Forum Post: In 1950 college education was virtually free in the United States and the quality was good.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 21, 2011, 9:30 a.m. EST by abmebratu
(349)
from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Today you have to go into debt to finish a certificate program. Something is really wrong with that picture.
School debt sucks and it ain't and economically sound plan. It's a complete rip off. How in the world do they have free universities in Mexico while students in the richest country in the world are suffering from back breaking debt.
Remember the country is a much richer place today than it was back in 1950 so there should be no complaints about lack of funding for universities........It's just that our priorities shifted. Then next question to ask is why did our priority shift. That's because education and critical thinking was a threat to those in power, namely the top 1%
You need to get back on the meds... no one and I mean no one can stop you from getting an education with or without universities.... it's call public libraries...
Public libraries are shutting down at record speeds my friend. Where have you been all these years?? Maybe glued to corporate news?
You make a good point but there was no need to insult him.
Education is really not a major priority for the 1% because educated people who can think critically cannot be duped easily when, say, you need to bailout banks for 800 billion dollars...........It's their interest to make sure school is expensive so they come up with all kinds of budget cutting tools directed at the schools. Since they have the congress and the state legislatures in their back pockets they can easily do this and they have been doing it for the past 40 year. It has worked too. Ask any student and he or she will tell you about the back breaking school debt they are suffering from.
The $1 Trillion Student Loan Rip-Off: How an Entire Generation Was Tricked into Taking on Crushing Debt That Just Enriches Banks
Young people accepted a home mortgage worth of debt before they ever even had a regular income based on phony promises.
USA Today says that at some point this year, student loan debt will exceed $1 trillion, surpassing even credit card debt. Felix Salmon says the number is closer to $550 billion. Either way total student loan debt is rising as other debts have tailed off. Delinquency has increased, too, since the height of the financial crisis.
It’s a huge mess.
Some people have noticed that “student loan debt” comes up a lot among the Wall Street Occupiers and the members of the 99 percent movement. Often, older people, who either attended school when tuition was reasonable, or who didn’t attend college at all in an era when a high school diploma was enough of a qualification for a stable, middle-class career, tend to think this is all the entitled whining of spoiled kids. They don’t understand that these kids accepted a home mortgage worth of debt before they ever even had a regular income, based on phony promises, and that the debt is inescapable, regardless of life circumstances or ability to pay.
read article here: http://www.alternet.org/story/152809/the_$1_trillion_student_loan_rip-off:_how_an_entire_generation_was_tricked_into_taking_on_crushing_debt_that_just_enriches_banks?page=entire
Well, it should be a basic right. But it's really a question of national priorities and opportunity costs of applying scarce resources, isn't it. So, for example, while we spend $1 - $4 trillion on the war in Iraq, we saddle students with $1 trillion in crushing debt. The people who don't believe that it's a basic right think that the marketplace should decide who goes to school and who doesn't. But other countries believe that people are their most important resource--they don't call it socialist or anything else other than commons sense. And they're quite successful economically (Germany, Sweden, Finland, etc.). I've raised this point, oh, probably a dozen times to the laissez faireans on this board, and not a single one of them addressed the issue. Why? Well, the logic is pretty airtight, for one, and when that's the case, just going away to another easily managed thread where they can wield their canned bullet points on the subject...)
I'm not sure if these numbers are correct, but they're still close:
In recent years, the high-tax Europe has been considering reforming higher education and moving towards a system that charges users. Austria is intensely debating university tuition in the parliament. Six German states call on the parliament to terminate the piece of legislation that exempts college students from paying tuition. In addition, universities in Belgium are beginning to charge an enrolment fee of 500 euros which is same for EU and non-EU students (non-EU students are charged additional 500 euros for social security), while Holland and Italy charge an enrolment fee of 1,000-1,500 euros. Dutch universities charge students of certain departments such as business departments tuition as much as 5,000 euros and students of graduate schools tuition as much as 8,000 euros. (Source: 2010 Pacifica Consultants http://pacificaconsultants.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/comparison-of-tuition-costs-of-higher-education-around-the-world/)
Here's an older study on the subject: http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/global2005.pdf
Of course, the people who don't want education to be affordable to most have a very good reason for this: They want to keep the population as inherently not smart as possible--so much easier to manipulate and sway the views of people who don't have analytical skills to question policies.
