Mike Rowe vs Bernie Sanders over college

[Selaphiel]

well we live in the country that is protecting you and the rest of the world from communism and islam
we are protecting freedom
something you may take for granted
many have died so you could take it for granted
the reason we can protect the free world
is
we have a strong economy that advances technology
we still have incentives to improve our lot
and
free stuff takes away those incentives

That is a myth if I ever heard one. The US has caused as much problems as it has solved with their intervention. Ranging from failed military incursions based on lies to the installing of horrific dictatorships to protect their own interests, often with catastrophic consequences for those areas.

Can't say that I've noticed a lot of threats from Communism or Islam here.

Of course, that is all besides the point. You completely missed the point of the post, as usual. You only see the cost, not the benefit, because you are approaching every problem based on absolute individualism. If the individual who pays doesn't get something as an individual for every X he contributes to, then it is a failure according to your thinking. Of course that simplistic view on society, because society is not merely a collection of individuals, it is a community, an emergent reality.

A more educated populace doesn't decrease technological advancement, it improves it.

we still have incentives to improve our lot
and
free stuff takes away those incentives

You seriously believe in "the American dream" myth? Another individualistic fantasy which is more about the privileged saying "I'm successful, so I must have worked hard", which is false. A solid social security system and equal oppurtunity is what you need, not vacuous mantras.

 

[kmoney]

Well, if you think Bernie Sanders was proposing these two possibilities as irreconcilable opposites, I think you and Mike Rowe are idiots. Because I don't think that's what Bernie Sanders was saying, nor implying, and I don't think anyone with a lick of sense would make that assumption.

Bernie Sanders simply used the term "college" in place of the term "advanced education", but meaning, obviously, the latter. Which would include advanced training in the trades, which often costs people money that they don't have, and so must borrow or do without. Which is not good for society, nor good for the individual. But is only good for the bankers who saddle these people with debt just so they can find work, while they force others into poverty by denying them access to the training they need to find work capable of providing them a livable wage.

I'm really disappointed that you and Mike Rowe chose to focus on some imaginary political impasse where there was not one. And where one should not be one.

From Mike Rowe's Facebook post:

"Maybe not. Maybe the 140 character limit has doomed him to be misunderstood or taken out of context. Certainly, it’s happened to me. But regardless, the damage is in the headline, and Twitter is nothing but headlines. "

Rowe acknowledged the possibility that Sanders could have meant something other than what a plain reading of his statement means. Rowe was responding to the statement as it was worded and I'm glad he did. Sanders can clarify his comments if he wants and perhaps he already has somewhere. Inserting 'higher education' or 'advanced education' instead of 'college' would have been easy. Unless it would have put him over the character limit.

 

[kmoney]

The first two years should be free, and the next two years should be subsidized. Regardless of age, so that someone who starts out in the trades can look to a second career when they find that age interferes with the more physical jobs.

I support an emphasis on education funding but that sounds like a huge amount of money. Subsidized how much in the last two years?

I'm just thinking off the cuff but I wonder if it would be better to put the money in the last half rather than the first, assuming you're dealing with a 4-year degree. Then you'd be dealing with people who definitely put in the effort and money to make it through the first half and aren't paying for kids to try out college for a couple years and then do nothing with it.

Outside of that, I have concerns that it would just further the idea that everyone needs a college degree, devaluing the entire system. In the company I work we ask for degrees from applicants for jobs that don't really need it. But it's the environment we're in now. You can do very little without a degree, even if it's a job that doesn't need it.

 

[annabenedetti]

I support an emphasis on education funding but that sounds like a huge amount of money. Subsidized how much in the last two years?

The interest on the loans, at the minimum.

I'm just thinking off the cuff but I wonder if it would be better to put the money in the last half rather than the first, assuming you're dealing with a 4-year degree. Then you'd be dealing with people who definitely put in the effort and money to make it through the first half and aren't paying for kids to try out college for a couple years and then do nothing with it.

I've thought about that too kmo, and for the reason you bring up. But (and I'm open to ideas) I think getting the students there in the first place might be the greater part of the battle.

Outside of that, I have concerns that it would just further the idea that everyone needs a college degree, devaluing the entire system. In the company I work we ask for degrees from applicants for jobs that don't really need it. But it's the environment we're in now. You can do very little without a degree, even if it's a job that doesn't need it.

Yes, that's true of today's environment. My dad didn't go to college, yet he retired from a position he was very good at that would never be filled today without a degree.

But I'd also say that education received in high school today isn't enough. Heck, my own private (Christian) high school education wasn't enough, although they were really good at not teaching the things they didn't want us to know about.

 

[kmoney]

The interest on the loans, at the minimum.

ok.

I've thought about that too kmo, and for the reason you bring up. But (and I'm open to ideas) I think getting the students there in the first place might be the greater part of the battle.

