My son did the college indoor/ cubicle job for several years. Never really liked it and never felt his job contrubuted to anything except to make money for the executives.
He is now a blue collar worker. Said he worked his ass-off a few days ago with no breaks even for lunch. Feels good about his job because people call on him when they need stuff done and he directly helps produce a product all of us depend on every day. He feels valued, productive, and satisfied. Never got that in the white color world.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I think you might undersell what is possible in a traditional liberal arts education. If done right, the most important thing you are learning is how to think (not a bunch of subject matter), how to solve problems (usually by seeing how other famous people in big situations tried and failed), and yes, a world view and some rational inquiry into your values, goals, desires.
I think all of those things are very important skills in the corporate and government world. Does "the degree" give you those skills? No. But taking the classes gives you the opportunity to build and develop them.
In all seriousness, we conflict on some political issues, but you write (and therefore think) as if you had a pretty good liberal arts education. I bet that has contributed to any success you've had with employers.
Learning how to think cannot be overemphasized. I didn’t get that until law school. I don’t think all of that is education although education should be expected to maximize what’s we have. I could never paint a landscape like my artist friend, but frankly, she has trouble with applied thinking.
I do think there is a value in that education. I believe there is a subset of the populace where that well rounded individual and the growth they get from an academically rigorous four year degree is absolutely beneficial. I also believe that forcing anyone who doesn't want to do a blue collar job or work in the services industry to take that path to make a living, is detrimental.
For instance, I think that the diversity and equity push in companies right now is wrong headed for a few reasons but one of the main reasons is that they could be doing so much more for underprivileged communities by changing that barrier to entry dynamic.
Taking that insurance industry example, go out to the high schools and recruit the good students whose parents can't afford the 4 year college. Give them the call center jobs with a script and allow then to get some white collar experience. Identify those who are made for that education broadening and defray some of those costs with tuition assistance. Many companies offer that assistance but it tends to go unused by many because you already have to have a degree to get in the door.
I don't want the government to do a top down push on this, but I think the business community should maybe take a look at how they hire. That money that goes to college could be put to building a house, starting a family, buying a new car, etc.
You probably had an inate ability around critical thinking that the school leveled up. Your artist friend might never be able to unlock that. In the same manner, you could never unlock a non-existant art ability.
I think forcing every office worker to get a degree no matter the job, devalues the degree to an extent. That is why you see the overachiever pushing for Masters degrees to differentiate.
Really good discussion here by all ya’ll. It’s a refreshing change from the shit tossing.
Reading all the posts, I’m going back to root problem here - college cost. I really do feel that we all are internally doing the ROI calculation on a degree. I personally do value a liberal arts education for the reasons people have laid out here. However, my head then goes back to “how much does that small liberal arts college cost per year?” It’s impossible not to, and frankly it’s absolutely necessary for parents and kids these days.
Reading all the posts, I’m going back to root problem here - college cost. I really do feel that we all are internally doing the ROI calculation on a degree. I personally do value a liberal arts education for the reasons people have laid out here. However, my head then goes back to “how much does that small liberal arts college cost per year?” It’s impossible not to, and frankly it’s absolutely necessary for parents and kids these days.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you are saying. But outside of seeing a wholesale change occurring in the job market (which we all know won't occur).... the degree does becomes the minimum standard for most white collar work. As someone that hires people for my team now, the degree does at least confirms to me I've got somebody who can at least complete some minimum standards when it comes to problem solving, communication and personal responsibility.
Obviously many, many people without degrees have these traits as well.... but when hiring anyone you are making a guess on someone and often committing significant time and resources into them, often with very limited information (a resume and a brief interview or two).
Today, like 35% of the adult population over 25 has a bachelor's degree. So the majority are still somehow surviving without one. I do agree the the graduate degree has become the bachelor's degree of 30 years ago.
It just so happens that several of the PPP loan receivers are the same people complaining that individual student borrowers are having their repayment reduced by $10,000. It seems to me that is basically just reducing the amount of interest they'll end up paying. That's far different than certain GOP members of Congress who got write offs on money that was intended to pay workers and keep a business afloat but inevitably ended up in the owner's pocket...
My issue is not so much with MTG getting $185,000 or a guy like Buchanan getting over $2 MILLION and then both having their loans completely forgiven. My problem is them speaking out and complaining about help for people who got far less than they did. Analysis has shown that only about 25% of PPP loans went to their intended purpose (paying workers) and we're supposed to believe that grifters like MTG for example spent that $$ on her employees?