Can you believe how regressive our education policy has been.......No wonder we have a dumber population every year.
Yes. It is because profit is more important than people.
I for one made the decision not to take out another student loan after aquiring 20,000 dollars in debt. Instead I joined an americorps program and received an educational award after completing amy term of service and switched from a university to a technical school that was cheaper. The way student loans work is you tell kids they need a college education in order to get a job, than tell them thst a school with good credentials (aka high priced), they than go and take out student loans for n education that dosen't promise a job, just a higher chance of getting one. An institutional education is like a reference. It's a piece of paper that said you actually learned something. You could really get an education simply by knowing a subject. Schools are just the in between to "verified" you actually know something. And the increasing cost of education can to racism/classism in my opinion. If you don't want someone to gave something make it near impossible for then to get. the raising cost of tuition after de-segregation, the requirement to have a diploma, and the privatization of loans are all related. "A man with knowledge is more dangerous than a man w/ a gun. So make guns cheaper and keep then dumb." -Talib Kweli
[Removed]
Are you kidding... in the 50's less that 10% of the high school graduates completed college (at 18 you were expected to work unless your family had a business, then they sent you to college).... It is easier to get a college education today than it ever was (according Labor Department statistics 70% of high school graduates attend some college)... the High school graduation rate peaked in the 60's at 80% ... it has been declining since (it's now below 65% for Hispanics and Blacks, same report).. so much for free education....
Seems like that is part of the problem is that people see a social sigma attached to going to college... people are going to college on student loans that never plan on using that education for anything they couldn't do without it.... problem is they are now in debt.. for no real reason... getting a college education is just trendy...many times a good trade school would be a lot better, but no one want to say they graduated from a trade school... how many people do you know waiting tables or driving a cab with a college degree?..scads of them.... really... we live in America.. we should have access to anything we want...including free education...
Sounds like there are predatory for-profit education rip-off universities out there who are preying hopes and dreams and ignorance to rip-off the taxpayers.
Well, that's because only white males attended school. The society back then was so much more backwards in terms of race and sex, but still you gotta admit school was virtually free and some of the greatest minds this country has ever produced benefited form that system of virtually free education. I'm not saying that enrollment was higher then than today by the way. I'm just saying it was much more affordable..........And the population was lower back then too......One more crucial fact remains as well. That is of course the country is much more richer today, which would make you think that colleges would get relatively more per capita funding, but what we see is the opposite. Why I ask Why???? Is it because the 1% have siphoned off all the money and have blocked all necessary legislation to make college more accessible?
we're talking per cent, not totals.... I'm sorry guy but I was born in 1950.... I've got some first hand experience with what you're saying... I worked in a hospital from 11 PM until 7 AM so I could go to school during the day.There wasn't college loans readily available. Most people didn't borrow money. People who did were looked down on because they couldn't live within their means. There weren't near as many Universities, enrollment standards were very high because they didn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry with a high school degree attending... Now with things like the Hope Scholarship (paid for with tax money), university system have to gear up for all these "free" students attending.
Universities get more funding as a per cent of the state budget then they ever did. Add that to federal funding and government grants and its a boat load of money. I personally think education is extremely important.... but I also think it is a personal responsibility not a social responsibility....
If you won't take responsibility for your future, who should? Find a way..make it happen...don't blame a lack of success on others... find you own path through life.... be self sustaining.... you'll be a lot happier...
I disagree. It should be the role of society to pay for the younger generations education. I go to school in Georgia and HOPE isn't just some "Get an education for free" program (I still had to take out loans for housing cause hope doesn't cover that). It comes out the lottery and that money is given to the school. Also, a society benefits from educating their youth unless you want kids running arouns with no education running the country. In economics a society benefits from intelligence gain in people who learn and practice specilized(?) Trades. And ChicagoT I agree with you on the stigma given to trade/tech schools. I had one myself until I realized my pride was forcing me into a debt hole so deep it wasn't worth it.
