What Legislation Do We Need to get Work Refusniks off the Couch?

[Ray From Cleveland]

True with some exceptions. Personally I think our high schools are too large.

They have to be. The more teachers, the more union members. The more union members, the more union dues. The more union dues, the more they can contribute to the Democrat party at election time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A Pharmacist is a long way from being an MD or engineer.

A pharmacist is a doctor that can't prescribe medications. It's six years of college to do that job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The employer pays nowhere near to compensate for the hundreds of thousands that have been invested in your education.

He also makes a profit off of every employee

An employer shouldn't have to pay for his or her education. The employer and employee both benefit from the job, and the employee benefits for their educational investment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tenement housing is all they deserve.

And they don't deserve it in the suburbs. Let them go where housing costs us taxpayers less in the city.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why don't everyone have $2500? Really?

Not hard to come up with and just about anybody will give you a loan. I never went to T/T school but from what I understand, they have lenders they deal with that will give you the loan.

 

[surada]

They have to be. The more teachers, the more union members. The more union members, the more union dues. The more union dues, the more they can contribute to the Democrat party at election time.

Can you imagine a solution to having high schools that have a thousand students or more?

 

[pknopp]

A Pharmacist is a long way from being an MD or engineer.

Or a truck driver.

 

[pknopp]

Not hard to come up with and just about anybody will give you a loan. I never went to T/T school but from what I understand, they have lenders they deal with that will give you the loan.

Or you can drive for Wal Mart and get them to pay you while you are training.

 

[rightwinger]

An employer shouldn't have to pay for his or her education. The employer and employee both benefit from the job, and the employee benefits for their educational investment.

Why not?

They are YOUR Employees

You should educate them not the taxpayer

 

[Dragonlady]

The answer is NOT increasing the minimum wage, as I see signs all over the place offering $17 and $18 an hour to run a cash register or restock clothes on shelves. The answer is to stop giving taxpayer money away to people able to work and who simply feel jobs are beneath them.

1. Any adult not working a full-time job and living with a parent in a six-figure household should be exempt welfare-type benefits:

a) I know a young mother, now divorced, who moved in with her mother (a GS 14), who not only gets child support for her two children, as she should, she also gets food stamps, Medicaid for her kids, and a host of other benefits. She works one day a week, as a fill-in receptionist for a vet.

b) I also know a woman in her 50s, who lives with her parents, both of whom are retired government professionals with a six-figure pension. She too gets food stamps, and works two afternoons a week at the library.

2. Any parent in a two-parent household, where neither is working, should get no welfare. I know a couple (with kids) where both refuse to get a job, saying what’s available is beneath them, and they are getting rent relief, food stamps, Medicaid, and so forth.

You know this and you know that. YOU KNOW NOTHING. You don't know the health or circumstances these people live in. You're fully invested in the Republican lie that poor people are lazy and if you give low income people money, they won't work.

If this were true, why do people in Denmark, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Germany, and all of the other first world countries every get anyone to go to work, much less work harder than the USA. Denmark has FREE university for anyone who qualifies, free health care, and a guaranteed annual income for anyone who doesn't want to work, and their GDP per capita is higher than the USA????

Half of the seniors I know have part time jobs, myself included, and we have a guaranteed annual income of $19,000 per year, even if we do NOTHING.

The most productive societies are not starving their poor into taking low wage jobs. They're providing their citizens with the tools to live with reduced financial stress and more freedom and opportunities, in order to achieve their own best and most productive lives.

 

[rightwinger]

You know this and you know that. YOU KNOW NOTHING. You don't know the health or circumstances these people live in. You're fully invested in the Republican lie that poor people are lazy and if you give low income people money, they won't work.

If this were true, why do people in Denmark, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Germany, and all of the other first world countries every get anyone to go to work, much less work harder than the USA. Denmark has FREE university for anyone who qualifies, free health care, and a guaranteed annual income for anyone who doesn't want to work, and their GDP per capita is higher than the USA????

Half of the seniors I know have part time jobs, myself included, and we have a guaranteed annual income of $19,000 per year, even if we do NOTHING.

The most productive societies are not starving their poor into taking low wage jobs. They're providing their citizens with the tools to live with reduced financial stress and more freedom and opportunities, in order to achieve their own best and most productive lives.

There is no evidence of poor people doing better if you give them less

 

[Lisa558]

Why not?

They are YOUR Employees

You should educate them not the taxpayer

Leftists only think in terms of who else should pay for education! Why is the choice either the taxpayer or the employer? How about the INDIVIDUAL investing in his/her own education, so that he increases his market value to an employer and thus earns a higher salary?

For example, the average cost of public in- state tuition is around $10,300 a year, or around $41,000 for all four years. Double that for room and board and you are at about $80,000.

