Bernie Sanders Musing In A Tweet.

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
I agree with everything except the first word. However, vocational classes used to be taught in high school and should probably be reinstated - even emphasized for certain students - in today's curricula. For willing high school grads I'll bet there are plenty of employers in the service industries that would be willing to work out co-op arrangements to help pay for college level vocational training in return for a commitment to a pre-determined period of employment. In any case, the taxpayers shouldn't be stuck with the tab for "free college". A college education is neither a right nor an entitlement.

I don't think high school is the right place for it. Hell, they don't even do Driver's Ed anymore! But real vocational ed is more than high school can offer. [I took Home Economics, failed bc I couldn't operate a sewing machine, lol. Didn't occur to anyone that being left handed makes a difference. Since then, I've made quite a few things, sewing entirely by hand: success.] HVAC. plumbing, electrical, nursing, medical tech, etc. All solid ways to earn a decent living. There's probably dozens more, that don't fit the 'college profile', but are important to society's success.
Funny, people object vociferously to 'free' education, which benefits the individual recipient, sure, but also benefits the entire country as well. More employed people, stronger middle class, more taxes paid, more home ownership, less drug addiction, crime, jail/prison consequences - what's not to like?
Yet you have no complaints about the 'freebies' handed to those who don't even need them, in the form of subsidies, tax writeoffs, business class bankruptcies, etc, etc, etc. None of those policies strengthen the middle class in the way expanded education would, and it's the middle class that we need to expand, or we're toast. If we don't find ways to reverse the income inequality and the gender gap in pay, it's eventually going to get very ugly, I'm afraid.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Funny, people object vociferously to 'free' education, which benefits the individual recipient, sure, but also benefits the entire country as well. More employed people, stronger middle class, more taxes paid, more home ownership, less drug addiction, crime, jail/prison consequences - what's not to like?
What's not to like is the ginormous and erroneous assumption that more education equals more employed people, and it's more employed people that everything else in that list depend upon. Between 1955 and 1969, a period of historically high employment and a strong middle class, Americans with a college degree numbered around 8 percent. In 1985, when jobs began to move overseas and the middle class started to get weak, college degreed Americans was 19 percent. In the period between 1985 and 2010, as jobs steadily streamed overseas and as the middle class became a shell of itself, Americans with degrees rose just as steadily to 30 percent. Clearly, there is no correlation between more people with higher levels of education and the country benefiting from that. In fact, if may very well be the opposite.

Historically, you know, when America was great, the brightest and most driven people went to college, because they wanted it badly. They graduated and continued to be the brightest and most driven, and that's what built and sustained this country. Now every Tom, Dick and Harriet is going to college, most of them don't want it badly, couldn't care less, aren't interested in the academics that make the world run, and are instead studying Gender Studies, Women's Studies, Fashion Design, Sociology, Hospitality and Tourism, Psychology, Communications, and the top of the list for not-getting a job in your field of study, Liberal Arts. Liberals Arts majors end up as real estate agents or pharmaceutical sales.

Yet you have no complaints about the 'freebies' handed to those who don't even need them, in the form of subsidies, tax writeoffs, business class bankruptcies, etc, etc, etc. None of those policies strengthen the middle class in the way expanded education would,
That's not true. Most subsidies directly or indirectly benefit the middle and poor class. They do it either by keeping costs low, or by ensuring continued or expanded jobs.

and it's the middle class that we need to expand, or we're toast.
I agree with you on that one.

If we don't find ways to reverse the income inequality and the gender gap in pay, it's eventually going to get very ugly, I'm afraid.
As there has never, ever been a time since the hunter gatherer days where there wasn't income inequality and a gender pay gap, I'm not sure what you're basing that statement on. Well, I'm pretty sure, but not enough to state it.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
I don't think high school is the right place for it. Hell, they don't even do Driver's Ed anymore! But real vocational ed is more than high school can offer.
High school is the perfect place for it - especially Driver's Ed. High School is already financed by taxpayer dollars and introductory courses in trades such as plumbing, electrical work, machining and masonry would give students a chance to explore these career options. Advanced courses could be taught as well. With fundamental knowledge of a trade, a student would then be prepared and qualified for an employer to take in for further training specific to their needs. Most employers have their own training centers to do this anyway. This process would prepare the student and prospective employee to be PRODUCTIVE. Earning wages while they become proficient at their chosen career, as opposed to drowning themselves in high interest debt to buy a useless college degree that likely prepares them for nothing while wasting 4-6 years of their lives partying.

Currently, colleges and universities are in the process of becoming unaffordable for the middle class with their exponential increases in tuition and fees while simultaneously providing a lower quality education. If Bernie wants to promote free education that's useful, he should become an advocate for a more practical and relevant high school curriculum in our high schools.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
That is why the Fed should be out of the education business. Many kids today need basic financial classes. Many or maybe most, have no idea how to even fill out a check. We spend too many dollars and time on silly classes. Introduction to trades should be a requirement. At least that way most (certainly not all) will leave with some type of skill that can get them going.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
What's not to like is the ginormous and erroneous assumption that more education equals more employed people, and it's more employed people that everything else in that list depend upon. Between 1955 and 1969, a period of historically high employment and a strong middle class, Americans with a college degree numbered around 8 percent. In 1985, when jobs began to move overseas and the middle class started to get weak, college degreed Americans was 19 percent. In the period between 1985 and 2010, as jobs steadily streamed overseas and as the middle class became a shell of itself, Americans with degrees rose just as steadily to 30 percent. Clearly, there is no correlation between more people with higher levels of education and the country benefiting from that. In fact, if may very well be the opposite.