Something just struck me... you said that the role of society to pay for the younger generations education... At first I just passed over that statement... then I realized the basic flaw in your logic...... you owe it to society to get an education... you are the future society... you're the one who is going to be given the keys to the car.... it is not for society to prepare you... it is for you to be prepared for your role in society so society does not digress under your watch.... It is not owed to you... you own it to society to do everything you can to improve the future because it is your future...
My Dad understood his responsibility in my education. He could afford to pay for my college.... he just believed that I wouldn't truly understand the value of an education if I didn't have to pay for it myself....made me real mad.... years later I understood what it meant. I almost quit at one point... I got a chewing you would never believe..... that was his responsibility
No ones say you have to get an college degree the first four years out of high school... there are a lot of way to get one if you want one.... sometime a few years on the job help understand the value....
The GI Bill for WWII veterans (like my grandpa Joe) provided them a free education. Many new universities were opened at that time. Are you saying those returning veterans didn't value their education because they didn't have to pay for it?
I'm not talking about just college. I should of clarify that,education in general is what I'm talking about. I agree on the college aspect though, you never realize how valuable an education is until you have to pay for it. On the other had you could educate yourself for free with a public library card. Just won't have the "credentials" to prove it.
The problem is that everything is For Profit. Colleges and Banks. Education we rely on. Our money can't just be stored in our mattresses. Colleges and Banks should be not-for-profit.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Westchester/274093539289447
Vast majority of Colleges are not only non-profit, but tax supported....
Because taxes were huge. The middle class was booming. Obviously the downside was that it bought off people, so that they didn't notice the red scare. lol
actually the country is much richer today than it was back the. So if they can afford education back then then we should do much better than them.....
As I said before Mexico has free college.
See how that's helped them... one of the poorest countries on the western hemisphere... I'd pick a better example...
Okay, how about Finland. Their education is free to anyone, you don't even have to be Finnish to take advantage of it. And it is of very high quality.
The colleges are free. ahhhhhhhhhhh
And they're broke...cause and effect....
You are using Mexico as your gold standard. LOL LOL LOL
Why are Mexicans killing themselves to get here then?
To find jobs. Not to go to school you know
If their college is free and so good, why aren't we getting more college graduates from Mexico? Why are they flocking here to be lettuce pickers when a free college education awaits them back home?
Our love for drugs fuel their violence and gang issue. NAFTA killed their economy. Next!
I am not talking about the drug lords, they are a small minority of Mexicans fighting to get here.
Mexicans are actually going back--lack of jobs.
If you want five dollar apples keep bashing them.
I have no problem with Mexicans, or any one for that matter, coming here to work, I think we should make it easier for those that want to come and work to do so.
My point was using the Mexican government as you gold standard on College education is laughable
My only point is that if Mexico can afford to have free college, then California should, which they did earlier.
Mexico with is not even half as rich as the U.S but it has affordable college education. It's a shame.
explain more please?
The top tax rate in the 50s was over 90 percent.
I doubt that very much. I would believe a 60 or even a 70 percent, but 90. come on........Even Sweden does't have that today. BTW, college is free and the quality is world class in Sweden.
Sorry dude... he's right.... my Dad had a sub division back in the 50's I asked him why he only sold a couple of lots a year and he said that the federal government got 90% and he wasn't working for the government....
Be careful what you ask for..... the government had to lower the top rate because people like my Dad stopped producing when they hit the top rate.....
Actually, taxes on the wealthiest were that high (see Robert Reich: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/10/rich-reich-7-lies-revealed.html) but the point is that the economy was still booming, and it wasn't called "class warfare." Now with taxes at a fraction of those back in the '50s, suggesting that they be more equitably applied today is reviled as socialistic. It's insane, but you have to hand it to the reactionary right: they know how to handle the narrative soooo much better than the left.