I'd think that the incentive of subsidies later in education would still get a lot of people in the door. I just want something to prevent throwing money away because kids aren't taking it seriously. There might be other ways to do it. Perhaps giving it up front but with restrictions. Similar to when a company pays for education but if you don't stay with the company then you have to pay it back. Or the money only comes after the semester is over and you've actually completed the studies. Get loans up front, but then use gov't money to pay them off/down when you are done.

Yes, that's true of today's environment. My dad didn't go to college, yet he retired from a position he was very good at that would never be filled today without a degree.

But I'd also say that education received in high school today isn't enough. Heck, my own private (Christian) high school education wasn't enough, although they were really good at not teaching the things they didn't want us to know about.

No, a high school diploma by itself probably isn't enough for a lot of things. That's not really my argument. I'm speaking against the idea that everyone needs a 4-year degree.

 

[annabenedetti]

I'd think that the incentive of subsidies later in education would still get a lot of people in the door. I just want something to prevent throwing money away because kids aren't taking it seriously. There might be other ways to do it. Perhaps giving it up front but with restrictions. Similar to when a company pays for education but if you don't stay with the company then you have to pay it back. Or the money only comes after the semester is over and you've actually completed the studies. Get loans up front, but then use gov't money to pay them off/down when you are done.

I could go with something like that, but with an appeals process built in, because kids coming into college from a disadvantaged background may not be equipped to handle the transition without some accommodation and time to learn how be a college student. Literally.

No, a high school diploma by itself probably isn't enough for a lot of things. That's not really my argument. I'm speaking against the idea that everyone needs a 4-year degree.

I don't think everyone wants a 4-year degree, but everyone needs higher education, however they decide to get it because we should never think we're finished learning. It's a lifelong process. Going back to school as an adult, thinking I had a fair amount of life experience behind me, has been both exhilarating and humbling. Exhilarated with learning, humbled by how much I don't know.

For those in the trades, who choose their professions or maybe follow the family business or learn on the job, if they're happy and fulfilled in their chosen profession, more power to them and I hope they have the knees and shoulders to stay in them to age 65-plus. If they aspire to another career or a second career then there should be a way for them to get the necessary education. That would be in the best interest of not only them but of the society that would be helping to fund the opportunity.

 

[PureX]

I have concerns that it would just further the idea that everyone needs a college degree, devaluing the entire system. In the company I work we ask for degrees from applicants for jobs that don't really need it. But it's the environment we're in now. You can do very little without a degree, even if it's a job that doesn't need it.

This is something that always seems to get overlooked: businesses that make their money off their educated employees, taking some responsibility for the cost of that education. Not just in terms of providing it to employees from whom they will clearly benefit, but also in terms of not demanding it from employees that can be trained to do the job effectively without it.

In the current environment, businesses want everyone else to pay for higher education when they are the ones who benefit the most from it, economically. So it seems to me that they ought to be paying a significant portion of the costs. Either in terms of a general business education tax, or by offering degree-oriented education as a part of their ongoing employee training.

And I think we should be looking to Germany in this regard, as they have outstripped most modern nations in terms of their work force's education and adaptability, as well as their much higher wage scales. German companies have realized that for businesses to survive in such a dynamic marketplace, they need to have highly skilled and creative employees, so that they can adapt to the constant market and production changes. And because they invest in lots of employee education to do that, they tend to pay them well, because they want to keep their invested expertise.

 

[The Berean]

This is something that always seems to get overlooked: businesses that make their money off their educated employees, taking some responsibility for the cost of that education. Not just in terms of providing it to employees from whom they will clearly benefit, but also in terms of not demanding it from employees that can be trained to do the job effectively without it.

In the current environment, businesses want everyone else to pay for higher education when they are the ones who benefit the most from it, economically. So it seems to me that they ought to be paying a significant portion of the costs. Either in terms of a general business education tax, or by offering degree-oriented education as a part of their ongoing employee training.

And I think we should be looking to Germany in this regard, as they have outstripped most modern nations in terms of their work force's education and adaptability, as well as their much higher wage scales. German companies have realized that for businesses to survive in such a dynamic marketplace, they need to have highly skilled and creative employees, so that they can adapt to the constant market and production changes. And because they invest in lots of employee education to do that, they tend to pay them well, because they want to keep their invested expertise.

This happens here. I live in Silicon Valley and just about every major engineering/tech/manufacturing company offers some form of college tuition assistance. My company paid for about 85% of my master's degree in mechanical engineering at a very expensive private university (Santa Clara University). Smart companies here want their empolyees to pursue more education and they are more than willing to pay for it themselves.

 

[The Berean]

There seems to be a significant shortage of welders.

Where Have All the Welders Gone, As Manufacturing and Repair Boom?

This young man's parents both have PhD's and he chose to be a welder. :thumb: Maybe I should go to welding school!

The $140,000-a-Year Welding Job

I like this part where the young man talks about his future plans. Smart kid.

The long hours mean “it’s hard to have a life,” Mr. Friend said. Eventually, he said he may pursue an advanced degree in metallurgy and research welding materials and techniques. For now, he’s building up his savings.

