fed govt debt). So if the fed gets in trouble they will turn to the fed govt, who will turn to the fed for loans??????????????.

"No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them."

And you base this on what?

"Ignored the WSJ link? LOL! Guaranteed bonds trading above par means lots of people want to purchase them."

And you honestly believe that what is being purchased are the subprime MBS that went belly up at the beginning of this mess? Those "toxic assets will never see the light of day. They will reside on the fed balance sheet forever.

'Nonsense. The banks got stuck with their toxic assets."

If this were true the banks would be out of business. Those 'toxic assets" now reside at the fed.

"Adds $1.7 trillion in reserves to the system and lowers interest rates."

Lowers interest rates? To what? Negative numbers? The reason the fed bought this crap was because they could not lower interest rates below zero.

"Citigroup worked the mortgages out with the homeowners and they began performing (paying the mortgage) again or Citigroup foreclosed on the homes and sold them for a loss.

Now if Fannie or Freddie bought 10 basically identical mortgages and the homeowners defaulted, the buyer of the now guaranteed MBS wouldn't know, or care, because he'd get the interest and principal payments with no interruption or impairment.

If the Fed bought this second, guaranteed MBS, they aren't taking a toxic asset off of anyone's hands, because the MBS is a high quality, guaranteed, trading above par, bond."

I wish I lived in your world. The MBS at issue were wrapped up in derivatives that no one on the planet has yet to unravel. From the banks perspective they are now gone, handed off to the fed. Again from what you are saying there was never a problem. All these "toxic assets" were actually good debt. So why has the fed govt pumped $430bil into the big banks and the fed purchased $1.7tr in MBS from the big banks? Hell all was well. What was the problem?

"Yes, when someone with unlimited resources decides to guarantee something, it's no longer toxic."

Unlimited resources? This would be the fed govt? The fed govt now$18tr in debt. 12% of which is held by the fed?

"No, all the guaranteed debt is now good debt, whether the Fed bought it or you did."

I challenge you to find any source that states that the fed reserve debt is guaranteed by the fed govt.

And if it was, the fed govt would have to turn to the fed to have the fed purchase more treasury notes which of course would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to spend more to bail out the fed which would require the fed to buy more fed govt treasuries so the fed govt could continue to bail out the fed which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more of the fed debt by borrowing more from the fed which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more fed debt by having the fed purchase more treasuries which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to have the fed buy more securities which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more of the feds debt by having the fed buy more securities...

What could go wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong The Fed is part of the government.

Nonsense

"The Federal Reserve consists of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, with boards of Directors, under an umbrella direction of the 7 member Federal Reserve Board in Washington, with the power to determine major aspects of banking activity, such as setting interest rates, and the reserve and other operational requirements. There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus). The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.'.

Read the second sentence again,

"There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus)."

Try this
Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

"The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt."

Do you have any idea how dumb that is? The fed is the last resort lender to the fed govt ( Now carries 12% of fed govt debt). So if the fed gets in trouble they will turn to the fed govt, who will turn to the fed for loans??????????????.

"No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them."

And you base this on what?

"Ignored the WSJ link? LOL! Guaranteed bonds trading above par means lots of people want to purchase them."

And you honestly believe that what is being purchased are the subprime MBS that went belly up at the beginning of this mess? Those "toxic assets will never see the light of day. They will reside on the fed balance sheet forever.

'Nonsense. The banks got stuck with their toxic assets."

If this were true the banks would be out of business. Those 'toxic assets" now reside at the fed.

"Adds $1.7 trillion in reserves to the system and lowers interest rates."

Lowers interest rates? To what? Negative numbers? The reason the fed bought this crap was because they could not lower interest rates below zero.

"Citigroup worked the mortgages out with the homeowners and they began performing (paying the mortgage) again or Citigroup foreclosed on the homes and sold them for a loss.

Now if Fannie or Freddie bought 10 basically identical mortgages and the homeowners defaulted, the buyer of the now guaranteed MBS wouldn't know, or care, because he'd get the interest and principal payments with no interruption or impairment.

If the Fed bought this second, guaranteed MBS, they aren't taking a toxic asset off of anyone's hands, because the MBS is a high quality, guaranteed, trading above par, bond."

I wish I lived in your world. The MBS at issue were wrapped up in derivatives that no one on the planet has yet to unravel. From the banks perspective they are now gone, handed off to the fed. Again from what you are saying there was never a problem. All these "toxic assets" were actually good debt. So why has the fed govt pumped $430bil into the big banks and the fed purchased $1.7tr in MBS from the big banks? Hell all was well. What was the problem?

"Yes, when someone with unlimited resources decides to guarantee something, it's no longer toxic."

Unlimited resources? This would be the fed govt? The fed govt now$18tr in debt. 12% of which is held by the fed?

"No, all the guaranteed debt is now good debt, whether the Fed bought it or you did."

I challenge you to find any source that states that the fed reserve debt is guaranteed by the fed govt.

And if it was, the fed govt would have to turn to the fed to have the fed purchase more treasury notes which of course would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to spend more to bail out the fed which would require the fed to buy more fed govt treasuries so the fed govt could continue to bail out the fed which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more of the fed debt by borrowing more from the fed which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more fed debt by having the fed purchase more treasuries which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to have the fed buy more securities which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more of the feds debt by having the fed buy more securities...

What could go wrong?

The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.'.

Last year the "private owners" received $1.7 billion in dividends, the Treasury about $100 billion.

"The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt."

Do you have any idea how dumb that is?

Yeah, probably not a good idea, but when the US government guarantees a debt, that makes it solid.

The fed is the last resort lender to the fed govt

Lender of last resort to the banking system, not to the Federal government.

So if the fed gets in trouble

How in the world would the Fed get in trouble? Spell it out.

"No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them."

And you base this on what?

It was in all the papers. Here.

A key component of the conservatorships is the commitment of the U.S. Department of the Treasury to provide financial support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to enable them to continue to provide liquidity and stability to the mortgage market.

The Treasury Department has provided $189.5 billion in support, which includes an initial placement of $1 billion in both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the time of the conservatorships and an additional cumulative $187.5 billion investment from the Treasury Department

History of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Conservatorships | Federal Housing Finance Agency

And you honestly believe that what is being purchased are the subprime MBS that went belly up at the beginning of this mess?

No. The Fed did not buy subprime MBS. The Fed bought guaranteed MBS.

Those "toxic assets will never see the light of day. They will reside on the fed balance sheet forever.

The toxic assets that they never bought are not on their balance sheet. Not now, not ever, never.

I wish I lived in your world.

Me too, then I wouldn't have to correct all your errors.

Again from what you are saying there was never a problem.

There was a huge problem. Trillions in loans to bad risks, thanks in part to moronic government pressure on banks to get poor people to buy homes.

All these "toxic assets" were actually good debt.

No. Toxic assets are toxic assets. Assets that were guaranteed by the government are not toxic assets.

Unlimited resources? This would be the fed govt?

For all intents and purposes, yes.

I challenge you to find any source that states that the fed reserve debt is guaranteed by the fed govt.

They own US Treasuries. Are they guaranteed?
They own Fannie and Freddie MBS. Fannie and Freddie are now in government conservatorship.
I think that means they are guaranteed. If you can show they are not, I'll alter my claim.

And if it was, the fed govt would have to turn to the fed to have the fed purchase more treasury notes which of course would weaken the feds balance sheet

Ummmm......why would more Treasury Notes weaken the Fed's balance sheet?
It sounds like you don't understand accounting either.