Now compare to the earnings: on average, a college graduate earns $1 million more over his career compared to a high school grad. That $80,000 was a smart investment for the student. Why should taxpayers OR employers have to fund it?

Or take a 2-year A.A. degree. On average, the tuition is around $4,000 a year at community college - or $8,000 total. Yet an A.A. holder will earn, on average, $320,000 more than a HS grad over the course of his career. So, his investment of $8,000 returned $320,000 - an actually better return than the B.A. holder. Given that, why should someone ELSE have to cover the $8000 cost?

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/paying-for-college-infographic

 

[Lesh]

Leftists only think in terms of who else should pay for education! Why is the choice either the taxpayer or the employer? How about the INDIVIDUAL investing in his/her own education, so that he increases his market value to an employer and thus earns a higher salary?

For example, the average cost of public in- state tuition is around $10,300 a year, or around $41,000 for all four years. Double that for room and board and you are at about $80,000.

Now compare to the earnings: on average, a college graduate earns $1 million more over his career compared to a high school grad. That $80,000 was a smart investment for the student. Why should taxpayers OR employers have to fund it?

Or take a 2-year A.A. degree. On average, the tuition is around $4,000 a year at community college - or $8,000 total. Yet an A.A. holder will earn, on average, $320,000 more than a HS grad over the course of his career. So, his investment of $8,000 returned $320,000 - an actually better return than the B.A. holder. Given that, why should someone ELSE have to cover the $8000 cost?

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/paying-for-college-infographic

Individuals can’t afford that.. unless very wealthy

 

[rightwinger]

Leftists only think in terms of who else should pay for education! Why is the choice either the taxpayer or the employer? How about the INDIVIDUAL investing in his/her own education, so that he increases his market value to an employer and thus earns a higher salary?

For example, the average cost of public in- state tuition is around $10,300 a year, or around $41,000 for all four years. Double that for room and board and you are at about $80,000.

Now compare to the earnings: on average, a college graduate earns $1 million more over his career compared to a high school grad. That $80,000 was a smart investment for the student. Why should taxpayers OR employers have to fund it?

Or take a 2-year A.A. degree. On average, the tuition is around $4,000 a year at community college - or $8,000 total. Yet an A.A. holder will earn, on average, $320,000 more than a HS grad over the course of his career. So, his investment of $8,000 returned $320,000 - an actually better return than the B.A. holder. Given that, why should someone ELSE have to cover the $8000 cost?

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/paying-for-college-infographic

Right now we are sticking the student and their parents for higher education
They assume a hundred thousand dollars of expenses

It is the employer who makes profit off of those educated students
If the employer needs those skills, make HIM supply them

 

[Lisa558]

Right now we are sticking the student and their parents for higher education
They assume a hundred thousand dollars of expenses

It is the employer who makes profit off of those educated students
If the employer needs those skills, make HIM supply them

What part of “the college graduate will earn $1 million more over his career than a HS grad” did you not understand? The $100,000 he spends on his education - less if they start via community college and then transfer - is an investment that the student gains from. The student needs to pay, not other people, for his own education.

 

[rightwinger]

What part of “the college graduate will earn $1 million more over his career than a HS grad” did you not understand? The $100,000 he spends on his education - less if they start via community college and then transfer - is an investment that the student gains from. The student needs to pay, not other people, for his own education.

The bigger question is …

How much does the employer make off of his education?
Probably ten times that amount

Let the employer provide the skills he demands

 

[Lisa558]

The bigger question is …

How much does the employer make off of his education?
Probably ten times that amount

Let the employer provide the skills he demands

Why is that the bigger question? Why do liberals always insist that someone else pay for….well….everything?

The college student is investing in his own future, and he needs to pay for it other than foisting the cost off on consumers. (if corporations have to pay to educate college students, then they will pass that cost into their customers.)

 

[Lesh]

Why is that the bigger question? Why do liberals always insist that someone else pay for….well….everything?

The college student is investing in his own future, and he needs to pay for it other than foisting the cost off on consumers. (if corporations have to pay to educate college students, then they will pass that cost into their customers.)

Why isn’t business investing in their work force? They surely benefit from it

 

[Indeependent]

Or a truck driver.

Driving those

Right now we are sticking the student and their parents for higher education
They assume a hundred thousand dollars of expenses

It is the employer who makes profit off of those educated students
If the employer needs those skills, make HIM supply them

Blame the universities as their costs have not increased.

 

[rightwinger]

Why is that the bigger question? Why do liberals always insist that someone else pay for….well….everything?

The college student is investing in his own future, and he needs to pay for it other than foisting the cost off on consumers. (if corporations have to pay to educate college students, then they will pass that cost into their customers.)

I am insisting that employers provide the skills they demand

They are YOUR employees
YOU train them not the taxpayer