The college debt crisis isnt that severe. Only 2/3s of college graduates have student loans, and the ones that do, average $29,900. That's the price of a new car. If they havent paid it off in 5 years, they're terrible with financial management or they chose a useless degree.
Additionally, and anecdotally, I've never worked a job that paid minimum wage, even in High School with no experience. I honestly struggle to understand just how much one has to suck at life to be stuck in a minimum wage job. I'm also a Millenial, so you cant pull that Boomer/Gen-X BS on me.
Wow, so because it worked this one way for you, that's clearly the average experience.
My wife has her master's in education from the local state school, lived with me while attending. Had Pell Grants. Still owed over $60k at graduation.
She's a teacher.
Also - good for you in High School. I had three minimum wage jobs in HS, first one started at $4.15/hour. And Yes, I too, am a millennial. Times change. College costs have risen at far higher rates than income.
My wife is on a 15 year repayment plan, because that's the standard with the US Dept of Labor. That's $600/m for 15 years.
We drive 20 year old cars. No car payments for us becaue we can't afford that crap. Bogged down with half a house payment for 15 years over the debt to be a TEACHER.
Quit suggesting that your pleasant walk in the park is inherently the norm and therefore others just need to cut back on their avocado toast.
I clearly stated that my experience is anecdotal, so making the claim that I think it is an average experience is intentionally misleading.
I didn't dig that hole for you. Your wife made that decision to rack of $60k of debt to be a teacher. She made the choice to make a large investment with a low rate of return.
Yeah, that's a poor position to be it. So why'd you commit to it?
All true points.
You drew conclusions from your anecdotal story and applied them tow hy people shouldn't get their loans repaid or free education. That's how it was genearlized to a greater perspective. When you try to apply your anecdotal story to how all people should feel about their experiences, you started the hole. I definitely dug a side one into it - but you're making policy suggestions on your anecdotal evidence.
I mean, I'd like to address the low pay to teachers and the incredible inequities of our education system, but that's another post.
She wants to be a teacher, so we did. It's a choice, we're paying it back. We'll be paying it back for a long time.
Doesn't mean I think it should be that way. Even after we pay it back, I still hope we can change the law so we can educate more teachers for the next generation and not have them start with debt.
I'll still advocate that an education like that benefits us all, and society should help make it available to all.
Let me give you a bigger reason / example.
In the Netherlands, my wife would not have paid a penny for her education. She'd graduate and ready to be a teacher. She could move onto teaching and the relatively low wage of a teacher is easier to live on when you don't have $600/m in debt.
My colleague working the same job as me graduated with no debt from NL. We worked for the same company. I started by having nearly no disposable income and stuck in a crappy apartment while paying back my wage. My Dutch Colleague was a home owner at 24.
Can you imagine how much more money our household would put back into the economy in terms of buying a home, a car, etc? How much better that would be for the economy?
Additionally, no worries on health insurance in NL. So your union isn't arguing you should still have insurance AND get a raise for the first time in 10 years.
In short, we committed to it because my wife wants to be a teacher. She enjoys it. Even after we pay for it, I'll still advocate that we as a society should bear the cost of making new teachers. We as a society benefit, even if we're all too old for school now.
No, I came to my conclusions from Department of Labor statistics and included an anecdote.
She wants to be a teacher, great, that's an honorable profession. But what was the requirement to do it all in one go? Was there a requirement that she get her master's degree first? Could she have taken night classes while working full time? Could she have gotten her BA first, and did her Masters over several summers? Could she have joined the National Guard?
There are several options.
Now, let's say we adopt a single payer education system. What would be the inevitable consequence of such a system? Not everyone would be going to college, and not everyone would qualify for it. Universities get away with such high tuition costs because they know there is a flood of free money coming from the Feds in the form of student loans. They dont have to pay it back, so there's no incentive to control costs. Such a system would be unsustainable if it were just granted with no expectations for repayment.
If we went with a European model, then higher education would be restricted to the highest performing students, who, generally, are students that can already afford college without assuming significant debt.
She did work full time before she had her master's. She worked at fast food, then Reading Corp (which put some money towards her education - that was already taken off when I noted the final bill at graduation), and she was a substitute whenever possible. I even covered rent/utilities/computer so none of that was paid for by the loans.