And your last point (which I initially mentioned in my comment) is the one that should be focused on: It's a matter of national priorities and allocating limited resources as it's done in Europe--Not, as the reactionaries would have others believe, a question of ideology. It's just not a priority, and democrats are incredibly inept on this question. So, the right frames the debate, but to rise above "left/right," the left needs a consolidated message about priorities and allocation of resources--and protecting and supporting our most precious resource: young people.
So frustrating...
I hate politics..right or left... I think they are part of the necessary evil.... Off point for just a moment... as neither a liberal nor a conservative my impression is the the liberals have a much better PR machine than the conservatives.... I don't think the conservative have a message.... I love how the democrats can hijack a conversation by calling anyone who disagrees with them a bigot or homophobe or something else... The Republican just don't have a cohesive message with which they can respond.... it's really entertaining... sad in a way but still entertaining
Back to your point....I agree that the most important resource we have today is young people. I am concerned that India and China are doing a much better job of preparing their young people to face the future. With our high school drop out rate continuing to climb and our colleges providing degrees mostly in the arts, we are losing our competitive edge. I'm not so much concern for me... but 20 years from now we are going to be a third world nation full of unemployable people.... we have lost our desire to prevail at all cost.... we are instead looking for someone else to save us.... the independence that helped us out climb out of the Great Depression and helped up fight and win two world wars when other countries were being over run is now whining about, free this free that... "the man" holding me back....yada yada yada.... We can do a lot more with what we have if we didn't spend so much time worrying about what others have.... government should help not control.... I read some of this stuff and just think....man...what are you thinking? No one cares more about you than you do (that is a reality on everyone life)... if you are not willing to help yourself without getting their stuff...why do you think they will ever give up their stuff to help you?
The pie does not have a limited size...
Well, you're views on a better messaging machine is incorrect. The far right won that game back in 2010 and now the deck in the House of Representatives is stacked with insane Bachmann-led zombies. The Rove-ian tactic of finding a message and repeating it, lockstep, over and over, works like a charm, and the dems don't have the same level of consistency on message. it takes a perfect storm of complete fuckups by the right for a dem to be elected these days.
Next, I like how you say that democrats call anyone who disagrees with them a bigot of homophobe without any specifics or data or sources. It's a very useful tactic for those who are easily led, but it's complete bullshit, of course. As for name calling and reviling the other, oh, I think the right is way ahead on that: class warriors, socialists, lazy, hippies, etc. Google Cain, Limbaugh, Cantor, et al on their views on #OWS. Yeah.
As for the rest of your points, well, I agree that we don't focus on the youth at all, but that's a priority choice--a national decision. But the rest of your explanation is just meandering and actually undermines your first point. As a country, we emphasize the individual, and the right emphasizes the free market. This "rugged individualism" is not something that is adhered to in other countries. They state, simply, "Look, education is a basic right. We will make it affordable." That's it. That's all there is to it. The rest is just noise.
Comments about "the man" and "government control" and implications that people are lazy--that's just more "right wing" talking points. No, they are. There is no data behind them; no specifics--just a bunch of talking points that anyone can get from Rush Limbaugh or Fox.
As a country, the people have to say: EDUCATION IS A BASIC RIGHT. WE WILL ALLOCATE SOME OF OUR LIMITED RESOURCES TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. FUNDS FORMERLY USED TO FATTEN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF CONTRACTORS WORKING FOR THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WILL NOW BE USED TO ELIMINATE CRUSHING STUDENT DEBT AND MAKE EDUCATION AFFORDABLE FOR ANY AMERICAN WHO WANTS IT.
It's not that hard. But Americans are weak--especially Democrats--and they don't see it as anything other than a sports-like ideological battle.
Sorry didn't mean to rile you up.... I can tell by your response you are emotionally invested in politics... I'm just not.... I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist either... I know enough 1%'ers that care about this country, their business, their employees and the environment (so they're not evil to me) to know it's not a class issue, politicians have made it so because it deflects the people away form the real culprit, politicians... 1%'ers are just people for one reason or another (and they all aren't the same) have greater assets then me.... I know a lot of 99%'err that would sell their sister into prostitution if it would further their agenda....