What business does MTG purport to even run while she plays at being in Congress, and what possible business could Buchanan be running simultaneously to serving in Congress that would necessitate a PPP loan of over $2 Million to keep it up and running? And they're going to attempt to score political points by complaining that college students had their debt burden reduced by $10,000? I wonder what an investigation into the respective PPP loans would uncover, and if MTG's "employees" would feel the money was put to it's designed use?
If it's true that 70% of those in polls approve of loan reduction, I'd say these folks are pissing in the wind...
Emerson poll 36% 10,000 too much, 35% just right and 30% not enough- no category of people who are against it all together and 65% just right or want more...
Poll from Data for Progress showed 60% favor some or full reduction- obviously a Progressive source. But the WH estimates that about 29% of borrowers have less than $10,000 in debt, so close to 20 Million people would have their debt wiped out completely. That seems like a huge deal...
The polling does seem to show that Independent (62%)s and even people who never took out a loan (58%) viewed the policy favorably, it only scored approval from (44%) of Republicans.
New poll shows widespread support for student loan cancellation
While GOP members are claiming student loan cancellation will be a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, the policy remains popularen.as.com
For a person who throws tons if research out there, you seem to always fail to look at the most obvious to learn about the facts. You did the same thing with Ron Johnson while trying to portray him as someone who rode his FIL coattails to wealth, which he did not.
Now you try to paint MTG as some scamming hypocrite. Well, a quick search would show you that she and her husband own Taylor Construction Co. They applied for the PPP for their business, and it was forgiven as it was used for its intended purposes. If it was not, then she needs to answer for that.
Buchanan owns several car dealerships and has interests in other companies. So 2M for dealerships is not a lot for dealerships that did 756M in sales in 2005, per Wiki. So in 2019, I'd guess sales were double that, so 2M is not much. Like MTG, if his companies did not use it properly, he needs to answer for it.
The difference in PPP and student loan forgiveness (SLF) is that PPP was meant to keep the economy from collapsing. The economy is in no such position and the SLF is not a program to keep the economy from collapsing.
The vote for the CARES Act which brought us PPP, was nearly unanimous. Only 9 members of the House voted against it and no members of the Senate voted against it. The way it was written made PPP loans essentially grants due to the ease of getting payback of the loans waived. I think it’s terrible legislation, but it came through the constitutional process. The student loan forgiveness program did not happen via this constitutional process, and I very much doubt the President has the authority to add $100s of billions to the debt by Presidential decree.
I get your overall complaint about degrees, especially since I have no degree. I know that has helped cap where I can go in IT. I also have interviewed enough Computer Science majors to know that it is no guarantee they know anything about computers.
That said, an HR person explained it this way. They get a whole lot of applicants for good jobs (this was pre COVID). They have to narrow down 200 applications to maybe 5 for interviews. They don't have the resources to pour through each application with a fine tooth comb. So they setup certain gates, and one is a degree, especially in a relevant field. So yes, a computer science degree holder who can barely function will pass the gate where I won't. That person will get weeded out later. But your average HR person is not really going to know how my experience fits into that specific job.
And it is worse today than ever, many places use computers that score applicants. The computer doesn't have a good way to score my experience but can easily score "degree/no degree".
IU has condensed job descriptions, in the past each job was pretty specific. Now there are a certain number of titles and descriptions and you pick which one for your job. This has ported here from corporate America. The problem is, and I am sure Mark knows this, most of us are a jack of all trades. Honestly IT jobs should say "supports servers, workstations, tablets, mobile phones, landlines, gaming systems, software, hardware, purchase, decommission, security, privacy, home routers, and listen to you complain about latest update of all of above". Heck, numerous times I have users complain about websites I have nothing to do with, but I look, discover an error, and contact them to fix their code.
But I don't have a degree so my resume doesn't clear a gate. That's fine, I get that an HR department lacks the resources to do a This is Your Life deep dive on me and every other applicant. So it is my fault.
We had an administrative assistant who could barely start her computer apply for one of our jobs. Her resume was not in the screened resumes we received, and we certainly did not then request it. So I appreciate the value of gate keepers. You want to hire the right person, but how much time away from my other duties can I spend to do that?
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
So we are OK with the President having this power?
budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu
"President Biden’s new student loan forgiveness plan includes three major components. We estimate that debt cancellation alone will cost up to $519 billion, with about 75% of the benefit accruing to households making $88,000 or less. Loan forbearance will cost another $16 billion. The new income-driven repayment (IDR) program would cost another $70 billion, increasing the total plan cost to $605 billion under strict “static” assumptions. However, depending on future IDR program details to be released and potential behavioral (i.e., “non-static”) changes, total plan costs could exceed $1 trillion."