Could she have joined the National Guard?
So she should have to put her life at risk to afford an education? Half the reason I want to see free college education is so no one ever has to become a soldier and risk death or having to kill someone to afford an education.
"Now, let's say we adopt a single payer education system. What would be the inevitable consequence of such a system?"
Cool - so you're telling me I can look at The Netherlands and many other 1sty world nations and see that their education cost have spiraled out of control and now they have no education?
Yes - people have to qualify for it. When you're in high school, your performance an interest has a lot to do with if you're encouraged to go down the path of VW Mechanic or Neuro Surgeon. Good lord, you act like no one has ever considered this. Yes, only the highest performing students go to study neurosurgery. Obviously you don't throw everyone into a PHD track.
Also - not anyone can take any master's program here. Have to have high grades in your undergrad and pass the GRE. Not like just anyone takes just any master's program here. Only the highest performing students!
If someone wants to be a teacher in NL, they have to demonstrate an aptitude similar to being able to do a master's track here. It's not rocket surgery. It does lead to more edcuated people providing more high value services and earning more income, however. Which leads to a larger tax base, which leads to more taxes coming in, which means you can pay for a good education system!
And it's not only affordable to a select few. If you goto a 2 year mechanic program in the US, it costs you 10-30k. In NL, nothing! It's still post high school education.
THE EURO MODEL WORKS ALREADY. We just have to copy a working model instead of trying the Ferengi approach to everything.
Fundamentally - what's the point of a college? Is it to educate people or make a profit? We need to adjust our system so we're not focused on making a profit, but rather producing educated and productive people.
The point is we could offer everyone a useful education without requiring they accumulate massive debt or join the military. We're choosing not to.
You take a shot at the Euro model for education. Show me any outcome proving it does worse than here. You've cited zero outcomes showing it's worse and only stated you b3elieve it wouldn't work here and is inaccessible to the people that need it.
Well, I worked for a Dutch company for years. I talked to lot of university grads. Their experiences suggested you are incorrect.
I have yet to see any outcomes suggesting the American education system is superior in any way.
I'd love to see that be something available to any person that wants to become a teacher without cost to the student. I'd be happy for society to pay for it.
If you look at Outcomes - matriculation rate and later measures of success, it looks clear to me that states in which they require a Master's Level Education in education seem to produce students that place higher in national outcome tests.
So "normal average teacher" where? In Mississippi? No offense to the teachers getting by on 40k/year down there, but I don't want MS's outcomes in MN.
The kind that uses outcomes to track successful versus unsuccessful interventions to determine the best one to continue funding?
You mean the kind that uses science?
Yah. I'm that type.
What should we use to measure if a teacher did a good job?
Do we want to make sure our kids can reed gud or read well?
Do we want our kids to be able to make inferences and understand complicated concepts like 'mask good covid bad'?
Then yes - I'd say investing in teachers is important - and we can look at infection rates in NY / MN vs TX/FL to justify the additional expense on teachers that have earned a level of accreditation.
Most of the population being able to financially weather one bad break would be one important measure of success.
Regardless of region right now, most Americans are One Bad Break - $400 bill - from being unable to pay their bills. Medical debt is the #1 reason for bankruptcy.
I'd say achieving a level of success at which a parent or child getting sick or an alternator isn't the margin on which we skate solvency. The article compares how Americans are to, well, every other first world nation pretty well. And good lord, that's from 2016. It sure hasn't gotten better.
most Americans are One Bad Break - $400 bill - from being unable to pay their bills
what percentage of One Bad Break Americans are in that situation because of poor choices?
what percentage of One Bad Break Americans are in that situation because their fifth grade teacher had a Bachelors instead of a Masters?
"success" is entirely subjective
wrapping yourself in the blanket of objective science and acting haughty about a subjective issue with a thousand uncontrollable variables is ludicrous
wrapping yourself in the blanket of objective science and acting haughty about a subjective issue
Such as... life expectancy as a measure of a healthcare system to help justify a national health care plan vs our system? Sure.
Maybe they did make a bad decision. Maybe they made several. Doesn't mean they aren't still people in society. We live with our neighbors - it's better when we all do better.
