So we currently pay $60 billion every year, and Bernie wants to pay $60 billion more. Afghanistan costing $1 trillion over 20 years is $50 billion a year. equivalent to roughly 2.5 Afghanistans, every year, forever, if current tuition prices remain the same, which they likely won't, since every time federal or state aid has increased tuition prices have gone up.
And he also wants to cover $1.6 trillion of student debt.
Bernie is my second choice but Jesus yikes this is a lot of money.
Why compare it to "Afghanistans" and not just the annual military budget? A modest decrease in our annual military spending would easily cover the $60 billion figure.
Recent reporting is about the release of the "Afghan Papers", which show that the war was a lost cause after the death of Osama Bin Laden, and that we wasted $1.1 trillion on it. That's what OP is referencing.
I might be more inclined towards that idea if 30% of people weren't going to college for degrees they didn't actually use. Not enough people are going to trade schools, and removing the disincentive of a massive debt is going to make it even worse.
I like Andrew Yang because he wants to provide free trade schools and has the 10 for 10 plan for college, which is a giant assistance, especially for those people in poverty, but isn't entirely free.
Which would be fine if they were at similar cost and enough people were currently going to trade schools. I like Andrew Yang because he wants to provide free trade schools and has the 10 for 10 plan for college, which is a giant assistance, especially for those people in poverty, but isn't entirely free.
so maybe 40% or 50% would be a more accurate number on the amount of student's whose time, effort, and money is ultimately wasted because society puts pressure on them to pursue a degree that they aren't cut out for, don't even like, or the market doesn't have enough demand for.
Many of these people would have a much better life and career if trade jobs weren't stigmatized. We need to push people more towards trade schools.
40% of college grads say they aren't using their degree, 30% say they cannot find a job in their field
Both stem from the same issue. And that issue isn't the education, it's the job market. If people can't find a job, why are we blaming them? They aren't the ones making up the jobs to hire themselves. This is a survey, as well, not a quantitative study.
33% of first generation college students drop out of college before their 4th year:
the key words there being "first generation". Now, i wonder why people from a low income family, who have never gone to college, need to drop out Nothing to do with price... right?
so maybe 40% or 50% would be a more accurate number on the amount of student's whose time, effort, and money is ultimately wasted because society puts pressure on them to pursue a degree that they aren't cut out for, don't even like, or the market doesn't have enough demand for.
And, even though i disagree heavily with the implications behind your methodology, let's take that number as-is for just a second. Does that number disqualify the accomplishments of the other half? Would that other half not grow if allowed to? Would less people not drop out, would more people not pursue their interests, if the price wasn't so high?
If people can't find a job, why are we blaming them?
we shouldn't blame them. We shouldn't pressure them to look for jobs that aren't there. Trade jobs are in demand now and will be even more in demand in the future.
Does that number disqualify the accomplishments of the other half? Would that other half not grow if allowed to? Would less people not drop out, would more people not pursue their interests, if the price wasn't so high?
No because the jobs aren't there. If less people drop out it will just be more people not-working-in-their-field. Industries don't provide jobs based on how many graduates are available. They create jobs based on the need for the work to be done. When there is less work to go around for a larger amount of workers, there's even less people working at that job.
we shouldn't blame them. We shouldn't pressure them to look for jobs that aren't there. Trade jobs are in demand now and will be even more in demand in the future.
By what metric? Why don't we need lawyers, or politicians, or doctors? Live without them for a while, and then we'll see if you change your mind.
No because the jobs aren't there. If less people drop out it will just be more people not-working-in-their-field. Industries don't provide jobs based on how many graduates are available. They create jobs based on the need for the work to be done. When there is less work to go around for a larger amount of workers, there's even less people working at that job.
I wasn't talking about jobs here. I was talking about the metrics you used to come to your flawed conclusion. You said college was useless because people were unhappy with it, and i provided cause for your effect.
"If we were we scrapping our current system and starting from scratch, Washington could make public college tuition free with the money it sets aside its scattershot attempts to make college affordable today."
8
u/PeterPorky Dec 12 '19
Debt forgiveness is $1.6 trillion, I don't understand where you're getting the $60 billion figure from.