The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Budgetary Costs and Distributional Impact — Penn Wharton Budget Model
President Biden’s new student loan forgiveness plan includes three major components. We estimate that debt cancellation alone will cost up to $519 billion, with about two-thirds of the benefit accruing to households making $88,000 or less. Loan forbearance will cost another $16 billion. The new
budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu
"President Biden’s new student loan forgiveness plan includes three major components. We estimate that debt cancellation alone will cost up to $519 billion, with about 75% of the benefit accruing to households making $88,000 or less. Loan forbearance will cost another $16 billion. The new income-driven repayment (IDR) program would cost another $70 billion, increasing the total plan cost to $605 billion under strict “static” assumptions. However, depending on future IDR program details to be released and potential behavioral (i.e., “non-static”) changes, total plan costs could exceed $1 trillion."
Never too old to finish your degree Marv, particularly with all of the online options. I know we had a poster here attending COH U for a while. Not sure if he finished
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I can offer a course in advanced sports analytics and general studies credit in Massholery.
No, probably not. Maybe the executive branch should have a set budget of discretionary things they can implement on their own, but not this large and still with some override options by the other branches.So we are OK with the President having this power?
The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Budgetary Costs and Distributional Impact — Penn Wharton Budget Model
President Biden’s new student loan forgiveness plan includes three major components. We estimate that debt cancellation alone will cost up to $519 billion, with about two-thirds of the benefit accruing to households making $88,000 or less. Loan forbearance will cost another $16 billion. The new
"President Biden’s new student loan forgiveness plan includes three major components. We estimate that debt cancellation alone will cost up to $519 billion, with about 75% of the benefit accruing to households making $88,000 or less. Loan forbearance will cost another $16 billion. The new income-driven repayment (IDR) program would cost another $70 billion, increasing the total plan cost to $605 billion under strict “static” assumptions. However, depending on future IDR program details to be released and potential behavioral (i.e., “non-static”) changes, total plan costs could exceed $1 trillion."
The thresholds are far too high....and there should have been some considerations for cost of living and what type of career (not degree) the person was in. Of course that creates all sorts of bureaucratic BS when you have to determine why person A qualifies but person B doesn't. Nonetheless, this could have been better executed.
So we are OK with the President having this power?
The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Budgetary Costs and Distributional Impact — Penn Wharton Budget Model
President Biden’s new student loan forgiveness plan includes three major components. We estimate that debt cancellation alone will cost up to $519 billion, with about two-thirds of the benefit accruing to households making $88,000 or less. Loan forbearance will cost another $16 billion. The new
"President Biden’s new student loan forgiveness plan includes three major components. We estimate that debt cancellation alone will cost up to $519 billion, with about 75% of the benefit accruing to households making $88,000 or less. Loan forbearance will cost another $16 billion. The new income-driven repayment (IDR) program would cost another $70 billion, increasing the total plan cost to $605 billion under strict “static” assumptions. However, depending on future IDR program details to be released and potential behavioral (i.e., “non-static”) changes, total plan costs could exceed $1 trillion."
Sure. As long as the next republican president signs an EO equally distributing the cost of the program to all registered democrats.
The average graduating student in 2020 (last year with stats) had ~30K in loan debt. More, obviously, from private schools.
So those making under 125K get, on average, a third of their debt wiped away (10K). Double it if you are in the minority who qualified for and got a Pell grant, a good program whose payout has unfortunately come nowhere close to matching rises in college costs.
I'm not saying I'm a huge fan of it, but the extent of the benefit is greatly exaggerated in the minds of many.
I would have preferred trying to affect the root causes (trying to reduce college costs) and or beefing up the Pell grant program.
I also was a beans-and-rice rice-and-beans frugal living type guy for it seems forever, who did everything possible to prevent college debt for my three kids (and did it).
I'd like to say I don't begrudge those people who did nothing to prepare for college costs, bought McMansions and fancy cars, took expensive vacations, etc. and their kids are getting 10K back. But it does bother me some.
So those making under 125K get, on average, a third of their debt wiped away (10K). Double it if you are in the minority who qualified for and got a Pell grant, a good program whose payout has unfortunately come nowhere close to matching rises in college costs.
I'm not saying I'm a huge fan of it, but the extent of the benefit is greatly exaggerated in the minds of many.
I would have preferred trying to affect the root causes (trying to reduce college costs) and or beefing up the Pell grant program.
I also was a beans-and-rice rice-and-beans frugal living type guy for it seems forever, who did everything possible to prevent college debt for my three kids (and did it).
