California's rosy fiscal outlook the envy of Washington state? (Sacramento: income, live in)

[bigboibob]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Perhaps not. But that's not the only conundrum at hand here. The mill is grinding out diplomas that are leaving the holders in greater and greater debt. It's a serious, reaming hot shaft job.

Yes the higher debt should be a consequence to prevent underemployment. People should think twice about going to college only to become bartenders, baristas, or waiters and higher cost of education will make people think twice about the benefits of getting that degree.

Lowering the cost of tuition will only create a lottery situation where the people that get accepted into UC will save a pretty penny. It will also force taxpayers to pay more of the unnecessary burden of lower tuition when there is very little benefit

Lowering student debt burden by artificially lowering tuition creates arbitrary winners(accepted students) and losers(tax payers).

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bigboibob

Yes the higher debt should be a consequence to prevent underemployment. People should think twice about going to college only to become bartenders, baristas, or waiters and higher cost of education will make people think twice about the benefits of getting that degree.

Lowering the cost of tuition will only create a lottery situation where the people that get accepted into UC will save a pretty penny. It will also force taxpayers to pay more of the unnecessary burden of lower tuition when there is very little benefit

Lowering student debt burden by artificially lowering tuition creates arbitrary winners(accepted students) and losers(tax payers).

Part of what you say here has validity. But part is nuts, if you'll excuse me.

Since when do people typically think well on the topic of consequences? What people "should" do, and what if fact they do, don't commonly track. And certainly, no on goes to college to "become bartenders, baristas, or waiters". They have loftier intentions. So just toss that nonsense out.

The other consequences you suggest are true, I agree. And yet meaningless in that there's nothing unique about the arbitrariness of social process.

All your suggestion would do is cast that aside in favor of a select elite. Which, IMHO, is bullshirt.

[bigboibob]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Part of what you say here has validity. But part is nuts, if you'll excuse me.

Since when do people typically think well on the topic of consequences? What people "should" do, and what if fact they do, don't commonly track. And certainly, no on goes to college to "become bartenders, baristas, or waiters". They have loftier intentions. So just toss that nonsense out.

The other consequences you suggest are true, I agree. And yet meaningless in that there's nothing unique about the arbitrariness of social process.

All your suggestion would do is cast that aside in favor of a select elite. Which, IMHO, is bullshirt.

There's much more effective ways in tackling the income disparity issue because lowering tuition does near nothing and hurts the state government finances.

Students will assess which majors are good bets.

My hypothesis is that at the very extreme of free higher education people will do less due diligence on majors and career path.. 'Ah wth I'll go to college, its free! Now where's the dartboard, i need to pick a major.'


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/31...pagewanted=all

It shouldn't be arbitrary. students should think about their personal strengths, ambition's, needs of the job market, and cost of education.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

What's life without innuendo and heavy breathing?

That's what we learned in college. Well worth it!

[things and stuff]

they should tax us for 100% of our incomes. Budget problem solved.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by bigboibob

Yes the higher debt should be a consequence to prevent underemployment. People should think twice about going to college only to become bartenders, baristas, or waiters and higher cost of education will make people think twice about the benefits of getting that degree.

Lowering the cost of tuition will only create a lottery situation where the people that get accepted into UC will save a pretty penny. It will also force taxpayers to pay more of the unnecessary burden of lower tuition when there is very little benefit

Lowering student debt burden by artificially lowering tuition creates arbitrary winners(accepted students) and losers(tax payers).

Your theories and reasoning don't hold water in times of recession. The reason grads are bartending and waiting tables is that there aren't jobs for them. If bankers and Wall Street had acted responsibly instead of getting carried away with derivatives, and the collapse in 2008 hadn't happened, a lot of those underemployed grads would have decent jobs. Do you really believe they prefer to be underemployed?

[bigboibob]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Your theories and reasoning don't hold water in times of recession. The reason grads are bartending and waiting tables is that there aren't jobs for them. If bankers and Wall Street had acted responsibly instead of getting carried away with derivatives, and the collapse in 2008 hadn't happened, a lot of those underemployed grads would have decent jobs. Do you really believe they prefer to be underemployed?

The recession wasn't created by 1 group of people. Everyone was at fault

-Tax structure encourages home ownership,
-lax lending requirements
-lax regulation on financial derivatives
-financial models based on a rosy future
-population that decided to buy property they couldn't afford

Everyone wants to point fingers but everyone is at fault.

Recessions are always going to happen. The market cannot continuously rise. Humans are creatures of emotion and excess.. If we can exploit something, we will.

I believe that cost of higher education encourages people to put more thought into their future.

[DriveNotCommute]

College should not be thought of as job training! This is why too many people who didn't need to go to college ended up there with the debt that comes with it. Granted, I think many of the younger crowd got bad advice and you can't completely blame them for following through with what they were incorrectly taught.

A century ago, higher education was supposed to be a place for academic enlightenment. That kind of thing was obviously a luxury that required money to access, meaning it used to be the domain of a privileged class whose motivation really was for self betterment rather than mere job training. Even motivations like social standing and networking fits the ideal better than the idea of job training does.

Things got jumbled up during the technological revolution when new tech became commonplace but the knowledge among the general population about the science behind it did not keep up. Thus the need to go to college for this "specialized" knowledge. This was twisted over time into saying that all fresh college grads should be job-ready on graduation day, including the non-STEM sectors.

Surplus of grads aside, I have disagreements with blanket statements about issuing "useless" degrees. The total number of jobs and the total number of workforce-capable people will remain the same. Even if we had fewer college grads, we're still going to have the same number of people fighting over whatever work is available. Competition for blue collar work would be higher so it would actually offer less pay than it does now. Meanwhile white collar work is always seeing downward wage pressure as big companies seek to control costs.

In addition, non-STEM grads have still contributed ideas, concepts and culture to wherever they ended up, from accounting to bureaucratic paper pushing, to the arts and fashion. We still generally benefit from their presence. We happen to be unable to measure these various contributions and therefore have a tendency to overlook it.

Costs aside, idealistically I think a society that works to better itself is a good thing. College educations are a major avenue for this. How accepting and capable we are of encouraging personal improvement is an indicator of the level of advancement of our society.

[aboveordinary]

Originally Posted by bigboibob

I believe that cost of higher education encourages people to put more thought into their future.

You believe. That is your opinion. Doesn't mean you're right.

[CamaroGuy]

Originally Posted by bigboibob

The recession wasn't created by 1 group of people. Everyone was at fault

-Tax structure encourages home ownership,
-lax lending requirements
-lax regulation on financial derivatives
-financial models based on a rosy future
-population that decided to buy property they couldn't afford

Everyone wants to point fingers but everyone is at fault.

Right! Its all about the "Man in the mirror" thing. People got to try to stop living above their means. Too much of this "Keeping up with the Jones's" BS which has been a problem since the post World War II period.