I don't think I said anyone was lazy... it's not a discussion of effort, but focus.... One of the things that both India and China do that I'm not in favor of is selection... Russia did this throughout the 80's and 90's.... the most promising are tested and pre-enrolled in a career path (not a lot of choice).... the government fully funds those that they think have the highest value... It is considered a privileged to be chosen... we don't hear about the masses that are relegated to lower income jobs...
So we allow individuals to select their path..a very good thing in my eyes. The challenge is to get them to select a path that has a future. Right now in America that is not perceived as the sciences... not an issue of laziness, just focus.... I just do see a lot of Liberal Arts degrees adding a great deal of innovation to business... some do...most are just getting a sheet of paper...
Sorry I "ramble', but it's a blog not the next great American novel...
"Sorry didn't mean to rile you up.... I can tell by your response you are emotionally invested in politics... I'm just not."
I'm not riled up. Just pointing out that sweeping generalizations about the left incorrectly assailing bigots and homophobes are incorrect and unfounded.
"to know it's not a class issue, politicians have made it so because it deflects the people away form the real culprit, politicians..."
Sorry, again, no. It's both--the issue is that the dividing line between the top 1% and government policy has been washed away. That's a big part of this--money in politics and inordinate influence over policy is very much what this is all about.
Regarding education tracks and focus, you raise a good point. But your original message was that people seemed to want "other peoples' stuff." It's about allocation of resources. Is it reasonable to allow Wall Street to use high speed trading applications and basically gamble risky, worthless securities and make windfall amounts of money while we burden students with insane amounts of debt? that's much more important, i think, than the specific career tracks chosen.
I'm not concerned with the whole political thing so let set it aside....
It seems that there are two generalizations that you make..one is it's a class issue, the second is that Wall Street gambles in worthless securities and makes windfall profit.....
The second is the easiest to comment on first (sorry)...most trading on wall street involves reputable individuals investing in reputable companies. Without the stock market companies could not raise the capital required to grow their businesses. In all cases it involves some risk, in most cases it is less that crossing a street. Just as there are people who have no problem engaging in unethical and maybe illegal (although most of the concern is about legal transactions, anyone can see illegal transactions should be punished) activity in all walks of life so it is true of those who work on wall street. That doesn't paint everyone on wall street as unethical anymore than you would like to be considered unethical because of the acts of your neighbor... So as sweeping generalities go this would have to be one... most traders represent the funds that we have our 401K's and life insurance invested in. They are people who do not want to go afoul of the law or be painted an unestical any more than you do....There are few bad apples. Should everyone that makes more than $500K a year be considered a villain who doesn't care about anyone but themselves because the news media sells advertising space based on controversy?... that would be a generality wouldn't it...
It's a class issue... You say it is... I say it is... but only because the politicians and media want it to be....good guys..bad guys... protagonist ...antagonist... How can I rally the troupes for something if we don't have something to be against... I believe and I have seen it over and over and over that anyone can be in the 1%. I had sales reps working for me at StorageTek that made over $1M per year. I had a system engineer who pocketed $20M when he executed his stock options. I know several entrepreneurs that started and sold their companies for millions and then started another company....
I've gone in and out of that group several times in my life. I happen to be out at this time, but I expect to work hard and change that. I don't want to think that someone will punish me for taking the risk to be successful.... even if the government was willing support me until I got back on my feet... I would prefer the downside of making it my self as opposed to the idea of someone who hasn't invested in me personally taking my earning by force.
Before you paint me as evil money hungry capitalism stealing from the poor... I support, even this day... several non-profits.... I have always given away resources to help others...Most of the business people I know are fair and giving people... they don't alway have the most appealing personalities..but they understand that they must improve the underlying society that their business operate in to both get quality employees and to have a robust market to sell into...