I'd like to say I don't begrudge those people who did nothing to prepare for college costs, bought McMansions and fancy cars, took expensive vacations, etc. and their kids are getting 10K back. But it does bother me some.
I don't think the benefit is top on the dislike list. It's debt. Prez acting unilaterally. Your neighbor subsidizing you.
Would you have liked it any better if all of the money went into raising the Pell grant award amount? It would be the same debt cost and same show of authority.
Did you like trimming taxes from the wealthy, so that poor schmucks have to carry more of the load?
Do you like companies like Amazon and guys like Trump paying ZERO taxes?
I think raising the Pell grant would have made more sense. This is just ham-fisted pandering from a dumb president who succumbs to pressure. it's really no different than eviction stays, demanding the uswnt get equal pay, etc.
as for amazon and the rest reform the tax code. amazon employs almost 2 million people and gives me incredible service. i love amazon. and again what they are doing is perfectly legal. income/equity compensation/accounting/gaap all legal - but stuff i don't know much about.
No. Not until there are reforms to college, such as eliminating tenure, reducing college to 3 years by eliminating electives, and stop forced grad requirements such as foreign language, that most grads will never use.
Yes. They typically create jobs and economic growth.
No, but hate the game, not the player. Fix and simplify the tax code. Trump did that by increasing the standard deduction, thus reducing itemized filers by over 20M. Makes it a lot easier on the IRS when you don't have to review 20M additional itemized returns.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
I don't remember much complaining when companies like mtgs company got 100k plus in loan forgiveness
There's no reason these liberal arts idiots can't pay off their loans.
Two of my kids graduated from Ivy league schools with no debt. They tell me that many of their classmates have well over $100,000 in debt. Some of that is likely private loans, since I don't think the Federal programs let you get in that deeply.
Tip: if you didn't save squat for your kid's college, make it clear to them that they need to start off at a state school or even a community College. And it's on YOU the parent for not figuring this out a little, buying a smaller home, driving a beater, giving up expensive vacations and fancy restaurants, etc.
Tip: if you didn't save squat for your kid's college, make it clear to them that they need to start off at a state school or even a community College. And it's on YOU the parent for not figuring this out a little, buying a smaller home, driving a beater, giving up expensive vacations and fancy restaurants, etc.
It's really interesting watching folks agree on how useless a liberal arts education is and then agree that there are great lessons to learn in things that are most decidedly liberal arts education. I've hired a crap-ton of people over the years and I've never used someone's college education as a gateway to whether or not I hire them. But I'm certain that I've hired people because of the education they got in college.
People should get a college degree if it fits how they want to grow as a person...not because of the job it gets them upon graduation (which there is no guarantee about anyway.) Going to college because of the job you think it's going to get you is akin to choosing your child's preschool because of the college you think it will get them into. If you're doing college right, you're going to be a different person when you graduate than when you started anyway.
I don't know...I think you have a hard time reading the room sometimes.
Because PPP was created to help businesses during a time when our economy was collapsing due to covid while SLF is not.
When it comes to hiring, you are the exception to the rule.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
A couple of salient differences between PPP and Federal Studen Loan Forgiveness:
1. PPP was passed by Congress. That's where the spending power lies in our government. FSLF was just done unilaterally by the President in a questionable (wouldn't surprise me if it were upheld or struck down) legal move. Given that questionable legal ground, he should not have done it. It's bad precedent for future presidents. After Trump, shouldn't the Left want LESS power in the Presidency, not more?
2. PPP had a fig leaf of a protection/attempt to get the money to people who were legitimately affected by Covid and the national shut down (see the declaration you had to make under oath). No such protection or attempt to identify people affected by Covid or the national shut down is present here (yet). If that doesn't exist, this pretty clearly doesn't even meet the requirement of the law Biden is relying upon.
You and mcm have always told me that I'm exceptional. :>)
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
To those who are labeling any fairness arguments against this forgiveness as jealousy or mean-spiritedness, here's a great article from Reason.
reason.com
"This last reason has taken the biggest beating from folks who approve of Biden's student loan plan and are taking aim at its critics. The uncharitable summary of it is that people who suffered in avoiding or paying off student loans just want others to suffer similarly. The implication in this line of criticism is that opponents of student loan forgiveness are just kind of assholes, twirling their mustaches and shouting, "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps!" at people drowning in debt.
Someone argued to me yesterday—citing Social Security benefits for comparison—that any new entitlement program will benefit some people while leaving out others who may have benefited had it been enacted sooner. For instance, someone in his 70s when Social Security started may have stopped working sooner had it been around a few years earlier. But I don't think this comparison holds up, since older workers excluded from a few extra years of retirement weren't put at a professional disadvantage relative to their peers. The same can't be said for student loan forgiveness.