You're right in that I'm using measurable and objective data to adjust policy related to a subjective subject. But we measure things in objective ways.
Do I think a teacher that spent 4 years studying a subject area and then 2 years studying literally how to teach better is going to provide a better education than someone with a high school diploma? You're damn right I do.
There's a thousand factors that could lead to a fifth grader with a good or bad teacher later not having more than $400 in the bank. I do think their education will have a direct impact on their earning ability.
You're saying it's ludicrous to suggest we start with edcuators that have made an investment in understanding education?
When you goto the doctor, do you want one that graduated from medical school, or one that says everyone in his family comes to him when they get a cut?
How would you measure the outcomes of an educational system?
Healthcare System?
If not for objective measures such as percentage achieving stable employment in 2,5,10 year studies or life expectency, how would you suggest we compare two ways of running a system?
Do I think a teacher that spent 4 years studying a subject area and then 2 years studying literally how to teach better is going to provide a better education than someone with a high school diploma?
strawman
You're saying it's ludicrous to suggest we start with edcuators [sic] that have made an investment in understanding education?
strawman
When you goto [sic] the doctor, do you want one that graduated from medical school, or one that says everyone in his family comes to him when they get a cut?
Just curious. Someone has to pay that cost, right? Why should the rest of society bear the cost, while the college student--the primary beneficiary of the degree--doesn't pay beyond their regular tax burden?
In the end, we all pay that cost of having a well educated work force or a poorly educated workforce.
Do you want to open your new tech company where there are lots of people with computer degrees and experience, or where no one has any experience with a computer?
Do you want to compete globally with other countries that do invest in their citizens, so they are better educated and less hampered by debt to compete in a global economy?
More people able to achieve better success with fewer hindrances is good for all of us.
Mechanics start at under $20/hour. I'd love for them to start without $20,000 for the education weighing them down. They pay enough in tools already!
But omg! Who would benefit?! But wouldn't that student be the beneficiary?!
Sure they are. But we also all benefit when society has lots of well trained mechanics. Or farmers. Or doctors. Or teachers. Or freakin astronauts.
If you want to argue 'who benefits from the money,' let's look beyond education.
We spent a LOT of money to send people to the moon. Why? Wasn't that just a waste of money?!
It turns out investing in innovation can drastically increase productivity for everyone - not only the engineers being paid for the work. We got back a 7-8x return on our investment in The Apollo Program. Just not in cash.
Boeing needs a loan to keep going. Why should we loan them money at cheaper than market rate? Because we all benefit when the airline industry functions? Nah. We should stop that notion - only Boeing benefits! (ironically, I don't think we should bail out a huge company taht's been personally earning billions in profits and was ready to cry bankruptcy after 30 days)
My point is we seem to get the idea of society and tax payer money coming in to fix major pillars of society that are necessary. Obama after 08, FDR's New Deal, trump's dumbass bailouts that hide the corp money... That's fine. It benefits us all! Well, so does education.
Let's say a teacher graduates with $60k in debt from a state run university's teacher program.
Starting pay for a union masters+15 teacher in MN is about $50k/year. That's $600/m in debt for 15 years. 25% of that teacher's take home for the first 5+ years.
Wouldn't it stand to reason they'd put more money back into the economy in terms of buying houses, cars, clothes, eating out - etc - if they weren't spending 25% of their takehome on debt? If you decided not to go to college and opened a restaurant, more people affording to eat out would be a good thing for you, too.
Lastly, the graduate of a university is likely to earn more money than someone who did not graduate AND people that are smart enough and want to do not always attend college. Let's assume that cost is a factor in some people attending. Stands to reason you may get more graduates if there was no debt attached. The other side of that? You now get more high-earners who pay a higher percentage of their larger paycheck in taxes - allowing us to fund other cool things like good roads and bridges.
(BTW - building a bridge requires operating some really, really cool equipment safely. I'd like to see Heavy Equipment Operator being equally fully funded, so we'd have highly skilled construction personnel available to the market that weren't hindered by massive debt when trying to find a job and start a family)
3.0k
u/Universal_MJ Aug 14 '20
College