 

[PureX]

This happens here. I live in Silicon Valley and just about every major engineering/tech/manufacturing company offers some form of college tuition assistance. My company paid for about 85% of my master's degree in mechanical engineering at a very expensive private university (Santa Clara University). Smart companies here want their empolyees to pursue more education and they are more than willing to pay for it themselves.

Unfortunately, the rest of the country has not even begun to see the value in this.

I grew up in an area that did a lot of tool and die work, and many kids out of high school became tool and die apprentices. They would work full time in the shops doing the most basic machining, and their employers would pay for them to go to school at night to learn the technical complexities. I did that myself for a year or so.

And these apprenticeships weren't just available for tool and die making, they were also available for machinists, welders, metal fabrication, metal casting, etc.,. All the "industrial arts" were being taught in trade schools, to working apprentices, paid for by their employers.

That's all gone, now. Clinton signed NAFTA and all those skilled jobs vanished over-seas in just a few years. The tool shops closed up. The trade schools have closed up. And the employers now all expect you to walk in their doors with a minimum of 5 years experience doing EXACTLY what they want you to do, with no training or help from them, whatever.

And then they complain constantly that they can't find skilled workers.

 

[kmoney]

This happens here. I live in Silicon Valley and just about every major engineering/tech/manufacturing company offers some form of college tuition assistance. My company paid for about 85% of my master's degree in mechanical engineering at a very expensive private university (Santa Clara University). Smart companies here want their empolyees to pursue more education and they are more than willing to pay for it themselves.

My company does it as well. Not in Silicon Valley

 

[The Berean]

Unfortunately, the rest of the country has not even begun to see the value in this.

I grew up in an area that did a lot of tool and die work, and many kids out of high school became tool and die apprentices. They would work full time in the shops doing the most basic machining, and their employers would pay for them to go to school at night to learn the technical complexities. I did that myself for a year or so.

And these apprenticeships weren't just available for tool and die making, they were also available for machinists, welders, metal fabrication, metal casting, etc.,. All the "industrial arts" were being taught in trade schools, to working apprentices, paid for by their employers.

That's all gone, now. Clinton signed NAFTA and all those skilled jobs vanished over-seas in just a few years. The tool shops closed up. The trade schools have closed up. And the employers now all expect you to walk in their doors with a minimum of 5 years experience doing EXACTLY what they want you to do, with no training or help from them, whatever.

And then they complain constantly that they can't find skilled workers.

It's terrible that these training programs are mostly gone now. But there has been a push to get them going again in some parts of the country. Short sighted companies are starting to see the pitfalls of not having any on-the-job training nor offering financial assistance for their workers to get more education and training.

 

[kmoney]

I could go with something like that, but with an appeals process built in, because kids coming into college from a disadvantaged background may not be equipped to handle the transition without some accommodation and time to learn how be a college student. Literally.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you give an example?

I don't think everyone wants a 4-year degree, but everyone needs higher education, however they decide to get it because we should never think we're finished learning. It's a lifelong process. Going back to school as an adult, thinking I had a fair amount of life experience behind me, has been both exhilarating and humbling. Exhilarated with learning, humbled by how much I don't know.

Absolutely. But I think some people think about a 4-year degree as the default position and people just go into it because it's what you do nowadays. To some extent that's what I did.

For those in the trades, who choose their professions or maybe follow the family business or learn on the job, if they're happy and fulfilled in their chosen profession, more power to them and I hope they have the knees and shoulders to stay in them to age 65-plus. If they aspire to another career or a second career then there should be a way for them to get the necessary education. That would be in the best interest of not only them but of the society that would be helping to fund the opportunity.

It's a valid concern and I agree. I wouldn't restrict funding to the young.

 

[kmoney]

This is something that always seems to get overlooked: businesses that make their money off their educated employees, taking some responsibility for the cost of that education. Not just in terms of providing it to employees from whom they will clearly benefit, but also in terms of not demanding it from employees that can be trained to do the job effectively without it.

The stupid thing about requiring degrees for some of these jobs is that sometimes you can get the job with a degree that's not even relevant. And when you're dealing with college graduates they will be wanting/needing a higher wage. So businesses could benefit by hiring non-graduates that way also.

In the current environment, businesses want everyone else to pay for higher education when they are the ones who benefit the most from it, economically. So it seems to me that they ought to be paying a significant portion of the costs. Either in terms of a general business education tax, or by offering degree-oriented education as a part of their ongoing employee training.

I'm open to those ideas. Businesses are some of the most direct beneficiaries of higher education, as you say.

And I think we should be looking to Germany in this regard, as they have outstripped most modern nations in terms of their work force's education and adaptability, as well as their much higher wage scales. German companies have realized that for businesses to survive in such a dynamic marketplace, they need to have highly skilled and creative employees, so that they can adapt to the constant market and production changes. And because they invest in lots of employee education to do that, they tend to pay them well, because they want to keep their invested expertise.

What are you talking about. We're Americans. We don't learn from anyone, especially not pansy Europeans.