And this gets at the crux of the fairness factor here, I think. It's not just that some people made certain sacrifices—like working more hours as a student or living with parents instead of in a dorm—that made the college experience less fun. Many of the things they gave up may put them at a long-term professional disadvantage relative to those who made different decisions regarding loans.
Choosing to go to a less prestigious school. Forgoing unpaid or low-paid internships and fellowships in favor of working jobs that pay better in the short-term but provide less long-term advantage. Working for pay instead of spending more time on personal projects or research related to one's field. Living in a cheaper city after graduation, or taking a more lucrative but less elite job right out of school. Decisions like these may have helped people avoid some student loan debt or pay off their debts more quickly while costing them other important things—the right lines on their early-career resumes, networking opportunities, professional contacts, etc. This could have a long-term effect on their professional opportunities and earnings. Meanwhile, they're competing for work with people who maybe did the right internships or went to a better school because of student loans.
It's not just that the latter group may have had more fun or made decisions deemed by some to be less "responsible" (which is arguable, considering the advantages these decisions may have conferred). It's that a lot of them may have a lifelong professional advantage over the former, and perhaps the fact that they incurred loan debt mitigated this somewhat—but not anymore. And never mind that these advantages may even make them better positioned to pay off their student loans.
None of this may change anyone's calculation about whether erasing student loan debt is ultimately good or bad policy. But maybe it will help people think twice before acting as if the tradeoffs in this calculation are all frivolous and anyone upset by them simply wants people to suffer."
Why everyone is mad about Biden’s student loan forgiveness fiasco
President Biden declared yesterday that COVID-19 provides a legal basis for wiping out millions of people's student loan debt, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
reason.com
"This last reason has taken the biggest beating from folks who approve of Biden's student loan plan and are taking aim at its critics. The uncharitable summary of it is that people who suffered in avoiding or paying off student loans just want others to suffer similarly. The implication in this line of criticism is that opponents of student loan forgiveness are just kind of assholes, twirling their mustaches and shouting, "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps!" at people drowning in debt.
Someone argued to me yesterday—citing Social Security benefits for comparison—that any new entitlement program will benefit some people while leaving out others who may have benefited had it been enacted sooner. For instance, someone in his 70s when Social Security started may have stopped working sooner had it been around a few years earlier. But I don't think this comparison holds up, since older workers excluded from a few extra years of retirement weren't put at a professional disadvantage relative to their peers. The same can't be said for student loan forgiveness.
And this gets at the crux of the fairness factor here, I think. It's not just that some people made certain sacrifices—like working more hours as a student or living with parents instead of in a dorm—that made the college experience less fun. Many of the things they gave up may put them at a long-term professional disadvantage relative to those who made different decisions regarding loans.
Choosing to go to a less prestigious school. Forgoing unpaid or low-paid internships and fellowships in favor of working jobs that pay better in the short-term but provide less long-term advantage. Working for pay instead of spending more time on personal projects or research related to one's field. Living in a cheaper city after graduation, or taking a more lucrative but less elite job right out of school. Decisions like these may have helped people avoid some student loan debt or pay off their debts more quickly while costing them other important things—the right lines on their early-career resumes, networking opportunities, professional contacts, etc. This could have a long-term effect on their professional opportunities and earnings. Meanwhile, they're competing for work with people who maybe did the right internships or went to a better school because of student loans.
It's not just that the latter group may have had more fun or made decisions deemed by some to be less "responsible" (which is arguable, considering the advantages these decisions may have conferred). It's that a lot of them may have a lifelong professional advantage over the former, and perhaps the fact that they incurred loan debt mitigated this somewhat—but not anymore. And never mind that these advantages may even make them better positioned to pay off their student loans.
None of this may change anyone's calculation about whether erasing student loan debt is ultimately good or bad policy. But maybe it will help people think twice before acting as if the tradeoffs in this calculation are all frivolous and anyone upset by them simply wants people to suffer."
I'm not talking about people who voted for the bill. I'm talking about the hypocrites who got a loan, had it forgiven and then turn around and complain when assistance is given to people saddled with far more serious debt implications than what any of those Congress people faced. I'm sure there were Dem PPP recipients as well, but until they make hypocrites out of themselves I'm not interested in calling them out. It's not getting the PPP loan I have an issue with, it's being a hypocrite...
I think he quit in disgust when it became apparent it had even less credibility than Trump University.
That's #4 on the list of things people say to let you know that you've made it! 😀
After a long shitty day i literally laughed out loud. kudos