I know far more 99% that are greedy that 1%. Most 1% don't spend their day counting their cash. They spend it trying to figure out how to grow thier companies. Profit is a buy product, not a goal... Any reasonable business person who set profit as a goal, soon went out of business.... people don't do business with people they don't like and trust... it's a by law of business
there are always bad apples... but their the exception not the rule..
re: trading. I'm not talking about trading shares of companies or puts or calls. I'm talking about derivatives. Mortgage-backed securities. I'm talking about repackaged, increasingly worthless securities that shouldn't even exist. It's gambling. The corporations who had "toxic assets" are those corporations who dealt in these risky financial instruments.
This has nothing to do with legitimate trading.
So, when you say "a few bad apples," this isn't just a few bad apples. These are companies that have been around for a loooong time, and the market isn't just a few hundred billion--it's dozens of trillions. (TARP Recipients: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html)
I'm not calling raising taxes on the richest a class issue, but there has been class warfare waged against the most vulnerable for decades now, and--timing is great--it's clear that the divide between the richest and poorest is growing (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INCOME_GAP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-20-20-24-54)
"It's a class issue... You say it is... I say it is... but only because the politicians and media want it to be...."
No. First, the politicians are bought and sold. Agreed. Second, the "media" isn't separate from the corporations--it supports the corporate agenda and is a mouthpiece for it--the best example is Fox, of course, but there are others. Third, you want to make this about any entities other than corporations--they are integral to all of this. The Supreme Court Ruling that conflates them with the rights of individuals is the icing on the plutocratic cake. (Citizens United v FEC). This must be reversed if we're ever to return to a plural democracy.
" I had a system engineer who pocketed $20M when he executed his stock options. I know several entrepreneurs that started and sold their companies for millions and then started another company...."
Okay. Great. Elizabeth Warren talks to this issue better than I do (http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/09/if-there-is-god-this-woman-will-be-next.html), but in essence. Wonderful. You made tons of money. Good for you. But the truth is, capital gains are 15%--while other much less "lucky" people are paying much higher percentages. Without pontificating, that's not fair. The wealthiest should pay more--and taxes on the wealthiest are the lowest in a generation (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/)
"I don't want to think that someone will punish me for taking the risk to be successful... "
Nope, no punishment involved; if you make $1 million, you should pay more in taxes. Sorry. That's how this works--or should work. I make a decent living; I do pretty well. I'm 52 and I've worked very hard for what I have. Not as well off as you, but I live in a pretty amazing home. I'm comfortable. I'm completely fine with paying more. I don't mind. And that's because I believe in the common weal of the collective--as opposed to exalting the individual over the common good.
And to be honest, that's really the main issue here: those who believe in exalting the individual and those who believe in the dignity and health of the common good--regardless of their station in life.
You give to charities; that's great. Everyone should. But this isn't about that either--it's about a more equitable distribution of resources. A country decides what to do with its resources: teachers get paid shit in this country. Why? I don't know, they have one of the most important jobs there is. But that's what we do, we pay them shit. Lawyers get paid a lot. Why? I don't know, they spend a lot of time obfuscating and making our society even more litigious. But these are the priorities of our country. The right wants to protect this dis-equilibrium; they believe that everything should be driven by market forces. Fine. But that's what we've done for many decades now and we are reaping the "rewards" of that system. it's a damaged, ineffective, and unfair system.
We have become a plutocracy. We are now a system that offers far more rights to the wealthy than to the common person, be it legislative influence, status, or healthcare availability.
That needs to change. And #OWS is out to do just that. And I'm going to do my best to help them.
But this has been a good conversation and has helped me solidify my next blog post! Thanks.
Peace.
www.groobiecat.blogspot.com
Make more and you pay more is math... it's disproportionally more I'm concerned about.. you seem to discount any good as..."OK Great"... By the way I didn' t get rich in any of my examples, other people did and I was happy for them...sound like you are better off than me though.... I'm not rich, barely middle class.... I just don't plan of staying there.... I also think that individuals can do more good than organizations... People using their hard earned money to help someone else is always the best route. Everyone wins in that environment... but you can't legislate morality or ethics... So majority has to buy into the concept for it to be sustainable... Polly Anna at best..