Historically, you know, when America was great, the brightest and most driven people went to college, because they wanted it badly. They graduated and continued to be the brightest and most driven, and that's what built and sustained this country. Now every Tom, Dick and Harriet is going to college, most of them don't want it badly, couldn't care less, aren't interested in the academics that make the world run, and are instead studying Gender Studies, Women's Studies, Fashion Design, Sociology, Hospitality and Tourism, Psychology, Communications, and the top of the list for not-getting a job in your field of study, Liberal Arts. Liberals Arts majors end up as real estate agents or pharmaceutical sales.

That's not true. Most subsidies directly or indirectly benefit the middle and poor class. They do it either by keeping costs low, or by ensuring continued or expanded jobs.

I agree with you on that one.

As there has never, ever been a time since the hunter gatherer days where there wasn't income inequality and a gender pay gap, I'm not sure what you're basing that statement on. Well, I'm pretty sure, but not enough to state it.

People went to college because the media insisted that they needed the degree to get a job, and in many cases, [law enforcement & nursing are two I can think of off the top] that was correct. Even in cases where it wouldn't seem necessary, corporate management decreed a degree. [Froufrou crap like Women's Studies don't count - nobody who wants to be employed is going there, I hope] People continue going to college because they sure aren't finding a job, and at least some of those majors offer the hope of employment.

I don't believe "most subsidies directly or indirectly benefit the middle class" at all. Take the subsidy of "charity" and "nonprofit" groups, for example, and the boondoggle that's created. Our tax structure rewards too many bad behaviors, and bad actors: Wall Street, for example.

Yes, there has always been income inequality [which is a normal part of a capitalist economy], but it has grown hog wild, because no one complained, and the greedy took advantage, more every year. The gender pay gap is just as detrimental, because it is a cumulative disparity that leaves women poorer in their old age, when they need to support themselves because they no longer have mates - the men die first. [No comment!]
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
That is why the Fed should be out of the education business. Many kids today need basic financial classes. Many or maybe most, have no idea how to even fill out a check. We spend too many dollars and time on silly classes. Introduction to trades should be a requirement. At least that way most (certainly not all) will leave with some type of skill that can get them going.

So who should be "in" the education biz? States? Not a fan of that idea, too many want to teach creationism as equal to science, and sex education as "Just say no". The federal government is supposed to ensure some degree of consistency in the 'big picture', it's what they are paid for.
If kids aren't getting basic financial ed, [and you're correct, many aren't], I'd blame it on the parents who don't demand it. Intro to trades might be good, but how many hours in a day? How complete an education can schools offer, given the current schedule? I'd rather they focus on the basics, and leave occupational ed for post diploma, myself. It's just getting shortchanged, in the demand for 'college'. If Bernie Sanders hasn't figured that out yet, I think he will, it's inevitable.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
People went to college because the media insisted that they needed the degree to get a job, and in many cases, [law enforcement & nursing are two I can think of off the top] that was correct. Even in cases where it wouldn't seem necessary, corporate management decreed a degree. [Froufrou crap like Women's Studies don't count - nobody who wants to be employed is going there, I hope] People continue going to college because they sure aren't finding a job, and at least some of those majors offer the hope of employment.
Those majors I listed, they are all in the Top 20 of WORST degrees to get with respect to finding a job. And every one of those 9 I listed also just happen to in the Top 10 of most commonly awarded degrees. Sad, but true.

I don't believe "most subsidies directly or indirectly benefit the middle class" at all. Take the subsidy of "charity" and "nonprofit" groups, for example, and the boondoggle that's created. Our tax structure rewards too many bad behaviors, and bad actors: Wall Street, for example.
Apparently you think "most," the word I actually used, and "all," a word which I did not, mean exactly the same thing. They do not mean the same thing at all. I used the word "most" quite intentionally, because I know there are plenty of exceptions to the use of "all" where they benefit the middle class in no way whatsoever. I can name a dozen examples where the middle class isn't affected at all. But I can name many more where they are profoundly affected, and in a good way. Most of them, actually.

As for the "subsidies" of charity and nonprofits is concerned, I'm going to set aside and not even touch on the fact that the mere act of paying taxes is rapidly becoming little more than donating to charity, are you sure you want to start taxing nonprofits? That would mean institutions of higher learning, like public universities and community colleges, would have to start paying property taxes. It would mean the local Goodwill store would have to figure out a way to pay the property taxes on their buildings. It would mean Planned Parenthood would have to not only pay property taxes, but income taxes on all of their donations received. And if you want to go whole-hog-boondoggle on it and tax churches and religious charities, then you can kiss any separation of church and state goodbye, because the churches would then have a legitimate role and voice in government. Good intentions have their unintended consequences, but do so vengeful retributions.

Yes, there has always been income inequality [which is a normal part of a capitalist economy], but it has grown hog wild, because no one complained, and the greedy took advantage, more every year. The gender pay gap is just as detrimental, because it is a cumulative disparity that leaves women poorer in their old age, when they need to support themselves because they no longer have mates - the men die first. [No comment!]
Again, there has never been a time in all of recorded history where there has been gender pay equality. So when you say "that leaves women poorer in their old age," poorer than what? Poorer than some theoretical construct that isn't based in reality? There is no evidence to suggest that a zero gender pay gap would result in women being less poor in their old age. That's wistful thinking, at best. There is, however, a long history of life insurance to keep women in their old age less poor.
 
Top