Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope it benefits you so you should pay. There is no such thing as free anyway, someone has to pay for it so why not you.
High quality workers benefit the whole society, not just themselves. Imagine the US has no IT industry...
So it makes sense for everyone to pay for their education a little bit, but they also need to pay a portion of it.
High quality workers benefit the whole society, not just themselves. Imagine the US has no IT industry...
So it makes sense for everyone to pay for their education a little bit, but they also need to pay a portion of it.
Actually we can do many things, such as reducing the length of time it takes to get a degree. It takes 4 years for most people to get degree, but it doesn't need to. There is a lot of "filler" in school curriculums. So first we need to reduce the amount of time, and cut out a lot of fat.
The next thing we need to do is reduce the price of college. And this can be done by less subsidizing. Politicians rarely talk about why prices are high.
Actually we can do many things, such as reducing the length of time it takes to get a degree. It takes 4 years for most people to get degree, but it doesn't need to. There is a lot of "filler" in school curriculums. So first we need to reduce the amount of time, and cut out a lot of fat.
The next thing we need to do is reduce the price of college. And this can be done by less subsidizing. Politicians rarely talk about why prices are high.
According to Google's expert in artificial intelligence; in 2029 computers will be as smart as humans: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...umans-15-years. Since they are also great at multitasking; it would be possible that they could 'teach' more than one student or possibly class at the same time. We would not have to worry about their pensions or time off.
The thing that bothers me the most is that workers in the private sector get replaced all the time; but we are not quick to replace workers in the public sector. With fewer workers in the private sector; it continues to get harder to support those in the public sector. Embracing this newer technology in teaching could help defray the cost.
High quality workers benefit the whole society, not just themselves. Imagine the US has no IT industry...
So it makes sense for everyone to pay for their education a little bit, but they also need to pay a portion of it.
Why would you think there would be no "high quality workers" or "IT industry" absent taxpayer funding?
According to Google's expert in artificial intelligence; in 2029 computers will be as smart as humans: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...umans-15-years. Since they are also great at multitasking; it would be possible that they could 'teach' more than one student or possibly class at the same time. We would not have to worry about their pensions or time off.
The thing that bothers me the most is that workers in the private sector get replaced all the time; but we are not quick to replace workers in the public sector. With fewer workers in the private sector; it continues to get harder to support those in the public sector. Embracing this newer technology in teaching could help defray the cost.
I'm not sure how they're defining "smart". Based on the technology today, computers aren't even a fraction as smart as humans today. I have studied machine learning in pretty good lengths, and while this is a great tool for computers to learn, it's a little overrated and how well they can learn. you still need to rely on a human programming it, and giving it "training programs" in a limited domain is problems.
I don't doubt that computers will be able to solve some problems better than humans in 13 years. I'm a little skeptical about how smart they'll be overall.
I do see automation creating an economic shift. I think the idea of "getting a job" is becoming outdated. I think more and more people are just finding their own way instead of relying on a job to pay bills. I can see independent contracting and consulting.
I suggest it was the information given to those to help decide if they wanted to ratify the Constitution. I suggest a modern society should not have a legal system based on the whims of five people in black robes.
James Madison, Federalist Paper #41
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.
But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
Other than to historians, this is about as important to today's governmental system and its constituents as your powdered wig is.
I do see automation creating an economic shift. I think the idea of "getting a job" is becoming outdated. I think more and more people are just finding their own way instead of relying on a job to pay bills. I can see independent contracting and consulting.
Here is one good BBC article: BBC - Future - Will machines eventually take on every job?. It goes into detail about the same questions that we have just addressed. It also acknowledges that many jobs will disappear forever and lives will be altered. Not all of it will happen in the next decade; of course some predictions will only be predictions. But there is serious money driving these 'changes' like eliminating truck drivers. By the way; I was a thirty year Teamster. Once this automation of trucks start, given no major incidents, the change could happen very quick. Companies without the computer drivers would be at a disadvantage to companies that still hired drivers. The article also points out that it would not just be trucking; trucking services, for the drivers like truck stops, would also disappear.
So, here the American worker goes; still with no security and no way to plan for the future. Even if you spend years being 'educated' that education could simply be one big waste of time if your field is no longer needed.
I just think we will have a hard time with the distribution of wealth. The rich will not give up being wealthy without a fight.
I also think that humans need to work. We were hunters/gathers in the not so distant past. Work is our primary exercise program and our society is already overweight/obese.
Do we really want to waste public money training workers to do jobs that might not be there tomorrow?
How much did you pay though. College was reasonable at one time, but now it's the equivalent of a mortgage. I don't think college can be free, but I think it could be much much cheaper.
You're right, it could be.
But the path to making that a reality is not paved with expecting someone else to pay for your education.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think college's should be free?