Capital gains were put in place to motivate people to invest in companies just as using a tax deduction on home interest is in place for the real estate industry... that fact that some get a tax deduction for interest doesn't mean their supporting the real estate industry, it means they want a house and can't pay cash... Capital gain promotes capital investment... take away the incentive and you might adversely affect the investment.
I'm fine with taxing capital gains as personal income. I'm fine with a graduated tax system that taxes at a higher rate for increased income. Some of these people want to go back to the 50's when the top rate was 90%. I'm against that. Not because I don't want to pay taxes, but because I don't want to adversely affect growth. The government does not create sustainable economic initiatives. They spend tax dollars. All tax dollars come from the consumers either directly or through the products they buy.
Sustainable initiatives come from innovation. Innovation creates new markets that spawn new jobs that increase tax collection. Capital investment funds innovation... unless the government is going to start owning companies... Capital investment is better than borrowing for innovation because of the cash requirement for payback. Innovators can't "borrow their way to prosperity".
Its a complex set of levers. Move the wrong one the wrong way and you get negative results...
Raise the taxes on corporations and they raise the prices. They can't print money like the government.
Regression anyone? ironically, as this happened the country has gotten richer. So college didn't become expensive because there is no money. To the contrary the country is much more wealthy now that it was back then. The only problem is the money all went to the top 1%, so the state couldn't afford to fund universities as much as it did. Therefore you had to borrow huge sums of money from a bank to go to school. And when you graduate, with all that debt, they gocha by the balls. You gonna be their slave forever.
Thats what happens when the government gets involved. Costs always go up. WHy are colleges so leftist in their teachings while their rates skyrocket and the students get screwed? Answer Government loans.
bullshit, the reason why colleges were so cheap by in 1950 was because of government funding. Are you kidding me???....And now college is so damn expensive because of decrease relative funding by the government.....BTW I don't know what planet you come from, but most students take their loans from a private bank in this country.......So what are you talking about federal loans???
Man I just don't get where you keep thinking that everything was so cheap in the 50's.... you're basic premise is flawed...... it wasn't... it was proportional more expensive.... a college education was an extreme extravagance...
Until you get that through your head...nothing anyone says to you will make sense..... you premise is flawed....
education is so expensive because we want to make sure anyone who wants a degree is post modern dance with a concentration on Albany can get it.... most college professor are not teaching anything anyone can use, but it's an easy "A"..... everyone get to graduate with a sheet of paper, even if they can't get a job with it....that way it's expensive.... cut the curriculum down to core education and you greatly reduce the overhead cost...
Yep....loans from backs BUT student loans are FEDERALLY quaranteed. There are some very specific gotchas in them also. For instance they can't be voided through bankruptcy like a regualr loan. The more money made available to these colleges via LOANS the higher the rates. Colleges are sitting on HUGE somes of money and are worse than the Wall Streeters. Check put Havard's cash.
FEDERALLY guaranteed loans mean if the student fails to pay the loan then the government will pay the loan while the student's credit rating is down graded, which will affect the student in the long run......So you see it all comes down to the banks and the 1% in the end...I'm sorry, I'm really trying to be nice to the 1%. But these are just the facts
you are way off subject. The arguement was over why college costs have skyrocketed while the colleges are raaking in record profits. What is Havard's trust account almost 1 TRILLION dollars.
The educational establishment itself is directly responsible for the high cost of education - it;s a business which means to attract students it must continually rejuvenate and re-market itself - nicer facilities, more technology, more classes, more, more, more... and it has gotten too costly for the average person.
You can say to the government, put your money where your mouth is... but they already have - community and state colleges. You know, so I think it's supply and demand here. And that people should consider the financial aspect (and many today do not) when they "shop" for a school.
Yeah you can blame the minimum wage, pell grants, and the creation of the Department of Education.